Chapter 2
Little is known of William's childhood, and it must be presumed that it was passed in the obscurity of his mother's home at Falaise. Later, legends inevitably developed that his greatness was immediately recognized, and his future achievements anticipated.1 But there is no evidence to warrant this supposition. Posterity might dwell on the romantic circumstances of his birth, but sentiment could not alter the facts of the situation nor mask William's essential illegitimacy. William, although to be in due course styled ‘the Conqueror’2 or ‘the Great’,3 was for his contemporaries emphatically ‘William the Bastard’. Nor is there any reason to suppose that during his infancy he was ever considered as a possible successor to the Norman duchy. It is noteworthy that his father never sought to legitimize him by making Herleve his wife.
Nevertheless, during these years there was emerging that pattern of Norman politics which was to make possible his eventual accession, and to provide the background to his minority as duke. His grandfather, Richard II, had died on 23 August 1026,4 after a reign of nearly twenty years, leaving six children by his Breton wife, namely three daughters5 and three sons,6 of whom the eldest was Richard, and the second Robert, the Conqueror's father. It was the former of these, then perhaps about eighteen years of age, who succeeded as Duke Richard III in 1026, whilst Robert apparently became count of the Hiémois.7 The arrangement, however, proved unstable. Robert disputed his brother's position, and established himself at Falaise. As a result, during the autumn of 1026 and the early months of 1027, hostilities persisted between them. Then on 5 or 6 August 1027, Richard III suddenly died.8 Posterity was not slow to accuse Robert of fratricide, and though this cannot be proved, he was certainly the chief gainer by his brother's death. For though Richard III had left a young legitimate son named Nicholas, the child was immediately relegated first to the monastery of Fécamp and then to that of Saint-Ouen in Rouen,9 and it was Robert, who was himself scarcely more than a boy, who became the sixth duke of Normandy.
He was to rule Normandy for eight years,10 but in view of the circumstances in which he had acquired power it is not surprising that his reign should have opened with violence. The civil war between him and his brother had divided the duchy, and invited further disorder. There is evidence, for instance, that the new secular aristocracy, whose rise to power in the province was to be so notable a feature of this period,11 took advantage of the situation to advance their fortunes by private war against their neighbours, whilst many of the less fortunate in these struggles were, about this time, to depart from the duchy in order to rehabilitate themselves elsewhere and particularly in southern Italy.12 There is testimony, too, that many of them, such as the family of Montgomery, took the opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of the church, and that they often did so with the connivance of the duke.13 It is small wonder, therefore, that the monastic records and annals became filled with complaints, or that the duke himself should have fallen under ecclesiastical censure.14 By 1028, indeed, matters were approaching a crisis. In that year Robert, archbishop of Rouen, who had apparently endeavoured to restrain the young duke, was besieged by him at Évreux, and was forced into exile, whereupon he promptly laid Normandy under an interdict.15 Nor were Robert's early troubles circumscribed by the bounds of his duchy, for during the opening years of his reign he found himself at war with his cousin Alan III of Brittany, who may perhaps (by reason of his parentage) have hoped himself to succeed to the Norman duchy.16 In these circumstances, there was some danger that in the vivid phrase of Hugh of Flavigny, Normandy might become ‘debauched’ with anarchy.17
By 1031, however, the situation had been largely retrieved, and the chief agent in effecting the recovery was the metropolitan archbishop of Rouen. Robert, archbishop of Rouen, was in many ways a most remarkable man. Brother to Duke Richard II, he had been appointed to the metropolitan see as early as 989, and ever since he had been closely associated in the government of the duchy. He appears, for instance, as a witness to not less than fourteen charters of Richard II.18 He was reputedly responsible for the conversion of the future Saint Olaf in 1014, and he was certainly a munificent benefactor of the abbey of Saint-Père of Chartres.19 But his interests were by no means exclusively ecclesiastical. He took to wife a woman named Herleve, and by her he had three sons: Richard, Ralph of Gacé, and William.20 Further, according to later testimony, he was count of Évreux at the same time as he was archbishop of Rouen.21 Certainly, he held the lands which later pertained to the comté of Évreux, and equally certainly his son, Richard, became count of Évreux immediately after his father's death.22 Robert, thus, might be said to have combined in himself, by his inheritance, and through his career, many of the ducal, aristocratic, and even ecclesiastical traditions which were later to provide the basis of Norman might. Possessed of such power, so diversely derived, and himself ruthless, mundane, and capable, his support was by 1030 essential to his young nephew, the duke of Normandy.
The archbishop's recall from exile thus became imperative, and with it a general stabilization of the duchy began. The interdict was lifted, and the reconciliation between Duke Robert I and his uncle was marked by the issue of one of the most interesting charters of the period23 whereby the duke and archbishop, apparently by way of treaty, confirmed the possessions of the cathedral church of Rouen. Equally significant was the ending of the Breton war. The archbishop brought his two nephews together at Le Mont-Saint-Michel, and persuaded them to a truce whose terms are uncertain, but which possibly included the performance of homage by Alan to Duke Robert.24 What was more important, however, was that by these means the archbishop had once more renewed the advantageous connexion between the two dynasties which had been characteristic of the latter years of Duke Richard II. Alan was left free to consolidate his position in Brittany against his numerous rivals. Robert was liberated from menace on the western border of his duchy, and might hope for support from Alan III in any policy he might adopt at home.
From this time forward until his death in 1037 Archbishop Robert of Rouen was to be the dominant force in Normandy, and responsible, in part at any rate, not only for the increased prosperity of the duchy during the remainder of the reign of Duke Robert I, but also in large measure for the conditions which were to make possible the succession of William in 1035. During these years, for instance, there can be seen forming a powerful group of Norman magnates who were specially pledged to Robert's support. Prominent among them was Gilbert of Brionne, the count, a grandson of Duke Richard I, and the ancestor of a family which was to be very notable both in Normandy and England.25 A man of large possessions, particularly in central Normandy, and of unbounded ambition, he became closely associated with Duke Robert about this time, and is to be found frequently witnessing his charters.26 Nor was he alone in this respect, for during these same years a yet more interesting person is to be found with the young duke. This was Osbern whose sister Gunnor had married Duke Richard I, and who was himself to found the fortunes of one of the greatest of those feudal families whose rise in Normandy will hereafter have to be considered.27 Already by 1034 he had become one of the foremost of the new territorial lords in the province, and it was symptomatic of the improved position of Duke Robert that such a man should have been now content to serve as dapifer, or steward, in the ducal household.28
Such, then, was the position of the ducal power in Normandy during the last year of the reign of Robert I. The elements of disorder inherent in a society which was in a state of flux had, of course, by no means been suppressed, and it is significant that even after his reconciliation with Archbishop Robert, the duke was compelled to resort to arms when Hugh, bishop of Bayeux, refused the ducal orders and fortified himself in his castle of Ivry.29 Nevertheless the duke's authority had been preserved and strengthened, and his prestige outside his duchy was considerable. Rulers of other lands were eager to obtain his support, or at least respected his enmity. His relations with Cnut the Great will hereafter call to be examined, and Ethelred II of England together with his wife and two sons had already sought protection in Normandy.30 Baldwin IV of Flanders was for a short time at his court, and he had made an ally of Alan III of Brittany.31 Most important of all, he had by the prompt discharge of his feudal duty in 1031 placed the king of France in his debt.32 At home he had gained the adherence of a strong group among the rising aristocracy, and he had secured the support of the powerful archbishop of Rouen, who, more than anyone else, could make his rule respected and effective.
It was in these circumstances that late in 1034 Duke Robert made the sudden and astounding resolve to depart forthwith on pilgrimage to Jerusalem.33 The secular irresponsibility of the decision naturally provoked an outraged opposition on the part of those Norman magnates who had assisted him to build up his power. Yet Robert was not to be dissuaded, and in seeking to account for an act which seems to baffle modern explanation, it must be remembered that he was here moved by one of the strongest impulses of the age.34 Thus Fulk Nerra, the terrible count of Anjou, had in 1002 gone to Jerusalem to expiate his crimes, and, despite great hardships, he was twice to return there.35 Similarly, in 1008, Geoffrey of Brittany had likewise set forth on pilgrimage to the Holy Land.36And soon Sweyn Godwineson, brother of King Harold II of England, a man whose violence and brutality had caused him to be condemned as ‘nithing’, or worthless, by his associates,37 was to set out for Jerusalem, and to perish from cold in the Anatolian mountains on the journey.38 Such, moreover, were but outstanding examples of this particular exhibition of penitence operating in the most unlikely quarters. The strange atmosphere of the eleventh century was charged with violent emotions resulting in lurid crimes and fantastic penances. And the idea of pilgrimage was pervasive. Already the shrine of Saint Michael at Monte Gargano was attracting a steady stream of pilgrims, particularly from Normandy, and about 1026 a Norman duke had sponsored the great pilgrimage associated with Richard, abbot of Saint-Vanne.39 Certainly, the impulse to pilgrimage was strong, and perhaps Robert felt some special need to attempt to gain by such means a private absolution. It was later alleged that he wished to purge himself from guilt in the death of his brother.40 At all events, in the contemporary circumstances, it is not wholly inexplicable that the call to Jerusalem should have been answered by a young man who seems always to have combined within himself a violent lack of scruple with a strain of romantic rashness.
Resolute in his determination, he therefore convoked a notable meeting of Norman magnates, who, led by the archbishop, sought in vain to turn him from his purpose. They urged with truth that it was folly for him now to leave a duchy which he had acquired only after warfare, and which he had only with difficulty retained. They added, with equal truth, that he could point to no man who might be able, or who could be trusted, to safeguard his interests during his absence; nor in the event of his failing to return was there any heir who could expect to succeed him without dispute. Robert's resolve was however formed, and at length he even secured some support. He brought forward his infant son, his bastard by Herleve, and persuaded the magnates to recognize William as his heir. They did so, and swore the customary oaths of fealty and obedience. Shortly afterwards, Duke Robert departed from Normandy.41
He was never to return. The story of his pilgrimage passed speedily into legend: men told of the splendour of his retinue, and how his wealth and magnificence had impressed even the emperor of the East. They added praise for his devotion, and extolled the lavish generosity with which he endowed the Holy Sepulchre.42 Though there is evidently here much exaggeration the whole story should not be dismissed as false. Other Norman dukes had been noted for their benefactions to the Holy Land, and Wace who tells the story of Robert's pilgrimage in greatest detail was here relying, in part at any rate, upon traditions which had long been current.43 Robert's pilgrimage undoubtedly inspired the admiration of contemporaries whose sentiments respecting it were perhaps further influenced by its unfortunate conclusion. On his homeward journey the young duke was stricken with mortal sickness while passing through Asia Minor. The usual stories of poisoning were current as early as 1053, and were soon to be elaborated.44 What is certain is that Robert, sixth duke of Normandy, styled by posterity the ‘Magnificent’, died at the Bythinian Nicaea on one of the first three days of July 1035.45 The Norman reign of William the Conqueror had begun.
It could hardly have opened in less auspicious conditions. Even apart from the fact that the new duke was a child of some seven years of age, his illegitimacy would itself have made it inevitable that his accession would be challenged, and his survival in 1035 was due in the first instance to the support of the group which had gathered round Duke Robert I during the closing years of his reign. The first guardians of Duke William were thus the chief supporters of his father: the archbishop of Rouen, Count Alan of Brittany, and Osbern the powerful steward at the court. To them must also be added a certain Turchetil or, as he is also styled, Turold, who is asserted to have been the pedagogus or even the nutricius of the infant duke.46 Little is known of the functions of the office thus strangely described, but Turchetil, who possessed lands at Neufmarché, was the ancestor of a family which was to play a significant part in the history both of Normandy and Wales, and to give Duke William notable support at a later crisis in his reign.47 In 1035, however, Turchetil must have been of lower standing than the other tutores of the duke, though he was a significant figure in the small group which assisted William to secure his inheritance.
The most important person in Rouen during the critical autumn of 1035 was undoubtedly the elderly archbishop. He might, indeed, by reason of his descent have claimed the succession for himself, but doubtless in view of his advancing years, and his ecclesiastical office, he preferred not to contemplate any further extension of his power. He was, however, uniquely placed to dominate the crisis. The metropolitan see of Rouen had always since the days of Rollo been placed in a special relationship with the ducal dynasty, and Robert had not only his office to buttress his authority but also the extensive lands of the comté of Évreux which he had acquired. Moreover, it was he who had been first among the counsellors of Duke Robert at the close of his reign, and it was he also who had brought together his Norman and Breton nephews, doubtless thereby securing for William the support of Alan III. It may again have been the archbishop who by virtue of his connexions in France brought about what was not the least significant event of Norman history in 1035. Shortly before, or shortly after, Robert's departure from Normandy the ‘consent’ to William's succession had been obtained from King Henry,48 and it is probable that at this time the boy was actually sent to the king in order to perform homage to his royal overlord as successor to the Norman duchy.49
None the less, even with the support of the archbishop of Rouen, and with the recognition of King Henry, the position of the young duke was extremely precarious, and it was fortunate for him that overt opposition from those members of the dynasty whom he had supplanted could for various reasons be postponed for a time. Thus Nicholas, who as son of Duke Richard III was perhaps nearest in succession in the legitimate line and who had been placed in the monastery of Saint-Ouen by Robert I when still a boy, now showed no disposition to dispute William's accession. Indeed he was always to be a loyal supporter of his cousin under whom he was in about 1042 to become abbot of the monastery over which he was to preside for fifty years.50 More formidable opposition might, however, have been expected from Mauger and William, the sons of Duke Richard II by Papia, or even from ‘Guy of Burgundy’, who through his mother Adeliza was grandson of that duke. In the event all of these were in due course to lead formidable revolts, but they evidently did not as yet feel strong enough to rebel. In 1035 neither Mauger nor William had attained the positions of authority which they were soon to attain, and Guy was not as yet possessed of those lands in central Normandy from which he was later to draw his strength.51 Archbishop Robert backed by his prestige and position could thus control the situation with the aid of the ducal officials.
Detailed evidence of the conditions prevailing in Normandy during the first critical months of the reign of Duke William II is naturally hard to obtain, but a charter of this time is illuminating in this respect. This was issued by Hugh, bishop of Bayeux, between August 1035 and March 1037.52 In it the bishop notes the depredations which had taken place on the lands of his bishopric ‘after the death of Duke Richard [II] and after the death of Duke Robert [I]’, and states that he had determined to have his rights restored and safeguarded. He therefore brought a suit before a court which consisted of ‘Robert the archbishop, Eudo the count,53 Nigel the vicomte’, and other magnates who had rights of justice in the kingdom;54 and it was this court which after hearing the plea gave judgment in his favour. The procedure is in every way notable. It will be observed that the archbishop is clearly the dominant figure in the proceedings whilst the young duke is not mentioned. On the other hand, the presence of the vicomte and the other lords possessed of judicial rights indicates that the ducal administration was being continued.
Even this measure of stability depended, however, directly upon the personal power of Archbishop Robert, and when that prelate died on 16 March 1037,55 the situation degenerated with disastrous rapidity. So violent was the confusion which ensued that it has proved tempting to assume that the men who were involved in it were moved by a simple liking of disorder for its own sake. Yet this underrates their capacity, for they were later to prove their ability, and few of them had not much to lose if sheer chaos had been allowed to prevail. It is useful, therefore, to attempt to analyse the motives which impelled the chief participants in these sanguinary struggles. The chief feudal families of a highly competitive nobility which was only now rising to its full power were compelled by the decline in the ducal authority to take their own measures to safeguard their newly won possessions, and tempted to enlarge these by the sword at the expense of their neighbours. The ducal dynasty in its turn (which could in one sense be regarded as the most important feudal family in the province) was similarly placed, and whilst many of its members were ready to dispute with William the title of duke, none of them could wish that the authority of the count of Rouen should be completely destroyed. Indeed at one crisis in the minority they were notably to act together in the interests of order. Finally, there was the French king who might well feel that during the minority of his vassal he had a direct responsibility to maintain his own rights in the duchy.
What was of immediate moment was the question of who should obtain control of the young duke, and in consequence the ducal household was for some years given over to such shocking disorder that almost all those who had closely supported William at his accession were to perish by violence. Count Alan III died suddenly, either in 1039, or more probably in October 1040.56 His place as chief tutor was taken by Gilbert, the count, who had been another of the intimates of Duke Robert I, but within a few months Gilbert himself was murdered, when out riding, by assassins acting under the orders of Ralph of Gacé, one of the sons of Archbishop Robert.57 About the same time Turchetil was likewise assassinated.58 And Osbern the steward was killed at Vaudreuil after a scuffle in the very bedchamber of the boy duke.59 William's household was in fact becoming a shambles, and some idea of the conditions which had come to prevail therein may be gathered from the story that Walter, the brother of Herleve, was wont at this time to sleep in the company of Duke William his nephew, and frequently at night was forced to fly for safety with his charge to take refuge in the cottages of the poor.60 It is not surprising that these years left a lasting impression on the character of the boy who was chiefly involved.
The crimes which disgraced the ducal household at this time were of such dramatic horror that they might easily mask the more fundamental issues of the crisis. In truth, they formed the background to a concerted movement by members of the ducal dynasty to obtain a more active control of its affairs. In particular, this period saw the rise to dominance of Mauger and William, the sons of Duke Richard II by Papia. In, or shortly after, 103761 Mauger was appointed archbishop of Rouen in succession to Robert, whilst William his full brother became count of Arques.62 The appointments may in some sense be held to have been made in the interests of the dynasty. It is noteworthy, for instance, that William received his comté of Arques as a benefice to be held specifically in return for his discharging the loyal service of a vassal to the duke,63 whilst Mauger as archbishop took immediately a prominent position in the government of the duchy. He appears among the witnesses to many ducal charters of these early years, and he can sometimes be watched as presiding over the court of the young duke, whose attestation occasionally follows after that of the archbishop. The situation resulting from the advancement of these two brothers can in fact be seen very clearly in a charter which was issued about 1039.64 By it Count William, styling himself ‘son of Duke Richard’, gave land to the abbey of Jumièges, and among the leading attestations to the act these are given in the following order: ‘Mauger the archbishop; William, count of the Normans; William, the count's “master”;65 and William, count of Arques’. The two brothers were clearly advancing towards a dominating position in the duchy. After 1040 it was Mauger, archbishop of Rouen, who was in chief control, backed by William, count of Arques, and possibly by Nicholas, abbot of Saint-Ouen. But other members of the family were also moving towards a position of greater importance. Chief of these was Ralph of Gacé,66 the murderer of Count Gilbert, and the son of Archbishop Robert, whilst at about this time Guy of Burgundy, grandson of Duke Richard II, received both Vernon and also Count Gilbert's castle of Brionne.67 Clearly the ducal family was not going to relinquish its power without a struggle.
But the province of Normandy was lapsing into a fell disorder. The confusion of these years cannot, it is true, be illustrated in full detail, but enough is known to mark the minority of William after 1037 as one of the darkest periods of Norman history. Long-standing feuds among the secular aristocracy were reopened, and each crime was made the occasion for further bloodshed. Most of the great families whose rise will have to be considered as part of the growth of a new nobility in the province were involved at this time in violence or disaster. Thus Bjarni of Glos-la-Ferrières, a vassal of Osbern the steward, avenged the murder of his lord by killing William of Montgomery.68 Roger of Tosny, having ravaged the lands of his neighbour Humphrey ‘of Vieilles’, was in due course assassinated by Humphrey's son Roger ‘of Beaumont’,69 and the feud was continued by the house of Clères who were dependants of the family of Tosny.70 Again, Hugh of Montfort-sur-Risle and Walkelin of Ferrières both perished in the private war they waged against each other,71 and the family of Bellême conducted against the sons of Geré of Échauffour an onslaught which was marked by unspeakable crimes.72
A feature of the private wars which ravaged Normandy at this time was the use made therein of castles. Some of the ducal fortresses which had sometimes been built of stone were seized by the magnates to whom they had been entrusted. Thus William Talvas of Bellême established himself at Alençon, Hugh, bishop of Bayeux, at Ivry, and Thurstan Goz at Tillières. At the same time a large number of smaller fortifications of a different type were hastily erected.73 These were wooden structures built on artificial mottes, surrounded by palisades and encircled by moats which might be filled with water.74 Undoubtedly a family needed to be of some standing to erect such a stronghold for its own use, and to man it, but they became sufficiently numerous during these years to give a special character to the civil warfare which was convulsing the province. It was from them that the families who were most directly involved in these disorders could conduct hostilities against each other, and defend themselves from the onslaught of their enemies.
It is true that the record of these disorders has survived for the most part in the writings of monastic chroniclers who may perhaps have been disposed to paint them in too lurid colours, and in consequence the disturbances of the time have perhaps been exaggerated.75 Certainly the ducal administration never seems during these years wholly to have collapsed, and this must have been directly due to the tradition of public authority which the Viking dynasty had inherited and developed from Carolingian Neustria.76It could be illustrated in several directions. The Bayeux charter to which reference has been made indicates that between 1035 and 1037 recognized legal sanctions were still appealed to and applied,77 and even after the death of Archbishop Robert there is evidence that some attempt was made – and not wholly without success – to maintain this situation. Though Thurstan Goz was to lead a rebellion from Tillières, nearly all the vicomtes between 1035 and 1046 regularly discharged their duties, and the vice-comital attestations to ducal charters in this period are not infrequent.78 Again, the bishops of Normandy seem in general to have given their corporate support to the child ruler, and most if not all the ducal revenues as from the comté of Rouen will be found to have been regularly collected at this time.79 The duke, or those who acted for him, seem also to have had a specifically ducal force at their disposal since if the testimony of a later writer can be believed, at the worst period of the disorders, Ralph of Gacé, who was then dominant at the ducal court, could be described as ‘head of the armed forces of the Normans’ (princeps militie Normannorum), and as such he seems to have commanded a considerable body of troops which he used to good purpose.80 In short, the ancient traditions of ducal authority, and some of the administrative machinery which might give it effect, survived during these years and contributed much to preserving the integrity of the Norman duchy through this critical decade. How important this was will be seen in the lethal situation which at once arose in 1047 when the western vicomtes at last revolted.
Nevertheless, the conditions of William's minority were sufficiently terrible. The feudal families were becoming ever more desperately involved in an internecine struggle with each other, and the plight of humbler folk in the duchy can be imagined. Not the least significant feature of these years is the action by groups of peasantry who organized themselves (sometimes under their parish priests) for corporate defence. When the sons of Soreng sought to dominate the district round Sées, a savage struggle ensued, in the course of which the cathedral itself was partially burnt. But they were at last captured and killed by the men of the countryside.81 The power of the ducal government to dispense local justice was evidently becoming severely restricted, and perhaps for this reason men in the duchy were being led to look elsewhere for means to mitigate disorder.
It was during these years that there occurred in Normandy a most interesting juridical development which was to entail wide consequences in the future. During the tenth and early eleventh centuries there had been made, first in southern and central France, and later in Burgundy, the famous attempt of the Church to rescue public order by means of the institution known as the Truce of God,82 whereby, under episcopal sanction, an undertaking was made to prohibit private warfare during certain days of the week, or during certain seasons of the Christian year. Among the ecclesiastics who were foremost in propagating the Truce of God none were more influential than Odilon, abbot of Cluny, and Richard, abbot of Saint-Vanne of Verdun.83 Consequently it is remarkable that although Richard of Saint-Vanne had close connexions with the Norman ducal court in the latter years of Duke Richard II, and during the reign of Duke Robert I,84 no attempt was made by him or anyone else to introduce the Truce into Normandy at that time. The reason must be that the ducal authority was then considered to be itself capable of preserving public order by means of judicial processes which were generally respected.85 Now, however, the situation had radically changed, and in 1041–1042 Richard of Saint-Vanne, acting, it would seem, with the approval of those in charge of ducal policy, made a strong move to bring the Truce of God to the duchy.86 The methods he employed are somewhat obscure since no ecclesiastical council seems to have been called at this time, and it is more probable that an individual approach was made to the bishops of the province.87 The attempt, however, failed. The private interests of the rising feudal families to which the bishops belonged proved too strong. And though some five years later, in changed circumstances, the earlier effort of Richard of Saint-Vanne was at last to be fruitful, in the meantime the Truce was rejected by Normandy, and the disintegration of public order proceeded apace.88
It is indeed a matter of some wonder that the young duke survived the troubles of his minority, and the explanation must in part be sought outside Normandy. One of the decisive factors of Norman history at this time is to be found in the policy of the king of France. The position of King Henry I in respect of Normandy during these years was misrepresented by Norman chroniclers who wrote at a time when the relations between the ducal house and the French monarchy were being transformed, and who for patriotic reasons were prone to depict such relations as those existing between independent sovereign princes. Nor has this misconception been wholly avoided by some modern scholars.89 In truth, however, as has been seen, the vassalage of the duke of Normandy had for long been admitted, and sometimes enforced; and it had now become of high importance. Even as Duke Robert I had in 1031 acknowledged and assisted King Henry I as his natural lord,90 so now, on the accession of a minor in Normandy, the French king claimed and exercised his feudal rights over the duchy. King Henry's recognition and support for the child duke had been an essential feature of the arrangements of 1035, and it was largely owing to the French king that those arrangements were to endure.
The ‘consent’ which had been given by King Henry to the accession of Duke William was of cardinal importance. The king could claim right of wardship over the infant heir of a defunct vassal, and by so doing he made himself to some extent responsible for that vassal's safety. It is significant therefore that not only had William been sent to do homage in person to the king at the time of his father's pilgrimage, but that, at some subsequent date, Henry invested the duke with the insignia of knighthood.91 Throughout the minority the king claimed, and exercised, direct rights over Normandy, and regarded William as being in some special sense under his protection. When after 1040, for example, Gilbert of Brionne, the count, became tutor to the duke, he was considered as acting in that capacity as the deputy of the French king,92 and a later writer was probably correct in saying that during these years King Henry treated Normandy as if it were focus regalis – part of the royal demesne.93
Only in the light of such considerations can be explained the confused political history of Normandy during this period, or the French king's intervention therein. Thus, some time after 1040, Henry is to be found investing Tillières-sur-Avre,94 a fortress which had originally been built by Duke Richard II as a bastion against the counts of Chartres,95 but which, after the cession of the territory of Dreux by Odo of Blois to King Robert, had faced the ancestral possessions of the house of Capet. The fortress was at this time in charge of Gilbert Crispin,96 an undertenant of Count Gilbert, and the uncle of a distinguished abbot of Westminster.97 Crispin refused to surrender it, but many Norman notables supported the king, who was thus enabled to capture the stronghold and in due course to dismantle it.98 Again, when shortly afterwards the French king decided once more to intervene in the Norman anarchy a strictly similar situation immediately developed. Now, Henry entered the Hiémois, and passed on into the valley of the Orne, where he stormed the town of Argentan.99 On this occasion, also, he had Norman support. For Thurstan Goz, who was to be the ancestor of the earls of Chester, and who was then vicomte of Exmes, at once co-operated with the French troops and himself occupied Falaise. There he was invested by Ralph of Gacé, who had control of the boy duke, and after considerable fighting Falaise was recaptured. Thurstan was sent into exile (from which he was soon to be recalled), and King Henry returned towards Paris, but not before he had regained the fortress of Tillières, and placed his own garrison within its walls.100
The conduct of the French king in these events was bitterly condemned by later Norman chroniclers as exhibiting base ingratitude towards the dynasty to which in part he owed his throne.101 There is, however, little reason to suppose that Henry was at this time ever anxious to supplant the young vassal whose succession in Normandy he had recognized. The French king had cause, moreover, to view the anarchy within the Viking province with some dismay, the more especially as it affected a large area of northern France. The concern of Brittany with the Norman succession had been displayed in the career of Alan III, and there was always a possibility that the Norman crisis might have repercussions also in Flanders. Baldwin V, who succeeded to the rule of Flanders in 1035, was already trying to play off the emperor against the French king whose sister he had married, and he watched the Norman situation with deep interest. He is indeed reported to have given positive assistance to Duke William during the minority,102 and tradition later asserted that it was during these years that there was first formed the project of a marriage between William and Baldwin's daughter Matilda.103 The implications of the Norman crisis were thus widespread, and certainly no king reigning in Paris could afford to neglect its possible repercussions on the political balance of northern France.
King Henry's intervention in Norman politics at this time is thus to be explained, not as the incursion of a foreign prince, but as the attempt of an overlord to safeguard his rights, and to improve his position, during the minority of one of his chief vassals. For this reason he always had support from within Normandy, not only from among the warring groups of magnates but also, as it would seem, from those who might well have considered that in the royal power might be found a hope for the eventual restoration of order out of chaos. Indeed, during the minority of Duke William the policy of the French king appears on the whole to have been directed towards safeguarding the position of the young duke against those who sought either to supplant him or to make him a passive agent of their will. Certainly, William stood in need of any such intervention as might be available, for during this period he could hardly make any personal contribution to the government of his duchy. Towards its close, however, there were already signs that he was beginning to discriminate among his counsellors, and to act on his own initiative.104 But his personal authority was still weak, and he was strictly dependent upon such Norman factions as would support him, and still more on the backing of his royal overlord. And it was thus that on the threshold of manhood he was suddenly called upon to assume independently his own responsibilities, and to face a new crisis in his affairs.
In the late autumn of 1046 the disorder in Normandy which had ravaged the duchy since March 1037 began to crystallize into a co-ordinated assault upon the young duke. Hitherto, the continued existence of his nominal authority had depended in large measure upon the mutual rivalry between the contending factions in the duchy, and more particularly upon the continued operation of the ducal administration which in its turn was directly dependent upon the loyal support of his vicomtes. Now, a wider-spread and more closely organized movement of revolt took place. Based upon Lower Normandy, it involved many of the foremost feudal families of the duchy, and its most dangerous feature was the implication of the two principal vicomtes of the west. Its avowed object, moreover, was the overthrow of William and the substitution of a new ruler for the duchy.
The prime mover in this revolt was Guy of Burgundy, one of the possible successors to the dukedom in 1035, and now possessed of the important strongholds of Vernon on the Seine, and of Brionne on the Risle, which he had received on the death of Count Gilbert.105 This man now sought to make himself duke, and he rallied to his support a very powerful group of Norman magnates.106 These came, moreover, not only from the neighbourhood of Guy's own possessions in middle Normandy but more particularly from the west, and the army which was to come very near to destroying Duke William was to be led by Nigel I, vicomte of the Cotentin, and Rannulf I, vicomte of the Bessin.107 These were joined by many lords from Lower Normandy, and especially by a group of magnates established in the district of the Cinglais situated between Caen and Falaise.108 Among them were Ralph Tesson, lord of Thury (now Thury-Harcourt), Grimoald of Plessis,109 and Haimo dentatus, lord of Creully, the ancestor of a family later to be famous in England.110 It was a formidable rebellion and it threatened the very identity of Normandy.
According to later tradition, the revolt began with an attempt, sponsored, it was said, by Grimoald of Plessis, to capture and murder the duke as he tarried at Valognes in the heart of his enemies' territory.111 Being warned of his danger, however, William managed to make a hurried escape by night, and riding hard through the darkness he forded the estuary of the Vire at low tide. Morning saw him at Ryes, where he received succour, and at length he reached Falaise.112 The story of that famous ride may well contain legendary elements, but at least it may serve to emphasize the extreme plight of the young duke at this crisis. One resource alone remained to him: he could appeal to his overlord. William, therefore, hastened to the king of France whom he found at Poissy, and throwing himself at his feet he claimed as a faithful vassal the succour of his suzerain.113 The French king, moreover, felt himself directly involved in this threat to one of the greatest of the French fiefs, and it is thus that his subsequent action should be explained. Later Norman writers were to represent the transaction as a pact between equals, and it is possible that Henry may have recalled the support given to his dynasty seventeen years before by Duke Robert I. But the circumstances were now very different, and such an interpretation cannot be sustained. The young duke was in desperate straits, and it was as the king's liegeman that he pleaded his cause. Correspondingly it was as overlord of Normandy that Henry could regard the rebellion against his vassal as directed in some measure against himself. Thus was the French king moved to take perhaps the most momentous decision of his reign. Early in 1047 he entered Normandy at the head of an army resolved to rescue Duke William from his enemies.
The French army advanced towards Caen by way of Mézidon. There it was met by some sparse levies which Duke William had managed to raise from Upper Normandy. These had made their way with difficulty over the marshy plain of the Val d'Auge, passing Argentan and encamping at the side of the Laison in the neighbourhood of the royal host. The next day, very early, the king moved through Valmeraye where he heard Mass, and then proceeded to the plain of Val-ès-Dunes,114 a featureless stretch of country bounded by the hamlets of Serqueville, and Begrenville, Bill, and Airan – villages whose place in the annals of war was to be re-emphasized in the twentieth century. It was there that the royal army encountered the force of the rebels who, advancing from the west, had previously effected a crossing of the river Orne.
The battle of Val-ès-Dunes which ensued was a decisive event in the development of Normandy, but few details of the engagement have been preserved. It seems, however, that no great generalship was displayed by either side, and the battle consisted of isolated conflicts between detached forces of cavalry. No use was made of supporting arms, and nothing is heard of the employment of the archers whose action was to be so successfully co-ordinated with that of mounted troops nineteen years later at Hastings. Long-range weapons do not appear to have been used, and if infantry were present their part of the battle was negligible. Those accounts of the battle which are most nearly contemporary are short. William of Jumièges merely says:
The king and the duke, unafraid of the strength and enmity of their enemies, offered them battle, and after many engagements between groups of cavalry inflicted a great slaughter on their foes, who at last were seized with panic, and took refuge in flight, throwing themselves into the waters of the Orne.115
The account given by William of Poitiers though more rhetorical is hardly less brief:
The greater part of the Normans fought [he says] under the banner of iniquity, but William, chief of the avenging host, was undismayed by the sight of their swords. Hurling himself upon his enemies he terrified them with slaughter…. Most of them perished in the difficult country: some met their death on the field of battle, crushed or trampled upon by those who fled; and many of the horsemen with their mounts were drowned in the river Orne.116
It is probably legitimate, however, to supplement these short accounts by means of the magnificent battle picture painted in the twelfth century by Wace,117 for the Roman de Rou, which is so often untrustworthy, is here of unusual value, since its author was for many years a cleric at Caen, where he had every opportunity for becoming acquainted with local traditions, and his minute descriptions leave little doubt that he himself actually visited the field of battle. According to the information supplied by Wace it would seem that before the engagement began the rebel forces were somewhat disorganized by the defection of Ralph Tesson to the side of the duke, but even so the struggle was extremely bitter. During its earlier stages King Henry was unhorsed by Haimo dentatus, who was, however, himself killed before he could inflict a mortal wound upon his royal master.118 Elsewhere in the field Duke William was giving proof of that personal prowess in battle for which he was later to be famous, by striking down with his own hand a certain Hardez from Bayeux, noted as a great warrior and a faithful vassal of Rannulf of Avranches. Later Rannulf himself lost heart, and with his flagging energies the tide of battle began to turn against the insurgents. Nigel of the Cotentin long put up a strenuous and desperate resistance, but it was unavailing. The defeat became a rout as panic seized the rebel host which began to break up into small bands and to fly in great disorder. And the river Orne completed the destruction of the army.
Great was the mass of fugitives [concludes Wace], and fierce the pursuit. Horses were to be seen running loose over the plain, and the field of battle was covered with knights riding haphazard for their lives. They sought to escape to the Bessin, but feared to cross the Orne. All fled in confusion, and strove to cross between Allemagne and Fontenay by fives and sixes and threes. But the pursuers were at their heels bent on their destruction. Many of them were driven into the Orne, and there killed or drowned, and the mills of Borbillon were stopped with dead bodies.119
The defeat of the western vicomtes at Val-ès-Dunes was to prove a decisive event in the career of Duke William, and in the development of Normandy, and though its full consequences were only slowly to be disclosed some indication of its significance was immediately to be supplied. In October 1047 outside Caen, and in near proximity to the battlefield, there met an ecclesiastical council120 at which were present not only the duke but most of the chief prelates of Normandy, notably Archbishop Mauger and Nicholas, abbot of Saint-Ouen, who were both of the ducal house.121 It was a solemn assemblage, and in it the Truce of God, which had been rejected in Normandy five years previously in the time of Richard of Saint-Vanne, was formally proclaimed, whilst those present swore to observe it taking their oaths on holy relics and particularly on those of Saint-Ouen which had been brought from Rouen for the purpose.122 The exact nature of the Truce which was thus proclaimed can only be considered by reference to texts which were compiled at a later date,123 but its terms are reasonably certain. Private war was prohibited from Wednesday evening until Monday morning, and during the seasons of Advent, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost.124 In this the arrangements followed a pattern with which other regions of France had already been made familiar.
The value of any such legislation depended, however, always on the efficacy of the means by which it could be enforced, and here the Norman arrangements were of a type not paralleled elsewhere at this date except in Flanders, and in the province of Rheims.125Here as elsewhere the chief sanctions were ecclesiastical, for the Truce itself was an institution of the Church, and it was the prelates of the Church who were primarily held responsible for its enforcement. At the council of Caen therefore the chief penalties invoked against those who might violate the Truce were excommunication and the denial to the offender of all spiritual benefits which the Church alone could bestow.126 But in the ordinances enacted at Caen the secular power was also invoked, and not the least important feature of what was decreed was the express exclusion from the Truce of the king and the duke, who were permitted to wage war during the prohibited periods and allowed to maintain forces to enable them to do so in the public interest.127Here again there is a clear indication of the authority still recognized as being vested in the ducal office,128 and it was this combination of secular and ecclesiastical sanctions that at a later date was to enable the duke to transform the Truce of God in Normandy into the more effective pax ducts129 which in due course he was to make to prevail over all his dominion.
The proclamation of the Truce of God at Caen in October 1047 was a matter of rejoicing, particularly among the peasantry,130 but at the time it must have seemed doubtful whether it would prove operative even over the restricted region where it was first to be applied. For in the light of what is known of later history it would be easy to exaggerate what were the immediate consequences of the battle of Val-ès-Dunes. Norman chroniclers writing after the conquest of England when the Conqueror was at the height of his power could rightly discern in the battle the beginnings of the Conqueror's dominance in his duchy.131 ‘The Normans,’ exclaimed William of Poitiers, ‘feeling themselves mastered, all bowed their necks before their lord.’132 Such rhetoric should not, however, be taken at its face value, and in any case it had to wait on subsequent events for its justification. In 1047 many hazards had still to be overcome before even order and security could be restored to the duchy. The victory of Val-ès-Dunes had in truth been decisive, but it had been won by the king rather than by the duke, and William's own power was still both precarious and circumscribed. He had escaped from the imminent threat of destruction, and he had emerged from tutelage. But his future was still perilous and uncertain. The minority was over: the duke's war for survival was about to begin.
1 William of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum, vol. II, p. 285) was, before 1125, telling that Robert first saw Herleve when she was dancing in the road (washing her clothes in a stream is another version – cf. Benoit (ed. Michel), vol. II, pp. 555–557), and forthwith brought her into the castle. And that night, after William's conception, Herleve dreamt that a tree grew out of her body whose branches overshadowed all Normandy and England. It is a good story.
2 For an early example of this, see Douglas, E.H.D., vol. II, no. 69.
3 Freeman, Norman Conquest, vol. II, note T.
4 Cf. Douglas, in Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LXV (1950), pp. 289–303.
5 Will. Jum., p. 88. The girls were (i) Adeliza who married Rainald of Burgundy – their son Guy was to play a large part in Norman history; (ii) Eleanor who married Baldwin IV of Flanders; and (iii) an unnamed daughter who died young and unmarried.
6 Besides Richard and Robert there was a son named William who became a monk at Fécamp and died young.
7 Will. Jum., p. 97. But the matter is not wholly certain (Douglas, Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LXI (1946), pp. 145, 146). It is significant that Robert was at Falaise in the Hiémois when he encountered Herleve.
8 Douglas, Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LXV (1950), pp. 289–303.
9 Gall. Christ, vol. XI, cols. 141–144. His public career was none the less to be interesting.
10 His reign is surveyed in Will. Jum., pp. 97–114.
11 Below, chap. 4.
12 F. Chalandon, Domination normande, vol. I, pp. 88–111.
13 Below, pp. 90–92.
14 Will. Jum., p. 100; Miracula S. Wulframni (Soc. Hist. Norm., Mélanges, vol. XIV (1938), p. 47); R.A.D.N., no. 66.
15 Letter of Fulcher of Chartres (Pat. Lat., vol. CXLI, cols. 224, 225).
16 Will. Jum., p. 106.
17 Mon. Germ. Hist. Scriptores, vol. VIII, p. 401.
18 Douglas, Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. LXI (1946), pp. 132, 133.
19 Cart. S. Père Chartres, vol. I, p. 115.
20 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 365.
21 Ibid.
22 Chartres de Jumièges, vol. I, no. XIX; R.A.D.N., no. 92.
23 R.A.D.N., no. 67.
24 Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne (1707), vol. I, p. 91; La Borderie, Histoire de Bretagne, vol. III, p. 9.
25 Below, pp. 86, 87.
26 Vita Herluini (ed. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, p. 88); R.A.D.N., nos. 64, 65, 67, 70, 80, 85.
27 Below, pp. 89, 90.
28 R.A.D.N., nos. 69, 82. Cf. Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 229.
29 Will. Jum., p. 102.
30 Below, pp. 162, 163.
31 Will. Jum., p. 104.
32 Above, pp. 28, 29.
33 Will. Jum., p. 111.
34 Cf. Musset, in Annales de Normandie, October 1962.
35 K. Norgate, England under Angevin Kings, vol. I, pp. 153, 192–196.
36 Ann. Mont S. Michel, s.a. 1008; Hist. S. Flor. Saumur (Marchegay and Mabille, Églises d'Anjou, p. 261); Morice, Hist. de Bretagne, Preuves, vol. I, col. 354.
37 AS. Chron., ‘C’, s.a. 1049.
38 Freeman, Norman Conquest, vol. II, note BB; Runciman, Crusades, vol. I, p. 47.
39 Runciman, loc. cit.; Southern, Making of the Middle Ages, pp. 51–54.
40 Below, Appendix F.
41 Will. Jum., p. 111.
42 Miracula S. Wulframni, loc. cit.
43 Roman de Rou (ed. Andresen), vol. II, pp. 148, 149; Haskins, Norman Institutions, pp. 268–272.
44 Below, Appendix F.
45 The date is fixed by the necrologies of Jumièges, Saint-Évroul, and Le Mont-Saint-Michel (Rec. Hist. Franc., vol. XXIII, pp. 420, 487, 579). The place is given in Will. Jum., p. 114; in Ord. Vit., vol. I, p. 179; vol. II, p. 11; vol. III, p. 224; and also by Rodulf Glaber (ed. Prou, p. 108).
46 Ord. Vit., vol. I, p. 108; vol. II, p. 369; vol. III, p. 229; interp. Will. Jum. (ed. Marx), p. 156.
47 Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 42. His grandson was Bernard of Neufmarché, lord of Brecknock.
48 Rodulf Glaber (ed. Prou), p. 108.
49 Wace, Roman de Rou (ed. Andresen), vol. II, p. 150.
50 Gall. Christ., vol. XI, cols. 141–143.
51 Below, pp. 48, 49.
52 Cart. Bayeux, vol. I, p. 27, no. XXI. The date is determined by the fact that the death of Duke Robert is recorded, whilst Archbishop Robert is still alive.
53 There was no Norman count of this name, I believe, at this time. It might be tempting to consider Odo II, count of Blois, who died 11 November 1037, but the reference may rather be to Eudo of Penthièvre, a count of Brittany.
54 ‘Robertus, scilicet archiepiscopus, Odo comes, et Niellus vicecomes, alii-que seniores justiciam regni obtinentes.’
55 The death of Archbishop Robert I in 1037 is well established but the modern authorities such as Gallia Christiana, Vacandard, and Bourrienne do not seem to have given it further precision. Perhaps this is because, very strangely, it does not appear in the obituary of Rouen Cathedral (Rec. Hist. Franc., vol. XXIII, p. 358). None the less, in the necrology of Le Mont-Saint-Michel, there appears the obituary of Robertus archiepiscopus Rotomagensis (ibid., p. 577). This could refer either to Robert I or Robert II who died in 1221. But Robert II is known to have died in May (Gall. Christ., vol. XI, col. 60), so it must be Robert I who is here designated.
56 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 369; vol. III, p. 225; La Borderie, Histoire de Bretagne, vol. III, p. 13.
57 Ord. Vit., interp. Will. Jum. (ed. Marx), pp. 153, 154.
58 Will. Jum., p. 116.
59 Ibid. Cf. R.A.D.N., no. 96.
60 Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 229.
61 E. Vacandard, in Rev. catholiquc de Normandie, vol. III, p. 103.
62 Will. Jum., p. 119.
63 Hic enim Willelmus a duce jam in adolescentia pollente comitatum Talogi percipiens, obtentu beneficii, ut inde existeret fidelis.
64 R.A.D.N., no. 100.
65 Was he a personal guardian or tutor to the boy? He appears also in a charter for Sigy (R.A.D.N., no. 103).
66 Ord. Vit., interp. Will. Jum. (ed. Marx), pp. 159, 161.
67 Will. Jum., p. 122; Will. Poit., p. 16; Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 830.
68 Ord. Vit., interp. Will. Jum. (ed. Marx), p. 157.
69 Ibid., vol. I, p. 180; vol. II, pp. 40, 41; vol. III, p. 229.
70 Ibid., vol. III, pp. 426, 427.
71 Will. Jum., p. 116.
72 Ord. Vit., interp. Will. Jum. (ed. Marx), pp. 159, 161, 162.
73 J. Yver, ‘Châteaux forts’ (Bull. Soc. Antiq. Norm., vol. LIII (1957), pp. 53–57).
74 De Bouard, Guillaume le Conquérant (1958), p. 33.
75 De Bouard, in Annales de Normandie, October 1959, p. 174.
76 Above, pp. 22–29.
77 Note that the reference is to those exercising justice as of right in the kingdom (regni), not the duchy (above, pp. 38, 39).
78 e.g. R.A.D.N., nos. 92, 102, 103.
79 Below, pp. 133, 135.
80 Ord. Vit., interp. Will. Jum. (ed. Marx), p. 159.
81 Will. Jum., pp. 165, 167.
82 On all that concerns the introduction of the Truce of God in Normandy, see M. de Bouard, ‘Trève de Dieu’ (Annales de Normandie, (October 1959), pp. 168–189). This fundamental article in my opinion supersedes all that had been written before on the subject, and in particular it corrects my own ill-advised remarks on this topic inCambridge Historial Journal, vol. XIII (1957), pp. 114, 115.
83 H. Dauphin, Le Bienkeureux Richard (1946), pp. 254–264.
84 De Bouard, loc. cit.
85 Ibid.
86 Hugh of Flavigny (Mon. Germ. Hist. Scriptores, vol. XIII, p. 403).
87 De Bouard, op. cit., p. 117.
88 Hugh of Flavigny, loc. cit.
89 Freeman, Norman Conquest, vol. II (1860), pp. 199, 203.
90 Will. Jum., p. 105: ‘per fidei debitum sibi’.
91 Will. Malms., Gesta Regum, vol. II, p. 286.
92 Gislebertus comes tutor pupilli constituitur; tutela tutoris regi Francorum Henrico assignatur – Will. Malms., ibid., p. 285.
93 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum (ed. Arnold), pp. 189, 190.
94 Will. Jum., p. 117.
95 Will. Jum., pp. 84, 87.
96 Ibid., p. 117.
97 J. A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, p. 14.
98 Will. Jum., p. 117.
99 Ibid., p. 118.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid., p. 117.
102 Chronicle of Tours (Rec. Hist. Franc., vol. XI, p. 107).
103 Below, pp. 391–393.
104 Will. Jum., p. 122.
105 Will. Poit., p. 14; Will. Malms., Gesta Regum, vol. II, p. 286; Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 230.
106 Will. Poit., p. 16.
107 Will. Jum., p. 122.
108 On this district and its lords, see F. Vaultier, Soc. Antiq. Norm., Mémoires, vol X (1837), pp. 1–256.
109 Wace, Roman de Rou (ed. Andresen), vol. II, vv. 3773 et sqq.; 3863 et sqq.
110 Will. Malms., Gesta Regum, vol. II, p. 287; Pezet, Barons de Creully, pp. 16, 17.
111 Roman de Rou, vv. 3657–3750.
112 The legend says that he was welcomed by Hubert of Ryes, father of Eudo the steward, later famous as sheriff of Essex. Many of Eudo's tenants in England came from the neighbourhood of Ryes.
113 Will. Jum., p. 123; Ord. Vit., vol. I, p. 182.
114 Roman de Rou, vol. II, vv. 3807–3815.
115 Will. Jum., p. 123.
116 Will. Poit., pp. 12–18.
117 Roman de Rou, vol. II, vv. 3865 et sqq.
118 Will. Malms., Gesta Regum, vol. II, p. 287.
119 Roman de Rou, vol. II, vv. 4155–4170.
120 De Bouard, op. cit., pp. 172–174. The Acts of the Council are indicated in the texts printed in Bessin, Concilia, p. 39.
121 De Bouard, op. cit., p. 175.
122 Miracula S. Audoeni (Acta Sanctorum, August, vol. IV, pp. 834, 835).
123 De Bouard, op. cit., pp. 176–179.
124 Bessin, Concilia, loc. cit.
125 De Bouard, op. cit., pp. 186, 187.
126 Bessin, Concilia, loc. cit.
127 Ibid.
128 De Bouard, op. cit., pp. 187, 188.
129 Especially at the council of Lillebonne in 1080.
130 Miracula S. Audoeni: ‘Gaudent omnes et maxime agricolae.’
131 Yver, ‘Châteaux forts’ (Bull. Soc. Antiq. Norm., vol. LIII (1957), p. 48).
132 Will. Poit., p. 18.