Chapter XXXII: Appendix: WW. Vol. ii. p. 384 (1)

THE OBJECTIONS TO THE MARRIAGE OF HENRY AND MATILDA.

Our two fullest accounts of this matter are those of Eadmer and of Hermann of Tournay (D’Achery, ii. 894, see above, p. 600). Eadmer’s is the account, not only of a contemporary, but, we cannot doubt, of an eye-witness. Hermann wrote in another land, long afterwards, when the wars of Stephen and Matilda and the pleadings in the papal court (see N. C. vol. v. p. 857) had called men’s minds back to the story of the marriage of Matilda’s parents. His memory, as we see, failed him as to details. He did not remember either of the names of Eadgyth-Matilda; he mistakes her brother David for her father; he makes her (D’Achery, ii. 894) the mother of both the sons of Henry who were drowned in the White Ship. It is quite plain that his remembrance of what he had heard from Anselm forty or fifty years before was coloured by later ways of looking at things.

It is quite plain from Eadmer’s account that Eadgyth herself had not the slightest feeling against the marriage, but that she was eager for it; she disliked neither King Henry nor his crown. Nor has Anselm any objection, as soon as the evidence shows that no rule of the Church would be broken by the marriage. That he was strict in requiring such evidence was only natural and right; “Affirmabat nulla se unquam ratione in hoc declinandum ut suam Deo sponsam tollat et eam terreno homini in matrimonium jungat” (Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56). But when the evidence shows that Eadgyth was not “Dei sponsa,” he makes no further objection. Nothing is proved by his use of a negative form, “judicium vestrum non abjicio” (Hist. Nov. 58). The sentimental objection which Hermann puts into his mouth seems quite out of character. Anselm takes the common-sense view; If she is a nun, she must not marry; if she is not a nun, she may. One can believe that Anselm would in his heart have preferred that any virgin should abide in the state which he deemed the higher. But he would hardly have stooped to say; “This marriage is perfectly lawful; but the veil has touched her head; so you had better marry somebody else.” In this and in the prophecy we surely see the beginning of the growth of a legend. Some legends of Anselm seem to have arisen in his life-time. This one could not, as no ill-luck happened to the children of the marriage till after Anselm was dead.

I am not sure that a very slight touch in the same direction may not be seen in the account of William of Malmesbury, v. 418; the words follow the passage quoted above, p. 603; “Cum rex suscipere vellet eam thalamo, res in disceptationem venit; nec nisi legitimis productis testibus, qui eam jurarent sine professione causa procorum velum gessisse, archiepiscopus adduci potuit ad consentiendum.”

William, it is to be noticed, does not repeat the English pedigree, on which in his former notice (v. 393) he was less emphatic than Eadmer. I do not know what can be meant by “ignobiles nuptiæ.” Hardly Count Alan; hardly Earl William of Warren or Surrey, who is also spoken of.

* * * * *

Thierry (ii. 152) has an elaborate romance, in which the father of Western theology comes in casually as “un moine du Bec, nommé Anselme.” Here Eadgyth dislikes the marriage, but sacrifices herself for the good of her people. All this comes from Matthew Paris, who has two amazing stories. In one (Hist. Angl. i. 188), though Malcolm and Margaret have been killed off at the proper time, they appear again in full life when King Henry seeks their daughter――“filia elegantissimæ speciei, et, quod pluris erat, vitæ sanctissimæ.” She was brought up in a monastery, perhaps as a nun (“in sanctimonialium claustro propter honestatem educata, et, ut dicitur, velo sacro Deo dicato ac jam professa”). King Henry woos her with much fervour of passion (“ipsam propter ipsius mores et faciei venustatem sitienter adoptavit, et instanter petiit in uxorem”). The parents dare not withstand such a lover; they go to ask their daughter’s own wishes. She rebukes them in fearful and mysterious words for speaking of any such matter (“increpans patrem et matrem de zelotipiæ præsumptione, nec ipsos debere de corpore suo fructum mortalitatis exposcere, vel fructum posteritatis infructuosum”). At this the father is sad; the mother is pleased by the decision of her daughter (“matri propositum puellare complacuit”). The King’s passion only waxes warmer; like Balak, he sends more honourable messengers; he commands, prays, promises, till he stumbles into a hexameter “missis sollemnioribus nuntiis, urgentius adolescentulam in reginam expostulans, imperium, promissa, preces, confudit in unum”). Malcolm, knowing that his wife will never agree to the marriage, turns, without her knowledge, to the abbess by whom his daughter had been brought up. The reverend mother is prevailed on to argue the point at length, and to set forth every possible argument, personal and political, on behalf of the marriage;

“Proponens utilitatem inde proventuram, scilicet regnorum
fœdera, regum mutuam dilectionem, pacis tranquillitatem,
propagationis posteritatem, reginalem dignitatem, honoris
magnificentiam, divitiarum affluentiam, amoris desiderium,
amatoris pulcritudinem.”

Father and abbess together are too much for the “beata virgo Matilda.” She yields, but only “maledicens fructui sui ventris affuturo.” Anselm marries them, “nuptiis sollemniter, ut decuit, celebratis;” but a contemporary note in the margin is added, “Nota nuptias illicitas.” And we are told that the disturbances which presently followed, the invasion of Robert and anything else, were all judgements on this unlawful marriage;

“Facta est commotio magna in regno, quasi Deo irato, quoniam
rex Henricus zelotipaverat, et, sicut fratrem Robertum de
regno supplantando alienaverat, sic Christum de sponsa sua
defraudaverat.”

It is to be noticed that the writer who brings in all this action of Malcolm under the year 1101 had long before (i. 43) recorded his death in its proper place, or rather before its proper place, as he puts it in 1092 instead of 1093.

The other account comes in the Chronica Majora, ii. 121. It is chiefly remarkable for two speeches, the second of which is put into the mouth of Matilda herself. Matthew had just copied a business-like bit from Roger of Wendover (ii. 169), recording the marriage without comment; he then goes on to say that Matilda was married against her will, being won over by the importunity of kinsfolk and friends. The words are, “parentum et amicorum consiliis vix adquiescens; tandem tædio affecta, adquievit.” (“Parentes” may be taken by the charitably disposed in the wider French sense, but it must be remembered that in the other version Malcolm and Margaret are brought in as living in the year 1100.) This version is quite certain that Matilda had made a vow, but leaves it open whether she had actually taken the veil (“Cum Christiana matertera sancta sanctissime in claustro religionis educata fuerat, et votum virginitatis Deo spoponderat, et, ut multi perhibent, velum susceperat professæ religionis”). The kinsfolk and friends make a solemn appeal on patriotic grounds;

“O mulierum generosissima ac gratissima, per te reparabitur
Anglorum genialis nobilitas, quæ diu degeneravit, et fœdus
magnorum principum redintegrabitur, si matrimonio prælocuto
consentias. Quod si non feceris, causa eris perennis
inimicitiæ gentium diversarum, et sanguinis humani
effusionis irrestaurabilis.”

Matilda, “virgo clementissima,” gets angry, and, in the bitterness of her soul, uses yet stronger language than she does in the other version;

“Ex quo sic oportet fieri, utcunque consentio, sed fructum
ventris mei, quod est horribile dictu, diabolo commendo. Me
enim Deo vovi, quod non sinistis, immo sponsum meum, quem
elegi, ausu temerario, immemores causæ sancti Matthæi
apostoli, zelotipatis.”

We are then told of the vehement love of the King for the wife whom he had thus wrongfully married;

“Sic igitur nuptiæ magnifice, ut decuit, celebrabantur, et
tanto ardentius exarsit rex in ipsius amorem, quanto
scelestius adamavit. Secundum illud poeticum

“Nitimur in vetitum semper.”

Peccato igitur exigente, facta est commotio subito in regno.”

From this point Matthew goes on copying Roger of Wendover’s account of Robert’s invasion, but putting in bits of colouring of his own. When Henry sends his fleet to meet that of Robert, we are told that he does it “conscientiam habens multipliciter cauteriatam.” And when some of the sailors (see p. 404)――who are enlarged by Robert of Wendover into “pars major exercitus”――go over to Robert, the reason for their so doing is said to be “quia rex jam tyrannizaverat.”

There is something very strange in this echo at so late a time of objections which one would have thought that both common sense and the authority of Anselm would have set aside for ever. Was there any lurking wish in the thirteenth century to weaken the title of the Angevin kings, even on so stale a ground as the doubtful validity of the marriage of so distant an ancestress? We must remember that something of the kind really happened in Scotland long after. The right of the Stewarts was murmured against at a very late time on the ground of the doubtful marriage of Robert the Second. And we have seen that in an intermediate time, during the reign of Stephen, the validity of the elder Matilda’s marriage, and the consequent legitimacy of the younger Matilda, were called in question by Stephen’s supporters in arguments before the papal court. See N. C. vol. v. p. 857.

* * * * *

There is something singular in the way in which the marriage is entered in the Winchester Annals (1100), among a crowd of other facts not put in exact chronological order; “Matildis, Malcolmi regis filia Scotiæ, de monacha Wiltoniæ non tamen professa, regina Angliæ facta est.” One almost thinks of the wild story about Eadgyth of Wilton which I have spoken of in N. C. vol. i. p. 267. But the words have a parallel in the language of the Brut (1098, that is 1110), which, after the account of Henry’s election, adds,

“And immediately he took for his wife Mahalt, daughter of
Malcolm, king of Prydyn, by Queen Margaret her mother
[‘Vahalt uerch y Moel Cólóm, brenhin Prydein’――another
manuscript more reasonably has ‘y Pictieit’――‘o Vargaret
urenhines y mam’]. And she, by his marrying her, was raised
to the rank of queen; for William Rufus [Gúilim Goch] his
brother, in his lifetime, had consorted with concubines, and
on that account had died without an heir.” Cf. p. 503.

* * * * *

I have said, what is perfectly true, that Orderic is the only writer who directly mentions that Matilda had once borne the name of Eadgyth. But I think that I have lighted on a most curious trace of the fact in a later writer. Peter Langtoft (i. 448) mentions the return of Robert, and adds;

“La femme le duk Robert fu en proteccioun
Le counte de Cornewaylle, fillye [fu] Charloun
Seygnur de Cecylle, Egyth la dame ad noun;
Robert la prent e mene à sa possessioun.”

The name appears in various spellings in different manuscripts, Edgith, Egdith, and what not. It was perhaps not very wonderful that, in Peter Langtoft’s day, a Count of Conversana should grow into a lord of Sicily, and that a lord of Sicily should be thought to be of necessity called Charles. But why should Sibyl be turned into Edith? I can think of no reason except that the next lines are;

“Cel houre en Escoce un damoysele estait,
Fillye al ray Malcolme, de ky maynt hom parlayt.
Taunt fu bone et bele, ke Henry le esposayt,
Ray de Engleterre, Malde home l’appelayt.”

Surely the poet had read somewhere that Matilda had been called Edith, and then mixed up her and Sibyl together. But why Sibyl should be in the protection of the “Count of Cornwall”――meaning, if anybody, William of Mortain――it is not easy to see. Had he read in Orderic (784 B, C) that Robert and Sibyl went together to “mons sancti Michaelis archangeli de periculo maris,” and took it for the Cornish mount? Robert of Brunne (i. 95, Hearne) translates;

“Noþeles þe erle of Cornwaile kept his wife þat while
Charles douhter scho lord of Cezile,
_Dame Edith bright as glas_: Roberd þouht no gile,
Bot com on gode manere tille his broþer Henry,
He wife þat soiorned here he led to Normundie.”

NOTE XX. Vol. ii. p. 412.

THE TREATY OF 1101.

I do not know that there is any necessary contradiction between the detailed narrative of Orderic (788), who alone speaks of the personal interview between the brothers, and the shorter accounts of the other writers, who have more to say about the action of the wise men on each side. Nothing is more likely than that the terms of the treaty should be discussed by commissioners on both sides, and then finally agreed on in a personal meeting of the two princes. The only point of difficulty is that Orderic seems to imply that nobody on either side could be trusted, except the princes themselves. He begins with Henry’s message to ask why Robert had entered his kingdom (“cur Angliæ fines cum armato exercitu intrare præsumpserit”). Robert’s answer reminds one of the answer of Edward son of Henry the Sixth to Edward the Fourth (Hall, 301; Lingard, iv. 189). His words are; “Regnum patris mei cum proceribus meis ingressus sum, et illud reposco debitum mihi jure primogenitorum.”

The armies are now face to face, and the negotiations begin. In the Chronicle the reconcilation clearly seems to be the work of the head men; “Ac þa heafod men heom betwenan foran and þa broðra gesehtodan.” So Florence; “Sapientiores utriusque partis, habito inter se salubri consilio, pacem inter fratres composuere.” William of Malmesbury (v. 395) adds a special reason for peace; “Satagentibus sanioris consilii hominibus, qui dicerent pietatis jus violandum si fraterna necessitudo prælio concurreret, paci animos accommodavere; reputantes quod, si alter occumberet, alter infirmior remaneret, cum nullus fratrum præter ipsos superesset.” There is here nothing to throw any doubt on the good faith of anybody, and no negotiators are mentioned by name. It is Wace (15508 Pluquet, 10423 Andresen) who mentions negotiators on Robert’s side whom we certainly should not have looked for;

“Conseillie out comunement
Qu’il le feront tot altrement;
Les dous freres acorderont,
Ia por els ne se combatront.
Robert, qui Belesme teneit
E qui del duc s’entremeteit,
E cil qui Moretoig aueit,
Qui a s’enor aparteneit
――Will, co dient, out non――
E Robert, qui fu filz Haimon,
Ouoc altres riches barons,
Donc io ne sai dire les nons,
Qui del rei e del duc teneient
E amedous seruir deueient,
De l’accorder s’entremeteient,
Por la bataille qu’il cremeient.
Del rei al duc souent aloent
E la parole entre els portoent;
La pais aloent porchacant
E la concorde porparlant.”

It is Orderic alone who implies that Henry asked for a personal interview, and gives his reason;

“Seditiosi proditores magis bellum quam pacem optabant. Et
quia plus privatæ quam publicæ commoditati insistebant,
versipelles veredarii verba pervertebant, et magis jurgia
quam concordiam inter fratres serebant. Porro sagax Henricus
istud advertit, unde fratris colloquium ore ad os petiit; et
convenientes fraterni amoris dulcedo ambos implevit.”

He then goes on to describe the meeting of the brothers;

“Soli duo germani spectantis in medio populi collocuti sunt,
et ore quod corde ruminabant sine dolo protulerunt. Denique
post pauca verba mutuo amplexati sunt, datisque dulcibus
basiis, sine sequestro concordes effecti sunt. Verba quidem
hujus colloquii nequeo hic inserere, quia non interfui, sed
opus, quod de tantorum consilio fratrum processit, auditu
didici.”

He then gives the terms of the treaty, and adds;

“Remotis omnibus arbitris soli fratres scita sua sanxerunt,
et, cunctis in circumitu eos cum admiratione spectantibus,
decreverunt quod sese, ut decet fratres, invicem adjuvarent,
et omnia patris sui dominia resumerent, scelestosque litium
satores pariter utrinque punirent.”

The colouring of Orderic in these passages can hardly be reconciled with the other accounts. They clearly speak of the terms as agreed upon between the chief men of both sides, while Orderic implies that, on account of their untrustworthiness, the princes met and settled matters for themselves. But it is possible to accept Orderic’s fact without accepting his colouring. Or we may suppose that there were among the negotiators some who wished to hinder peace, but that those who laboured for it got the better in the end. Then, we may suppose, they agreed upon terms, and the King and the Duke met to ratify the treaty. As for the terms of the treaty, they are, as usual, given in the best and most formal way in the Chronicle. The brothers agree,

“On þa gerád þet se cyng forlet eall þæt he mid streangðe innan Normandig togeanes þam eorle heold, and þæt ealle þa on Englelande heora land ongean heafdon, þe hit ær þurh þone eorl forluron, and Eustaties eorl eac eall his fæderland her on lande, and þet se eorl Rotbert ælce geare sceolde of Englalande þreo þusend marc seolfres habban, and loc hweðer þæra gebroðra oðerne oferbide wære yrfeweard ealles Englalandes and eac Normandiges, buton se forðfarena yrfenuman heafde be rihtre æwe.”

Florence says nothing about the mutual succession of the two brothers, nor does he mention Eustace by name. He also leaves out the cession of Henry’s Norman dominions;

“Pacem inter fratres ea ratione composuere ut iii. mille
marcas, id est MM. libras argenti, singulis annis rex
persolveret comiti, et omnibus suos pristinos honores quos
in Anglia pro comitis fidelitate perdiderant, restitueret
gratuito, et cunctis quibus honores in Normannia causa regis
fuerant ablati, comes redderet absque pretio.”

Nothing in the treaty seems to have struck William of Malmesbury, except the yearly payment of three thousand marks by the King to the Duke. And even that he brings in quite incidentally, as if to account for its being very shortly given up;

“Sed et trium millium marcarum promissio lenem comitis
fallebat credulitatem, ut, procinctu soluto, de tanta
pecunia menti blandiretur suæ, quam ille posteriori statim
anno voluntati reginæ libens, quod illa peteret,
condonavit.”

One is reminded of the story which William elsewhere (iii. 251) tells, without any date, of Robert’s friend Eadgar; “Quantula simplicitas ut libram argenti, quam quotidie in stipendio accipiebat, regi pro uno equo perdonaret.” No doubt in both cases the horse and the gift to the Queen were mere decent pretences for stopping the payment; but the gift to Matilda is quite of a piece with Robert’s conduct to her at Winchester (see p. 406). The Chronicler two years later (1103) records Robert’s surrender of his pension;

“Ðises geares eac com se eorl Rotbert of Normandig to
sprecene wið þone cyng [the common Domesday form in English]
her on lande, and ær he heonne ferde he forgeaf þa þreo
þusend marc þe him _seo cyng_ Heanrig be foreweard ælce
geare gifan sceolde.”

Here we have no mention of Matilda, unless she anyhow lurks in the feminine article so oddly assigned to her husband.

Orderic helps us to the more distinct resignation by Robert of his claims on the English crown, which is however implied in all the other accounts――to the release of Henry from his homage to Robert――and to the stipulation about Domfront, which was naturally more interesting to him than it was to those who wrote in England. He does not mention the mutual heirship of the brothers. He also confounds marks and pounds;

“In primis Rodbertus dux calumniam quam in regno Angliæ
ingesserat fratri dimisit, ipsumque de homagio, quod sibi
jamdudum fecerat, pro regali dignitate absolvit. Henricus
autem rex tria milia librarum sterilensium sese duci
redditurum per singulos annos spopondit, totumque
Constantinum pagum et quidquid in Neustria possidebat,
præter Danfrontem, reliquit. Solum Danfrontem castrum sibi
retinuit, quia Danfrontanis, quando illum intromiserunt,
jurejurando pepigerat quod nunquam eos de manu sua
projiceret, nec leges eorum vel consuetudines mutaret.”

* * * * *

I am glad to end with the mention of one of the noblest spots of which I have had to speak in my story, and with one of the most honourable features in the history of King Henry.

[1] In this chapter we have to make more use than usual of the
Scottish, British, and Northumbrian writers. I do not
undertake to go very deeply into any purely literary questions
about them. I have simply used them for facts, and have dealt
with their statements according to the usual rules of
criticism. The Scottish and Northumbrian writers will be found
in Mr. Skene’s edition of Fordun and in the Surtees Society’s
edition of Simeon. This last contains, among other things,
Turgot’s Life of Saint Margaret and the passages from Fordun
which profess to be extracts from Turgot. The Surtees’ text
and Mr. Skene’s text do not always agree, but their
differences are not often of much importance for my purposes.
It is certainly strange if some of these passages really come
from a contemporary writer. For Welsh matters we are, to my
mind, better off. Unhappily I do not know enough of the Welsh
tongue really to make use of the originals, though I am not
utterly at the mercy of the translator as to proper names and
technical terms. In the Chronicles and Memorials are two
volumes of most valuable matter which need a fresh editor. It
is not my business to enter into any questions as to their
authorship, how far it is due to Caradoc of Llancarfan or
anybody else. In any case the Latin _Annales Cambriæ_, meagre
as they are, form a thoroughly good and trustworthy record,
but the Editor seems in many places to have been unable either
to read his manuscript or to construe his Latin. Many of the
readings too which are most valuable historically are thrust
into notes. The Welsh _Brut y Tywysogion_, published in the
same series by the same Editor, is a fuller version of the
Annals, and also I believe essentially trustworthy. I have
been obliged to quote this in the translation, though often
with some doubts as to its accuracy. In the preface a good
deal of matter by the late Mr. Aneurin Owen is reprinted
without acknowledgement. There is also another _Brut y
Tywysogion_, otherwise “The Gwentian Chronicles of Caradoc of
Llancarvan,” translated by Mr. Owen and published by the
Cambrian Archæological Association. Here we have the
translating and editing of a really eminent Welsh scholar, but
the book, as a historical authority, is very inferior to
either the Latin Annals or the other Brut. A great deal of
legendary matter, some of which must be of quite a late date,
has been thrust in. I quote the more trustworthy Brut in the
Chronicles and Memorials as the _elder_, and that published by
the Cambrian Archæological Association as the _later_ Brut.

[2] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[3] See vol. i. p. 304.

[4] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[5] See vol. i. p. 307.

[6] See vol. i. p. 298.

[7] See vol. i. p. 410.

[8] See vol. i. p. 421.

[9] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 259.

[10] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 355.

[11] See vol. i. p. 417.

[12] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 237.

[13] See N. C. vol. v. p. 629.

[14] So says the Northern interpolator of Florence whom we
are used to call Simeon, 1093; “Ecclesia nova Dunelmi est
incepta tertio idus Augusti feria quinta, episcopo Willelmo
et Malcholmo rege Scottorum et Turgoto priore ponentibus
primos in fundamento lapides.” Fordun (v. 20) says the same
in a passage which purports to come from Turgot, and of
which we shall have to speak again. It is certainly
remarkable, as Mr. Hinde remarks in his note on the passage
in the Gesta Regum (i. 104), that in the History of the
Church of Durham (iv. 8) Simeon makes no mention of Malcolm.
“Eo die episcopus, et qui post eum secundus erat in ecclesia
prior Turgotus, cum cæteris fratribus primos in fundamento
lapides posuerunt. Nam paulo ante, id est, iiii. Kal.
Augusti feria vi. idem episcopus et prior, facta cum
fratribus oratione, ac data benedictione, fundamenta
cœperant fodere.”

[15] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[16] Ib.

[17] This is from Florence. See Appendix BB.

[18] See Appendix BB.

[19] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 58, 119, 576, 579.

[20] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[21] See Appendix CC.

[22] See vol. i. p. 297.

[23] See Appendix CC.

[24] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 315, 648.

[25] See Appendix CC.

[26] Chron. Petrib. 1091. “Hine sloh Moræl of Bæbbaburh se
wæs þæs eorles stiward and Melcolmes cinges godsib.” See N.
C. vol. iii. pp. 456, 777.

[27] On the history of Tynemouth, see Appendix FF.

[28] Will. Malms. iii. 250. “Humatus multis annis apud
Tinemuthe, nuper ab Alexandro filio Scotiam ad Dunfermlin
portatus est.”

[29] Sim. Dun. Gesta Regum, 1093. “In cujus morte justitia
judicantis Dei aperte consideratur, ut videlicet in illa
provincia cum suis interiret, quam sæpe ipse vastare
avaritia stimulante consuevit, quinquies namque illam atroci
depopulatione attrivit, et miseros indigenas in servitutem
redigendos abduxit captivos.”

[30] Ib. “Exercitus illius vel gladiis confoditur, vel qui
gladios fugerunt inundatione fluminum, quæ tunc pluviis
hiemalibus plus solito excreverant, absorti sunt.”

[31] Ib. “Corpus regis, cum suorum nullus remaneret qui
terra illud cooperiret, duo ex indigenis carro impositum in
Tynemuthe sepelierunt.”

[32] Sim. Dun. Gesta Regum, 1093. “Sic factum est ut, ubi
multos vita et rebus et libertate privaverat, ibidem ipse
Dei judicio vitam simul cum rebus amitteret.”

[33] I am sorry that Mr. Burton (Hist. Scotland, i. 416)
should have thought it necessary to tell the story of
Margaret and her biographer in somewhat mocking tones. I can
see nothing but what is exquisitely beautiful and touching
in her life as written by Turgot, for Turgot I suppose it
really is.

[34] Turgot, Vit. Marg. vi. (Surtees Simeon, p. 241),
enlarges on this head; “Fateor, magnum misericordiæ Dei
mirabar miraculum, cum viderem interdum tantam orandi regis
intentionem, tantam inter orandum in pectore viri sæcularis
compunctionem.” He adds, “Quæ ipsa respuerat eadem et ipse
respuere, et quæ amaverat, amore amoris illius amare.”
William of Malmesbury (iv. 311) speaks to the same effect;
Malcolm and Margaret were “ambo cultu pietatis insignes,
illa præcipue.”

[35] So witnesses Turgot in the chapter just quoted; “Libros
in quibus ipsa vel orare consueverat vel legere, ille,
ignarus licet literarum, sæpe manu versare solebat et
inspicere: et dum ab ea quis illorum esset ei carior
audisset, hunc et ipse cariorem habere, deosculari, sæpius
contrectare.” Then follows about the bindings.

[36] Turgot is of course full on this head throughout, and
we have a further witness from our own Florence (1093) and
Orderic (701 D). From the last we get her bounty to
Iona――that barbarous name is more intelligible than any
other. In his words it is “Huense cœnobium quod servus
Christi Columba, tempore Brudei, regis Pictorum, filii
Meilocon, construxerat.”

[37] Turgot, in his fourth chapter, enlarges on the strict
order which Margaret kept in her household, especially among
her own attendant ladies. “Inerat enim reginæ tanta cum
jocunditate severitas, tanta cum severitate jocunditas, ut
omnes qui erant in ejus obsequio, viri et feminæ, illam et
timendo diligerent et diligendo timerent. Quare in præsentia
ejus non solum nihil execrandum facere, sed ne turpe quidem
verbum quisquam ausus fuerat proferre. Ipsa enim universa in
se reprimens vitia, cum magna gravitate lætabatur, cum magna
honestate irascebatur.”

[38] Orderic (703 B, C) has his panegyric on the three
brothers, and specially on David; but it is William of
Malmesbury (v. 400) who is especially emphatic on the
unparalleled purity of life of all three. “Neque vero unquam
in acta historiarum relatum est tantæ sanctitatis tres
fuisse pariter reges et fratres, maternæ pietatis nectar
redolentes; namque præter victus parcitatem, eleemosynarum
copiam, orationum assiduitatem, ita domesticum regibus
vitium evicerunt, ut nunquam feratur in eorum thalamos nisi
legitimas uxores isse, nec eorum quenquam pellicatu aliquo
pudicitiam contristasse.”

[39] Will. Malms, ib. “Solus fuit Edmundus Margaritæ filius
a bono degener.” We shall hear of him and his doings
presently.

[40] Turgot, viii. p. 243. “Scottorum quidam, contra totius
ecclesiæ consuetudinem, nescio quo ritu barbaro missam
celebrare consueverunt.”

[41] Ib. viii. (Surtees Simeon, p. 243). “Qui [Malcolmus]
quoniam perfecte Anglorum linguam æque ac propriam noverat,
vigilantissimus in hoc concilio utriusque partis interpres
extiterat.”

[42] Ib. vii. (p. 242). “Obsequia regis sublimiora
constituit, ut eum procedentem sive equitantem multa cum
grandi honore agmina constiparent, et hoc cum tanta censura,
ut quocumque devenissent, nulli eorum cuiquam aliquid
liceret rapere, nec rusticos aut pauperes quoslibet quolibet
modo quisquam illorum opprimere auderet vel lædere.” He
describes at some length the new-fashioned splendour which
she brought into the Scottish court, and adds; “Et hæc
quidem illa fecerat, non quia mundi honore delectabatur,
sed, quod regia dignitas ab ea exigebat, persolvere
cogebatur.”

[43] Take for instance our own Chronicle, 1093; “Da þa seo
gode cwen Margarita þis gehyrde, hyre þa leofstan hlaford
and sunu þus beswikene, heo wearð oð deað on mode
geancsumed, and mid hire prestan to cyrcean eode, and hire
gerihtan underfeng, and æt Gode abæd þæt heo hire gast
ageaf.” Florence and Orderic are much to the same effect.

[44] These details come from Turgot, chap. xii, xiii. He was
not himself present, having seen her for the last time some
while before her death, but late enough to bear witness
(chap. xii.) to her expectation of death. The story of her
last moments was told to Turgot by a priest who was
specially in the Queen’s favour, who was present at her
death, and who afterwards became a monk at Durham as an
offering for her soul. “Post mortem reginæ, pro ipsius anima
perpetuo se Christi servitio tradidit; et ad sepulchrum
incorrupti corporis sanctissimi patris Cuthberti suscipiens
habitum monachi, seipsum pro ea hostiam obtulit.”

[45] Turgot, ib. “Ipsa quoque illam, quam Nigram Crucem
nominare, quamque in maxima semper veneratione habere
consuevit, sibi afferri præcepit.” Another manuscript has
“Crucem Scotiæ nigram.”

[46] “Quinquagesimum psalmum ex ordine decantans;” that is
the fifty-first in our reckoning.

[47] “Ille quod verum erat dicere noluit, ne audita morte
illorum continuo et ipsa moreretur; nam respondebat, eos
benevalere.”

[48] “Sed in omnibus his non peccavit labiis suis, neque
stultum quid contra Deum locuta est.” We must always
remember the common habit of reviling God and the saints
which it was thought rather a special virtue to be free
from. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 24, note.

[49] “In laudem et gratiarum actionem prorupit, dicens:
‘Laudes et gratias tibi, omnipotens Deus, refero, qui me
tantas in meo exitu angustias tolerare, hasque tolerantem ab
aliquibus peccati maculis, ut spero, voluisti mundare.’”

[50] The place is not mentioned by Turgot in the Life.
According to Fordun (v. 21), who professes to copy Turgot,
Margaret died “in castro puellarum;” see the Surtees Simeon,
p. 262.

[51] “Quod mirum est, faciem ejus, quæ more morientium tota
in morte palluerat, ita post mortem rubor cum candore
permixtus perfuderat, ut non mortua sed dormiens credi
potuisset,” Cf. the picture of her uncle Eadward. See N. C.
vol. iii. p. 15.

[52] See Appendix DD.

[53] See Appendix AA.

[54] Three parties are clearly described by Mr. E. W.
Robertson, i. 155. There were the remnants of the partisans
of the house of Moray, the house of Macbeth, the party of
the North, and the partisans of the reigning house, divided
into a strictly Scottish and an English party. The success
of Donald must have been owing to a momentary union of the
first two of these parties. I hardly know what to make of
the statement in the Turgot extracts (Simeon, p. 262) that
Donald arose “auxilio regis Norwegiæ.”

[55] He appears in Fordun (v. 21) as “Donaldus Rufus vel
Bane, frater regis.” One cannot too often remind oneself of
the true position of Macbeth. I was perhaps a little hard on
him in N. C. vol. ii. p. 55.

[56] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “Þa Scottas þa Dufenal to cynge
gecuron, Melcolmes broðer, and ealle þa Englisce út
adræfdon, þe ǽr mid þam cynge Melcolme wæron.” So
Florence; “Omnes Anglos qui de curia regia extiterunt de
Scottia expulerunt.”

[57] See N. C. vol. i. p. 315. And compare the alleged
design for a massacre of Normans, N. C. vol. v. p. 281.

[58] In the passages just quoted only English are mentioned.
We hear of English and French directly afterwards, when the
strangers are driven out in Duncan’s time. This difference
may be accidental, or it may be meant to mark a specially
Norman element under Duncan which had not shown itself under
Malcolm.

[59] Fordun, v. 21. “Filios et filias regis et reginæ
sororis suæ congregatos in Angliam secum secretius traduxit,
et eos per cognatos et cognitos, non manifeste sed quasi in
occulto nutriendos, destinavit. Timuit enim, ne Normanni,
qui tunc temporis Angliam invaserant, sibi vel suis malum
molirentur, eo quod Angliæ regnum eis hereditario jure
debebatur.”

[60] See Appendix EE.

[61] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 244, 294-309.

[62] See N. C. vol. v. p. 169.

[63] See Appendix EE.

[64] See Appendix EE.

[65] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 57. “Quem pannum in ipsius quidem
præsentia gemens ac tremebunda ferebam, sed mox ut me
conspectui ejus subtrahere poteram, arreptum in humum
jacere, pedibus proterere, et ita quo in odio fervebam,
quamvis insipienter, consueveram desævire. Isto, non alio
modo, teste conscientia mea, velata fui.”

[66] See Appendix EE.

[67] See vol. i. p. 435.

[68] See vol. i. p. 438.

[69] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 517; vol. v. p. 121. Will. Malms.
v. 400; “Ille [Willelmus] Duncanum, filium Malcolmi nothum,
militem fecit.” So Fordun, v. 24; “Duncanus, Malcolmi regis
filius nothus, cum obses erat in Anglia cum rege Willelmo
Rufo, armis militaribus ab eo insignitus.” See N. C. vol.
iv. p. 785.

[70] See vol. i. pp. 13, 305.

[71] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “Da þa Dunecan Melcolmes cynges
sunu þis eall gehyrde þus gefaren, se on þæs cynges hyrede
W. wæs, swa swa his fæder hine ures cynges fæder ær to gisle
geseald hæfde, and her swa syððan belaf, he to þam cynge
com, and swilce getrywða dyde, swa se cyng æt him habban
wolde.” So Florence; “Quibus auditis, filius regis Malcolmi,
Dunechan, regem Willelmum, cui tunc militavit, ut ei regnum
sui patris concederet petiit, et impetravit, illique
fidelitatem juravit.” William of Malmesbury (v. 400) perhaps
goes a step too far in saying that William “Duncanum … regem
Scottorum mortuo patre constituit.” Fordun (v. 24) takes
care to leave out the homage; Duncan is “ejus [Willelmi]
auxilio suffultus;” that is all.

[72] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “And swa mid his unne to Scotlande
fór, mid þam fultume þe he begytan mihte, _Engliscra and
Frenciscra_ [see note, vol. i. p. 30], and his mæge Dufenal
þes rices benam, and to cynge wærð underfangen.” So
Florence; “Ad Scottiam cum multitudine Anglorum ac
Normannorum properavit.”

[73] “Ac þa Scottas hi eft sume gegaderoden, and forneah
ealle his mænu ofslogan, and he sylf mid feawum ætbærst.” So
Florence.

[74] “Syððan hi wurdon sehte on þa gerád, þæt he næfre eft
_Englisce ne Frencisce_ into þam lande ne gelogige.” So
Florence; “Post hæc illum regnare permiserunt, ea ratione ut
amplius in Scottiam nec Anglos nec Normannos introduceret,
sibique militare permitteret.” Mr. Robertson (i. 158) fixes
the date of this revolution to May, 1094, which is very
likely in itself. But it seems to come from the confused
statement of Fordun (v. 24) that Donald reigned six months
(November 1093-May 1094), and then Duncan a year and six
months, which is a year wrong anyhow.

[75] See Robertson, i. 158, without whose help I might not
have recognized a Mormaor in the person described by Fordun
(u. s.) as “comes de Mesnys, nomine Malpei, Scottice
Malpedir.” William of Malmesbury (v. 400) witnesses to the
share of Eadmund, “qui Duvenaldi patrui nequitiæ particeps,
fraternæ non inscius necis fuerit, pactus scilicet regni
dimidium.” See above, p. 22.

[76] Chron. Petrib. 1094. “Ðises geares eac þa Scottas heora
cyng Dunecan besyredon and ofslogan, and heom syððan eft
oðre syðe his fæderan Dufenal to cynge genamon, þurh þes
lare and totihtinge he wearð to deaðe beswicen.” So
Florence; “Interim Scotti regem suum Dunechan, et cum eo
nonnullos, suasu et hortatu Dufenaldi per insidias
peremerunt, et illum sibi regem rursus constituerunt.”
Fordun adds the place of his death and burial; “Apud
Monthechin [Monachedin on the banks of the Bervie, says Mr.
Robertson] cæsus interiit et insula Iona sepultus.”

[77] See vol. i. p. 474.

[78] Orderic (703 A, B) brings in his account of the
rebellion of Earl Robert with a general remark on the pride
and greediness of the Normans who had received large estates
in England. He then describes their dissatisfaction with the
rule of William Rufus in words which are not altogether
discreditable to the King; “Invidebant quippe et dolebant
quod Guillelmus Rufus audacia et probitate præcipue vigeret,
nullumque timens subjectis omnibus rigide imperaret.” That
is to say, such justice and such injustice as he did――and in
the case of Robert of Mowbray we shall find him doing
justice――were both dealt out without respect of persons.
Orderic does not specially mention the hunting-laws; but
William of Malmesbury (iv. 319) speaks of their harshness,
and adds, “Quapropter multa severitate quam nulla condiebat
dulcedo, factum est ut sæpe contra ejus salutem a ducibus
conjuraretur.” He then goes on to speak of Robert of
Mowbray. I hardly see the ground for the word “sæpe.”

[79] Hen. Hunt. vii. 4. “Robertus consul Nordhymbra, in
superbiam elatus, quia regem Scottorum straverat.”

[80] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 654.

[81] See vol. i. pp. 249, 256.

[82] See above, p. 16.

[83] See the extract from the Chronicles in p. 55, note 2.

[84] He is on the list in Florence, 1096.

[85] Ord. Vit. 704 C. See vol. i. p. 33.

[86] So says Florence, 1095. “Northymbrensis comes Rotbertus
de Mulbrei et Willelmus de Owe, cum multis aliis, regem
Willelmum regno vitaque privare, et filium amitæ illius,
Stephanum de Albamarno, conati sunt regem constituere, sed
frustra.” On the pedigree, see N. C. vol. ii. p. 632.

[87] See vol. i. p. 279.

[88] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 576.

[89] Ord. Vit. 703 C. “Primus cum complicibus suis futile
consilium iniit, et manifestam rebellionem sic inchoavit.
Quatuor naves magnæ quas canardos vocant, de Northwegia in
Angliam appulsæ sunt. Quibus Rodbertus et Morellus nepos
ejus ac satellites eorum occurrerunt, et pacificis
mercatoribus quidquid habebant violenter abstulerunt.”

[90] Ib. “Illi autem, amissis rebus suis, ad regem
accesserunt, duramque sui querimoniam lacrimabiliter
deprompserunt.”

[91] Ord. Vit. 703 C. “Qui mox imperiose mandavit Rodberto
ut mercatoribus ablata restitueret continuo. Sed omnino
contempta est hujusmodi jussio, magnanimus autem rex
quantitatem rerum quas amiserant inquisivit, et omnia de suo
eis ærario restituit.”

[92] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “And þa to Eastran heold se cyng
his hired on Winceastre, and se eorl Rodbeard of Norðhymbran
nolde to hirede cuman, and se cyng forðan wearð wið hine
swiðe astyrod, and him to sænde, and heardlice bead, gif he
griðes weorðe beon wolde, þæt he to Pentecosten to hired
come.”

[93] Ib. “On þisum geare wæron Eastron on viii. kal. Ap[~r].
and þa uppon Eastron, on S[~c]e Ambrosius mæsse night, þæt
is ii. noñ Ap[~r]. wæs gesewen forneah ofer eall þis land,
swilce forneah ealle þa niht, swiðe mænifealdlice steorran
of heofenan feollan, naht be anan oððe twam, ac swa þiclice
þæt hit nan mann ateallan ne mihte.”

[94] See vol. i. p. 478.

[95] See vol. i. pp. 527 et seqq.

[96] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 149, 621.

[97] See vol. i. p. 530.

[98] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “Hereæfter to Pentecosten wæs se
cyng on Windlesoran, and ealle his witan mid him, butan þam
eorle of Norðhymbran, forðam se cyng him naðer nolde ne
gislas syllan ne uppon trywðan geunnon, þæt he mid griðe
cumon moste and faran.”

[99] Ib. “And se cyng forði his fyrde bead, and uppon þone
eorl to Norðhymbran fór.” Orderic (703 D) seems also to mark
the presence both of the national force and of mercenaries;
“Tunc rex, nequitiam viri ferocis intelligens, exercitum
aggregavit et super eum validam militiæ virtutem conduxit.”

[100] See vol. i. p. 32.

[101] See the extract in note 1, p. 38. The same seems to be
the idea of the Hyde writer, p. 301; “Malcolmum … bellando
cum toto pene exercitu interfecit, dum bellare contra regem
Willelmum temptat fortuito, ab eo est captus et carceri
mancipatus.”

[102] See vol. i. p. 537. This fact comes out only in the
two letters from Anselm to Walter of Albano; Epp. Ans. iii.
35, 36. In the first he says “quotidie expectamus ut hostes
de ultra mare in Angliam per illos portus, qui Cantuarberiæ
vicini sunt, irruant.” He speaks to the same effect in the
next letter. They were “in periculo vastandi vel perdendi
terram.”

[103] The presence of the Archbishop of York and the
Cardinal comes from the second letter. There the Cardinal
and Anselm part from the King and Thomas. From the former
letter we see that the place was Nottingham.

[104] Ep. iii. 35. “Dominus meus rex ore suo mihi præcepit,
antequam ab illo apud Notingeham discederem, et postquam
Cantuarberiam redii, mihi mandavit per litteras proprio
sigillo signatas, ut Cantuarberiam custodiam, et semper
paratus sim ut quacunque hora nuntium eorum qui littora
maris ob hoc ipsum custodiunt audiero, undique convocari
jubeam equites et pedites, qui accurrentes violentiæ hostium
obsistant.” So in Ep. 36; “Rex mihi præcepit ut illam partem
regni sui in qua maxime irruptionem hostium quotidie
timemus, diligenter custodirem, et quotidie paratus essem
hostibus resistere si irruerent.”

[105] Ord. Vit. 703 D. “Ut rex finibus Rodberti
appropinquavit.”

[106] See vol. i. p. 68.

[107] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Gislebertus de Tonnebrugia, miles
potens et dives, regem seorsum vocavit, et pronus ad pedes
ejus corruit, eique nimis obstupescenti ait,” &c.

[108] See N. C. vol. i. p. 327.

[109] Ord. Vit. 703 D. “Præfato barone indicante, quot et
qui fuerant proditores, agnovit.”

[110] Ib. 704 A. “Delusis itaque sicariis, qui regem
occidere moliti sunt, armatæ phalanges prospere loca
insidiarum pertransierunt.”

[111] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 672.

[112] Ib. p. 667.

[113] Wallsend is often mentioned in the Durham charters,
beginning with the grants of Bishop William to his own
monks; Scriptores Tres, iv. _Wallcar_――that is, in local
language, the meadow by the wall――has got sadly degraded
into _Walker_. See Appendix CC.

[114] On Bamburgh, see Appendix FF.

[115] The Farn Islands, close off Bamburgh, must not be
confounded with Lindisfarn, some way to the north. Bæda
(Vit. Cuthb. 17) carefully distinguishes them; “Farne
dicitur insula medio in mari posita, quæ non, sicut
Lindisfarnensium incolarum regio, bis quotidie accedente
æstu oceani, quem rheuma vocant Græci, fit insula, bis
renudatis abeunte rheumate littoribus contigua terræ
redditur, sed aliquot millibus passuum ab hac semi-insula ad
eurum secreta, et hinc altissimo et inde infinito clauditur
oceano.” See Hist. Eccl. iii. 16, iv. 27, 29, v. 1. It is
spoken of as “insula Farne, quæ duobus ferme millibus
passuum ab urbe [Bamburgh] procul abest.”

[116] See vol. i. p. 291.

[117] Will. Gem. viii. 8. See vol. i. p. 552.

[118] Florence says only, “Moreal vero factæ traditionis
causam regi detexit.” The Chronicler is fuller; “Moreal
wearð þa on þes cynges hirede, and þurh hine wurdon manege,
ægðer ge gehadode and eac læwede, geypte þe mid heora ræde
on þes cynges unheldan wæron.”

[119] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “Þa se cyng sume ær þære tíde hét
on hæftneðe gebringan.”

[120] Ib. “Syððan swiðe gemahlice ofer eall þis land beodan,
þæt ealle þa þe of þam cynge land heoldan, eallswa hi friðes
weorðe beon woldan, þæt hi on hirede to tide wæron.”

[121] The change of place seems clear from the Chronicle.
The entry for 1096 begins; “On þison geare heold se cyng
Willelm his hired to X[~p]es mæssan on Windlesoran, and
Willelm biscop of Dunholme þær forðferde to geares dæge. And
on Octab’ Epyphañ wæs se cyng and ealle his witan on
Searbyrig.” Florence is to the same effect. See vol. i. p.
542.

[122] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 394, 406.

[123] Ib. vol. i. p. 102; vol. v. p. 415.

[124] Ib. vol. v. p. 420.

[125] See N. C. vol. v. p. 408.

[126] The vision of Boso fills the ninth chapter of the
fourth book of Simeon’s Durham history. He sees first, “Per
campum latissimum totius hujus provinciæ indigenas
congregatos, qui equis admodum pinguibus sedentes, et
longas, sicut soliti sunt, hastas portantes, earumque
collisione magnum facientes strepitum, multa ferebantur
superbia.” One might have taken these mounted spearmen for
Normans; but we read, “Multo majori quam priores superbia
secuti sunt Francigenæ, qui et ipsi frementibus equis
subvecti et universo armorum genere induti, equorum
frementium sonitu et armorum collisione immanem late
faciebant tumultum.” Lastly came the worst class of all;
“Deinde per extensum aliquot miliariis campum innumeram
feminarum multitudinem intueor, quarum tantam turbam dum
admirarer, eas presbyterorum uxores esse a ductore meo
didici. Has, inquit, miserabiles et illos qui ad
sacrificandum Deo consecrati sunt, nec tamen illecebris
carnalibus involvi metuerunt, væ sempiternum et gehennalium
flammarum atrocissimus expectat cruciatus.” But how vast
must have been the number of priests in the bishopric, if
their wives, seemingly not on horseback, filled up so much
room. The monks of Durham, on the other hand, were seen in a
beautiful flowery plain, all except two sinners, whose names
are not given, but who were to be reported to the Prior in
order that they might repent.

[127] The nature of the omen does not seem very clear; “In
loco vastæ ac tetræ solitudinis, magna altitudine domum
totam ex ferro fabrifactam aspexi, cujus janua dum sæpius
aperiretur sæpiusque clauderetur, ecce subito episcopus
Willelmus efferens caput, ubinam Gosfridus monachus esset a
me quæsivit.” This monk Geoffrey must surely be the same as
the one we heard of before as concerned in Bishop William’s
former troubles (see vol. i. p. 116). This gives the
confirmation of an undesigned coincidence to that story.

[128] See N. C. vol. iv. p 674.

[129] Ib. vol. v. p. 631.

[130] It is curious that, while the Durham writer implies
the summons by the use of the word “placitum” in the account
of Boso’s vision, he gives no account of the summons in his
own narrative. The gap is filled up by William of
Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. 273; “Non multo post orto inter
ipsum et regem discidio, ægritudine procubuit apud
Gloecestram. Ibi tunc erat curia, et jussus est episcopus
exhiberi, ut causam suam defensaret.” The place of King
William’s sickness in 1093 is here confounded with the place
of Bishop William’s sickness in 1096. But Gloucester was the
right place for holding the Gemót, though it was held at
Windsor.

[131] Will. Malms. u. s. “Cui cum responsum esset
infirmitate detineri quo minus veniret: ‘Per vultum de Luca
fingit se,’ inquit. Enimvero ille vera valitudine correptus
morti propinquabat.”

[132] Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iv. 10. We have already had
the date of his death in the Chronicle. He died “instante
hora gallicantus.”

[133] See Simeon, u. s., and Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 273.
The names of the bishops come from Simeon.

[134] Simeon, u. s. “Placuit ergo illis, ut in capitulo
tumulari deberet, quatenus in loco quo fratres cotidie
congregarentur, viso ejus sepulchro, carissimi patris
memoria in eorum cordibus cotidie renovaretur.” William of
Malmesbury speaks to the same effect. But no amount of good
works could save him from being crushed by Wyatt and the
Durham Chapter.

[135] Simeon is eloquent on the grief at his death; “Nullus
enim, ut reor, tunc inter illos erat, qui non illius vitam,
si fieri posset, sua morte redimere vellet.” The puzzling
contradictions as to the character of this bishop follow him
to the grave.

[136] Orderic (704 D) speaks of the “consules et consulares
viri,” who were known to have had a share in the conspiracy,
and were now ashamed of themselves; “Porro hæc subtiliter
rex comperiit, et _consultu sapientum_ hujusmodi viris
pepercit. Nec eos ad judicium palam provocavit, ne furor in
pejus augmentaretur,” &c.

[137] See vol. i. p. 61.

[138] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Hugonem, Scrobesburensium comitem,
privatim affatus corripuit, et acceptis ab eo tribus
millibus libris, in amicitiam callide recepit.”

[139] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Þær beteah Gosfrei Bainard
Willelm of Ou þes cynges mæg, þæt he heafde gebeon on þes
cynges swicdome.” So Florence. Stephen’s name is not here
mentioned; but we have already seen (see p. 39) what the
exact charge was, and Odo, Stephen’s father, is
significantly mentioned just after.

[140] The Chronicle seems to make the accuser the
challenger; “And hit him ongefeaht, and hine on orreste
ofercom, and syððan he ofercumen wæs, him het se cyng þa
eagan ut adón, and syþðan belisnian.” But perhaps the
meaning is really the same as in the account of William of
Malmesbury (iv. 319); “Willelmus de Ou, proditionis apud
regem accusatus delatoremque ad duellum provocans, dum se
segniter expurgat, cæcatus et extesticulatus est.” Orderic
says merely, “palam de nequitia convictus fuit,” without
saying how.

[141] Unless anything special was done, or meant to be done,
to Grimbald after the siege of Brionne. See N. C. vol. ii.
pp. 270-273.

[142] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 490, 491, 496.

[143] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Hoc nimirum Hugone Cestrensium
comite pertulit instigante, cujus sororem habebat, sed
congruam fidem ei non servaverat.”

[144] See his character in N. C. vol. iv. p. 490.

[145] See N. C. vol. v. p. 159.

[146] All the accounts agree as to the punishment. Florence
says specially, “oculos _eruere_ et testiculos abscidere;”
so it was the worst form of blinding. The Hyde writer (301)
employs an euphemism; “Rex oculis privavit et per omnia
inutilem reddidit.”

[147] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “And sume man to Lundene lædde,
and þær spilde.” This last word seems to imply mutilation of
any kind, whether blinding or any other.

[148] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 30.

[149] Their names come over and over again in the Gloucester
Cartulary. See the Index.

[150] Liber de Hyda, 301. “Ernulfus de Hednith [sic],
statura procerus, industria summus, possessionibus
suffultus, apud regem tam injuste quam invidiose est
accusatus.”

[151] Ib. “Denique cum se bello legitimo per unum ex suis
contra unum ex hominibus regis facto defendisset atque
vicisset.”

[152] Liber de Hyda, 301. “Tanto dolore et ira est commotus
ut, abdicatis omnibus quæ regis erant in Anglia, ipso rege
invito et contradicente, discederet.”

[153] Ib. 302. “Vincit Dominus, quare medicus me non
continget, nisi ille pro cujus amore hanc peregrinationem
suscepi.”

[154] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Ðær wearð eac Eoda eorl of
Campaine, þæs cynges aðum, and manege oðre, belende.”
Florence says; “Comitem Odonem de Campania, prædicti
scilicet Stephani patrem, Philippum Rogeri Scrobbesbyriensis
comitis filium, et quosdam alios traditionis participes, in
custodiam posuit.”

[155] Ib. “And his stiward Willelm hætte se wæs his modrian
sunu, het se cyng on rode ahón.”

[156] Flor. Wig. 1097. “Dapiferum illius Willelmum de
Alderi, filium amitæ illius, traditionis conscium, jussit
rex suspendi.”

[157] Will. Malms. iv. 319. “Plures illa delatio involvit,
innocentes plane et probos viros. Ex his fuit Willelmus de
Alderia, speciosæ personæ homo et compater regis.” So the
Hyde writer (301); “Willelmum etiam de Aldriato, ejusdem
Willelmi dapiferum, de eadem conjuratione injuste, ut aiunt,
accusatum patibulo suspendi præcepit.”

[158] Liber de Hyda, 302. “Erat enim idem corpore et animo
et genere præclarus.”

[159] Ib. “Cum principes dolore permoti … de ejus vita regem
rogassent, volentes eum ter auro et argento ponderare, rex
nullis precibus, nullis muneribus, ab ejus morte potuit
averti.”

[160] Will. Malms. iv. 319. “Is patibulo affigi jussus,
Osmundo episcopo Salesbiriæ confessus, et per omnes
ecclesias oppidi flagellatus est.” The account in the Hyde
Writer is to the same effect as that of William, but
shorter, and without any verbal agreement.

[161] Ib. “Dispersis ad inopes vestibus, ad suspendium nudus
ibat, delicatam carnem frequentibus super lapides
genuflectionibus cruentans.”

[162] Ib. “Tunc dicta commendatione animæ, et aspersa aqua
benedicta, episcopus discessit.”

[163] Ib. “Ille appensus est admirando fortitudinis
spectaculo, ut nec moriturus gemitum, nec moriens produceret
suspirium.”

[164] Will. Gem. viii. 34; Ord. Vit. 814 A.

[165] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Morellus, domino suo vinculis
indissolubiter injecto, de Anglia mœstus aufugit, multasque
regiones pervagatus pauper et exosus in exsilio consenuit.”

[166] See very emphatically in the Chronicle, 1097.

[167] Will. Malms. iv. 311. “Contra Walenses … expeditionem
movens, nihil magnificentia sua dignum exhibuit, militibus
multis desideratis, jumentis interceptis. Nec tum solum, sed
multotiens, parva illi in Walenses fortuna fuit, quod cuivis
mirum videatur, cum ei alias semper alea bellorum
felicissime arriserit.” This last is hardly true of his
French and Cenomannian campaigns. The writer goes on to
attribute the failure of Rufus in Wales mainly to the nature
of the country, and to say that Henry the First found out
the right way of dealing with the Welsh, by planting the
Flemings in their country.

[168] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Ac þa ða se cyng geseah þæt he
nan þingc his wiiles þær geforðian ne mihte, he ongean into
þison lande fór, and hraðe æfter þam, he be þam gemæron
castelas let gemakian.”

[169] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 478.

[170] Ib. p. 481.

[171] Ib. p. 479.

[172] Ib. p. 396.

[173] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 483, 707.

[174] Ib. p. 483.

[175] See vol. i. p. 164.

[176] “That stubborn British tongue which has survived _two_
conquests,” is, I think, a phrase of Hallam’s.

[177] See vol. i. p. 122, and N. C. vol. iv. p. 489.

[178] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501.

[179] Ib. p. 676.

[180] Ib. vol. iv. p. 489; v. p. 109.

[181] Ib. vol. ii. p. 708; v. p. 777.

[182] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501.

[183] See vol. iv. pp. 676, 777.

[184] See vol. i. p. 121.