Chapter 6
William's rule over Normandy during the decades preceding the Norman conquest must be considered in direct relation to the aristocratic and ecclesiastical developments which we have examined. To harmonize these movements, and to control them, was here the major object of his policy; and the measure of his success in so doing is reflected in the contrast between his weakness in 1046 and his strength in 1066. In 1035 it might have seemed doubtful whether the ducal authority could survive: in 1066 it was secure, and the duke could regard himself as the firmly established ruler of one of the strongest and most united provinces of Gaul. The transformation is itself so remarkable, and its consequences were in the event to prove so far-reaching, that it is important to consider how far and in what manner the ducal administration of Normandy during these years had contributed to this result.
The greatest asset which accrued to the boy who succeeded in 1035 lay in those rights which were held by tradition to pertain to the ducal office. He might claim to be able to declare law throughout the duchy, and within limits to be competent to dispense justice; he might mint money and levy certain taxes; and as ‘ lord of Normandy’1 he had at least in theory a military force at his disposal. Whether such claims could ever be made effective on behalf of the infant ruler was of course doubtful, but it was surely in recognition of them that he was brought as a child with his tutor into the ducal court to pronounce judgment, or that as a very young man he was called in 1047 to take a prominent part in the ecclesiastical council which proclaimed the Truce of God. Such ideas could on occasion be turned to practical effect, and, as has been seen, the duke's survival during the minority may have been due in large measure to them. Later they were to be exploited with ever-increasing vigour as the duke's personal authority grew, and they helped him to maintain and to enhance his special position within a social order which was itself in a state of flux.
Nowhere were they to prove more important than in connexion with the rights which might thus be exercised by the duke in exploiting the economic resources of his duchy. For these were very considerable. Pre-Conquest Normandy has recently been termed by an English scholar an ‘impoverished duchy’,2 but there is little warranty for such a description. There is evidence to suggest that Normandy at that time was (comparatively speaking) thickly populated and that the cultivation of its soil was extensive. The Scandinavian connexions of the province had promoted a considerable external trade, and men from Normandy, looking out over their own especial sea, had kept commercial contact with the northern world from which their rulers came. Rouen was a prosperous port, and its prosperity was reflected elsewhere in the duchy. The rise of Caen during these years has already been noted, and Bayeux was evidently also growing in importance. Indeed there is even testimony to indicate the formation in Normandy about this time of what has been termed an ‘aristocracy of money’.3 Ernald of Bayeux, chaplain successively to Richard II, Robert I, and Duke William, could be described in a contemporary text as ‘powerful in possessions and houses both within and outside the city which he had purchased with his own gold and silver’.4
Again, the lavish ecclesiastical endowments characteristic of the period are significant in this respect, since they could not have been undertaken without considerable financial support. Cathedral chapters need money for their establishment, and the numerous monastic foundations of the time of themselves presuppose the existence of surplus wealth. Some idea of the degree to which it was in fact expendable can be gathered from the fact that within a circle of twenty-five miles in the neighbourhood of Rouen there existed in 1066 no less than five great monasteries: Saint-Ouen, Holy Trinity, Saint-Georges de Boscherville, Jumièges, and Saint-Wandrille. All of these had been founded, or had been re-established, before the Norman conquest, and all of them together with the cathedral church of Maurilius were, in the time of Duke William II, adorned with new buildings. Pre-Conquest Normandy could with greater propriety be described as a rich province rather than as a poor one.
There is good reason to believe that the ducal dynasty derived full benefit from these conditions. The largess of the Norman duke was known early in the eleventh century as far as Mount Sinai, and the liberality of the Conqueror's father when on his last pilgrimage passed into legend.5 These stories were evidently based on some reality, and there is little doubt that William inherited considerable hoarded wealth. He had, moreover, his own means of augmenting it. He possessed, of course, his own very large estates, but it appears that he was less exclusively dependent upon his demesnes and forests than were most of his fellow rulers in Gaul.6 He had also what might be called his public revenues as duke, some of which had descended to him from Carolingian times. And these were numerous. Many of the items of ducal revenue specified in the earliest surviving fiscal record of the province – the ‘Rolls of the Norman Exchequer’ of 1180 – can be traced back to the Conqueror's reign and beyond.7 And in particular there might be noted thegraverie – the chief direct tax of the age which is well attested, together with the officials who were charged with its collection.8 Scarcely less important were the rights which the duke possessed in customs and tolls, and his toll-collectors –telonarii – were evidently men of considerable social standing.9
How far before the Norman conquest such payments were taken in money must depend upon the extent to which a money economy had come to prevail in Normandy at this time. The extreme rarity of surviving coins from pre-Conquest Normandy might suggest that they were never very plentiful, but reference to the precious metals and to their circulation are not infrequent in the texts.10 The case of Ernald of Bayeux which has already been cited is significant in this respect, and after 1066 the circulation of money in the duchy was certainly considerable. This was, of course, due in large measure to profits taken from the English adventure, but earlier wars of conquest had enriched William's predecessors, and it is unlikely that the treasure then amassed had been dissipated before his accession. Nor is evidence lacking of the minting of money in Normandy at this time. A text drawn up shortly after the Conqueror's death refers to the ducal mints at Rouen and Bayeux,11 and there seems no reason to doubt that these had been set up before 1066. At least four ducal moneyers established about this time are known by name,12 and two of these belonged to a family which was to exercise considerable influence. Thus Rannulf the moneyer held that office very early in Duke William's reign, and one of his sons, Osbern, succeeded his father as moneyer before 1066,13 whilst another son, who was likewise implicated in Duke William's financial transactions, was in due course to pass over into England.14 Some suggestion of the extent of William's revenues as duke before the Conquest is in fact given by the standing of the men who were responsible for their administration, and while it would be difficult to attempt any precise reckoning of his income from all sources at this time, there is at least one impressive indication that it must have been large. In the spring and early summer of 1066 he was able to maintain a very large force of mercenaries in his service, and we are expressly told that he did so without impoverishing the countryside on which they were quartered.15
The administrative problem which faced Duke William during his Norman reign was thus not what rights he might claim as duke, but how far, in circumstances of peculiar difficulty, he could translate those rights into practice. It was here that his relation with the new Norman aristocracy became of such paramount importance. For by 1050 that aristocracy was dominant in both secular and ecclesiastical affairs, and the ducal administration had been conducted and developed in a duchy wherein power had become concentrated to a remarkable degree in the hands of a few great families of which that of the duke was the chief.16 The nexus of authority that resulted could in fact be plentifully illustrated. At the centre was the duke himself. His two half-brothers were respectively bishop of Bayeux and count of Mortain, and the counts of Évreux and Eu were his cousins. William fitz Osbern, perhaps the most powerful magnate of central Normandy, who was the duke's steward, was descended on both sides from the ducal house. An uncle of William fitz Osbern was bishop of Avranches, and the brother of the count of Eu was bishop of Lisieux. Again, Rannulf I, vicomte of the Bessin, married the duke's first cousin, and her brother, or half-brother, was abbot of Saint-Ouen. The brother of the count of Eu was bishop of Lisieux, the bishop of Coutances was a Mowbray, and the bishop of Sées uncle to the wife of Roger II of Montgomery. Elsewhere the same connexions had been reinforced by the characteristic marriage alliances of the period, such as that of Montgomery with Bellême, Beaumont with Grandmesnil, or fitz Osbern with Tosny. Such facts have more than a genealogical interest. They illustrate how completely, before 1066, a few powerful families, dominated by that of the duke, had spun over the whole of Normandy a web of authority from which none of its inhabitants could escape.
It is misleading, therefore, to dissociate the resuscitation of ducal power in Normandy under Duke William from the rise of the feudal aristocracy at that time. There was, of course, truth in the bitter complaint attributed to the Conqueror on his death-bed that his worst foes had always been those from his own duchy, and of his own family.17 But the rapid increase of Norman strength in the twenty years preceding the Norman conquest is not to be explained by reference to a continued opposition between the Norman duke and the Norman magnates. In the early part of his reign William, by himself, would never have been strong enough to withstand a concerted attack from the great men of the duchy, and, from the start, there was always a party of magnates which was ready to support him. And, as time went on, the interests of the greater Norman families were seen to be becoming ever more notably linked with those of the duke, until at last a situation was reached in which the duke could demand, and increasingly receive, their support, whilst they in turn could usually rely on the duke to sustain them.
Duke William's contribution in bringing about this result has already in part been indicated. It was exemplified, for instance, in the manner in which he extended the feudal obligations of his magnates. It was also displayed in the individual and constructive share he took in the government of the Norman church during his Norman reign. Such a policy could not, however, have been implemented apart from the personal prestige he gained during his wars between 1047 and 1060. The men with whom he had to deal in his duchy were crude and violent, but many of them were also shrewd and politic, and they would never have accepted the control of any man whose own character and exploits had not won their respect. No better illustration of William's dominance, and the manner in which it was built up, could, in fact, be found than in his relations with Lanfranc, who, when prior of Le Bec, had been estranged from the duke in the matter of William's marriage. Their later co-operation was to be a factor in the subsequent history of the Anglo-Norman kingdom, and it is highly significant that their reconciliation was brought about largely through the influence of William fitz Osbern, who was himself one of the architects of the Norman conquest of England.18 Upon such personal relationships was much of William's later policy to depend.
The task which here confronted William as he approached maturity was to implement the inherent rights of his dynasty in the midst of a changing society, and, as far as might be, to implicate the newly established feudal aristocracy with the administrative authority that traditionally pertained to a Norman duke. It was an endeavour that was to affect the whole social structure of Normandy, but its operation was most noteworthy – and most critical – in connexion with those institutions where the interests of the duke and his magnates most strongly converged, where opposition between them might have proved disastrous, and where, if harmony could be achieved, the results would be most far-reaching. Chief of these were the comtés and the vicomtés which by the middle of the eleventh century had become inseparably connected with the feudal nobility, but which remained also as units essential to the ducal administration. It was in fact an indispensable prerequisite for the development of Norman strength during these years that William should be able to utilize the Norman comtés and the Norman vicomtés in the government of his duchy.
In the case of the comtés his policy might be said to have been fairly clearly indicated by previous history. As has been seen, the Norman counts did not make their appearance until the first quarter of the eleventh century, and their establishment at that time could be considered in some sense as an extension of the comital power of the duke. These men were all drawn from the ducal family; their comtés were situated at strategic points suitable for the defence of the duchy; and the one danger that might ensue from these arrangements was personal disloyalty on the part of a member of the ruling family against its head. After William's accession this in fact took shape with the rebellion of William, count of Arques, but with his forfeiture in 1054 the solidarity of the group was re-established, and it was further strengthened when in, or shortly after, 1055, Duke William found himself strong enough to dispossess William Werlenc, count of Mortain, apparently upon a very flimsy excuse, and to set up in his place his own half-brother Robert, the son of Herluin and Herleve.19 By 1060, therefore, the Norman counts had come to form a small aristocratic group whose cohesion could hardly be matched elsewhere in contemporary Europe. They owed their allegiance not to a king to whom they were unconnected by blood, but to a duke to whom they were nearly related. Prominent members of the feudal aristocracy, they had at the same time become inextricably involved in the ducal administration of Normandy.
Much more crucial was William's problem in connexion with the vicomtés which, as has been seen, had now passed into hereditary possession of the new feudal families. On his ability to make these perform, as deputies to the count of Rouen, the duties formerly inherent in the vice-comital office in Normandy, much of the success of Duke William's administration was in fact to depend. The manner in which this was brought about thus deserves some illustration. It would seem, for example, that in his time, and before 1066, the collection of ducal revenue and the discharge of ducal payments had become recognized as part of the obligations of any Norman vicomte, however personally distinguished. Shortly after the Conquest, the vicomte of Avranches was held responsible for paying annually to the church of Saint Stephen, Caen, the sum of eighty pounds from the ducal manor of Vains;20 and shortly before the Conquest the vicomté of the Hiémois was similarly charged with paying on behalf of the duke an annual sum to the monks of Saint-Martin of Sées.21 These men belonged to the most powerful section of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, for the one was father of Hugh, earl of Chester, and the other was Roger of Montgomery, himself soon to become earl of Shrewsbury. That they should at this period have thus been content to serve as the fiscal agents of the duke is in every way notable. Nor is there any doubt that the practice of farming the Norman vicomtés22 was in operation before the Conquest, and at an early date certain Norman monasteries were enriched by grants assessed not on individual estates but upon vicomtés as a whole.23 It is clear therefore that, before 1066, the Norman vicomté could be regarded as, in some sense, a fiscal unit dependent upon the court of Rouen, and that at the same period some of the greatest among the Norman magnates were, as vicomtes, actively administering the fiscal policy of the duke.
Equally clear is the evidence which shows that at this time the vicomtes in Normandy were being regularly employed as agents and executants of the ducal justice. Between 1070 and 1079 Richard, vicomte of the Avranchin, was ordered by Duke William to summon the men of Caen so that judgment might be pronounced between Ralph Tesson and the abbey of Fontenay,24 and in 1080 at the council of Lillebonne the vicomtes of Normandy were specifically entrusted with enforcing the Truce of God on behalf of the duke.25 About the same time Rannulf, vicomte of the Bessin, heard a plea in which he gave judgment in favour of the abbey of Le Mont-Saint-Michel, whilst Richard, vicomte of the Avranchin, was one of the judges who, about 1076, pronounced sentence against Robert Bertram.26 These examples have been taken from the period immediately subsequent to the Norman conquest, but it seems clear that they reflected earlier conditions. Some time before 1028 the duke of Normandy, having given judgment in favour of the see of Rouen, in respect of a disputed estate, forthwith sent Goscelin, son of Hedo (who was vicomte of Rouen), and Richard, the vicomte, son of Tescelin, to give effect to the decision of his court.27 And when between 1035 and 1037 the bishop of Bayeux sought justice, his case was heard in the presence among others of Nigel, vicomte of the Cotentin.28 Evidently at the beginning of the reign the vicomtes of Normandy were numbered among these ‘lords who conducted the justice of the kingdom’, and it was to be one of the achievements of Duke William to make this judicial position to depend ever more strictly on the ducal court.
Probably the most important responsibilities of the Norman vicomtes were military. Just as the Norman comtés of the eleventh century can be seen in relation to a scheme for the defence of the duchy, so also can the vicomtés, and their holders, be likewise regarded. The great vicomtes of the Cotentin, the Avranchin, and the Bessin faced both Brittany and the sea, and the vicomté of the Hiémois with its centre at Exmes looked south across the debatable frontier into Maine. More specifically was the Normanvicomtefrom his first appearance the normal custodian of a ducal castle. Nigel, who had previously repelled an English invasion of the Cotentin, was entrusted by Duke Richard II with the defence of Tillières, and he was, likewise, at a later date to hold the castle of LeHomme which had formerly belonged to Richard III and subsequently to Guy of Burgundy.29 Alfred ‘the Giant’, another vicomte of the time of Duke Richard II, was similarly one of the custodians of the castle of Cherrieux, which likewise was in due course to pass into the keeping of the vicomtes of the Cotentin. Thurstan Goz, yet another of the early vicomtes, was associated with the custody of the ducal castle of Falaise; and the castle of Saint-James de Beuvron, which was built by Duke William in connexion with the Breton war of 1064, was confided to Richard, vicomte of the Avranchin.30
Some of the Norman castles of this period such as Arques and Brionne, and possibly Tillières and Falaise, were constructed of stone, but most of them were doubtless of the ‘motte and bailey’ type with which England after the Conquest was to be made familiar. All alike, however, had become pivotal points in the defence of Normandy and in the maintenance of order within the duchy. Castles were already in fact becoming essential to the efficient conduct of warfare, and it is small wonder that within Normandy the dukes should have wished to retain full control over them. Indeed, before 1035 it would seem to have been exceptional in Normandy for a castle to be held by a magnate other than a comte or vicomte; and the men who did succeed in acquiring castles of their own were usually themselves of the highest status and power.31 Nor is it without significance that many of the most important of the early ‘private’ castles in Normandy were situated, like Échauffour, Laigle, and Montreuil-l'Argille, in districts where the ducal authority was perhaps less effective.32 The Norman dukes were well aware of the peril of castles passing out of their control, and the fact that ducal castles had been so constantly placed in the charge of vicomtes illustrates from a new angle the connexion between the earlyvicomtes and the counts of Rouen.
No aspect of the disturbances following William's accession was, therefore, more menacing than the attempt of certain vicomtes to gain for themselves full possession of the castles with which they had been entrusted. Thurstan Goz defied the duke from the castle of Falaise, and Nigel of the Cotentin obtained from Guy of Burgundy the castle of Le Homme which in due course he was to hold against his young master.33 Such developments were symptomatic of the general threat to ducal authority during these years; and thevicomtes were by no means the only magnates in the duchy who at this time sought to buttress power by building strongholds from which they could advance their fortunes by force of arms. But in the case of the vicomtes the menace was particularly grave. The revolt of the western vicomtes in 1047 was rightly regarded as a special treason, and it is noteworthy that after Val-ès-Dunes there was a widespread destruction of many of the illicit castles that had been built. ‘Happy battle’, exclaimed William of Jumièges with some exaggeration, ‘that in a single day caused all the castles to fall.’34 In this, as in so many other ways, the suppression of the rebellion of 1047 was of cardinal importance in preventing the vice-comital power in Normandy from passing out of dpcal control, and thereafter William was able with ever-increasing success to reimpose upon Normandy the doctrine that the Norman vicomte was the agent of the duke, holding office at his pleasure, charged with specific duties on his behalf, and in the last resort removable at his will.
The degree to which this was accomplished before 1066 was due in the first instance to William's own successful wars, and to the dominant position he eventually attained within the feudal structure of Normandy. But he seems at the same time to have attempted to alter in some measure the character of the vicomtés themselves, seeking to create, albeit under the old name, new and smaller units of administration. The full results of this development were not to be attained until the twelfth century. But its beginnings can be legitimately assigned to the reign of the Conqueror, and to the period before 1066. Thus a charter of Duke William which passed before the Conquest alludes to the vicomté of Gavray, and subsequent texts reveal this to have been a comparatively small jurisdiction established within the Cotentin.35 Again, Ordericus Vitalis speaks of a vicomté of Orbec as already established before 1091.36 And when, before 1066, Herluin, the husband of the Duke-William's mother, became a vicomte he was given the smallvicomté of Conteville, about which nothing is previously known.37 The evidence is admittedly scanty, but the establishment of little vicomtés, such as these, must have affected the character of the office which was held by the great Norman vicomtes before the Conquest. It betokened the beginnings of a change whereby the number of the Norman vicomtes was increased at the same time as their personal importance tended to diminish.
In the sphere of local government, therefore, the development of ducal power in Normandy during these years can be seen in the extent to which William made important men in the duchy serve as ducal officials who were not merely his domainal agents, but officers in charge of large administrative districts. Correspondingly, the growing cooperation between William and his magnates in the administration of Normandy as a whole can be illustrated in the activities of the ducal court during this period, and here the resuscitation of the traditional powers pertaining to the duke was also to be displayed. The composition of that court attracted, indeed, the attention of contemporary chroniclers. William of Poitiers spoke in glowing terms of the ecclesiastical and lay counsellors by whom William was surrounded, mentioning in particular the bishops of Normandy, and (among the laity) the counts of Eu and Mortain, Roger of Beaumont, William fitz Osbern, and Roger of Montgomery.38 The statement is, of course, tainted with rhetoric, and it refers to the latest period in the duke's Norman reign. But it may be confirmed with some particularity by the attestations to ducal charters between 1035 and 1066.
Attendance at the ducal court naturally varied with the events of these tumultuous years, since it depended not only on the business to be transacted but also on the ability of the duke at any given time to enforce the presence of particular notables in the duchy. None the less a general pattern can be discerned which differs little from the description given by the chronicler. Thus in 1038–1039, at the very beginning of the reign, an instrument ratified by the ducal court was attested by the duke himself, by Hugh, bishop of Évreux, and by Adso, the vicomte.39 Again, some time between 1049 and 1058, a formal charter of the duke was subscribed in his presence by Hugh, bishop of Lisieux, Roger of Montgomery, William fitz Osbern, Robert, the duke's half-brother, and Richard,vicomte of the Avranchin.40 With the growth of the duke's power, his court naturally became more imposing, and within a few months of the invasion of England it can be watched in full session. On 18 June 1066 a charter,41 which can be dated by reference to the famous comet, was subscribed by the duke, his wife Matilda, his son Robert, his half-brother Robert, count of Mortain, Archbishop Maurilius, the bishops of Évreux, Bayeux, and Avranches, William fitz Osbern, and Roger Montgomery in his capacity of vicomte of the Hiémois.
Such examples (selected from among many) go far to suggest that the chronicler's description of the duke's entourage on formal occasions was accurate in its essentials. A full session of the ducal court might be expected to include members of the duke's family such as his wife, his eldest son, and his half-brothers.42 Among the lay magnates, moreover, the most frequent witnesses are precisely those whom William of Poitiers described as his most constant counsellors: that is to say, the counts of Eu, Mortain, and Évreux, William fitz Osbern, Roger of Beaumont, and Roger of Montgomery – to whom should perhaps be added Ralph Tesson and the elder Walter Giffard.43 Again, the presence of high ecclesiastics is also normal. Abbots, with the exception of Nicholas of Saint-Ouen, son of Duke Richard III, appear perhaps less frequently than might be expected, but all the occupants of the Norman sees were constantly in attendance at the ducal court, in particular the two archbishops in their turn (Mauger and Maurilius), Odo of Bayeux, Hugh of Lisieux, William of Évreux, and John of Avranches.44 Further, an executive act of the duke was usually witnessed by one or more of his vicomtes, among whom the vicomtes of the Cotentin and the Avranchin were prominent. Such were in fact the main elements of the ducal court during William's Norman reign, but this curia could always be enforced, and the presence of visiting magnates, both lay and ecclesiastical, is a feature of the period. A remarkable charter of Duke Robert I45 had been subscribed not only by the French king but by the exiled English athelings, Edward and Alfred. Charters of Duke William between 1035 and 1066 were in like manner attested by Walter, count of the Vexin, Gervais, bishop of Le Mans, Hugh, count of Maine, Waleran, count of Meulan, and perhaps by Robert of Jumièges when archbishop of Canterbury.46
The ducal court appears to have met at irregular intervals, and at various places as occasion required, though there is some evidence to suggest a practice of holding an Easter meeting at Fécamp.47 The curia also varied greatly in size, but at its centre there can already be detected the beginnings of a household administration charged particularly with the ducal administration. It will be recalled that during the reign of King Henry I of France, the Capetian household began to take on its later form. Instruments of that king were very frequently expedited by Baldwin the chancellor, and during the reign of Philip I the royal diplomata start to be regularly attested by the four great officers – the steward, the constable, the chamberlain, and the butler.48 Such a development might reasonably be expected to have found some reflection in Normandy, and in fact several of the counterparts of the great officers of the court of Paris make their appearance in the duchy between 1035 and 1066. Chief among these was the steward. There can be no doubt that during the reign of Duke Robert I the office of steward in Normandy was held by no less a personage than Osbern, son of Herfast, and nephew of the Duchess Gunnor, who himself married Emma the daughter of Count Rodulf, half-brother to Duke Richard I. He is described as steward by the chroniclers,49 and as steward he witnessed charters for Saint-Wandrille and for Holy Trinity, Rouen.50 Doubtless because of his office, he became after 1035 one of the guardians of the young duke, and about 1040 he was murdered while in attendance on his young master.51
The association of the Norman stewardship with one of the most powerful families of the new nobility was itself a fact of considerable importance. Osbern, however, was not the only steward at the ducal court during these years,52 and though, after his death, his office was inherited by his famous son William fitz Osbern, early charters of Duke William are also attested by other stewards. Such, for instance, was Gerard senescallus, who appears in several of these instruments;53 and of even greater interest is Stigand,dapifer. For this Stigand was not only himself steward, but, even during his lifetime, the title of dapifer was apparently held also by his son, Odo, until his death in 1063 at the age of twenty-six.54 Moreover, Stigand, in 1054, witnessed as dapifer a charter which is attested by William fitz Osbern without further designation.55 It cannot therefore be asserted with complete confidence that no interval elapsed between the death of Osbern and the time when William fitz Osbern assumed the office which his father had held. But it is certainthat before the end of the Norman reign of Duke William, William fitz Osbern, closest among the duke's advisers, was also steward at the ducal court, and his great personal distinction inevitably gave an additional prestige to the office.56
The importance of the steward in the pre-Conquest court in Normandy was due less to the office than to the personal standing of the men who held it. But some parallel to this development can be seen in respect of the chamberlainship. Many pre-Conquest Norman charters are attested by Radulfus camerarius or cubicularius, and this was none other than Ralph, son of Gerald, lord of Tancarville.57 He appears as chamberlain as early as 1035,58 and during the Norman reign of Duke William he was constantly in attendance at court. He died, as it seems, before 1066, when his son Ralph inherited an office which, like that of the Norman steward, had grown in dignity owing to the personal importance of its holder.59 Similarly, the existence of the office of butler at the Norman court during this period is well attested. Charters for Jumièges, Holy Trinity, Rouen, and Coulombes are attested by Hugh pincerna or buticularius, and one text shows that this was Hugh of Ivry, a man of some standing in Normandy, who later crossed over with his duke to England, but none the less continued as butler in Normandy, surviving apparently until after 1086.60 As to the fourth of the great Capetian officials – the constable – there is less evidence in pre-Conquest Normandy. But when at a later date Robert of Ver became one of the constables in England, he did so by inheritance from the family of Montfort-sur-Risle. And this family, which held the ‘honour of the constable’ (honor constabulariæ) in England, was well established in Normandy before the Norman conquest, and then already closely associated with the Norman duke.61
There remains the chancellorship; and here the Capetian parallel needs particularly to be considered. Before 1060, as has been seen, many of the French royal diplomata had been formally subscribed by a certain Baldwin who acted regularly as chancellor. Moreover, the evolution elsewhere of chanceries from organized groups of court chaplains is well known, and the clerical element in the pre-Conquest court of Duke William was evidently considerable. Thus Theobald and Baldwin witnessed as chaplains one of the duke's charters for Marmoutier about 1060, and Rannulf the chaplain attested another charter for that house at a slightly later date.62 Indeed, the biography of one of the duke's chaplains has in this connexion a particular interest. This was Herfast who subscribed the earlier of the two Marmoutier charters mentioned above, and who, three years after the Norman conquest, was to appear in an English charter with the title of cancellarius,63 being perhaps, though not certainly, the first man in England to be so styled.64 His career has therefore attracted attention, and there have even been some who have not hesitated to conclude therefrom the presence of a chancery in pre-Conquest Normandy, and the importation of this institution from the duchy into the kingdom.
It is, however, extremely unlikely that any organized chancery existed, either in fact or name, in Normandy during the Norman reign of Duke William. Herfast is not known to have been given the title of chancellor before he came to England,65 and the clerks of William's chapel do not appear with any regularity as witnesses to the ducal charters of the period.66 Moreover, the character of the ducal charters which were issued between 1035 and 1066 itself forbids any assumption that there existed at this time in Normandy a ducal scriptorium whose work followed a regular pattern, or whose activities were inspired by an established tradition.67 There is, for instance, nothing to be found in Normandy to correspond with the formalized writs which, during these years, were being regularly produced by the scriptorium of Edward the Confessor.68 By contrast, the ducal charters of this period exhibit such diversities of structure that it is tempting to suppose that they must often have been compiled in the religious houses for whose benefit they were granted, and there is positive evidence to show that this practice was followed.69 It would seem, in short, that the development of the duke's chapel into an organized chancery had before the Norman conquest made little or no progress.
The official household of the duke of Normandy was in 1066 still in a transitional stage of development, as was that of the French king, and there may well have been some mutual influence between them. Many of the great officials characteristic of the French royal household – notably the steward, the butler, and the chamberlain – were already at that time well established in Normandy, and they were surrounded by lesser functionaries, such as the marshal,70 and the numerous ushers (hostiarii), who appear fairly frequently as witnesses to the charters.71 It would thus be erroneous to suppose that this household had as yet achieved the organization that it was later to assume. Whilst the titles of master butler and master chamberlain may have been used in Normandy before the Conquest,72 it would seem that the principal officers of the Norman household at this time were not as yet clearly distinguished from lesser officials with the same titles, and no regular order of precedence among them was as yet established. There can be no doubt that in the time of William fitz Osbern the steward was the most important official of the Norman household, and here the development antedated that of the French household, where the pre-eminence of the steward was not established until after 1071.73But even in Normandy claims to priority for the chamberlainship seem to have been made by the family of Tancarville at an early date.74 The organization of the household of the Norman duke was still, it would seem, dependent upon personalities rather than upon institutional growth, or administrative tradition. It was, nevertheless, important that some of the greatest feudatories of Normandy should at this time have been serving as household officers of the duke, for their doing so inevitably gave additional strength to his court.
The charters show that this court met fairly regularly even in the early years of the minority. Two instruments for two religious houses, which were passed about 1040, indicate, for instance, the extreme youth of the duke, who was apparently present with a guardian at courts which, it would seem, were presided over by Mauger, archbishop of Rouen.75 A court of this nature was also, doubtless, held when, at about the same time, the comté of Arques was bestowed on Mauger's brother William.76 Again, between 1045 and 1047 the duke's confirmation of gifts to Jumièges was made in a court attended by three counts, and by William fitz Osbern.77 And after Val-ès-Dunes the ducal court seems to have been enlarged. It was a curia of distinction that about 1050 met to ratify grants that had been made to the abbey of Le Mont-Saint-Michel,78 and in 1051 it was in the presence of a full court that the monastery of Saint-Wandrille sought to vindicate its rights.79
Such records are impressive, and they indicate the continuity of the ducal administration during the troubles of the minority. None the less, it is significant that most of William's pre-Conquest charters come from the period subsequent to Mortemer, and that their subscriptions display a curia that was ever growing in size and importance. It would be hard to find in the earlier charters evidence of a court comparable to that which late in the duke's Norman reign attested the duke's confirmation of the gifts made to his half-brother Odo to the church of Bayeux,80 or the court which some time in 1066 confirmed at Fécamp the restitutions then made to the monastery of Coulombes.81 The growing prestige of the duke was in fact being displayed in the assembly which surrounded him. And on the eve of the Norman conquest William was able to collect in his support a most notable court which attracted the attention of contemporary writers. That neither William of Malmesbury nor William of Poitiers82 were exaggerating in their admiring descriptions of this assemblage is confirmed by the subscriptions to the charter which was issued on 17 June 1066 for Holy Trinity, Caen.83 The list, replete with illustrious names, both secular and ecclesiastical, reflects the existence of a ducal court in Normandy of which any prince in contemporary Europe might have been proud.
This was essentially a feudal court whose function it was to give general support and counsel to the lord, though, as the presence of the vicomtes might suggest, there was perhaps always scope within this assembly for the expression of those traditional ducal powers which Duke William inherited, and which he was to revive. The business of the court before 1066 seems, however, to have been largely undifferentiated. There is, for instance, little to suggest that any fully developed financial organization had been formed in ducal Normandy before the Norman conquest. It is true that there are references to a camera (or treasury) in the time of Duke Richard II,84 and the process of collecting the miscellaneous revenue to which Duke William was entitled, and of occasionally granting tithes out of it, implies of itself not only some system of accounting, however crude, but also perhaps the existence of officials specially devoted to this work.85 The importance of the chamber-lainship in the hands of the family of Tancarville is significant in this respect, but the progress towards the formation of anything that might be legitimately termed a finance bureau seems to have been very limited before 1066. It was a full curia, and not a part thereof, which about 1042 confirmed to Cerisy-la-Forêt the tithes of certainvicomtés,86 and later a similar assembly ratified to Montivilliers the grant of a hundred shillings in the prévôté of Caen.87 Before the Conquest it was still the court as a whole which under the duke was concerned with the ducal revenue as with all other aspects of the duke's affairs.
The acts of the ducal court during the Norman reign of Duke William for which most evidence has survived are naturally those which concerned the confirmation by the duke of land or privileges to religious houses. It was at a full court that about 1050 the duke confirmed the foundation of the monastery of Saint-Désir at Lisieux by Bishop Hugh and his mother, the Countess Lesceline of Eu; and a similar court some ten years later ratified the gift by Nigel of Saint-Sauveur to Marmoutier of six churches in the island of Guernsey.88 About 1054 the benefactions of Gilbert Crispin to Jumièges were attested in the presence of Duke William by William, bishop of Évreux, Stigand the steward, Hugh the butler, William fitz Osbern, and others;89 whilst at a little later date a larger assembly of a similar character ratified the gifts made by Roger of Clères to the Tosny foundation of Conches.90 Such transactions which normally involved the granting of a charter are for that reason of course exceptionally well recorded. But there is little doubt that they occupied much of the attention of the ducal court during this period.
Formal ratification of ownership was at times hardly to be distinguished from the settlement of claims that had long been in dispute, and it is in this connexion that the judicial work of the ducal court can best in the first instance be considered. Records of several pleas of the time have survived, and they merit attention. Between 1063 and 1066 there was a long dispute between the abbey of Marmoutier and that of Saint-Pierre-de-la-Couture at Le Mans respecting the land which Guy of Laval had given to Marmoutier near his castle of Laval for making a ‘borough’.91 At length when Duke William was holding his court at Domfront ‘he held a plea on this matter’, and ordered that the monks of Marmoutier should offer the ordeal, but that Reinald, abbot of Saint-Pierre, need only swear that he had never given the property in dispute. Abbot Reinald refused the oath, and the property was therefore restored to the monks of Marmoutier. ‘Thus the plea which had so long remained in doubt was finally determined by means of a public and lawful judgment.’ Again, in 1066, there occurred a long dispute between the church of Avranches and Roger of Beaufou, nephew of Bishop John, respecting the lordship of Saint-Philibert which Roger claimed by inheritance from his uncle. In this instance, also, the matter was brought into the ducal court, and a complicated settlement was there made, judgment at length being given on 18 June 1066 in general favour of the church at Avranches.92 Finally, it may be noted how after a long dispute respecting a mill at Vains, Abbot Rannulf of Le Mont-Saint-Michel in like manner asked for the judgment of the duke's curia, and the resulting charter records that only after a careful examination of all the points at issue was the mill declared to belong to the monks of the Mount.93
Narratives such as these, together with the charters with which they are connected, tempt speculation on the nature of ducal justice in this period. But here it would be rash to attempt too great precision. In one sense the ducal court at this time could be regarded as but the greatest of the feudal courts in Normandy, and as administering on behalf of the duke a judicial authority which was not readily distinguishable in respect of secular affairs from that enjoyed by his greater vassals over their own tenants.94 The older view that, alone among the great feudatories of France, the duke of Normandy had a monopoly of haute justice within his dominion cannot be justified by evidence from before the Norman conquest.95 Many of the greater magnates of Normandy at that time, such as Roger of Beaumont or the count of Évreux, certainly exercised very wide judicial rights, and it is very doubtful whether until after 1066 William was able to make generally recognized in Normandy the doctrine that they held these rights only by virtue of a specific grant from the duke.96 Whatever may have been strict legal theory, it would seem that the growing importance of the ducal court between 1047 and 1066 could better be explained by reference to more practical considerations. It was during these years that William was able to assert more clearly his feudal rights over his vassals, and his increasing power made it ever more desirable that any important transaction should have the sanction of his former confirmation. Not without reason did Robert, abbot of Saint-Wandrille from 1048 to 1063, declare on one occasion: ‘ I took care to bring this charter to William lord of the Normans, and he confirmed it with the sign of his authority with the agreement of many of his own lords.’97
Nevertheless, there remained in Normandy those pre-feudal traditions which distinguished the judicial authority of the duke from that of his Norman vassals, and the political events of Duke William's reign were to strengthen their influence. The comital authority acquired in the tenth century by the Viking counts of Rouen remained as a source of potential strength to the descendants of Rolf, and now the changing relations between Duke William and the French king imparted to such prerogatives an enhanced significance. So long as the duke of Normandy remained the vassal of the king of France, he could be regarded in a sense as merely the holder of an exceptionally privileged ‘immunity’. But after the events of 1052–1054 the authority of the French king was vitally impaired in Normandy, and other notions favouring the judicial independence of the duke were inevitably put forward. In this respect the position occupied by the duke in the church of the province of Rouen was to prove especially important. William's ancestors, having acquired special responsibilities towards the Church, had exercised these to their own advantage, and William himself was from the start directly to be implicated in ecclesiastical affairs. In the judicial sphere, for example, the introduction of the Truce of God in 1047 was here of particular significance, for not only had the duke been involved in its inception, but he was in due course to assume increasing responsibility for its execution, so that before his death the Treuga Dei in Normandy was to become scarcely distinguishable from the pax Ducis.98 The influence of this development might easily be exaggerated for the period 1047 to 1066, but it would probably be true to say that ‘by slowly assuming responsibility for the sworn peace, the Norman dukes succeeded in establishing a prerogative over certain causes criminal which gave them an authority more far reaching than they had theretofore exercised as lords paramount’.99
Whatever may have been the precise influence of the enforcement of the Truce of God in developing the judicial prerogatives of the duke, there can be no question that these were enhanced in a more general way by the position assumed by Duke William between 1047 and 1066 within the Norman church. As has been seen, he took a personal share in most of the ecclesiastical councils of the province of Rouen during these years, and at the same time the greater prelates of Normandy were, like their lay kinsfolk, regular suitors to the ducal court.100 In this compact duchy coincident with an ecclesiastical province, and dominated both secularly and ecclesiastically by a small group of interrelated families, any clear-cut demarcation between the two spheres of administration was almost impossible. And the duke's authority was thereby increased, since he was himself the apex of this closely integrated social structure. As his traditional powers as duke were progressively made to reinforce his feudal rights, so also did it become ever more difficult to define with any precision any ecclesiastical matters with which, in the duchy, he and his court might not feel themselves concerned.
There are indeed indications that, even before 1066, the intimate relation between the Norman duke and the Norman church was imparting to William's position as a ruler an ecclesiastical sanction different from that claimed by his fellow feudatories in Gaul. It is unlikely that before 1066 a Norman duke was at his installation ever blessed by any special consecration peculiar to his office, and according to a later tradition the essential act in the recognition of a duke of Normandy lay in his being girt with a sword.101 On the other hand, the significance of the original baptism of Rolf was not forgotten, or the propaganda which had sought to display William Longsword as the dedicated champion of the Church; and if the presence of the archbishop of Rouen was always held to be essential to the installation of a duke of Normandy, this can hardly have been solely because of that prelate's position in the feudal structure of the province.102 It has, moreover, been suggested that Laudes of the Christus vincit type such as had been chanted at the coronation of Charlemagne were sung when a Norman duke was accepted,103 but this though possible cannot be proved, and there is no evidence that any Norman duke before 1066 was either anointed or crowned.104 It is, however, noteworthy that at an early date, and probably before 1066,105 a litany sung at important church festivals in the cathedral of Rouen contained a special acclamation on behalf of Duke William.106 And this is the more remarkable in that no such particular salutation is known to have been used in any similar litany for any other lay magnate who was not of royal or imperial rank.107 It would be as easy to underestimate as to exaggerate the implications of such a usage. Duke William of Normandy, exceptional in this matter among the magnates of Gaul, was before 1066 being accorded, in virtue of his ducal office, special powers and special responsibilities within the Norman Church. And he was thereby enabled to claim a certain religious sanction for his administrative acts.
During the decades preceding the Norman conquest of England, the aristocratic and ecclesiastical development of Normandy had been merged under the rule of Duke William II into a single political achievement. It might perhaps be summarized by saying that in 1065 a man might go from end to end of the duchy without ever passing outside the jurisdiction, secular or ecclesiastical, of a small group of interrelated great families with the duke at their head. The new aristocracy, now firmly established, had sponsored the monastic revival in the Norman church: correspondingly, the Norman bishops, drawn from that same aristocracy, were giving order to the province of Rouen which had itself become almost coincident with the Norman duchy. And at the centre of this interconnected progress was the duke. He had identified the ambitions of the aristocracy with his own political aims, and he had gone some way towards enforcing their feudal obligations towards himself. He had imposed his control likewise upon the reformed Norman church so that with some justice he might pose as the champion of the church in one of the most progressive provinces of western Christendom. Thus had been attained that intense concentration of power in this province of Gaul which was among the most remarkable political phenomena of eleventh-century Europe. Here also was to be the basis of the greatest Norman achievement which was now about to be fulfilled under the leadership of Duke William – the establishment of the Anglo-Norman kingdom.
1 Consuetudines et Justicie (Haskins, Norman Institutions, p. 281).
2 Galbraith, Making of Domesday Book, p. 45.
3 L. Musset, Annales de Normandie, vol. IX (1959), pp. 285–299.
4 Stapleton, Archaeologia, vol. XXXVII (1839), pp. 26–37.
5 Southern, Making of the Middle Ages, pp. 53, 54.
6 Cf. Musset, ‘Aristocratie d'argent’ (Annales de Narmandie, vol. IX, 1959).
7 Haskins, op. cit., p. 39.
8 Musset, op. cit., p. 289; Cart. S. Trin. Roth., nos. LXXIII, LXXX, LXXXVII.
9 Haskins, op. cit., p. 47; Musset, op. cit., p. 290. One of these telonarii can be ranked among the optimates (Cart. S. Pèrt Chartres, p. 146).
10 Musset, op. cit., pp. 285, 286.
11 Consuetudines et Justicie, cl. XIII (Haskins, op. cit., p. 283).
12 Musset, op. cit., pp. 290 ei sqq.; Cal. Doc. France, nos. 711, 712.
13 Musset, op. cit., p. 292.
14 Below, pp. 303, 304.
15 Will. Poit., p. 152, and see below, pp. 191, 192.
16 Above, pp. 83–104.
17 Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 229.
18 Vita Herluini (Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, p. 27); Will. Malms., Gesta Pontificum, p. 150.
19 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 259; vol. III, p. 246.
20 Haskins, op. cit., appendix E, no. I; Delisle-Berger, Rec. Actes – Henri II, vol. I, p. 345.
21 Haskins, op. cit., Appendix E, no. II.
22 Ibid., pp. 42, 43.
23 R.A.D.N, no. 99.
24 Gall. Christ., vol. XI; Instrumenta, cols. 61–65; Regesta, vol. I, no. 117.
25 Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 316.
26 Delisle, Saint Sauveur, Preuves, nos. 35, 36.
27 Valin, Duc de Normandie, Preuves, no. 1.
28 Cart. Bayeux, vol. I, no. 21.
29 Will. Jum., pp. 76, 84; Yver, Châteaux forts, pp. 39–48.
30 Will. Jum., pp. 105, 106, 272.
31 Yver, op. cit., p. 57.
32 Ord. Vit., vol. II, pp. 23, 27, 295; Yver, op. cit., pp. 40, 41.
33 Will. Jum., p. 118; Yver, op. cit., p. 46.
34 Will. Jum., p. 123; Yver, op. cit., p. 48.
35 Mon. Aug., vol. VI, p. 1073; R.A.D.N., no. 99; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, p. 114.
36 Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 371.
37 Douglas, Domesday Monachorum pp. 27, 28; Powicke, op. cit., p. 108.
38 Will. Poit., pp. 135, 149; Ord. Vit., vol. II, p. 121.
39 R.A.D.N., no. 92.
40 Ibid., no. 140.
41 Regesta, vol. I, no. 4.
42 e.g. R.A.D.N., nos. 138, 141, 158, 202.
43 R.A.D.N., passim.
44 e.g. R.A.D.N., nos. 100, 129, 229, 230; cf. Cal. Doc. France, nos. 709, 710, 1165, 1167, 1172.
45 R.A.D.N., no. 69.
46 Ibid., nos. 104, 107, 113, 137. The assignation of the date of 1055 to the last-named deed is not certain and the list of witnesses presents difficulty. Lot (Saint-Wandrille, no. 17) suggests the visit of Robert, archbishop of Canterbury, but the ascription is not certain.
47 Haskins, op. cit., p. 55.
48 Prou, Rec. Actes – Philippe I, pp. l–liii.
49 Ord. Vit., vol. III, p. 229.
50 R.A.D.N., nos. 69, 82.
51 Will. Jum., p. 116.
52 Harcourt, His Grace the Steward, p. 7.
53 R.A.D.N., passim.
54 P. Eudeline, Hist. de Hauteville (1948), plate II; R.A.D.N., no. 158.
55 R.A.D.N., no. 188.
56 Will. Jum., p. 117; cf. Cart. S. Trin. Roth., no. LXVII.
57 R.A.D.N., nos. 138, 204; Cart. Îles Norm., nos. 298, 399, 300; Le Prévost, Eure, vol. III. p. 467 (R.A.D.N., no. 191).
58 R.A.D.N., no. 89.
59 Complete Peerage, vol. X, Appendix F.
60 R.A.D.N., nos. 138, 188, 233; Round, King's Serjeants, pp. 140, 141.
61 Douglas, Domesday Monachorum, pp. 65–67; Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 326.
62 R.A.D.N., no. 141; cf. Cart, Îles Norm., nos. 297, 300.
63 Regesta, vol. I, no. 28.
64 Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, pp. 59–61.
65 In three Norman charters of the early eleventh century (R.A.D.N., nos. 18, 34; Pommeraye, Saint-Ouen, p. 422) persons appear under the style of chancellor, but it would be very rash to argue from the phraseology of the texts in their present form. Reference may be made in this connexion to Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique, vol. IV, p. 255, and to plate III in Haskins's, Norman Institutions. Whatever conclusions should be drawn on this matter, it remains true that there does not seem to be any reference to the title of chancellor in any text emanating from Normandy during the reign of Duke William II.
66 Haskins, op. cit., p. 52.
67 Fauroux, R.A.D.N., pp. 40–47.
68 Below, pp. 292–294.
69 R.A.D.N., no. 134.
70 Ilbert and Milo appear as marshals in Normandy before 1066 (Complete Peerage, vol. XI, Appendix E).
71 Haskins, op. cit., p. 51.
72 Complete Peerage, vol. X, Appendix F.
73 Prou, Rec. Actes – Philippe I, vol. I, p. cxxxvi.
74 A. Deville, S. Georges de Boscherville, pp. 57–62.
75 R.A.D.N., no. 100; Gall. Christ., vol. XI; Instrumenta, col. 12.
76 Will. Jum., p. 119.
77 R.A.D.N., no. 113.
78 Ibid., no. 110.
79 Chevreux et Vernier, Archives de Normandie, plate IV (R.A.D.N., no. 124).
80 R.A.D.N., no. 219.
81 Ibid., no. 230.
82 Gesta Regum, p. 299; Will. Poit., p. 149.
83 Regesta, vol. I, no. 4.
84 Haskins, op. cit., pp. 40, 41.
85 Ibid.
86 R.A.D.N., no. 99.
87 Ibid., no. 171.
88 Ibid., nos. 140, 141.
89 Ibid., no. 188.
90 Ibid., no. 191.
91 Ibid., no. 159.
92 Ibid., no. 229.
93 R.A.D.N., no. 148; Lechaudé d'Anisy, Grands Rôles, p. 196; Cal. Doc. France, nos. 711, 712. Cf. Regesta, vol. I, no. 92.
94 J. Goebel, Felony and Misdemeanour, p. 283.
95 Cf. Luchaire, Manuel des Institutions, pp. 245, 246, criticized by F. M. Powicke (Loss of Normandy, p. 52).
96 Haskins, op. cit., p. 29, note 112; cf. Le Prévost, Eure, vol. III, pp. 96, 97.
97 R.A.D.N., no. 153.
98 Goebel, op. cit., chap. V.
99 Ibid., p. xxvi.
100 Above, pp. 130–132.
101 This happened in the case of Richard, son of King Henry II, when he became duke of Normandy (Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal (ed. Meyer), vol. I, v. 9556).
102 L. Valin, Duc de Normandie, p. 44.
103 E. H. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae (1946), pp. 19, 166–171.
104 Ibid., pp. 170, 178.
105 Julien Loth, La Cathédrale de Rouen (1879), pp. 553–562.
106 ‘Guillelmo Normannorum duci salus et pax continua.’
107 E. H. Kantorowicz, op. cit., p. 170.