Chapter XXII: Appendix: NOTE A. Vol. i. p. 11 (2)

It is with some hesitation that I have spoken as I have done in the text, because it is hard to reconcile our authorities without supposing that the siege of Pevensey was accompanied by a sea-force on the part of the King. No ships have been spoken of before; none are distinctly mentioned now; some of the descriptions might be understood only of a land-force lining the shore; but operations on the water seem implied in some of the accounts, and they may be understood in any. There is no need to think of a great fleet; the sea-faring men of the neighbourhood could surely do all that is recorded to have been done.

The words of the Chronicler, of William of Malmesbury, and of Henry of Huntingdon, might be understood merely of a land-force employed to keep the enemy from landing; but their expressions may be quite as naturally taken of operations on the water as well. The Chronicler is emphatic on the exploit of the English;

“Ac þa Englisce men þe wærdedon þære sæ gelæhton of þam
mannon and slogon, and adrengton ma þonne ænig man wiste to
tellanne.”

So Henry of Huntingdon (215); “Anglici mare custodientes occiderunt et submerserunt ex illis innumerabiles.”

The details come from William of Malmesbury, iv. 306;

“Inter has obsidionis moras, homines regis mare custodientes
quosdam quos comes Normanniæ in auxilium perfidorum miserat,
partim cæde, partim naufragio, oppressere: reliqui fugam
intendentes et suspendere carbasa conati, moxque vento
cessante destituti, ludibrio nostris, sibi exitio, fuere;
nam, ne vivi caperentur, e transtris se in mare
præcipitarunt.”

It is Simeon of Durham (1088) who more distinctly brings out the features of a fight by sea;

“Rex Willelmus jam mare munierat suis piratis, qui venientes
in Angliam tot occiderunt et in mare merserunt, ut nullus
sit hominum qui sciat numerum pereuntium.”

This seems to come from the Chronicle; but “þa Englisce men þe wærdedon þære sæ” are distinctly sent on board vessels of some kind by the name of “piratæ.”

The “pirates” too and the sea-fight come out more distinctly in the narrative of the Hyde writer quoted above (see p. 76). His tale must really mean the attack on Pevensey with which we are now dealing, though he has strangely confused times, places, and persons.

Roger of Wendover (ii. 34) gives the narrative of William of Malmesbury a new turn, and specially puts the “perfidi” of his version in an unlooked-for light;

“Inter has obsidionis moras, ministri regis mare
custodientes quosdam quos dux Robertus in auxilium
prædictorum miserat _schismaticorum_, partim cæde et partim
naufragio oppresserunt: quorum quidam fugam meditantes vento
destituuntur, et sic ludibrio Anglis sibique exitio
exstiterunt, nam, ne vivi caperentur, ultro sese fluctibus
submerserunt.”

Florence (see p. 74) gives an animated account of the operations by land; but he wholly leaves out the coming of the Norman fleet.

NOTE F. Vol. i. p. 137.

THE BISHOPRIC OF SOMERSET AND THE ABBEY OF BATH.

William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 194) has got wrong in his chronology when he makes John already bishop before the death of the Conqueror, but unable to carry out his scheme for the removal of the bishopric till the accession of Rufus. “Minoris gloriæ putans si in _villa_ [should this be some form of _Wells_?] resideret inglorius, transferre thronum in Bathoniam animo intendit. Sed cum id inaniter, vivente Willelmo patre, cogitasset, tempore Willelmi filii effecit.” Gisa certainly did not die till 1088, and John was consecrated in July of that year. “Qui cum rex excellentissimus Willielmus senior, qui xxij. annis regnaverat, fine laudabili vitam conclusisset, et Willielmus junior filius ejus pro eo regnaret, consecratus est episcopus in Julio.” (Historiola, 21.)

The transfer of the bishopric to Bath and the union of the abbey with the bishopric are undoubted facts; as the writer of the Historiola says, “Statim cathedram pontificis transtulit de Wella Bathoniæ.” The charter of William Rufus making this grant is printed in the Monasticon, ii. 266; the original is preserved in the chapter library at Wells. It is in two handwritings, the former part containing the first grant of 1088, while the second consists of a confirmation of 1090, or rather 1091. The substance of the grant is contained in the words;

“Ego Willelmus Willelmi regis filius, Dei dispositione
monarches Britanniæ, pro meæ meique patris remedio animæ, et
regni prosperitate, et populi a Domino mihi collati salute,
concessi Johanni episcopo abbatiam sancti Petri Bathoniæ,
cum omnibus appendiciis, tam in villis quam in civitate et
in consuetudinibus, illis videlicet, quibus saisita erat ea
die qua regnum suscepi. Dedi, inquam, ad Sumersetensis
episcopatus augmentationem, eatenus præsertim ut inibi
instituat præsuleam sedem.”

On the use of the title “monarches Britanniæ,” see N. C. vol. i. p. 561. It is somewhat singular that, when Henry of Huntingdon (211) speaks of the Conqueror as leaving “_regnum_ Angliæ” to his second son, Robert of Torigny, in his own Chronicle, 1085, changes it into “_monarchiam_ Angliæ.”

The date of the first grant is thus given;

“Lanfranco archipræsule machinante, Wintoniæ factum est
donum hujus beneficii, mill. lxxxviiiᵒ. anno ab incarnatione
Domini, secundo vero anno regni regis Willelmi filii prioris
Willelmi.”

The second year of William Rufus takes in from September 26, 1088, to September 26, 1089. It is perhaps not necessary to suppose that this first grant was made in an assembly at all. If it was, we must either suppose an extraordinary assembly in the autumn of 1088 (for we have seen by the story of Bishop William of Durham that the Christmas assembly of that year was held as usual at Westminster, see p. 116), or else we must suppose that it was done in the Easter assembly of 1089. Yet it is rather straining chronology, even if we begin the year at Easter, to reckon that assembly to 1088. (In 1089 Easter-day fell on April 1st.) But that the dates of this charter begin the year at some time later than the 1st of January is plain from the confirmation, which was made at Dover “anno Dominicæ incarnationis mill. xc. regni vero mei iiii. indictione xiii. vi. kal. Febr. luna iii.” This must mean the January of 1091, as the January of 1090 comes in the third, not in the fourth, year of Rufus. Also the charter is signed by Ralph Bishop of Chichester and Herbert Bishop of Thetford, who did not become bishops till 1091, and who thus seem to have been consecrated very early in the year. The confirmation would thus seem to have been made just before William Rufus crossed into Normandy in 1091 (see p. 273), when Dover was a likely place to find him at. A long list of signatures was made ready, though some only of the names actually received the cross from the signer’s own hand. Among these indeed are the names of Ralph and Herbert themselves, as well as those of Saint Wulfstan and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances. Bishop Howel of Le Mans signs with his own hand, and after the abbots comes the unsigned name of “Gosfridus Mala Terra” without any further description. Can this be the historian of the Apulian wars? The earls and counts whose names are given are Roger (of Shrewsbury), Robert (of Mortain or of Meulan?), Simon (of Northampton), Hugh (of Chester), Alan (of Britanny and Richmond), Henry, Walter, and William. Of these, Roger, Simon, and Alan actually sign. Earl Walter must be Walter Giffard, created Earl of Buckingham by Rufus (see Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 361). Henry must be Henry Earl of Warwick, brother of Robert of Meulan (see Will. Gem. vii. 4; Ord. Vit. 676 A; Will. Malms. v. 393; Stubbs, u. s.), and William must be the younger William of Warren, Earl of Surrey, that is, if his father died as is asserted by the Hyde writer, or even so soon as we should infer from Orderic (680 D). The signatures to this charter thus help us in fixing the dates of the creation of these earldoms. “Robertus cancellarius” is the future Bishop of Lincoln. “Samson capellanus,” who does not sign though his name is there, must surely be he who refused the bishopric of Le Mans (see p. 205), or else he who was afterwards Bishop of Worcester (see p. 542), if the two are not the same. Among smaller lay names are many with which we are familiar. The name of Robert Fitz-hamon stands apart after the earls, marking his special position in the King’s favour. The name of Randolf Peverel, whom we have met with in the story of Bishop William (see p. 109), is followed in the original by that of William Peverel, which is left out in the Monasticon. The Sheriff Aiulf (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 163) and Ælfred of Lincoln (see N. C. vol. iii. p. 778) are the only names which can be those of Englishmen. So soon were the promises of the Red King forgotten.

It was almost needless on the part of Roger of Wendover (ii. 42), or whoever he followed, to say that the change was made “consensu Willelmi regis, _albo unguento manibus ejus delibatis_,” a phrase which reminds one of “candidi nummi” in Domesday, 164.

Of the two societies which this change so deeply affected, we hear the moan of the monks of Bath in William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 195), and that of the canons of Wells in the local Historiola (22). Of Bishop John’s doings at Bath we read;

“Primo aliquantum dure in monachos agebat, quod essent
hebetes et ejus æstimatione barbari, et omnes terras,
victualium ministras, auferens, pauculumque victum per
laicos suos exiliter inferens. Sed, procedentibus annis,
factis novis monachis, mitius se agere, aliquantulum
terrarum, quo se hospitesque suos quoquomodo sustentarent,
priori indulgens. Multa ibi nobiliter per eum incepta et
consummata, in ornamentis et libris, maximeque monachorum
congregatione, qui sunt scientia literarum et sedulitate
officiorum juxta prædicabiles…. Obiit grandævus, qui nec
etiam moriens emolliri potuit, ut plena manu monachorum
terras redderet, successoribus suis non imitandum præbens
exemplum.”

The Wells tale forms a very remarkable piece of local history, the main features of which are given in the local Historiola (22), and which has been illustrated by Dr. Stubbs.

Our more general history is chiefly concerned with the undoing of the work of Gisa;

“Domiciliis quoque canonicorum quæ Gyso venerabilis
construxerat, refectorio scilicet et dormitorio necnon et
cellario et aliis officinis necessariis, cum claustro
dirutis, canonici foras ejecti coacti sunt cum populo
communiter vivere, quos Gyso docuerat regulariter et
religiose cohabitare.”

He afterwards, we are told, repented; but the canons of Wells did not recover their property till the days of Bishop Robert (1136-1166), who, though himself a monk, settled the constitution of the church of Wells after the usual pattern of secular chapters.

The later Wells writer in Anglia Sacra, i. 560, tells this story, that is the story of the Historiola, with a few further touches. We read how John, “inconsultis canonicis Wellensibus et præter eorum consensum, transtulit sedem episcopalem Wellensem in abbatiam Bathoniensem … et dimisso nomine episcopatus Wellensis, primus omnium fecit se Bathoniensem episcopum appellari.” This last charge is doubtless true; but it may be doubted whether the bishopric of the Sumorsætan, though its bishopsettle was at Wells, had ever been know by the local style of bishopric of Wells (see N. C. vol. ii. pp. 606, 608). He tells the story of the destruction of the canonical buildings, with the addition that “fundum in quo prius habitabant sibi et suis successoribus usurpavit, palatiumque suum episcopale ibidem construxit.” One is almost inclined to think that there is here some confusion between John’s two sets of victims, at Bath and at Wells. The use of the word “palatium” is later than the days of John; but he doubtless did build his chief house at Bath, and it may very likely have been at the cost of the monks. He is not at all likely, when forsaking Wells, to have built himself a house there, and, unless Bishop Robert in the next century altogether changed the site of the church, no cloister can ever have stood on the site of the present palace of Wells. Yet the building of the house supplies a motive for pulling down the cloister, which otherwise seems to be lacking.

* * * * *

The grant of the city of Bath to Bishop John was first made by William Rufus, and was afterwards confirmed by Henry the First. The first grant is recorded in the Historiola (21);

“Cum in multis et magnis obsequendo regis familiaritatem
obtineret, impetravit ab ipso sibi civitatem Bathoniæ.”

The confirmation by Henry is recorded by Florence (1122), and by William of Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. 194;

“Nec eo contentus, totam etiam civitatem in suos et
successorum usus transtulit, ab Henrico rege quingentis
libris argenti mercatus urbem, in qua balnearum calidarum
latex emergens auctorem Julium Cæsarem habuisse creditur.”

(He goes on with more about the Bath waters and the history of the place.)

The Monasticon contains several charters bearing on this matter (ii. 267, 268). There is first the charter of Rufus, addressed “O[smundo] episcopo Saresbergensi et T[urstano] abbati, Glastoniensi et A[iulfo?] vicecomiti, _omnibusque baronibus Francigenis et Anglis_ de Sumerseta et de Wiltunscire,” which grants “totam civitatem Bathoniæ in eleemosynam et ad augmentationem pontificalis sedis suæ … ut cum maximo honore pontificalem suam habeat sedem.” Then comes one of Henry’s grants at Windsor in 1101, when he says, “Renovavi donum quod fecerat frater meus Willelmus rex de civitate Bathoniæ, et eamdem civitatem donavi Deo et beato Petro apostolo et Johanni episcopo, cum omnibus consuetudinibus et appendiciis quæ ad ipsum pertinent, civitatem constitui et concessi, ut ibi deinceps sit caput et mater ecclesia totius episcopatus de Sumersete.”

Another charter of Henry, confirming various privileges, is granted at Bishop’s Waltham in 1111 “in transitu regis in Normanniam” (see the Chronicle, 1111, and N. C. vol. v. p. 182). It says, “Eam donationem quam donavi Deo et sancto Petro in Batha, ubi frater meus Willielmus et ego constituimus et confirmavimus sedem episcopatus totius Summersetæ, quæ olim erat apud villam quæ dicitur Wella, scilicet ipsam urbem et omnia pertinentia ad firmam ejusdem civitatis, dono et confirmo ipsi Domino nostro Jesu Christo et beato apostolo Petro et Johanni episcopo ejusque successoribus jure perpetuo et hæreditario.”

Another from Geddington in 1102 is addressed to a string of great men, “omnibusque baronibus Francigenis et Angligenis de Sumerset et de omni Anglia.”

The wording of these charters illustrates a crowd of points which we have come across at various times, as the name of the land of Somerset, the use of “jus hæreditarium,” and specially the “barones [þegnas] Angligenæ.” Among the signatures the charter of 1111 has the unsigned names of two Romans, “Johannes Tusculanus episcopus” and “Tyberius dapifer et legatus.” (This Tiberius is spoken of again in a letter of Anselm to Gundulf, Ep. iii. 85, and in a letter to King Henry, iii. 86, therefore before 1108, the date of Gundulf’s death, but after the promotion of Gerard to the archbishopric of York; he was in England on business about the Romescot.) The second has the name of “Johannes Baiocensis,” seemingly the son of Bishop Odo. Naturally neither King makes any mention of the five hundred pounds which, according to William of Malmesbury, the Bishop paid for the grant.

Lastly, there is Bishop John’s charter of 1106 (“regnante Henrico filio magni Willelmi _Northmannorum ducis_ et Anglorum regis”), which records his own acts, and makes some restitution at least to the monks;

“Notum vobis facio quod ad honorem Dei et sancti Petri
elaboravi et ad effectum perduxi, _cum decenti auctoritate_,
ut caput et mater ecclesia totius episcopatus de Sumerseta
sit in urbe Bathonia in ecclesia S. Petri. Cui beato
apostolo et servitoribus ejus monachis reddidi terras eorum
quas aliquamdiu injuste tenueram in manu mea, ita integre et
libere sicut Alsius abbas ante me tenuit.”

He grants them certain lands which he had bought, amongst others the estate of Hugh or Hugolin with the Beard, a purchase mentioned also in the Historiola, where the price is given at sixty pounds. A comparison of the three places in Domesday 49 _b_, 50 _b_, and 99 seems to show that Mr. Hunter (p. 38) is right in making “Hugo barbatus” in Hampshire and “Hugolinus interpres” the same man. But he leaves out his third description in 50 _b_ as “Hugo latinarius.” It is some comfort to learn from Mr. Hunter that the “taini regis” were “a very respectable class;” but it is perhaps more important to note that we have here a “tainus Francigena” to match the “barones Angligenæ.” Some of Hugh’s lands had been held of Earl Tostig by one Siward.

* * * * *

In the Monasticon (ii. 264) and the Codex Diplomaticus (vi. 209-211) are some English documents, chiefly sales and manumissions, done at Bath in the days of Abbot Ælfsige and Bishop John. As usual in these private documents, there is a great mixture of Norman and English names among the signatures. Take such a list as this in Cod. Dipl. vi. 210;

“Osward preóst, and Willelm ðe clerce, and Hugo ðe
postgerefa, and Beóring, and Leófríc, and Heoðewulf, and
Burchhard, and Wulwi, and Geosfræi, and Ælfword ðe smið, and
Eádwi se rédes sune, and Rodberd ðe Frencisce.”

Here we have one of our puzzling Domesday Ælfreds (see N. C. v. 737, 777) witnessing a manumission of Bishop John;

“Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc ðæt Lifgið æt Forda is
gefreód and hire twa cild for ðone biscop Iohanne and for
ealne ðone hired on Baðon on Ælfredes gewitnesse Aspania.”

Again in Monasticon, ii. 265 (cf. p. 269), we have a somewhat puzzling mention of an Abbot Wulfwold as well as Ælfsige;

“Her geswytelað on þysan gewrite þa forefarde þa Willelm
Hosatt geworhte wið Wlfwold abbod, and wið Ælfsige abbod and
wið eall þone hired on Baðan.”

All this must be a little startling to those who believe that the Conqueror ordered all documents to be drawn up in French.

There is also a Latin document printed in the Archæological Journal, No. 145, p. 83, in which William of Moion, the first Norman lord of Dunster, grants the church of Dunster to Bishop John and his monks (“ecclesiæ beati Petri de Bathonia et Johanni _episcopo ejusdem monasterii_ et monachis tam præsentibus quam futuris”). William of Moion’s witnesses seem to be all Normans; but we get some English names among those on the part of the Bishop; “Gireuuardus monachus et Girebertus archidiaconus et Dunstanus sacerdos et Gillebertus sacerdos et Willelmus clericus et Adelardus dapifer et Turaldus et Sabianus.”

There is a letter of Anselm (Ep. iii. 151) addressed to John Prior of Bath and the monks, but it contains no historical information. John was the first Prior after the change of foundation.

NOTE G. Vol. i. p. 144.

THE CHARACTER OF WILLIAM RUFUS.

Some of the main points in the character of William Rufus are not badly hit off by Giraldus (de Inst. Princ. iii. 30), though there are features on which he does not dwell;

“Erat rex ille strenuus in armis et animosus, sed tyrannus,
adeo militiam diligens ecclesiamque Dei exosam habens ut
monasteria cuncta domosque religiosas ab Anglis olim per
Angliam fundatas et ditatas, cum terris omnibus et
possessionibus, vel ex majori mutilare vel in militares
feodos convertere proposuisset.”

These last words are of importance for another part of our inquiry (see p. 346); but the general phrase “militiam diligens,” a phrase capable of more meanings than one, is, in all its meanings, strictly applicable to Rufus.

Part of the character of him given by the Hyde writer (299) has been already quoted (see p. 353). He is brought in as follows, with the further note that he was “nimis amator pecuniæ;”

“Willelmus rex animo ferus, corpore strenuus, defensor quidem patriæ cœpit esse, sed non satis idoneus procreator [protector? or is a “nursing-father” meant?] ecclesiæ. Si enim ita studeret religioni quam vanæ curiositati, nullus ei profecto deberet princeps comparari.”

Geoffrey Gaimar (Chron. Ang. Norm. i. 30) brings him on the stage with some respect;

“Willam out non come son père,
Et cil refut mult allosé.
Englois, Normanz, l’ont honuré;
Tant come le duc ala conquere,
Le firent roi en Engleterre;
Et il la tint et bien regna,
Normanz, Englois, fort justisa,
Tote la terre mist en peès.”

(For “honuré” another reading is “coroné.”) He then goes on to the war in Maine, so closely that he reaches Seez on his march soon enough for the name of that city to rime with “peès.”

But, after the picture in the Chronicles (1100), the character of William Rufus is best studied in the two works of William of Malmesbury. On the account in the Gesta Regum I have of course drawn largely; it is in fact, with some help from Orderic, our main storehouse. The tone which its writer takes throughout is very remarkable; he tries to make the best of things without directly contradicting the facts. In his prologue to the fourth book he complains of the difficulty, one which has not lessened since his time, of telling the exact truth about recent matters, especially when kings are concerned; and he at last lays down a rule which would forbid any _suggestio falsi_, but would allow a good deal of _suppressio veri_;

“Dicam in hoc libro … quidquid de Willelmo filio Willelmi
magni dici poterit, ita ut nec veritas rerum titubet, _nec
principalis decoloretur majestas_.”

He brings William Rufus in in the beginning of the book itself;

“Incomparabilis proculdubio nostro tempore princeps, si non
eum magnitudo patris obrueret, nec ejus juventutem fata
præcipitassent, ne per ætatem maturiorem aboleret errores
licentia potestatis et impetu juvenili contractos.”

Certainly Rufus, like many other sinners, might have reformed; but the charitable hope is made less likely by the general witness, including that of the writer himself, that he grew worse and worse. For William of Malmesbury (iv. 312) says himself;

“Excellebat in eo magnanimitas, quam ipse processu temporis
nimia severitate obfuscavit; ita in ejus furtim pectus vitia
pro virtutibus serpebant ut discernere nequiret. Diu
dubitavit mundus quo tandem vergeret, quo se inclinaret,
indoles illius. Inter initia, vivente Lanfranco
archiepiscopo, ab omni crimine abhorrebat, ut unicum fore
regum speculum speraretur; quo defuncto, aliquamdiu varium
se præstitit æquali lance vitiorum atque virtutum, jam vero,
postremis annis bonorum gelante studio, incommodorum seges
succrescens incaluit. Et erat ita liberalis quod prodigus,
ita magnanimus quod superbus, ita severus quod sævus. Liceat
enim mihi, pace majestatis regiæ, verum non occuluisse, quia
iste parum Deum reverebatur, nihil homines.”

He then gives some details, most of which I have quoted already, and adds an elaborate discourse on real and false liberality. He is obliged to allow (ib. 313) that the liberality of William Rufus was of the latter kind;

“Quidam, cum non habeant quod dent, ad rapinas convertuntur,
majusque odium assequuntur ab his quibus auferunt quam
beneficium ab his quibus contulerunt; _quod huic regi
accidisse dolemus_.”

Some way on, after more about his liberality, followed by the description of the vices of the court, of which more anon, and a short reference to Anselm and Eadmer, comes (iv. 316) a most singular passage;

“Vides quantus e liberalitate quam putabat fomes malorum
eruperit. In quibus corrigendis quia ipse non tam exhibuit
diligentiam quam prætendebat negligentiam, magnam et vix
abolendam incurrit infamiam; immerito, credo, quia nunquam
se tali supponeret probro qui se tanto meminisset prælatum
imperio. Hæc igitur ideo inelaborato et celeri sermone
convolvo, quia de tanto rege mala dicere erubesco, in
dejiciendis et extenuandis malis laborans.”

Then come the anecdotes, the annals of the reign, and the account of the King’s death. Then (iv. 333) we get another small picture of him, how he was

“Ingentia præsumens, et ingentia, si pensa Parcarum evolvere
vel violentiam fortunæ abrumpere et eluctari potuisset,
facturus.”

Lastly, he is dismissed with this general character;

“Vir sacrati ordinis hominibus, pro damno animæ cujus
salutem revocare laborent, maxime miserandus; stipendiariis
militibus pro copia donativorum mirandus; provincialibus,
quod eorum substantias abradi sinebat, non desiderandus.”

The _Gesta Regum_ was the courtly book, written for courtly readers, and dedicated to Earl Robert, the Red King’s nephew. The subject demanded that the writer should say something about the Red King; he had no mind to tell actual lies; so he made the best of him that he could without telling any. But William of Malmesbury also wrote the _Gesta Pontificum_ for ecclesiastical readers. In that book bishops were the main subject; kings came in only incidentally. But, when he did speak of them, he was not under the same necessity as he was in his other work of speaking of them with bated breath. In this work he treated William Rufus very much as he treated several bishops, William’s own Flambard among them. He first wrote a most severe character of him, and then cut it out altogether. The passages which thus perished in the second edition are printed in Mr. Hamilton’s notes, pp. 73, 79, 84, 104. In the first place (73) he tells us how the King, “abjecto respectu omnis boni, omnia ecclesiastica in fiscum redegit.” He was “juvenili calore et regio fastu præfervidus, humana divinaque juxta ponderans et sui juris æstimans.” But he has spoken of his ways elsewhere――doubtless in the _Gesta Regum_――he will now speak of them only as occasion serves. In the next place (79) he wrote at first;

“Licet nulla Dei consideratio, nulla cujuscunque hominis
sanctitas, ejus proterviam sedare possent, adeo cuncta quæ
sibi dicebantur vel turbida ira vel facetis, ut sibi
videbatur, salibus eludebat.”

This was too strong; in the second edition things are put in another light;

“Hoc in rege magnificum videri debet, quod qui omnia pro
potestate facere posset, magis quædam joco eludebat, ad
sales multa extra judicium animi transferens.”

The third passage (84) comes in the story of Anselm; the part of it which concerns us here runs thus;

“Rex in eum [Anselmum] et in omnes venabatur lites,
commentabatur caussas quibus congregaret pecunias. In
exactionibus sævus, in male partis dispertiendo prodigus,
ibi harpyiarum ungues, hic Cleopatræ luxum, in utroque
impudentiam prætendens. Si quis ei sponte quid obtulisset,
nisi quantitas dati suæ conveniret menti, statim obliquo
intuitu exterrebat quoad illum ad quas liberet doni
conditiones adduceret.”

The last passage (104) also comes in the story of Anselm. William’s character is thus drawn;

“Protervus et arrogans, æque in Deum ut in homines rebellis,
religioni Christianæ magis ex usu quam amore addictus, ut
qui plures Judæos Christianos factos ad Judaismum pecuniis
corruptus revocaret. Omnia fato agi credulus, nullum
sanctorum nos posse adjuvare credebat et dicebat, subinde
increpitans et dicens, scilicet ea cura jam olim mortuos
sollicitat ut nostris intersint negotiis. Proindeque, si ab
apostolico excommunicaretur, in secundis haberet, qui
quantum suæ conscientiæ interesset, non multum curaret si
totis annis sacramentorum expers esset.”

This last passage is remarkable, as seeming to show that Rufus rather wondered that he was not excommunicated (see p. 611). And one wonders too, on reading this passage and some others (see p. 166), that no controversialist has ever claimed Rufus as a premature Protestant. Even Sir Richard Baker, a yet more loyal apologist than the author of the _Gesta Regum_, did not hit upon that.

William of Malmesbury then goes on to tell the story of the accused deer-stealers――doubtless from Eadmer, to whom he so often refers――and then gives some reasons for not enlarging further on the evil doings of Rufus. One is “quod non debeam defunctum meo premere judicio qui habet judicem præfata [sic], cui judicanti omnis attremit creatura.” The other is that it is better, for the sake of edification, to pass by evil doings, especially some kinds of evil doings; “Adulterium discitur dum narratur, et omne crimen faciendum menti male inculcatur, dum qualiter ab alio factum sit studiosius explicatur.”

* * * * *

Orderic is in this case less elaborate in his portrait-painting than William of Malmesbury. Some of his sayings bearing on the character of William Rufus have been already quoted. He sometimes brings him in, after his fashion, with some epithet, appropriate or quaint――“liberalis rex,” “turgidus rex,” “pomposus sceptriger,” and the like. But he twice gives something like a full-length picture. The first is at 680 A;

“In diebus illis lucerna veræ sanctitatis obscurius micabat
pene cunctis in ordinibus, mundique principes cum subjectis
agminibus inhærebant tenebrosis operibus. Guillelmus Rufus
Albionis rex juvenis erat protervus et lascivus, quem nimis
inhianter prosequebantur agmina populorum impudicis moribus.
Imperiosus et audax atque militaris erat, et multitudine
militum pompose tripudiabat. Militiæ titulis applaudebat,
illisque propter fastum secularem admodum favebat. Pagenses
contra milites defendere negligebat, quorum possessiones a
suis tironibus et armigeris impune devastari permittebat.
Tenacis memoriæ et ardentis ad bonum seu malum voluntatis
erat. Terribilis furibus et latrunculis imminebat, pacemque
serenam per subjectam regionem servari valenter cogebat.
Omnes incolas regni sui aut illexit largitate, aut
compressit virtute et terrore, ut nullus contra eum auderet
aliquo modo mutire.”

This comes just before the pious and humane speech (see p. 223), in which Rufus proposes the first war in Normandy. Towards the end of the reign of Rufus (763 C), Orderic takes up his brush again;

“Guillelmus Ruffus, militia clarus, post mortem patris in
Anglia regnavit, rebelles sibi fortiter virga justitiæ
compressit, et xii. annis ac x. mensibus ad libitum suum
omnes suæ ditioni subjugavit. Militibus et exteris largus
erat, sed pauperes incolas regni sui nimis opprimebat, et
illis violenter auferebat quæ prodigus advenis tribuebat.
Multi sub ipso patris sui proceres obierunt, qui proavis
suis extraneum jus bellicose vendicaverunt, pro quibus
nonnullos degeneres in locis magnatorum restituit, et amplis
pro adulationis merito datis honoribus sublimavit. Legitimam
conjugem nunquam habuit, sed obscœnis fornicationibus et
frequentibus mœchiis inexplebiliter inhæsit, flagitiisque
pollutus exemplum turpis lasciviæ subjectis damnabiliter
exhibuit.”

There is also an earlier passage (669 A) which sets forth how William kept the peace of the land. He records the surrender of Rochester, and adds;

“Omnium qui contra pacem enses acceperant nequam commotio
compressa est. Nam iniqui et omnes malefactores, ut audaciam
regis et fortitudinem viderunt, quia prædas et cædes aliaque
facinora cum aviditate amplexati fuerant, contremuerunt, nec
postea xii. annis quibus regnavit mutire ausi fuerunt. Ipse
autem callide se habuit et vindictæ tempus opportunum
exspectavit.”

This of course refers to disturbers on a larger scale than common robbers. But one law applied to all. King William kept down all evil-doers, save himself and his own company.

Henry of Huntingdon (vii. 22) mainly translates the Chronicle; but he adds some touches of his own, and strengthens some of the epithets, “invisus rex nequissimus et Deo et populo,” &c. His general picture is;

“Nec respirare potuit Anglia miserabiliter suffocata. Cum
autem omnia raperent et subverterent qui regi famulabantur,
ita ut adulteria violenter et impune committerent, quicquid
antea nequitiæ pullulaverat in perfectum excrevit, et
quicquid antea non fuerat his temporibus pullulavit.”

He makes also, improving the words of the Chronicler, an important addition;

“Quicquid Deo Deumque diligentibus displicebat hoc regi
regemque diligentibus placebat. Nec luxuriæ scelus tacendum
exercebant occulte, sed ex impudentia coram sole.”

This represents the English words (Chron. Petrib. 1100), “And þeah þe ic hit lang ylde, eall þet þe Gode wæs lað and rihtfulle mannan, eall þæt wæs gewunelic on þisan lande on his tyman.”

Somewhat later again the discerning William of Newburgh (i. 2) thus paints the Red King;

“Factum est ut … Willelmus in principio infirmius
laboriosiusque imperaret, et ad conciliandos sibi animos
subditorum modestior mitiorque appareret. At postquam,
perdomitis hostibus et fratre mollius agente, roboratum est
regnum ejus, exaltatum est illico cor ejus, apparuitque,
succedentibus prosperis, qualis apud se latuisset dum
premeretur adversis. Homo vecors et inconstans in omnibus
viis suis; Deo indevotus et ecclesiæ gravis, nuptiarum
spernens et passim lasciviens, opes regni vanissima
effusione exhauriens, et eisdem deficientibus subditorum
fortunas in hoc ipsum corradens. Homo typo immanissimæ
superbiæ turgidus, et usque ad nauseam vel etiam derisionem
doctrinæ evangelicæ, temporalis gloriæ fœdissima voluptate
absorptus.”

This description, after all, is very much that of William of Malmesbury translated into less courtly language. The “magnanimitas” has now fully developed into “immanissima superbia.”

* * * * *

From putting together all these descriptions we get the portrait of William Rufus as one of those tyrants who keep a monopoly of tyranny for themselves and their immediate servants. He puts down other offenders, and strictly keeps the general peace of the land. His justice, in the technical sense, is strong, with of course the special exceptions hinted at by William of Malmesbury (see p. 143). There is no charge of cruelty in his own person; but he allows his immediate followers, his courtiers and mercenaries, to do any kind of wrong without punishment. He oppresses the nation at large by exactions for the pay of his mercenaries. He is withal a warlike and chivalrous king. We must take in the full sense of phrases like “militiam diligens,” which mean more than simply “warlike;” the technical sense of “miles” and “militia” often comes in. He was bountiful to his mercenaries, and generally lavish. He was renowned for a quality called “magnanimitas.” He was irreligious and blasphemous. Lastly, he and his immediate company were noticed for specially foul lives, of a kind, it would seem, out-doing the every-day vices of mankind.

Some of these points call for a more special notice. The “magnanimitas” of William of Malmesbury is not exactly “magnanimity” in the modern sense, which generally means a certain grand and stately kind of mercy. The magnanimous man nowadays chiefly shows his magnanimity, not so much in forgiving wrongs as in passing them by without notice; they have hardly moved him enough for forgiveness to come in. There is something approaching to this in the “magnanimitas Willelmi” (iv. 309) shown to the knight who unhorsed him before Saint Michael’s Mount (see p. 289). But the “præclara magnanimitas” (iv. 320) shown in his voyage to Touques is of another kind. Then it is that we have the wonderful comparison, or rather identification of William Rufus and Cæsar, of which more in a later note (see Note PP). William of Malmesbury clearly means the word for praise; and it is at least not meant for dispraise when Suger, at the beginning of his life of Lewis (Duchèsne, iv. 283), speaks of “egregie magnanimus rex Anglorum Guillelmus, magnanimioris Guillelmi regis filius Anglorum domitoris.” But the word seems to have reached a bad sense when (p. 302) Count Odo is called “tumultuosus, _miræ magnanimitatis_, caput sceleratorum” (see N. C. vol. v. p. 74). And it is surely a fault, though it seems to be recorded with admiration, that the first Percy who held Alnwick “fuit vir magnanimus, quia noluit injuriam pati ab aliquo sine gravi vindicta” (see the Chronicle of Alnwick in the second volume of the Archæological Institute at Newcastle, Appendix, p. v). And, as it is not exactly our “magnanimous,” neither is it exactly the μεγαλόψυχος [megalopsychos] of Aristotle (Eth. iv. 3)――ὁ μεγάλων αὐτὸν ἀξιῶν ἄξιος ὤν [ho megalôn auton axiôn axios ôn]――though it comes nearer to it. William of Malmesbury’s “magnanimus” is perhaps Aristotle’s μεγαλόψυχος [megalopsychos] verging towards the χαῦνος [chaunos]. The essence of the character is self-esteem, self-confidence; a step will change him from William’s “magnanimus” into Orderic’s “turgidus.” And this comes pretty much to the τετυφωμένος [tetyphômenos] of the New Testament (2 Tim. iii. 4), who is not unlike William Rufus, only that he has at least a μόρφωσις ὐσεβείας [morphôsis eusebeias]. Here our version has “high-minded”―― the Revised Version has “puffed up”――just as in the departed service for January 30 the slayers of Charles the First were called “high-minded” by those who certainly did not mean to praise them. This again is not quite the “magnanimitas” with which we have to do, which is still a virtue, though a dangerous one. Perhaps we may say that William the King really was “high-minded” in this sense, and that William the monk used a slightly ambiguous word, in order to pass him off for “high-minded” in the other sense.

* * * * *

The mercenary soldiers, the excesses wrought by them, and the extortion by which their pay and largesse were supplied, all come out in the words of the Chronicler that the land was vexed “mid here and mid ungylde.” That they were chiefly foreigners appears from Orderic’s phrase “advenæ,” which is doubtless opposed, not only to the “Angli naturales,” but to the companions of the Conqueror and their sons. The “advenæ” are opposed to the “incolæ,” whether the “incolæ” have been settled for one generation or twenty. So says William of Malmesbury (iv. 314);

“Excitabat ergo totum occidentem fama largitatis ejus,
orientem usque pertendens; veniebant ad eum milites ex omni
quæ citra montes est provincia, quos ipse profusissimis
expensis munerabat; itaque cum defecisset quod daret, inops
et exhaustus ad lucra convertit animum.”

Of their doings he tells us that, “soluta militari disciplina, curiales rusticorum substantias depascebantur, insumebant fortunas.” But the fullest account of their misdeeds is that given by Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 94), when he records the statute passed by Henry, when he and Anselm give their minds “qualiter aliquo modo mala quæ pauperes maxime deprimebant mitigarentur.”

“Tempore siquidem fratris sui regis hunc morem multitudo
eorum qui curiam ejus sequebantur habebat, ut quæque
pessumdarent, diriperent, et, nulla eos cohibente
disciplina, totam terram per quam rex ibat devastarent.
Accedebat his aliud malum; plurimi namque eorum sua malitia
debriati dum reperta in hospitiis quæ invadebant, penitus
absumere non valebant, ea aut ad forum per eosdem ipsos
quorum erant pro suo lucro ferre et vendere, aut supposito
igne cremare, aut si potus esset, lotis exinde equorum
suorum pedibus, residuum illius per terram effundere, aut
certe alio aliquo modo disperdere solebant. Quæ vero in
patres-familias crudelia, quæ in uxores et filias eorum
indecentia, fecerint, reminisci pudet. Has ob causas quiqui,
præcognito regis adventu, sua habitacula fugiebant, sibi
suisque quantum valebant in silvis vel aliis locis in quibus
se tutari posse sperebant, consulentes.”

Here doubtless the misdeeds of courtiers, soldiers, and camp-followers, are all mixed together; but all were in the train of the King. In short, the march of the second William through his own kingdom must have done at least as much harm as the march of the first William when he was only seeking to make it his kingdom. All these horrors undoubtedly fell on the native English more heavily than on anybody else; only I see no reason to think that, when the houses of a small English and a small Norman landowner, or the houses of the English and Norman tenants of a great landowner, stood near together, the Norman house would be respected, while the English house was plundered. The plunderers would hardly touch the house of Thurkill of Warwick any more than that of Roger of Ivry; but, among their smaller neighbours, William and Matilda would hardly fare better than Godric and Godgifu. Indeed William of Malmesbury a little further on (iv. 319) speaks of the general oppression of Rufus as one that touched all classes, “Non pauperem tenuitas, non opulentum copia, tuebatur.”

The mercenaries of the days of Rufus forestall the mercenaries of the days of Stephen and John; but, unless we are to reckon a man of the rank of Walter Tirel, we do not get such a clear notion of any particular persons among them. The phrase of Orderic, in one of the passages already quoted (see above, p. 495), about the promotion of “degeneres” in the room of the nobles of the Conqueror’s day might make us think that some of them were put in high places. But no such instances seem to be recorded. And the word “restituit” might suggest the restoration of native Englishmen, a process which may really (see p. 88) have happened to some extent after the suppression of the rebellion in 1088. But “Ordericus Angligena” would never speak of the “Angli naturales” as “degeneres.”

* * * * *

The dress, manners, and morals of the court of William Rufus stand out clearly in several descriptions. “Tunc effeminati passim in orbe dominabantur” says Orderic (682 B, cf. 781 D), following the remark with stronger and plainer words. He is eloquent on their womanish fashion of dressing and wearing the hair;

“Ritus heroum abjiciebant, hortamenta sacerdotum deridebant,
barbaricumque morem in habitu et vita tenebant. Nam capillos
a vertice in frontem discriminabant, longos crines velut
mulieres nutriebant et summopere curabant, prolixisque
nimiumque strictis camisiis indui tunicisque gaudebant. Omne
tempus quidam usurpabant, et extra legem Dei moremque
patrium pro libitu suo ducebant…. In diebus istis veterum
ritus pene totus novis adinventionibus commutatus est.
Femineam mollitiem petulans juventus amplectitur, feminisque
viri curiales in omni lascivia summopere adulantur…. Humum
pulverulentam interularum et palliorum superfluo scirmate
verrunt, longis latisque manicis ad omnia facienda manus
operiunt; et his superfluitatibus onusti celeriter ambulare
vel aliquid utiliter operari vix possunt. Sincipite
scalciati sunt ut fures, occipite autem prolixas nutriunt
comas ut meretrices…. Crispant crines calamistro. Caput
velant vitta sine pileo. Vix aliquis militarium procedit in
publicum capite discooperto legitimeque secundum apostoli
præceptum tonso.”

Yet, with all this aping of female manners, the gallants of Rufus’ court did in one respect follow the law of masculine nature more closely than their immediate _antecessores_, either Norman or English;

“Nunc pene universi populares cerriti sunt et barbatuli,
palam manifestantes specimine tali quod sordibus libidinis
gaudent, ut fœtentes hirci.”

Bishop Serlo in the sermon (816 A, B) enlarges on this last comparison with much greater strength of language; and brings in another likeness, and a reason which certainly has an odd sound;

“Barbas suas radere devitant, ne pili suas in osculis amicas
præcisi pungant, et setosi Saracenos magis se quam
Christianos simulant.”

Seemingly the shaving of the ancient heroes of Normandy was but rare, perhaps weekly, like the bath of their Danish forefathers (see N. C. vol. i. p. 651).

Of the long hair, and what Anselm thought of it, we hear again in the course of our story (see p. 449). William of Malmesbury also (iv. 314) has his say about the courtiers;

“Tunc fluxus crinium, tunc luxus vestium, tunc usus
calceorum cum arcuatis aculeis inventus; mollitie corporis
certare cum feminis, gressum frangere, gestu soluto et
latere nudo incedere, adolescentium specimen erat. Enerves,
emolliti, quod nati fuerant inviti manebant, expugnatores
alienæ pudicitiæ, prodigi suæ. Sequebantur curiam
effeminatorum manus et ganearum greges.”

A various reading in a note in Sir T. D. Hardy’s edition is stronger still.

In the Life of Wulfstan (Anglia Sacra, ii. 254) William tells us of the strictness of that saint in this matter, in which he gave Bishop Serlo his model;

“Ille vitiosos, et præsertim eos qui crinem pascerent,
insectari, quorum si qui sibi verticem supponerent, ipse
suis manibus comam lascivientem secaret. Habebat ad hoc
parvum cultellum, quo vel excrementa unguium vel sordes
librorum purgare consueverat. Hoc cæsariei libabat
primitias, injungens per obedientiam, ut capillorum
ceterorum series ad eandem complanarentur concordiam. Si qui
repugnandum putarent, eis palam exprobrare mollitiem, palam
mala minari.”

But it is rather hard when William of Malmesbury forgets that all this belongs to the last years of Wulfstan’s episcopate and not to the first, and when he goes on to say that the fashion of wearing long hair led to a decay of military prowess in England, and thereby to the Norman Conquest. This can be paralleled only with those astounding notions of Matthew Paris about our beards which I have spoken of in N. C. vol. iv. p. 686.

As the practice could be put down for a moment only, whether by Wulfstan, Anselm, or Serlo, William has to come back to it again in the Historia Novella, i. 4, where he tells of a momentary reform in 1129. See Sir T. D. Hardy’s note.

Some of these descriptions carry us back to earlier times, as to the picture of the “molles” at Carthage down to Saint Augustine’s day (Civ. Dei, vii. 26), “qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis, facie dealbata, fluentibus membris, incessu femineo, per plateas vicosque Carthaginis etiam a populis unde turpiter viverent exigebant” (only the “molles” of the Red King’s day took what they would by force). Cf. Lucan, i. 164;

“Cultus gestare decoros
Vix nuribus rapuere mares.”

About the shoes much has been written, and the fashion, in one shape or another, seems to have lasted for several ages. Orderic is quite as wrathful at this seemingly harmless folly, as he is at the other evil fashions which seem more serious. But perhaps the force lies in the passage where he says (682 C), “Pedum articulis, _ubi finis est corporis_, colubrinarum similitudinem caudarum imponunt, quas velut scorpiones præ oculis suis prospiciunt.” The practice seems to have been looked on as a profane attempt to improve the image of God, an argument which surely told no less strongly against the practice of the ancient heroes when they shaved themselves. With Count Fulk (682 A) one cannot help feeling some sympathy. “Quia pedes habebat deformes, instituit sibi fieri longos et in summitate acutissimos subtolares, ita ut operiret pedes, et eorum celaret tubera quæ vulgo vocantur uniones.” Yet this is very gravely set down among his many evil deeds. Then seemingly another stage took place, when (682 B) “Robertus quidam nebulo in curia Rufi regis prolixas pigacias primus cepit implere stuppis, et hinc inde contorquere instar cornu arietis. Ob hoc ipse Cornardus cognominatus est.”

* * * * *

A number of hints in the above passages seem to show us that the vices of Rufus were literally the works of darkness, works which even his own more outspoken age shrank from dwelling on in detail. It is hardly a metaphor when Orderic says (680 A), “In diebus illis lucerna veræ sanctitatis obscurius micabat.” For, among the reforms of Henry the First (Will. Malms. v. 393), “effeminatos curia propellens, lucernarum usum noctibus in curia restituit, qui fuerat tempore fratris intermissus.” That Henry the First could be looked on as a moral reformer is the best sign of what he had to reform. Henry, with his crowd of mistresses and bastards, is described as loathing the profligacies (“obscœnitates,” a word which seems used in a special sense) of his brother (Will. Malms. iv. 314, and specially the wonderful passage, v. 412, as to the force of which there can be no doubt), and as making it his first business on his accession to clear the court of its foulest abuses. (Cf. Mrs. Hutchinson’s account of Charles the First’s reforms, i. 127.) We must remember that no mistresses or children of Rufus are mentioned or hinted at. Orderic’s phrase of “mœchus rex” is quite vague, perhaps euphemistic, and when the Welsh chronicler (Ann. Camb. 1100) says that “concubinis usus, sine liberis obiit,” he may be sheltering himself under an ambiguous word. In the Chronicle of Hugh of Flavigny (Pertz, viii. 496) is a strange legend of what the writer truly calls “inauditum seculis omnibus monstrum,” but one which could not have been devised except in the state of things which William of Malmesbury and Eadmer describe. After all (see Hen. Hunt. vii. 32; N. C. vol. v. p. 195), the reform wrought by Henry seems to have been only for a season. It is some slight comfort to hear from the mouth of Anselm, in his first protest to the King (Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 24), that the presence of Eastern vices in England was something new――“noviter in hac terram divulgatum.”

* * * * *

Of the blasphemies of William Rufus several instances have been given in the text. He had also, like everybody else of his time, his own special oath. As his father swore “par la resplendar Dé,” as other kings swore “per oculos Dei,” “per pedes Dei,” “per dentes Dei,” William Rufus swears (“sic enim jurabat,” says William of Malmesbury, iv. 309) “per vultum Dei,” or more commonly “per vultum de Luca.” Some of the older writers oddly mistook this for an oath by Saint Luke’s face. But the true meaning of the “vultus de Luca” was long ago explained by Ducange under the word “vultus,” where he refers to the then manuscript “Otia Imperialia” of Gervase of Tilbury, iii. 24, which will be found in Leibnitz’s collection of Brunswick writers, i. 967. The “vultus Lucanus” was held to have been made by Nicodemus from the impression of our Lord’s face taken on linen immediately after the crucifixion. This it was by which the Red King swore. In French the oath takes the form “Li vo de Luche” (Roman de Rou, line 14920). M. Charles de Rémusat (St. Anselme de Cantorbéry, 133) remarks, “Il se peut même que ce ne soit pas précisément celui de Lucques; car on appela Saint Voult-de-Lucques, vulgairement et par corruption Saint Godeln, tout crucifix habillé semblable à celui-là tel que ceux qu’on voyait jadis à Saint-Etienne-de-Sens, au Sépulcre à Paris.” But it is strange that Lappenberg (Geschichte von England, ii. 172), when telling the story of the Red King’s “magnanimitas” before Saint Michael’s Mount (see p. 289 and Appendix N), brings in the oath “per vultum de Luca” in Wace’s story, where it is not found, in the form “bei dem heiligen Antlitz zu Lucca,” and afterwards in William of Malmesbury’s story in the form “bei St. Lucca’s Antlitz.”

NOTE H. Vol. i. p. 168.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFACTIONS OF WILLIAM RUFUS.

I think that an examination of the cases in which William Rufus has the credit of an ecclesiastical benefactor will show that in most of them, if not in all, there is a direct or implied reference to the memory of his father. In the case of Battle and Saint Stephen’s this is plain on the surface. Of his moveable gifts to Battle some have been mentioned already (see p. 18); he also gave (Chron. de Bello, 40) considerable gifts in real property, specially the royal manor of Bromham in Wiltshire, valued at forty pounds yearly. One year’s income then was to be got back by converting the young Jew back to Judaism (see p. 163). At the dedication of Battle he gave (Chron. de Bello, 41; Mon. Angl. iii. 246) a number of churches, “pro anima patris mei regis Willielmi, et matris et omnium parentum nostrorum qui ibi in bello ceciderunt, et aliorum omnium.” The local writer, who records none of his evil deeds, gives him this character (42);

“Tantopere memoratus rex eandem amabat, excolebat,
tuebaturque ecclesiam, ejusque dignitates et regales
consuetudines conservabat, ut quemadmodum patris ejus
tempore nullus ei adeo adversari præsumeret, ipse quoque
quotiens casu vicinia peteret, ex dilectionis abundantia
sæpius eam revisere, fovere, et consolari solitus fuerat.”

As for Saint Stephen’s, there is a charter in Neustria Pia, 638, of William Rufus of 1088 granting various lands in England, among them Coker in Somerset and Wells in Norfolk, with the church of Corsham in Wiltshire and other tithes. The signatures show that it is very carelessly copied or printed; but among them is “Willelmus cancellarius,” that is, William Giffard, afterwards Bishop of Winchester; see vol. ii. p. 349. We read how “glorioso patri gloriosus filius Willelmus in regnum successit,” and how he made his gifts, “prædicti cœnobii utilitati prospiciens, habito procerum et religiosarum personarum Angliæ et Normanniæ consilio.”

The Waltham writer (De Inv. c. 22) has another way of looking at things. Of the Conqueror he speaks most respectfully, but adds;

“Successit ei filius Willelmus Ruphus cognomento, hæres
quidem beneficiorum, sed degener morum, cui breves annos
credimus indultos, quia concessis sibi beneficiis a Domino
minus aptus nec ecclesiæ devotus sicut expediret, nec
justitiæ strenuus executor, sed vir desideriorum eisque
indulgens semper exstitit.”

The wrongs which Rufus did to Waltham are told with great fervour of declamation; and specially why he did them, namely,

“Vilia censens Anglorum instituta, nec eousque valitura quin
eis eligeret ditare prædecessorum sepulturas, et ecclesiam
Cadomensem ex rapina ornare, et spoliis Walthamensis
ecclesiæ salubre remedium credens animarum patris et matris
ibi quiescentium, si de alieno et quasi ab uno altari
distracto aliud ornatur, et quasi munus gratum et valde
preciosum alicui patri offerantur præcisa proprii membra
filii.”

The words about English customs are meant, with whatever truth, to contrast William the Red with his father, who is praised for observing them. The plunder transferred from Waltham to Caen consisted of moveable wealth of every kind, among other things books, valued altogether at the incredible sum of 6666 pounds. The King afterwards repented, and, though the spoil stayed in the two minsters at Caen, he gave back, after the death of Bishop William of Durham (who is confounded with Walcher), that is in 1096 or later, during the vacancy, the lands which had been given to the bishopric (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 664). Dr. Stubbs (p. 50) prints a writ of William Rufus addressed “vicecomitibus suis et ministris [þegnas],” confirming to the canons of Waltham all “terras suas et consuetudines” which they held in his father’s time. It is a mere writ; but it must, as Dr. Stubbs suggests, be the occasion of the burst of joy in c. 23;

“Laudamus præsentem hunc Willelmum, qui ob reconciliandam
sibi crucifixi gratiam quam offendisse plurimum non
dubitamus in hujus perpetratione spoliationis, qui eam carta
sua ecclesiæ confirmavit, et sub prædicto anathematis
edicto, assistentibus archiepiscopis, episcopis, et universo
clero, communiter roboravit.”