Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century

cover cover title : author publisher isbn10 | asin print isbn13 ebook isbn13 language subject : : : : : : publicatio...

Author: K.S.B. Keats-Rohan

349 downloads 1765 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

cover

cover

title : author publisher isbn10 | asin print isbn13 ebook isbn13 language subject

: : : : : :

publication date lcc ddc subject

: : : :

next page >

Family Trees and the Roots of Politics : The Prosopography of Britain and France From the Tenth to the Twelfth Century Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. 0851156258 9780851156255 9780585165080 English Great Britain--Politics and government--1066-1485-Historiography, Great Britain--Politics and government--4491066--Historiography, France--Politics and government--9871328--Historiography, Kinship--Political aspects--Great Britain, Kinship--Political a 1997 DA130.F36 1997eb 941/.0072 Great Britain--Politics and government--1066-1485-Historiography, Great Britain--Politics and government--4491066--Historiography, France--Politics and government--9871328--Historiography, Kinship--Political aspects--Great Britain, Kinship--Political a

cover

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/cover.html29.06.2009 22:55:15

page_i

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Family Trees and the Roots of Politics The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth To the Twelfth Century In recent decades historians have become increasingly aware of the value of prosopography as an auxiliary science standing at the crossroads between anthropology, genealogy, demography and social history. It is now developing as an independent research discipline of real benefit to medievalists. The geographically and chronologically wide-ranging subjects of the essays in this collection, by scholars from the British Isles and the Continent, are united by a common theme, namely the significance of genealogy and kinship ties in determining political events in the Middle Ages. The papers, including a review of the history of prosopography and some of its major successes as a method by Karl Ferdinand Werner, range from general considerations of prosopographical and genealogical methodology (including discussion of Anglo-Norman royal charters) to specific analyses of individual political and kinship groups (including the genealogy of the counts of Anjou and a rehabilitation of the prosopographical material in Wace's Roman de Rou). The main geographic focus is England and France from the tenth to the twelfth century, but other areas as diverse as Celtic Ireland and the Latin Principality of Antioch also come under prosopographical scrutiny. Dr K. S. B. KEATS-ROHAN is Director of the Linacre Unit for Prosopographical Research.

< previous page

page_i

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_i.html29.06.2009 22:55:18

page_iii

< previous page

page_iii

next page > Page iii

Family Trees and the Roots of Politics The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth To the Twelfth Century Edited By K. S. B. Keats-Rohan THE BOYDELL PRESS

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_iii.html29.06.2009 22:55:19

page_iv

< previous page

page_iv

next page > Page iv

© Contributors 1997 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 1997 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 0 85115 625 8 The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. PO Box 41026, Rochester, NY 14604-4126, USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Family trees and the roots of politics : the prosopography of Britain and France from the tenth to the twelfth century / edited by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-85115-625-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Great Britain Politics and government 1066-1485 Historiography. 2. Great Britain Politics and government 449-1066 Historiography. 3. France Politics and government 987 1328 Historiography. 4. Civilization, Medieval 12th century Historiography. 5. Kinship Political aspects Great Britain. 6. Kinship Political aspects France. 7. Eleventh century Historiography. 8. Tenth century Historiography. 9. Great Britain Genealogy. 10. France Genealogy. 11. Prosopography. I. Keats-Rohan, K. S. B., 1957 DA130.F36 1997 941'.0072 dc21 97-4272 This publication is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Great Britain by St Edmundsbury Press Ltd, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_iv.html29.06.2009 22:55:19

page_v

< previous page

page_v

next page > Page v

Contents Foreword

vii

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan List of Illustrations

ix

1 L'apport de la prosopographie à l'histoire sociale des élites

1

K. F. Werner 2 Kings, Chronicles and Genealogies: Reconstructing Mediaeval Celtic Dynasties

23

David E. Thornton 3 A West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century: the Family, Estates and Patronage of Beorhtric Son of Ælfgar

41

Ann Williams 4 Joining the Dots: a Methodology for Identifying the English in Domesday Book

69

C. P. Lewis 5 The Prosopographical Study of Anglo-Norman Royal Charters

89

David Bate 6 Wace as Historian

103

Elisabeth van Houts 7 Religious Patronage and Lordship: the Debate on the Nature of the Honor

133

Emma Cownie 8 Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress's Party in South-West England Judith A. Green

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_v.html (1 of 2)29.06.2009 22:55:20

147

page_v

9 Prosopographical Problems of English libri vitae

165

John S. Moore 10 'Un vassal sans histoire'?: Count Hugh II (c.940/955-992) and the Origins of Angevin Overlordship in Maine

189

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan

< previous page

page_v

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_v.html (2 of 2)29.06.2009 22:55:20

page_vi

< previous page

page_vi

next page > Page vi

11 Les comtes d'Anjou et leurs alliances aux Xe et XIe siècles

211

Christian Settipani 12 Combour: proto-histoire d'une seigneurie et mis en uvre de la reforme gregorienne

269

Hubert Guillotel 13 The Formation of the County of Perche: the Rise and Fall of the House of Gouet

299

Kathleen Thompson 14 Quelques exemples de carrières abbatiales en Normandie aux XI-XIIe siècles

315

Véronique Gazeau 15 De quelques champenois dans l'entourage français des rois d'Angleterre aux XIe et XIIe siècles

333

Michel Bur 16 How Norman was the Principality of Antioch? Prolegomena to a Study of the Origins of the Nobility of a Crusader State

349

Alan V. Murray 17 Between the Angevin and Capetian Courts: John de Rouvray and the Knights of the Pays de Bray, 1180- 1225

361

D. J. Power

< previous page

page_vi

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_vi.html29.06.2009 22:55:20

next page >

page_vii

< previous page

page_vii

next page > Page vii

Foreword No collection of prosopographical essays could hope for a finer introduction to the history, meaning and purpose of prosopography than that provided here by the essay of Karl Ferdinand Werner, 'The Prince of Prosopography'. The following 16 essays take on a wide range of subjects, sometimes for the first time in print and often dealing with some very difficult evidence. Several illuminate important issues from apparently very obscure subjects. Despite the range of subject matter, the essays are inextricably interlocked at a methodological level, as each author tames his subject by applying different aspects of prosopographical theory. For historians of France and Britain from the tenth to the twelfth century, the importance of the result will surely speak for itself (even if some authors might have changed their mind on certain points in the interval between writing and publication). I need only say that is with a sense of great privilege that I put my name as editor to this book. The seventeen papers collected here were read at the Oxford Prosopography Conference, held at Manchester College, Oxford, 27-31 March 1995. It was organized by me and Dr David Thornton, as part of our work in the Linacre Unit for Prosopographical Research labouring on the Continental Origins of English Landholders 1066-1166 project. Many debts were incurred, which are here gratefully acknowledged. First, to all the participants, who came from all over the British Isles and from France and Germany, to the staff of Manchester College for their splendid hospitality, and to Lord Saye and Sele for an unforgettable outing to Broughton Castle. Secondly, to the learned bodies which helped with funding: the British Academy, which funded Professor K.F. Werner, the Maison Française at Oxford, which funded Professor M. Bur, and the Royal Historical Society which provided bursaries for post-graduate participants. Finally, to Dr Richard Barber of Boydell and Brewer, who not only agreed to publish this ambitious volume, but has also, as publisher and historian, been a tower of strength to the Unit and its even more ambitious COEL project over several years. K. S. B. KEATS-ROHAN LINACRE COLLEGE, OXFORD

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_vii.html29.06.2009 22:55:21

page_ix

< previous page

page_ix

next page > Page ix

List of Illustrations Maps 1. Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire

52

2. Beorhtric's estates in Devon

56

3. Names mentioned in Wace's Roman de Rou 3e p., lines 8329-8705

104

4. The world of Hugh I and II of Maine

190

5. La région de Dol-Combour

270

6. The Perche Gouet

300

7. Les abbayes lexoviennes et coutançaises

316

8. Situation des comtés de Blois, de Champagne et du duché de Normandie

334

9. Position relative des différents intervenants

336

10. North-eastern Normandy in the Late Twelfth Century

366

Genealogical tables 1. Clann Cholmáin kings of Meath

34-5

2. The 'Second Dynasty of Gwynedd' to Circa 1000

38-9

3. The families of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar and Æthelweard the Chronicler, Chronicler, ealdorman of the western shires

42

4. The De Vere Family

180-1

5. The De Trailli and Espec Families

180-1

6. Suggested relationships of the Hugonide counts of Maine c. 900-1015 7. Les Fulco de Champagne, Les Adelard et les Widonides

194 220, 223, 224, 225

8. La famille de Gerberga selon B. Bachrach (1987)

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_ix.html (1 of 2)29.06.2009 22:55:22

227

page_ix

9. Les comtes de Gâtinais selon M. Chaume (1925)

232

10. Les comtes de Gâtinais selon O. Guillot (1972)

235

11. Les comtes de Gâtinais selon B. Bachrach (1987)

235

12. Les comtes de Gâtinais

236

13. Les Alberic et les Burchard

238

14. Les Alberic-Burchard-Gaufred-Walthar

241

15. Les Alberic-Burchard-Gaufred-Walthar: hypothèse de travail

244

< previous page

page_ix

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_ix.html (2 of 2)29.06.2009 22:55:22

page_x

< previous page

page_x

next page > Page x

16. La famille maternelle de Gerberga

247

17. Les derniers comtes de Gâtinais selon L. Halphen (1909)

256

18. Les derniers comtes de Gâtinais

257

19. Les vicomtes de Châteaudun

262, 264

20. Conclusion: Les comtes d'Anjou IXe-XIe siècle

265

21. Seigneurs de Dol-Combour issus des vicomtes d'Alet

272

22. Famille du Chat

274

23. Seigneurs de Langan, Lanrigan, Cuguen

276

24. Seigneurs de Tinténiac

278

25. Familles cléricales de Combour (i)

280

26. Familles cléricales de Combour (ii)

281

27. The House of Gouet

302

28. Liens de parenté entre les Clare, les Clermont et les Dammartin

342

29. The Family of Rouvray (c.1150-c.1250)

370

< previous page

page_x

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_x.html29.06.2009 22:55:22

next page >

page_1

< previous page

page_1

next page > Page 1

1 L'apport De La Prosopographie à L'histoire Sociale Des éLites K. F. Werner Family Trees and the Roots of Politics, spécialement aux Xe-XIIe siècles en France et aux Iles Britanniques est le sujet du colloque, où j'ai l'honneur de faire quelques remarques générales sur la manière d'aborder un sujet si passionnant. Le charme du colloque est qu'il est peu théorique ce qui est d'ailleurs très britannique. Il a un but précis: servir une prosopographie destinée à faire mieux connaître 'The Continental Origins of English Landholders, 1066-1220' entreprise courageusement mise en uvre sous la direction de Katharine Keats-Rohan, dont les travaux montrent le niveau élevé atteint par son groupe. L'étendue géographique et chronologique du projet est la cause, pourquoi on ne l'a pas encore abordée depuis longtemps, malgré tant de travaux généalogiques depuis des siècles. Car, pour le faire d'une manière systématique et critique, on ne disposait ni de la méthode pour maîtriser le sujet la prosopographie ni des moyens techniques pour en maîtriser la masse des faits et des textes l'ordinateur. C'est de la genèse de la premiere que je dirai quelques mots. D'autre part, je présenterai quelques 'success stories', montrant ce qu'on a pu faire déjà au sujet de problématiques proches de la vôtre. Votre projet cherche à franchir le fossé historique entre deux pays séparés géographiquement, historiquement et psychologiquement par le 'Channel', au moment où l'on prétend de l'avoir vaincu par une petite ligne ferroviaire souterraine ou plutôt sous-marine. De ces failles, prétendues ou réelles, entre peuples voire entre 'races' comme s'est exprimé Augustin Thierry, l'inventeur de l'histoire raciale (à ne pas confondre avec 'raciste') justement au sujet du cas anglo-français, il y en a eu d'autres, comme celle entre Romains et Germains, séparés par les Alpes, et celle entre Allemands et Français, séparés par le Rhin. La proximité de structure entre la prétendue scission étemelle des Romains et Germains, des Français et Allemands avec celle entre les Franci et Angli de la tapisserie de Bayeux est indéniable. Encore semble-t-il que votre cas soit moins grave, pour les raisons suivantes: 1. La déchirure n'a duré que peu de siècles: il en est sorti un seul pays, l'Angleterre, un seul peuple, les Anglais. 2. Linguistiquement, la symbiose gallo-romano-franco-normande du Xe siècle a

< previous page

page_1

next page >

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_1.html29.06.2009 22:55:23

page_2

< previous page

page_2

next page > Page 2

été suivie de la symbiose normanno-anglo-saxonne produisant la langue anglaise. Or, la latinité partielle de cette langue l'a prédestinée, avec sa germanicité partielle, à devenir une langue quasi-universelle. 3. Vous avez eu la chance d'avoir gardé entre la France et l'Angleterre un tertium comparationis, pouvant servir de pont historique: la Normandie, une des rares régions européennes entrées dans deux histoires nationales. Elle est le sujet autant de travaux anglais que de travaux français: vous vous disputez son histoire. Allemands et Français se disputaient les pays entre Meuse et Rhin, et se disputent toujours la figure de 'Charlemagne' ou 'Karl der Grosse', comme support de leur prétention historique au 'leadership' sur le continent. 4. Anglais et Français, vous etiez assez longtemps ennemis farouches et malgré cela assez étroitement mêlés par la domination normande sur l'Angleterre et la domination anglo-normande et angevine sur la moitié de la France, pour devenir enfin des allies politiques. Vous avez la chance que les nationalismes modernes n'ont pu vaincre ce qui lie historiquement vos deux pays (qui, alors, 'ont vécu ... en symbiose', selon Charles Petit-Dutaillis), dont la communauté culturelle, qui les distinguait du reste du monde, devait aller sans dire pour Jordan Fantosme (c.1175): who can tell me or who can mention A country from here to Montpellier Which is worth that of Norfolk . . . Si donc vos recherches sont en train de montrer la variété devenue unité de vos couches dirigeantes depuis les Xe/XIe siècles au-delà de la seule Normandie jusqu'en d'autres régions du continent, et cela en appliquant les méthodes prosopographiques, il n'est peut-être pas sans intérêt pour vous de voir ce que d'autres ont réussi sur un terrain à ce qu'il semble plus difficile encore, entre la France et l'Allemagne, dont les conflits ont failli détruire l'Europe, ou entre Romains et Germains, dont les conflits nous sont présentés comme ayant effectivement détruit la civilisation antique. Ce qui fut grave dans l'histoire de notre science, c'est que justement au moment des débuts de ce qu'on appelle la critique historique, celle-ci, au lieu d'analyser calmement le passé et ses grandes déchirures, les a approfondies en les traitant d'une manière passionnée et partisane! Ainsi, l'antagonisme entre Romains et Germains, entre peuples latins et nordiques domine toujours les esprits. Même des historiens chévronnés sont dominés par les légendes d'un humanisme, qui, lui, a débuté ce qu'on oublie ou refoule par respect en forme de chauvinisme italien, et qui sépare, comme pour l'éternité, Romains et Germains. Car il a inventé la prétendue fin de l'Empire romain et avec elle un 'Moyen Age' nécessairement germanique, donc barbare et ténébreux. Un professeur allemand, Keller ('Cel-larius') en a fait un système pédagogique, et depuis, on distingue 'Temps anciens' (appelés 'Antiquité au XXe siècle seulement), 'Moyen Age', 'Temps modernes', en les étudiant séparément. Les ravages d'une science prétendant être critique

< previous page

page_2

next page >


page_3

< previous page

page_3

next page > Page 3

sont allés plus loin: on a inventé le 'Haut-Moyen Age' et le 'Bas-Moyen Age', et entre les deux un 'Moyen Age central', ce qui est d'une clarté limpide. On sépare tout, non seulement les âges, mais aussi les nations, chacune ayant sa propre histoire, séparée du début jusqu'à nos jours de celle des autres nations. On sépare les domaines de la vie humaine, en les isolant les uns des autres, le droit de la foi, les sciences naturelles des sciences humaines, les métiers de la soie de ceux de la laine. Est 'scientifique' le spécialiste d'un seul sujet en un seul pays et à une seule époque ou sous-époque, et il est fier d'en savoir tout, mais égalemerit fier de ne savoir rien des autres époques, nations et sujets: on ne lui reprochera pas d'être un esprit superficiel. Parmi les Européens les plus avances à savoir les Américains il y en a, pour lesquels l'histoire militaire du XVIIIe siècle est un sujet trop vaste, même celle des uniformes. Ils se rabattent donc sur les seuls boutons d'uniforme matière vaste, pleine de variétés. C'est ainsi qu'on s'est coupé inexorablement de toute science qui veut comprendre que ce soit la nature, l'histoire, l'homme, sa religion ('elle ne me regarde pas' dit-on en bon historien 'je ne suis pas théologien!') et sa société. A l'époque même ou l'erreur néfaste du progrès par la séparation avait atteint son paroxisme, une réaction se mobilisait dans ce qu'on appelle aujourd'hui les sciences sociales, cherchant à rassembler ce qui unit les hommes dans leur vie concréte, et dans un cadre concret, comme, par exemple, celui d'une ville ou d'une région. Or, la Stadtgeschichte et la Landesgeschichte exigent nécessairement de remonter à l'époque romaine et 'médiévale', sans pouvoir les séparer, ainsi qu'à combinet les études géographiques et climatiques, économiques et sociales pour arriver à une synthèse. Derriòre tout cela, on a redécouvert l'homme, l'individu au lieu des seuls nations et États. Ces demiers sont envisagés d'une manière dif-férente, à travers leurs individualités formant la cour ou l'administration. Aussi, à la place de généralités sur ce qu'était 'le COMES' dans l'antiquité, puis dans le monde franc, puis dans le 'Moyen Age allemand' ou dans le 'Moyen Age français', on cherche à faire la liste de tousles hommes ayant porté le titre de COMES partout en Europe, à toutes les 'époques', et de connaître leur carrière, leurs ancêtres, leurs alliances, leurs descendants. On ne s'isole plus d'une façon aussi hautaine que stupide des autres disciplines on cherche leur aide. Ceux qui ont pris cette habitude qui constitue une attitude nouvelle, regardent d'un il curieux ceux qui toujours ne veulent rien savoir en dehors de ce qu'il croient déjà connaître, tandis qu'eux, tout en avouant humblement leur ignorance provisoire, s'enrichis-sent de jour en jour. Or, il y a eu de chercheurs qui n'avaient jamais cessé de procéder ainsi, surtout des historiens de l'histoire ancienne qui n'a pas été nationalisée au même degré. Eux, ils avaient le 'marché commun' de la documentation archéologique et litteraire du monde méditerranéen, et des instruments de travail commun. Ils devaient affronter la critique internationale car il ne suffit pas, chez eux, de convaincre les seuls compatriotes. Mais ils pouvaient profiter aussi de milliers d'inscriptions grecques et romaines comportant de dizaines de milliers de noms de personne, souvent accompagnés de dates de leur carrière et de noms de leur parenté. C'est là d'ailleurs ou la 'prosopographie' est née.

< previous page

page_3

next page >


page_4

< previous page

page_4

next page > Page 4

Son nom est plus ancien. Le terme néo-gréco-latin se trouve comme titre de l'Index des noms de personne ajouté par un érudit allemand, J. D. Ritter, en 1745 au demier tome de la nouvelle édition du Codex Theodosianus de Godefroy: Prosopographia seu Index Personarum omnium quarum fit mentio . . . Claude Nicolet qui le signala en 1970, supposait une origine humaniste en citant comme exemple l'Onomasticon de J. Glandorp de Münster en Westphalie, paru en 1589. Le mot, basé sur prósopon ('visage, regard, masque, rôle', enfin 'personne' en parallélisme saisissant avec persona en Latin dont l'étymologie d'origine étrusque signifiait 'masque'), était connu comme terme rhétorique à l'Encyclopédie (t. 13, 1765), qui le définit par 'image, portrait, description, peinture' (par les mots) d'hommes, voire d'animaux. Werner Paravicini de l'Institut historique allemand de Paris, connaissant ma curiosité au sujet de ce petit problème, me signala un ouvrage conservè à la Bibliothèque Nationale publié à Mayence en 1537 par Justin Gobler: Prosopographiarum libri quatuor, in quibus personarum illustrium de-scriptiones aliquot seu imagines ex optimis quibusdam auctoribus . . . continentur . . . Chez lui, chacune des descriptions était une 'prosopographie', d'où le pluriel du titre. Un autre collègue à notre Institut, Jürgen Voss à parlé dans son livre Das Mittelalter im historischen Denken Frankreichs (1972) d'un personnage curieux, né à Ravensburg au nord du lac de Constance sous le nom de Heinrich Pantlin (ou Bandlin, ce qui veut dire 'petit ruban'), nom dont il fit à la manière des humanistes 'Pantaleon', quand il réussit une belle carrière dans la ville de Bâle. Devenu historiographe et Hofpfalzgraf (comte palatin de cour), de l'empereur Maximilien II, il écrivit pour lui un Heldenbuch (Livre des héros) de la nation allemande. En 1565, il en publia à Bâle la version latine originale: Prosopographia <et non 'prosopographiae' comme par erreur chez Voss> heroum atque illustrium virorum totius Germaniae. C'est alors que la 'Prosopographie' en terme absolue est née, déjà proche de l'idée de réunir des faits des hommes 'illustres', des nobles donc qui seront la cible de la science moderne du même nom. Il est possible de montrer l'origine de la nouvelle conception généralisante. Pantaleonétait, en effet, un é1ève du cé1èbre Sebastian Münster, l'auteur de la Topographia Mundi, et il a publié lui-même une Chronographia Ecclesiae christianae. Avec sa Prosopographia, le public disposait donc de la description des Lieux, des Temps et des Personnes. Ces mots humanistes appartiennent à la même catégorie comme Bibliographia utilisé la premiere fois (comme l'a montré Rudolf Blum en 1969) en 1633 par Gabriel Naudé, bibliothécaire de Mazarin, 1600-1653 (information que je dois à Jürgen Voss), et Biographia, mot inconnu aux Grecs, conçu dès le XIVe siècle, comme nous le savons par Michael Grant. Termes nés du mouvement de collectionner et d'ordonner toutes les matières, qui a démarré aux XIIe/XIIIe siècles avec Pierre Lombard et Vincent de Beauvais, et qui a créé tant de notions de base pour les sciences modernes. L'emploi de 'prosopographie', laissant tomber images et héros, est passé à travers les Indices philologiques de tousles noms de personnes mentionnés chez les auteurs anciens, à sa signification scientifique par Theodor Mommsen qui, en fondant la cé1èbre Prosopographia Imperii Romani (PIR) de l'Académie de Berlin, à définitivement 'lancé', selon Nicolet, le mot comme terme scientifique.

< previous page

page_4

next page >


page_5

< previous page

page_5

next page > Page 5

Il s'agissait, en effet, de faire profiter la recherche non seulement du trésor des noms de personnes dans tousles ouvrages que nous a laissés le monde gréco-romain, mais aussi de cet énorme trésor de mentions de nom de personnes conservés par de milliers d'inscriptions, en les réunissant, province pour province de l'Empire, en une seule édition critique, en commençant par les trois premiers siècles après J.-C. Avec les 3 t. en 4 vols de la Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (260-641) (PLRE), la British Academy a pris la relève de celle de Berlin. Inaugurée depuis 1971 par A. H. M. Jones et d'autres, et continuée inlassablement par J. R. Martindale et d'autres, la PLRE a le mérite d'avoir inclus les chefs barbares aussi bien que ceux de l'Empire qui, en de centaines de cas, sont les mêmes. Un volume rectificatif en apportera encore d'autres, en profitant aussi de nombreux comptes rendus, parmi lesquels émerge pour notre sujet, la Gaule celui de S. J. B. Barnish (sur les travaux en cours de R. Mathisen sur la Gaule romaine), Journ. Rom. Stud. lxxxiv, 1994, 171-7, que me signale Christian Settipani, ainsi que du travail précieux de Martin Heinzelmann, 'Gallische Prosopographie 260-527', Francia x, 1983, 531-718, complément des t. I et II de la PLRE au sujet de la seule Gaule, et en comprenant plus largement le clergé, et en utilisant l'hagiographie dans ses textes de valeur (sera continué). Ainsi, les barrages rigides entre 'Antiquité' et 'Moyen Age', Romains et Germains se brisent (voir les remarques de Heinzelmann, ibid. 532s.). D'autant plus que la PLRE est en train d'être complétée par la 'Prosopographie chretienne', fondée par Henri Irénéé Marrou, et par la PBE ('The Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire') pour l'époque après 641: on annonce le premier volume pour 1996. Dorénavant, il ne manque plus au tableau d'un relevé plus ou moins complet des données prosopographiques de l'Europe jusqu'à l'an Mil que les royaumes de l'Occident, pour lesquels existent déjà de nombreux travaux partiels (comme par ex. Eduard Hlawitschka pour l'Italie carolingienne), un ensemble que les ordinateurs permettront d'exploiter plus facilement. On restera toutefois en retard, comparé aux époques et régions qui ont profité des premieres réalisations importantes, comme l'Empire d'Alexandre le Grand (Helmut Berve, Das Alexanderrreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols, München 1926, complété, comme le me signale aimablement M. Settipani, par Waldemar Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander's Empire, London 1992). C'est aux fondements de la prosopographie posés par latinistes et grécistes que l'on doit, depuis Theodor Mommsen, les progrès de la méthode scientifique de l'exploitation des noms de personnes. Claude Nicolet en définit ainsi les buts: elle 'doit servir l'histoire des groupes, é1éments de l'histoire politique et sociale, en isolant des séries de personnages qui ont en commun tell e caractéristique sociale ou politique'; puis elle 'interroge ces séries en fonction de critères multiples, afin d'en tirer tousles renseignements, d'en dégager des constantes ou des variables'. On cherche la réalité humaine et sociale d'un groupe en analysant les faits connus des individus qui la forment. La prosopographie permet, comme nous l'avons dit en 1977, de combiner l'histoire politique des hommes et des 'événements', avec l'histoire sociale 'anonyme' des évolutions à long terme, par l'études des individus qui sont le support des deux.

< previous page

page_5

next page >


page_6

< previous page

page_6

next page > Page 6

Dans sa synthèse, elle a besoin de l'onomastique (pour les noms) et de la généalogie (pour le contexte familial). Elle concerne directement l'histoire des institutions qui sont portées par les hommes qui exercent les fonctions publiques. Des enquêtes prosopographiques fondamentales sur la NOBILITAS romaine sont dues aux maîtres qu'ont été Matthias Gelzer et Sir Ronald Syme. Elles ont été suivies par toute une série de prosopographies consacré à l'administration du Haut et du Bas-Empire, pour arriver enfin aux couches dominantes du Ve et VIe siècle. Là, elles ont bouleversé notre vue des relations entre 'Romains et Barbares'. On les avait regardés presque exclusivement sous l'angle de leurs luttes, en négligeant la symbiose de leurs élites dont est sortie la structure aristocratique de l'Europe. Un érudit y a un mérite particulier (après des prédécesseurs comme Karl Friedrich Strohecker et Wilhelm Ensslin): Alexander Demandt auteur de l'article monumental de la RE sur MAGISTER MILITUM qui analyse les chefs militaires des IVe-VIIe siècles. En 1980 et 1989 ('Der späitrömische Militäradel' et 'The osmosis of the late Roman and Germanic aristocracies'), il en a tiré ses conclusions: des chefs barbares (Francs, Alémans, Goths, Alains, etc.) occupaient des postes-clé dans l'armée romaine et à la cour, en Orient comme en Occident. Il yen avait de 'dynasties' apparentées des maisons impériales comme des dynasties royales barbares. Stefan Krautschick ('Die Familie der Könige in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter') a complété son maître en 1989 par une documentation tendant à prouver qu'il n'y pratiquement pas eu de rois barbares successeurs de l'Empire en Occident qui n'étaient pas en parenté, souvent multiple, avec les MAGISTRI MILITUM (barbares ou romains) et avec de hauts fonctionnaires à la cour. C'est tout un tissu humain qui ressort de ces recherches et nous fait mieux comprendre l'histoire de l'époque. C'en est fini avec le mythe de la fin de l'Empire romain, qui n'est pas un produit des ténèbres médiévales, mais des lumières humanistes suivies de celles de l'historiographie moderne. Ce mythe a été magistralement ridiculisé par un auteur suisse, Friedrich Dürrenmatt, dans sa piece 'Romulus der Grosse'. Ses figures disent, entre autres, 'Voilà les Germains qui arrivent, maintenant l'Antiquité est terminée . . .'. 'De la catastrophe de ce jour(!), l'humanité ne se relèvera plus jamais'. Romulus Augustulus quitte la scène, emmenant un buste de Romulus, fondateur de Rome: 'avec cela, l'Empire romain a cessé d'exister'. L'auteur montre Odoacre faisant irruption en Italie à la tête de 100,000 Germains, sachant parfaitement, lui, que cet homme se trouvait en Italie à la tête de l'armée romaine d'origine largement barbare. Élu REX (romain) par l'armée de l'ouest, Odoacre déclare que l'Occident n'a plus besoin d'un empereur à part, en envoyant à l'empereur Zenon, lui même sémi-barbare et usurpateur, les insignes impériaux. Ces deux souverains reconnaissent réciproquement le consul de l'année nommé par l'autre pour sa part de l'Empire. Au lieu d'une fin atroce par la terreur de barbares implacables, on observe une pension agréable pour Romulus sur des domaines de l'Etat près de Naples, où sa mère fonde une abbaye, protégée par Odoacre, plus tard par Théodoric. Sous ces chefs de l'Occident romain, l'administration romaine reste en place, les palais impériaux sur le Palatin, négligés par Constantinople, sont restaurés. Quant au Sénat de Rome, il est alors plus honoré qu'auparavant (y compris les loges des

< previous page

page_6

next page >


page_7

< previous page

page_7

next page > Page 7

sénateurs au Colisée datant d'Odoacre), comme le confirma, en 1991, après Ensslin, mais avec la prosopographie de ses membres, C. Schäfer, 'Der Weströmis-che Senat als Träger antiker Kontinuität unter den Ostgotenkönigen (490-540 n. Chr.)'. N'oublions pas que le rétablissement formel par Odoacre de l'unité de l'Empire sous un seul empereur profitera à la politique de reconquête de Justinien (qui amena des destructions durables): c'était cela, la fin de l'Empire en 476. Ces constats de continuité, nous allons les élargir dans un ouvrage en cours sur la Naissance de la noblesse. Il y avait une seule élite romano-barbare qui contrôlait la société politique, du Ve au VIIe siècle, dans ce qui est resté un 'monde romain' qui sous la présidence de l'empereur garde intact des notions essentielles des institutions politico-sociales du 'modèle d'État romain', comme DIGNITAS, HONOR, MILITIA, CINGULUM MILITIAF, POTESTAS, STATUS, HABITUS. L'empereur à Constantinople reste FONS HONORUM source d'une légitimité cherchée par tous, mais aussi PRINCEPS PIISSIMUS de l'Eglise, dont les dogmes sont décidés en des conciles générales convoqués dans les palais impériaux, déclarés lois et défendus en tant que telles par l'empereur. Par des textes nombreux du Ve au XIIe siècle, nous donnerons la preuve de cette unité de base romano-germanique: un seul monde politico-social de l'Empire romain chrétien à l'Empire franc avec une seule hiérarchie européenne des rangs de la NOBILITAS Une seule histoire du monde de Dieu qui le dirige à travers les rois, les bons et les mauvais. Histoire dont le module sont les rois bibliques, de manière que les empereurs et rois cherchent à devenir un nouveau David. Un monde enfin où le rang, HONOR et DIGNITAS, est distribué par le PRINCEPS empereur ou bien par le PRINCEPS-REX, roi reconnu par l'empereur et élevé par ce dernier au rang de (REX) GLORIOSISSIMUS/EXCELLENTISSIMUS. Les dignitaires doivent être des chrétiens, motif puissant pour les conversions, comme celle de Clovis, mais aussi de Vladimir qui a créé la 'Sainte Russie', pour obtenir la main d'une princesse impériale et le patriciat romain, en ordonnant à chacun des habitants de Kiev de se rendre sur les bords du Dnjepr pour se faire baptiser, s'il voulait éviter d'être considéré comme ennemi personnel du prince. C'est cela aussi, la Personengeschichte. La fin du mythe de la fin de l'Empire par la découverte d'un ensemble romano-chrétien formé par Constantinople et les royaumes occidentaux triomphant des ennemis en étendant le christianisme à l'est comme à l'ouest signifie aussi la fin d'une historiographie nationaliste qui se désintéressait du christianisme et de ses victoires, qui refusait l'héritage de Rome et rêvait d'une histoire nationale qu'elle soit germano-allemande ou gallo-franco-française, et cela au sujet d'une période historique précédant de 500 à 700 ans la naissance de ces deux nations. Un exemple de ces vues se trouve dans Früher Adel (1973) de Wilhelm Störmer, un bon auteur mais partiellement dominé par les idées de toute une école. Réfléchissant sur la manière de donner les noms dans les familles aristocratiques, il conclut: 'Il semble que l'hérédité du nom lié à la famille, combinée avec la variation du nom, soit un vieil usage germanique.' Pourquoi pas mais exclusivement germanique? Il semble le croire, car pour lui, le Sippenbewusstsein, conscience d'unité d'un groupe familial dont la domination chez les aristocrates grecs et romains est pourtant archiconnue est pour lui également une façon de

< previous page

page_7

next page >


page_8

< previous page

page_8

next page > Page 8

penser spécifiquement germanique. Pire, il voit dans la persistance du mode de l'attribution des noms de personnes la preuve de la persistance des idées païennes en face du christianisme. Ces noms, ne contiennent-ils pas souvent des éléments se rapportant aux dieux germaniques et aux bêtes, comme le loup qui à joué un rôle dans la pensée magique des guerriers païens? C'est le monde de la germanische Kontinuität, notion créée par Otto Höfler. Voilà ce qui semble confirmer les idées d'un monde 'germano-médiéval', soit rétrograde et barbare, soit merveilleusement magique selon les goûts. Même le Königsheil, l'idée d'un pouvoir quasi-magique du chef cher aux peuples africains, entre autres, et étudié aussi par Marc Bloch (Les rois thaumaturges) est utilisé comme preuve supplémentaire de ces traditions païennes et germaniques. Dès 1965, je me suis permis de signaler qu'il y a eu non seulement la FELICITAS romaine, mais surtout une sorte de Königsheil chez le peuple hébreux, correspondant jusqu'aux détails aux idées prétendûment germaniques par essence: richesse des moissons et des butins de guerre, assurance des victoires le manque de ces forces miraculeuses pouvant amener l'abandon du roi. Quant à la manière de donner les noms, évoquée par Störmer et tant d'autres comme signe de la germanicité des origines européennes, je signalais en 1977 que dans le Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde de Schrader (21923-29), on découvre que l'usage de donner son nom à l'enfant neuf jours après sa naissance se trouve aussi bien en Inde que chez les Grecs anciens, chez les Romains et chez les Germains, à quelques variantes près. La cause en est commune, le désir de permettre à la mère de l'enfant de participer d'une manière convenable à la donation du nom dans le cadre de ce qui s'appelait SIB ('Sippe') chez les Germains, COGNATIO chez les Romains, SYGGENAIA chez les Grecs. Tout cela est aussi naturel que plausible, à tel degré que nous voyons de choses pareilles chez les Juifs, donc en dehors du domaine indo-europßen. Selon l'évangile de Luc (I, 59-63), les proches de saint Jean Baptiste voulaient lui donner le nom de son père, Zacharie (donc une Nachbenennung classiquement germanique selon Störmer), mais la mère, Élisabeth, ayant reçu la révélation par l'ange, s'y oppose: il sera nommé Jean! Les proches s'adressent au père pour qu'il n'accepte pas le fait inouï d'utiliser un nom qui n'a jamais été employé dans la famille, mais Zacharie confirme: Son nom sera Jean. 'Kai ethaúmasan pántes'; 'Et mirati sunt universi'. Il faudrait que cette stupéfaction saisisse ceux qui ont fait d'une règle générale de l'époque du seul nom on n'a droit qu'aux noms appartenants déjà au groupe familial, du côté paternel ou maternel, un usage typiquement germanique. Aussi, le 'Schrader' permet-il de constater que presque tousles Indo-européens avaient des noms bipartites qui permettent, évidemment, la variation, avec des analogies, pour père et fills, entre HILTI-BRANTet HADU-BRANTen ancien haut allemand, et DINO-KLES/ DINO-KRATES en grec et SPITA-MENES/ SPITA-KES en perse. Quant aux noms de bêtes, on les aimait partout comme symbole de force, le loup étant vénéré chez les Serbes comme chez les Grecs (LYKO-PHRON). C'est pareil pour les noms d'anciens dieux qui ne disparaissent évidemment pas avec la venue du christianisme (sans lui faire tort): le nom du dieu celtique(!) TEUTORIX survit dans le THEODORIC germanique, le DIETRICH allemand et le THIERRY français ce qui n'a pas empêché des porteurs

< previous page

page_8

next page >


page_9

< previous page

page_9

next page > Page 9

de ces noms de devenir des saints! C. P. Lewis vient de nous rappeler que la signification etymologique des noms, à de rares exceptions pros, ne 'joue' guère, ni pour les contemporains ni donc pour l'historien. Une recherche historique, axée trop exclusivement sur l'histoire de la propre nation et sur les traditions qu'elle croit être les siennes, est en danger permanent de prendre comme spécifique, voire comme une invention que l'humanité doit à sa prétendue nation (car les Germains n'en étaient pas une, et les Français et Allemands n'en formaient une que très tardivement), ce qui, au moment où notre regard s'élève un peu, s'avère être un phénomène passablement général, typique non pas d'un certain peuple ou d'un groupe de peuples de langue et culture apparentées, mais de la vie des sociétés anciennes. Venons en maintenant aux réalisations prosopographiques des médiévistes qui rejoignent celles de leur collègues travaillant sur des plus hautes époques. J'ai choisi comme exemple, aussi pour ses qualités indéniables, une école allemande, appellée 'Tellenbach-Schule' d'après son premier maître, Gerd Tellenbach, auquel ont suivi d'autres comme Karl Schmid, Joachim Wollasch, Otto Gerhard Oexle, Hagen Keller. J'aimerais faire voir comment elle a parcouru le chemin vets une recherche vraiment européenne, tout en adaptant la prosopographie en histoire ancienne aux besoins de la médiévistique. Je m'appuie, entre autres, sur des textes de Keller qui vient de faire le point sur l'euvre de Tellenbach, à l'occasion de son 90e anniversaire, ainsi que de Wollasch et Oexle qui ont rappelé les mérites de celle de Schmid, mort l'année dernière. Les instituts et les ordinateurs du groupe sont à Freiburg et Münster. C'est dans le cadre de l'Institut fur Frühmittelalterforschung de l'Université de Münster que Keller publie avec Karl Hauck (archéologie), Friedrich Ohly (philologie) et Ruth Schmidt-Wiegand (histoire du Droit) les Frühmittelalterliche Studien (FMSt, cf. la Bibliographie à la fin). Tellenbach a pu profiter de précurseurs comme René Poupardin et de ses remarques suggestives, en 1900, sur 'Les grandes familles comtales à l'époque carolingienne', quand il a distingué en 1939 les familles les plus importantes entourant les souverains carolingiens et ottoniens des autres, dormant aux premieres la désignation de 'Reichsaristokratie', ce qui se reflète encore en 1976 dans l'ouvrage de Reinhard Wenskus qui distingue le 'Säichsische Stammesadel' du 'fränkische Reichsadel'. Cela reste problématiquele premier devenant le 'Reichsadel' de l'Empire saxon. Plus important encore que les premieres prosopographies de l'école de Tellenbach, comme celle déjà citée de Hlawitschka sur la noblesse installée par les Carolingiens en Italic du nord, et composée de Francs, Alémans, Bavarois et Burgondes, a été la 'découverte' d'un genre de source longtemps negligé, à savoir les 'Liturgische Gedenkbücher', décrits en 1964 par Tellenbach comme particulièrement aptes à nous faire mieux connaître les personnes pour faire de la 'Personenforschung' (prosopographie) dont Tellenbach avait dressé le programme des 1957. Depuis, des douzaines de LIBRI VITAE et autres nécrologes ont été édités d'une façon critique en utilisant les meilleurs manuscrits, traités selon une methode paléographique qui permettait à isoler de groupes de noms notés ensembles, le même jour, à l'occasion de la visite d'un roi ou d'un grand avec leur suite. Ces chefs firent inscriredans le monastère doté de dons considérablesles noms des

< previous page

page_9

next page >


page_10

< previous page

page_10

next page > Page 10

hommes et femmes dont ils voulaient qu'ils soient l'objet de prières le jour de l'anniversaire de leur mort. On fit de même pour les noms de parents, amis et vassaux, morts, ou bien encore en vie. En mettant tousles noms sur ordinateur, des spécialistes sont arrivés à lui faire 'apprendre' à lire de mieux en mieux les noms écrits de manière irréguliere ou erronnée, le quota des réussites dépassant finalement les 95%. Réunissant en un seul programme tousles 'data' prosopographiques disponibles sur un nom donné, on est arrivé à de multiples identifications de personnages historiques, soit certaines, soit probables et sujets de recherches ultérieures. C'était le début d'une prosopographie critique. A côté de ces progrès techniques et méthodiques nous dotant d'une sorte de 'source nouvelle' ou 'secondaire'les chercheurs du groupe ont le mérite d'avoir réfléchi plus profondément sur les motivations et buts des hommes qui se donnalent tant de peine pour assurer cette MEMORIA pour leurs ames et celles de leurs êtres chères. De cette réflexion est né un volume considérable publié par Schmid et Wollasch: MEMORIA Der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter (1984), qui fait lui-même partie du programme de recherche 'SOCIETAS ET FRATERNITAS'. Dix-neuf auteurs de trois générations de l'`École' avec leurs amisparmi lesquels nous signalons les collègues Français éminents Jean Vezin (paléographe) et Jean-Loup Lemaître (prosopographe), y font le point des aspects fondamentaux, sur presque 800 pages richement illustrées. Ne citons que Tellenbach sur la dimension historique de la COMMEMORATIO liturgique, Arnold Angenendt sur l'arrière-fond théologique, Joachim Wollasch sur la 'fratemité' comme forme de vie, et Stefan Sonderegger sur le sens de la recherche des noms de personne médiévaux. Les dimensions politiques ont été vues dès 1971 lors d'un colloque organisé à Trèves par notre institut, quand Schmid et Oexle ont présenté l'alliance de prières ('Gebetsbund'), conclu en 762 lors du synode d'Attigny, palais du roi Pépin (étude publiée dans Francia, 1975). Cette sorte d'organisation de prières' a été lancé par ce premier roi carolingien, pour souder ensemble des églises importantes des différentes parties du royaume, qui souffrait alors de rivalités internes. Elles avaient pour cause les Neustriens vaincus récemment par les Pippinides austrasiens, les Aquitains que Pépin était en train de soumettre, et les habitants de la Germanie, où les Pippinides devaient guerroyer en Alémanie et en Bavière, pour ne pas parler de la Saxe insoumise. Comme l'Église avait renforcé la légitimité de la nouvelle dynastie, elle était un allié idéal pour aider la réussite de la paix intérieureet de l'unité en forme d'un bloc d'évêques et abbés priant les uns pour les autres, appuyés par la prière plus 'efficace' des moines des abbayes sous leur influence, pour le salut de l'âme de chacun d'eux qui viendrait à mourir, ainsi que pour le salut des membres de la (nouvelle!) famille royale, et, bientôt, également pour celui des grands, dans la mesure qu'ils éqtaient fidèles au roi! On trouve au premier rang de cette alliance de prières les grands monastères royaux favorisés jusqu'en Alémanie (Reichenau) et en Germanie (Fulda). L'importance concrete de ce service de prières sur le plan politico-spirituel n'est toujours pas pleinement réalisée par tousles historiens. Des dizaines de milliers de prières organisées ont ainsi accompagné une seule cam-

< previous page

page_10

next page >


page_11

< previous page

page_11

next page > Page 11

pagne contre les Avares, la prière étant une arme puissante dans une lutte que Dieu seul pouvait rendre victorieuse. L'aspect religieux dans l'histoire de la noblesseavec ses hommes puissants dans l'État et dans l'Église, mais pieins d'humilité devant Dieu et cherchant le secours des saints à travers la prière des moinesest devenu un sujet central, au delà de l'école de Münster et Freiburg, de toute une génération de médiévistes allemands. D'un coup, les interprétations politiques superficielles 'expliquant' les actions des grands du IXe siècle par les motivations accessibles à la pensée du XIXe siècle, sont devenus obsolètespour ne pas dire ridicules par leur anachronisme grotesque. Mes recherches m'avaient appris il y longtemps que les luttes des factions et familles (car il ne faut pas être assez naïf pour croire que la piété puisse exclure les rivalités et les combats) se reflètent en des 'luttes spirituelles' entre les églises et leurs saints protégés par les uns, et combattus, avec les hommes qui en dépendent, par les autres. Cela donne des louanges des vertus d'un noble lié à tel monastère par ses moines à lui, et une condamnation terrible du même personnage par les moines d'une autre abbaye. Les historiens voulant noircir unilatéralement l'image de la noblesse, comme par exemple ceux du 'Lavisse' (autour de 1900), n'avaient qu'à citer les seules plaintes. On comprend que Schmid, Wollasch et leurs collègues ont pu voir derrière les communautés de prières des communautés de personnes, des Personengemeinschaften. Ils se sont donc spécialisés dans l'étude des communautés les plus unis, et spirituellement les plus puissantes, celles des monastères, les Klostergemeinschaften. Comme celle de l'abbaye de Fulda, etudiée et publiée (avec ses formidables Annales necrologici, qui ne donnent pas seulement le jour, mais aussi l'année du décès) par Schmid et Wollasch, oeuvre monumentale en 5 volumes, dont le mérite a été souligne par Michel Parisse, en 1980. Les différentes listes du couvent énorme plusieurs centaines de moines pouvaient être ainsi datées précisément permettant la datation d'autres mentions de noms à travers l'Empire. Tant d'autres nécrologes à travers l'Empire franc et le saint Empire ont été publié depuis d'une manière comparable. Dire les mérites de cette 'école' ne signifie pas que tousles concepts développés par elle et par ceux qui la suivent doivent être acceptées sans réserves et critiques. Reinhard Wenskus a fait remarquer fort justement que cette école devenue parfois un peu dogmatique, soigne un peu trop exclusivement les sources mémoriales. Comme lui, je pense aussi que les actes 'privés' datés avec leurs milliers de témoins (souvent rangés dans l'ordre hiérarchique), sont au moins de la même valeur. Toujours Wenskus a bien vu qu'une communauté vraiment forte n'est démontrable que pour les couvents (et encore: on y a assassiné plus d'un abbe!). En ce qui concerne le monde en dehors du monastère, on ne niera guère que le souci du salut de l'âme est le plus personnel qui soit, et qu'il s'étend aux parents les plus proches, à la rigueur aux vassaux ou seigneurs, donc, souvent, à des cercles assez restraints. Si donc des réussites spectaculaires comme celles des Carolinglens depuis Attigny et des Ottoniens ont été rares et d'une durée limitée, il ne faut pas sous-estimer l'impact de la piété et sa forme la plus concrète dans le rayonnement spirituel et politique des grands monastères. Wollasch l'a si bien vu qu'il s'est attaqué, avec toute une équipe, à la

< previous page

page_11

next page >


page_12

< previous page

page_12

next page > Page 12

plus grande par la puissance de son abbé sur des centaines de prieurés, je parle de Cluny. Plus de 75,000 noms sont déjà enrégistrés, avec une base manuscrite toujours améliorée, et une exploitation électronique remarquable. Inutile de souligner le lien direct avec l'aristocratie de l'Occident entier, mais particulièrement en France où les grands, des le Xe siècle, se sont mis à aider les moines de Cluny en réformant leurs propres abbayes, en chassant, paffois manu militari, des 'chanoines' ou de mauvais moines, pour les remplacer par des Clunisiens qui, à côté de leur force spirituelle, étaient aussi les meilleurs administrateurs. Là aussi, le spirituel et le matériel s'alliént parfaitement ce qui n'a pu étonner que les modernes, condamnés à vivre le matériel sans le spirituel. Nous l'avons dit, la piété n'a pu faire disparaître la lutte pour le pouvoir. Mais les règles du jeu, la stratégie en furent différentes. Pour avoir succès, ici-bas et dans l'au-delà, il fallait d'abord s'arranger avec Dieu et ses saints. C'est ainsi que sont nés les richesses extraordinaires des églises et les succès des mouvements de réformes qui depuis le XIe siècle ont transformé l'Europe. Mais il n'y a pas que Cluny. Partout, où il y avait un centre politico-religieux fort et convaincant, il y pouvait naître un sentiment de cohésion et de solidarité, par ex. dans tousles REGNA (cf. Werner, LM 7, 1994) ayant trouvé un centre politique dans la résidence d'un MARCHIO/DUX et un centre spirituel dans l'abbaye protégée par lui et son saint protégeant le prince! Celui-ci a pu s'appuyer ainsi sur une église particulièrement riche en terres et vassaux, dont il fut souvent l'abbé laïc. Olivier Gulllot et Jean-Pierre Brunterc'h viennent de le montrer pour la Bourgogne et l'Aquitaine/ Poitou. Dans les deux cas, l'appui spirituel du saint de l'abbaye pour son VENERABILIS ABBAS fut essentiel, et les vassaux avaient intérêt à se joindre au même protecteur. C'est une observation que j'avais déjà faite depuis 1959 pour les Robertlens, chefs de la Neustrie et abbés de Saint-Martin de Tours, un patron spirituel qui les prédestinait, comme celui de St-Denis, à devenir une jour REX FRANCORUM. C'est donc avec eux, si proches, chronologiquement et géographiquement, de votre terrain de recherche, que je concluerai. Depuis que j'ai découvert l'origine romaine de la NOBILITAS 'médiévale' qui esr alevenue NOBLESSE et NOBILITY jusque dans le détail de ses titres et structures, l'erreur commune des différentes écoles nationales de ne chercher que sa propre noblesse nationale et de l'imaginer comme telle loin dans le passé, germanique ou non, s'est dévoilée pour moi comme encore plus pernicieuse pour toute recherche des origines. Dans votre cas Angleterre-France, on sait pertinemment que ce n'était que saint Louis, deux siècles après 1066, qui obligea sa noblesse à opter définitivement pour l'un des deux pays, et à abandonnet ses fiefs dans l'autre. Imaginez-vous donc combien longtemps les grands de l'Empire carolingien pouvaient se sentit chez eux dans les différents royaumes (REGNA) du monde franc, pour lequel le principe de l'unité du (grand) REGNUM FRANCORUM fut maintenu au moment de la division de 843 à Verdun. Aussi Adalhard, pour les Français 'Alard le sénéchal', fut-il un de ceux qui restalent présents dans l'Empire entier, lui, dont la 'dynastic' (des comtes de Paris) disposait de domaines et comtés sur le Neckar et la 'Bergstrasse' au delà du Rhin comme à Metz, à Reims, aux Pyrénées et dans les deux Bourgognes, de Lyon à Auxerre. Adalhard fut l'homme dominant la cour

< previous page

page_12

next page >


page_13

< previous page

page_13

next page > Page 13

du viel empereur Louis avant de dominer le jeune Charles le Chauve qu'il maria à sa nièce, Ermentrude, fille d'Eudes, comte d'Orléans (tombé dès 832 au service de l'empereur Louis). Les grandes abbayes d'Adalhard se trouvaient à SaintMartin de Tours aussi bien qu'à Saint-Maximin de Trèves avec de nombreux vassaux installés sur des terres abbatiales qui comptaient, pour le seul St-Martin de Tours, 20,000 serfs. Le comte-abbé joua avec les royaumes et les rois, comme le fit son proche parent et rival Girart 'de Vienne' (qui patronna le petit roi Charles de Burgondie, fils de Lothaire Ier, avant de gouvemer seul). Quand les parents de Judith, les fameux Welfs, acquirent trop d'influence auprès de Charles le Chauve, Adalhard se déplaça dans le royaume lotharingien et s'y fit donner d'autres abbayes, avant de revenir triomphalement, en 861, à l'ouest pour y jouer de nouveau les premiers rôles. Chargé de la défense du royaume du côté septentrional, il installa comme comte du Maine un de ses alliés qu'il amena avec lui du royaume oriental où ils avaient été victimes indirectes d'une de ses intrigues, à savoir l'essai d'une alliance de sa fille avec Carloman, ills de Louis le Germanique, plan qui échoua par la vigilance de ce dernier. C'est cet Adalhard qui avait lancé, aux alentours de 850, la carrière de Robert le Fort, ills d'un comte homonyme de la dynastie des fondateurs de l'abbaye de Lorsch, à l'est de Worms. Refusant de servir Louis le Germanique, Robert était entré dans les services de Charles qui le 'casa' provisoirement sur des terres de l'église de Reimsce qui lui a valu l'inimitié durable d'Hincmar qui les fit restituer apres son election comme archevêque. En 851/52, Robert est déjà MISSUS sur la Loire inferieure et comte d'Angers. Il rut l'âme de la défense des comtés ligériens à la fois contre Bretons, Normands et Aquitains. Les 'Robertiens' dénommés apres ce grand chef, sont exemplaires pour notre démonstration de l''ubiquité' des grandes familles dans l'ensemble du monde franc. Car ils sont arrivés de la vallée de la Meuse tout en étant établis en Neustrie dès l'époque merovingienne, avant de dominer, sous les Carolingiens, de Trèves à Worms et jusqu'en Bourgogne, ce qui n'étonnera personne qui sait qu'Ermengarde, la premiere impératrice carolingienne, fut une des leurs. Carlrichard Brühl qui l'ignorait, a sous-estimé l'impact de l'alliance impériale qui a créé une nouvelle catégorie de la plus haute noblesse qui plus tard va tout simplement remplacer les Carolingiens. La méthode prosopographique m'a permis de détecter les liéns de l'historiographe Réginon de Prüm avec le groupe familial robertien. Il en fit partie, ce qui le fit suivre dans sa chronique universelie le principe même qui a dominé la politique robertienne jusqu'à Hugues Capet: les Carolingiens sont les seuls maîtres legitimes (Réginon dit 'naturels') des Francs, mais personne n'est plus aptes à les remplacer, le cas échéant, que les Robertiens! De ce 1égitimisme fort adroit, ces derniers ont tité une 1égitimité supérieure à tousles autres non-Carolingiens. Réginon était chez lui, comme les Robertiens, aussi bien en Bretagne comme en Lotharingie ou sur le Rhin, où il était né. Chassé de son abbaye de Prüm, Réginon y trouva encore à sa fin de protecteurs puissants à Trèves et surtout en la personne des prélats de Mayence et d'Augsbourg (qui, alors, dirigeaient le jeune roi de l'Est, Louis l'Enfant, et, avec lui, le royaume) auxquels il dédicaça des euvres. C'est pourquoi il a pu être l'historiographe du monde carolingien entier, tout en étant un

< previous page

page_13

next page >


page_14

< previous page

page_14

next page > Page 14

partisan des Robertiens un historien européen, comme la noblesse dont il fit partie. Cela veut dire que les classifications modernes noblesse 'anglaise', 'normande', 'française', 'allemande' sont inopérables dès qu'on jette un regard sur la généalogie des grandes familles et sur leur Curriculum vitae de leurs membres. Comme les Robertiens étaient parents de la premiere impératrice, les Welfs l'étaient de la seconde, Judith; les Unruochings étaient allies aux Carolingiens par la fille de Charles le Chauve, Gisèle, les Ottoniens par une des leurs, Liudgarde, femme de Louis III de Germanie ainsi que par Oda épouse de Zwentibold de Lotharingie, fils de l'empereur Amolf, etc. Ces plus grands parmi les nobles changent plutét de maitre ou de pays que de rang et de milieu social. Ils sont nés, comme les rois, pour gouverner, au service élevé des rois ou à leur place. Et voilà que ces familles donnefont à l'Europe ses dynasties jusqu'aux siècles modernes: les Robertiens/Capétiens à la France, les Anjou, puis les Welfs (HanovreBrunswick) à l'Angleterre, les Habsbourg (maison des Étichonides de Burgondie et d'Alsace sous les Mérovingiens et Carolingiens) au Saint Empire et à l'Autriche. Sur un plan un peu plus régional, de grandes maisons comtales ont des racines guère moins profondes et brillantes, que ce soit celle de la Flandre, ou celle de Blois-Champagne. Quand on descend d'une strate à l'autre, l'on trouve des familles comtales au niveau d'un seul 'grand comté' (de CIVITAS), ou bien d'un 'petit comté' (de PAGUS), enfin au niveau de familles seigneuriales dominant un grand chateau (CASTRUM) et sa région, ou une forteresse plus petite. Sous les comtes et vicomtes (pouvant gouverner même un comté de CIVITAS à la place d'un comte qui dispose de plusieurs comtes, comme les Robertiens) se trouve donc le monde des châtelains, dont il y a eu environ un millier sur le territoire de la France actuelle. A l'époque qui vous intéresse, je le repute, ils n'étaient pas 'français'mais aquitains ou bretons, angevins, flamands, normands, poitevins, champenois, bourguignons, et j'en passe. Les articles récents de Katharine Keats-Rohan montrent qu'elle en est parfaitement consciente. Qu'est-ce qui est commun à ce monde apparemment si varié en dessous de celui des princes (empereurs, rois, parents de roi, DUCES ou MARCHIONES)? Tout simplement qu'ils étaient, chacun à sa place, eux aussi un (petit) PRINCEPS/ DOMINUS (Seigneur), chef héréditaire d'une POTESTAS (postee, pôtée), donc muni du pouvoir public (étatique!), renu jadis par le HONOR que leur avait confié un (grand) PRINCEPS qu'il soit empereur, roi ou duc. Tous ces DOMINI formaient la (seule) noblesse en Europe. Elle était une, et il n'y avait pas d'autre. Surtout pas ces petits soldats montés, appelés chevaliers, d'une chevalerie qui est aussi tardive que son nom. Quand elle a été admise comme demière des strates de la 'noblesse' qui changea alors de caractère les vrais nobles s'empressèrent de s'appeler 'Herren', car ils formaient le monde des Seigneurs en dessous de celui des princes et loin au-dessus du monde des petits vassaux. C'est la seule méthode prosopographique qui nous permet d'être si ferme sur ce point. Sur une centaines d'actes établis dans les comtes ligériens du IXe au XIIe siècle, et en me basant sur des milliers de souscription de noms de vassaux, bien rangés selon le rang ou l'âge respectif, j'ai pu démontrer la stratification de cette

< previous page

page_14

next page >


page_15

< previous page

page_15

next page > Page 15

noblesse aussi bien que sa stabilité étonnante. En distinguant à votre tour avec le plus grand soin le centre d'un ABBACOMES lié à une vraie communauté de chanoines ou de moines et à leur saint des le IXe/Xe siècle, vous trouverez de vassaux confiant leurs corps et ames au saint de leur seigneur, et vous serez proches de l'identification possible d'un nombre non négligeable d'hommes et familles qui allaient participer à la conquête de l'Angleterre et à l'organisation de son gouvernement. Souvent, ces hommes n'ont pas oublié leur saint protecteur sur le continent dans leur nouvelle pattie. C'est donc dans les cartulaires des églises continentales dédiées à ces saints qu'il faudra chercher le matériel prosopographique approprié. Vous verrez par vos prop res recherches, comment à pu naître, de rejetons de familles provenant de ces REGNA divers des Xe-XIe siècles une noblesse 'normande', puis 'anglo-normande', puis 'angevine', enfin 'anglaise'. Tout cela autour d'une dynastie ducale, puis royale. Avec un peu de patience, on aura toujours un peuple, voire une nation mais il ne faut jamais prétendre que celle-ci fût là au début. Ce qui compte, plus que l'origine souvent incertaine même pour les nobles eux-mêmes, c'est le pouvoir 1égitime du chef et le nom de son çtat qui comme une bannière commune créé les solidarités aristocratiques dont naissent les peuples (malgré toutes les rivalités intérieures). Les chefs de ces État, souvent, ne sont pas des autochtones, et leurs femmes ne le sont que rarement. Ce sont des familles européennes devenues des dynasties 'nationales'. Ainsi, la prosopographie ne cherche pas des nations avant la lettre, mais toute une société ancienne, sa structure et les hommes qui la forment. Ce but 'objectif' proche de l'authenticité de cette société fait sa valeur et sa crédibilité. Indications Bibliographiques Remarques préalables A cété de Medieval Prosopography (MP), signalons deux organes, qui font une large place à la prosopographie: Francia. Forschungen zur westeuropéischen Geschichte (cité Francia), p.p. l'Institut historique allemand de Paris, t. ixxi, <München, puis> Sigmaringen 1973-95 (depuis 1989 en trois vol., dont le premier (c. 350 p.), dirigé par M. Heinzelmann, est consacré au Bas-Empire et au Moyen Age. Sur le contenu, y compris la section PROSOPOGRAPHICA, v. l'Index général des t. i-x et xi-xx, p.p. M. Heinzelmann, Sigmaringen 1985 et 1994). Frühmittelalterliche Studien. Jahrbuch des Instituts für Frühmittelalterforschung der Universität Münster, t. i-xxix, Berlin/New York 1967-95 (FMSt), p.p. un comité pluri-disciplinaire (archéologie, histoire, hist. du Droit et des religions, philologies latine, romane, anglo-saxonne, germanique), dir. par Hagen Keller et Joachim Wollasch (qui ont suivi le fondateur, Karl Hauck). Présentation remarquable: plans, cartes, illustrations. Quant aux personnages historiques, renvoyons à l'entreprise intemationale Lexikon des MA, (LM, p.p. Robert-Henri Bautier et plus de 60 autres rédacteurs,), t. i-vii, 8 , Zürich-München 1977-1995. Pour les dynasties:

< previous page

page_15

next page >


page_16

< previous page

page_16

next page > Page 16

Christian Settipani (collab. Patrick Van Kerrebrouck), La Préhistoire des Capétiens, 481-987, I Mérovingiens, Carolinglens et Robertlens, Villeneuve-d'Ascq 1993 (441-514 bibliogr. importante) (cité Settipani, i); t. II en préparation (les familles des grands jusque vers l'an 1000). Bibliographie RaisonnéE Dans L'ordre Des Sujets AbordéS (p. 1) cf. par ex. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'The Bretons and Normans of England 1066-1154', Nottingh. Mediev. Stud. xxxvi, 1992, 42-78; 'The Prosopography of post-Conquest England: four case studies', MP xiv, 1993, 1-52; 'Two studies in North French Prosopography', Journ. of Med. Hist. xx, 1994, 3-37. Les remarques de Warren Hollister, MP ii, 2, 1981, lls.,reprenant une observation de Timothy Reuter, The Medieval Nobility, Amsterdam 1979, 1, sur le retard, en Angleterre, de la recherche prosopographique de la noblesse anglo-saxonne et normande, sont désormais périmées. 1 L'arrière-fond des idées de Thierry: Peter Stadler, Geschichtsschreibung und historisches Denken in Frankreich 17891871, Zürich 1958, 141-48; K. F. Werner, Les Origines jusqu'à l'an Mil, Paris 1984, 38-45 (t. 1 de l'Hist. de France, p. p. Jean Favier; éd. allem. Die Ursprünge Frankreichs, Stuttgart 1989, 47-55, bibliogr. 585-87); Anne Denieul, Augustin Thierry, Paris 1995. 2-3 K.F. Werner, '"Karl der Grosse" oder "Charlemagne". Von der Aktualität einer überholten Fragestellung', Sbb. Bayer. Akademie, 1995 (sous presse). Charles Petit-Dutaillis, La monarchie féodale en France et en Angleterre, XeXllle s., Paris 1950, 419. Jordan Fantosme, 'Chronique de la Guerre entre les Anglois et les Ecossais', ed. Howlett, RS, Chronicles of Stephen . . ., iii, ll. 908-12, cité apres Austin Lane Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216, Oxford 1955, 38sv. aussi 250, 276s. 3 K. F. Werner, 'Das "Europäische Mittelalter". Glanz und Elend eines Konzepts': E. Jeismann (ed.), Geschichte Europas für den Unterricht . . ., Braunschweig 1980, 23-35 (bibl.). 3 K. F. Werner, Marc Bloch und die Anfänge einer europäischen Geschichtsforschung, Saarbrücken 1995 (Saarbrücker Universitätsreden, no. 38) (Bibliogr.); Id., 'Historisches Seminar École des Annales. Zu den Grundlagen einer europäischen Geschichtsforschung': J. Miethke (éd.), Geschichte in Heidelberg ..., Berlin-Heidelberg 1992, 1-38. 4 Claude Nicolet, dans: Annuaire de l'École pratique des Hautes Études 1970/71, 297ss. (historique et définition de la prosopographie); Id., 'Prosopographie et histoire sociale: Rome et l'Italie à l'époque républicaine', Annales E.S.C., xxv, 1970; A. Chastagnol (ibid.), 'La prosopographie, méthode de recherche sur l'histoire du Bas-Empire'; George Beech, 'Prosopography': J. M. Powell (éd.), Medieval Studies: An Introduction, Syracuse 1976. 4 K. F. Werner (Rapport) QF lvii, 1977, 69-87 (la notion de 'prosopographie', et bibliogr.); J. Voss, Das MA im histor. Denken Frankreichs, München 1972. Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I, II, III, éd. E. Krebs, H. Dessau, P. v. Rohden, 3 vols, 1897-98; nouvelle édition par E. Groag, A. Stein, L. Petersen, en cours depuis 1933. 5 Martin Heinzelmann, 'Gallische Prosopographie (2é0527)', Francia x, 1983, 531-718. Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire (PCBE), p.p. l'Ac. des Inscriptions et

< previous page

page_16

next page >


page_17

< previous page

page_17

next page > Page 17

B.-L., din par H. I. Marrou (+) et J.-R. Palanque; pour la PBE; cf. J. R. Martindale, dans: XVIIlth Intemat. Congress of Byzantine Studies, Moscow 1991, 299-313. Eduard Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien (774-962), Freiburg 1960; Jörg Jarnut, Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Studien zum Langobardenreiche in Iralien (568-774), Bonn 1972. Royaume mérovingien: Karin Selle-Hosbach, Prosopographie merowingischer Amtsträger (511-613), thèse, Bonn 1974; Horst Ebling, Prosopographie der Amtsträger des Merowingerreiches ... (613-741), München 1974. Pour le monde slave, J. Ferluga, M. Hellmann, H. Ludat (éd.), Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa, Série A: Lateinische Namen his 900, Wiesbaden 1973ss.; pour le monde ibérique J. M. F. Marique (éd.), Leaders of Iberian Christianity, 50-650 A.D., Boston 1962; L. A. Garcia Moreno, Prosopografia del reino visigodo de Toledo, Salamanca 1974. Cf. l'excellente bibliographie prosopographique par M. Heinzelmann, MP iii, 1,113-40. 5 Également précieux pour la prosopographie ancienne et l'onomastique, jusqu'à la fin de l'antiquité, sont les notices braves dans S. G. Byrne, M. J. Osborne, A Lexikon of Greek Personal Names, ii: Attica, Oxford 1994 (indication Settipani). C. Nicolet, v. 'p. 4'; K. F. Werner, QF (v. 'p. 4') 71. 6 Mattbias Gelzer, Die Nobilität der rémischen Republik, 1912 (= Id., Kleine Schriften, i, 1961, 18ss.); Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, 1939, 21952. Pour les médiévistes, le livre de Fr. Miinzer, Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (1920) rut un modèle important d'application de la méthode prosopographique l'histoire politico-sociale. L'importance de la prosopographie pour démontrer la continuité des familles sénatoriales dans l'episcopat de la Gaule franque est bien soulignée par Martin Heinzelmann, 'Prosopographie et recherche de continuité historique: l'exemple des Ve-VIIe siècles': Mél. de l'Éc. franç. de Rome t. c, 1, 1988, 227-39 (Actes d'un colloque important: 'La prosopographie. Problbmes et méthodes'). Alexander Demandt, 'Magister militum', RE Supplementband XII, Stuttgart 1970, col. 553-790; Id., 'Der spatrömische Militäradel', Chiron x, 1980, 609-36; Id., Die Spiitantike (284-565) Miinchen 1989; Id., in: E. K. Chrysos/A. Schwarcz (éd.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Wien-Köln 1989, 76-86; Stefan Krautschick, 'Die Familié der Konige in Spätantike und FrühMA': ibid., 109-42 (cf. Wolfram Brandes, Klio lxxv, 1993, 407-37). 6-7 Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Romulus der Grosse, 1950 (2e version 1957). Nous renvoyons le lecteur sur ch. 1, ii ('La fin de l'Empire en 476': le mythe et les faits') de notre l ivre à paraître chez Fayard, Paris: Naissance de la noblesse. L'essor des élites politiques en Occident. En attendant, v. Id., 'Du nouveau sur un vieux thème. Les origines de la "noblesse" et de la "chevalerie"', Ac. des Inscr. et B. L., Comptes rendus 1985, Paris 1985, 186-200. 7-8 Wilhelm Störmer, Früher Adel. Studien zur politischen Führungsschicht im fränkisch-deutschen Reich vom 8. bis 11. Jh., 2 vols, Stuttgart 1973 (concerne surtout la Bavière), 29ss. 'Adelige Namengebung in Familie, Sippe und Herrschaft'. Quant Höfler, il venait d'une école viennoise prêchant l'importance des 'Männerbünde' pour la civilisation mondiale, recherches qu'il continuait sous la protection de Himmler et de sa 'Stiftung Ahnenerbe', v. K. F. Werner, 'Karl d. Gr. in der Ideologie des Nationalsozialismus', Zs. desAachener Geschichtsvereins 1995, sous presse). 8 M. Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges, 1921, nouv. éd. par J. Le Goff, Paris 1993; K. F. Werner, 'Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls d. Grossen': W. Braunfels (ed.), Karld. Gr., I, Diisseldorf 1965, 130 n. 164, 120, n. 137; Id., 'Liens de parenté et noms de personne': G. Duby-J. Le Goff (éd.), Famille et parenté dans l'Occident médiéval, Rome (École Franç.) 1977, 14-18. (Le passage de l'évangile de Luc, cité 17s., est discuté par Mitterauer, Ahnen , 47s.); sur les noms latins Martin Heinzelmann, ibid., 19-24 et Mitterauer, 68-85.

< previous page

page_17

next page >


page_18

< previous page

page_18

next page > Page 18

8 Fondamental pour les noms de personnes: Michael Mitterauer, Ahnen und Heilige. Namengebung in der europiiischen Geschichte, Miinchen 1993 (cf. George Beech, MP xvi, 1, 1995, 101-6); Id., 'Zur Nachbenennung nach Lebenden und Toten in Fiirstenhäusem des Frühmittelalters': Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift für Karl Bosl, I, Miinchen 1988; Id., 'Zur Verbreitung von Fiirstennamen durch das Lehenswesen', MIÖG xcvi, 1988; Gertmd Thoma, Namensiinderungen in Herrscherfamilien des ma. Europa, Kallmünz 1985. Choix d'études spéciales et locales: Dominique Barthélemy, 'Vendômois: le système anthroponymique (Xe-mil.XIIIe s.)': Genèse médiévale de l'anthroponymie moderne, Paris (CNRS) 1988, 35-60 (fréquence et niveau social des noms); Georges T. Beech, 'Les noms de personnes poitevins du IXe au XIIe siècle', Rev. internat. d'onomastique xxvi, 1974, 96ss.; Constance B. Bouchard, 'The Migration of Women's Names in the Upper Nobility, Ninth-Twelfth Centuries', MP ix, 2, 1988, 1-19, enfin sur les régions françaises les travaux de Marie-Thérèse Morlet. Les progrès de l'onomastique devenus possibles par 'l'École de Tellenbach' (v. p. 17ss.) ont été présentés au Congrès international de la 'Namenforschung' à Berne, 1975: Karl Schmid, Dieter Geuenich, Joachim Wollasch, 'Auf dem Weg zu einem neuen Personennamenbuch des Mittelalters', Onoma xxi, 1977, 355-83. 9-11 Hagen Keller, 'Das Werk Gerd Tellenbachs in der Geschichtswissenschaft unseres Jahrhunderts', FMSt xxviii, 1994, 374-97, cf. 390ss. sur l'uvre prosopographique; O. G. Oexle, 'Gruppen in der Gesellschaft. Das wissenschaftliche Oeuvre von Karl Schmid', FMSt xxvi, 1994, 410-23; J. Wollasch, Karl Schmid (nécrologe), ibid. 398ss. Cf. Tellenbach, Ausgewiihlte Abhandlungen und Aufsätze, 4 t. Stuttgart 1988-89 (précieux index général!). Un 'thème guide' donné par Tellenbach à de nombreux élèves fut 'Adel und Kirche', respectivement 'Kénigtum, Adel und Klöster', appliqué aux différentes régions du monde franc et allemand. 'Noblesse' et 'Église' sont des sujets trop séparés en France, où les eleves de Marc Bloch ont écrit leurs précieuses 'monographies régionales' comme celles de la 'société laïque', sujet largement fictif pour les IVe-Xe siècles! Les 'laïcs' exclus du pouvoir dans l'Église sont une invention grégorienne du XIe siècle, le clergé exclu du pouvoir politique est une invention française de 1789/1907! La recherche récente évite enfin cet anachronisme monstrueux, en séparant l'aristocratie commune des nobles et de leurs cousins du haut clergé, et le monde du bas clergé et des masses dont les élites urbaines auront leur revanche à partit du XIe siècle. Parmi les travaux fondamentaux de Karl Schmid citons: 'Zur Problematik yon Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht. Haus und Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel', Zs. Gesch. des Oberrheins cv (nouv. série lxvi), 1958, 1-62; 'Über die Stmktur des Adels im früheren Mittelalter', Jahrbuch f. fränk. Landesforschung xix, 1959, 1-23. Il y montre que la noblesse dynastique portant les noms de ses chateaux, n'existe que depuis les XIe/XIIe siècles, mais est prolongée en arrière par la généalogie modeme jusqu'aux VIIIe-Xe siècle quand ces 'families' n'existaient pas encore. Il y avait, certes, des anêtres, mais ils vivalent en un contexte différent, où la parenté par les femmes (surtout les soeurs d'évêques) était égale en valeur, sinon plus, que celle par les hommes, ce qui se reflète dans les noms donnas aux enfants des grands. Cf. la liste des publications de Schmid et des thèses de ses élèves FMSt xxviii, 1994, 424-35. René Poupardin, dans: RH lxxii, 1900, 72-95. Un autre précurseur, pour la prosopographie du haut clergé, a été Alois Schulte, Der Adel und die deutsche Kirche im Mittelalter, 1910, 21922, réimpress. Darmstadt 1958, qui, avec toute une école, prouvait l'origine aristocratique de la presque-totalité des évêques et abbés. Gerd Tellenbach, Känigtum und Stämme in der Werdezeit des deutschen Reiches, Weimar 1939; Reinhard Wenskus, Sächsischer Stammesadel und fränkischer Reichsadel, Göttingen 1976. Hlawitschka, v. 'p. 5', où d'autres travaux allemands cités proviennent de l'école de Eugen Ewig, Bonn. Pour les prosopographies p.p. Freiburg et Münster cf. J. Wollasch

< previous page

page_18

next page >


page_19

< previous page

page_19

next page > Page 19

(dir.), Prosopographie als Sozialgeschichte? Methoden personengegeschichtlicher Erforschung des Mittelalters, München 1978, et les rapports annuels des FMSt. Gerd Tellenbach, 'Liturgische Gedenkbiicher als historische Quellen': Mélanges Eugene Tisserant, t. 5, Rome 1964 (Studi e Testi, 235) 389-402; Id., 'Zur Bedeutung der Personenforschung für die Erkenntnis des früheren Mittelalters', Freiburger Universitätsreden (nouv. série), xxv, 1957, 5-24. Ces textes programmatiques son réimprimés dans Tellenbach,Abhandlungen, respectivement ii, 426-37 et iii, 943-62. 9-10 Dieter Geuenich, 'Möglichkeiten lemmatisierter Personennamenregister': Onoma xxi, 1977, 364-76 montre les méthodes de l'automatisation de la 'lecture' et de l'exploitation électronique des variantes des noms dans les mss., développées à MOnster, de 1969 à 1972, par Hermann Kamp, et leur application par les historiens du groupe. Karl Schmid, Joachim Wollasch (éd.), MEMORIA. Der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im MA, Miinchen 1984. En demier lieu Dieter Geuenich, O. G. Oexle (éd.), Mernoria in der Gesellschaft des MA, Gottingen 1994 (Veröff. des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Gesch., 111). Une des éditions les plus importantes des LIBRI VITAEaussi pour les royaumes de Charles le Chauve et de Lothaire II, est celle du Liber memorialis Romoracensis, éd. par Eduard Hlawitschka, Karl Schmid, Gerd Tellenbach, Dublin-Zurich 1970 (MGH. Libri memoriales, I), cf. Michel Parisse, 'Les notices de tradition de Remiremont': Person und Gemeinschaft irn MA. Karl Schrnid zum 65. Geburtstag, Sigmaringen 1988, 211-35 (excellente analyse), et en demier lieu, donnant la bibliographie déjà riche de l'exploitation de cette source capitale, Karl Schmid, 'Auf dem Weg zur Erschliessung des Gedenkbuchs von Remiremont', K. R. Schnith, R. Pauler (éd.), Festschrift für Eduard Hlawitschka, Kallmünz 1993, 59-96. Karl Schmid, Otto Gerhard Oexle, 'Voraussetzungen und Wirkung des Gebetsbundes von Attigny': Francia ii, 1974, 71-122. Le document le plus important de la réalisation de cette 'alliance de prière' a été réédité de manière critique par Johanne Autenrieth, Dieter Geuenich, Karl Schmid, Das Verbriiderungsbuch der Abtei Reichenau, Hannover 1978 (MGH Libri memodales et necrologia. Nova Séries, I). L'aspect religieux: notre ouvrage annoncé ('pp. 6-7'), ch. 8, montrera une véritable 'sacralisation' des rois, mais aussi des nobles chrétiens, ce qui explique le rôle eminent qu'ils ont pu jouer dans l'Église du Ve-Xe s. Une des sources les plus explicites du phénomène, l'hagiographie, fait l'objet d'un programme de recherche: François Dolbeau, Martin Heinzelmann, Joseph-Claude Poulin, Les sources hagiographiques narratives composées en Gaule avant l'an Mil (SHG). Inventaire, examen critique, datation: Francia xv, 1988, 701-31 (rapports courants dans Francia). La datation critique des meilleurs textes revalorisera leurs indications prosopographiques souvent fort précises. 11-12 Karl Schmid, 'Über das Verhältnis von Person und Gemeinschaft im früheren MA', FMSt i, 1967, 225-49, programme qu'il a développé en 1974 (FMSt viii, 116-30): 'Programmatisches zur Erforschung der ma. Personen und Personengruppen'. La section 'Klostergemeinschaft' est dirigée par Joachim Wollasch, dont on notera Ménchtum des MA zwischen Kirche und Welt, München 1973; 'Neue Methoden der Erforschung des Mönchtums im MA', Hist. Zs. ccxxv, 1977, 529-71, ainsi que 'Klösterliche Gemeinschaften als Träger sozialen Lebens vor der Zeit der Städte', dans: Id., Prosopographie (v. 'p. 000') 39-45 (mérite des moines; prosopographie = histoire sociale). Karl Schmid (éd.), Die Klostergerneinschaft yon Fulda, 3 vols en 5 t., München 1978, cf. Michel Parisse, 'La communauté monastique de Fulda', Francia vii, 1980, 107-26; c. r. plus critique de R. Wenskus, Zs. Gesch. Oberrhein cxvi, 1980, 642-47. Cf. nos réserves au sujet du manque quasi-complet de 'lignées' agnatiques avant les XIe/XIIe siècles, selon Karl Schmid: Liens de parentd (v. 'p. 8'), 19-34, ainsi que Actes du Congrès internat. des Sciences histor, Vienne 1965, vol. v, Vienne 162-4, remarques précédés par d'autres critiques de Michael Mitterauer (158s.) et Karl Lechner (155-7) l'école autrichienne ayant son mot à dire,

< previous page

page_19

next page >


page_20

< previous page

page_20

next page > Page 20

vu l'importance de ses travaux de pionnier en histoire du droit et en généalogie. L'importance des listes des témoins dans les actes datés se montre dans nos 'Rotberti complices' (v. 'p. 12'). Joachim Wollasch (éd.), Synopse der cluniazensischen Necrologien, Münster 1983; Id., 'Prosopographie et informatique. L'exemple des Clunisiens et de leur entourage laïc': Informatique et prosopographie, Paris (CNRS) 1986, 209-18; Id., 'Parenté noble et monachisme réformateur. Observations sur les 'conversions' à la vie monastique aux XIe et XIIe siècles', Rev. hist. cclxiv, 1980, 324. 12 Werner, 'Regnum', LM 7, 1994, col. 587-96; Olivier Gulllot, 'Formes, fondements et limites de l'organisation politique en France au Xe siècle', Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, xxxviii, 1991, 57116, v. 74ss. sur le cas bourguignon (St-Germain d'Auxerre), 66ss. sur le cas aquitain (abbaye de Brioude), où G. se refère à Jean-Pierre Brunterc'h, 'Naissance et affirmation des principautés au temps du roi Eudes: l'exemple de l'Aquitaine', dans: O. Guillot, K. F. Werner (éd.), L'Ouest de la France et les premiers Capétiens, Mém. des Antiqu. de l'Ouest , à la fin du ms. que j'ai vu. Sur le cas des Robertlens, v. dans ce même vol.: K. F. Werner, 'Les premiers Robertlens et les premiers Anjou'; Id., 'Rotberti complices. Die Vasallen Roberts des Tapferen': Die Welt als Gesch. xix, 1959, 146-93; 'Les Robertiens': M. Parisse, X. Barral i Altet (éd.), Le Roi de France et son royaume autour de l'an Mil, Paris 1992, 15-26. État des questions généalogiques et bibliographie: Settipani i, 397-419. 13-14 Adalhard et les Robertlens: Werner, 'Premiers Robertlens; Rotberti complices', 151ss., 163ss.; 'Hludowicus Augustus. Gouverner l'Empire chrétien idées et réalités': Peter Godman, Roger Collins (éd.), Charlemagne's Heir. New perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious, Oxford 1990, 3-123, montre 31-53 la parenté de l'impératrice Ermengarde d'un côté avec les Robertiens (35s.), de l'autre avec la lignée de Bego (Biggo), Adalhard et Gérard (45-9), impliquée avec elle dans l'intrigue qui a mené à la mort du roi Bernard d'Italie, en 818. Carlrichard Brühl, Deutschland und Frankreich. Die Geburt zweier Völker, Köln/Wien 1990 (éd. française , établié par Olivier Guyotjeannin: Naissance de deuxpeuples. Franfais et Allemands (IXe-Xle s.), 1994 (très centré sur 'l'histoire des rois', Brühl fait moins attention à la puissance des grandes families). Cf., spécialement sur Adalhard, à côté du vieil article de Ferdinand Lot, 'Note sur le sénéchal Alard', MA xxi, 1908, 185ss., réimpr Recueil des travaux de E Lot, ii, Genève/Paris 1970, 591-607, René Louis, De l'histoire à la légende, t. i, Girart, comte de Vienne (819-877) et ses fondations monastiques, Auxerre 1946 (14ss. sur la famille de Gérard-Adalhard); Karl Brnnner, Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich, Wien/Köln/ Graz 1979 (ouvrage plein d'indications prosopographiques), 115, 130-9; Claudiane Fabre, 'Deux planctus rhythmique en latin vulgaire du IXe s.: La Chanson de geste et le mythe carolingien': Mélanges René Louis, i, St-Père-sous-Vézelay 1982, 177-252. Elle présente, avec de nombreuses remarques fort utiles et à suivre, un texte important sur le meurtre commis à Tours à la pentecéte 878 d'un DUX Adalhard. Elle se trompe (en suivant F. Lot) en identifiant (245) le conte palatin Adalhard (père de la reine Aelis), nommé régent en 877 par Charles le Chauve, avec le sénéchal que ce roi avait nommé en 861 'baiulus' de Louis le Bègue, en de circonstances tout à fait differentes (cf. Werner, 'Nachkommen' , Exkurs 2), et en identifiant la victime (époux épris d'une femme aquitaine traîtresse) toujours avec le 'sénéchal' qui aurait été alors un octogénaire et qui, d'ailleurs, est mort un 31 decembre v. Karl Schmid, 'Auf dem Weg.'. 79). Des détails prosopographiques remarquables se trouvent, également basées sur des documents nouveaux, et dans les mêmes Mélanges (i, 119-75), chez Madeleine Hardy, Alain Labbé, Loup de Ferrières, Remi d'Auxerre et le peintre Fredilo, regardant surtout Gérard, son frère Adalhard et un Loup de Ferrières dont l'appartenance à la 'dynastie d'évêques' bavaroise dominant pendant un siècle l'évêché d'Auxerre est démontrée. Donnant (138) un exemple

< previous page

page_20

next page >


page_21

< previous page

page_21

next page > Page 21

remarquable de la continuité du monde romain et chrétien du Ve au IXe siècle, cet article constitue une illustration concrete de ce que nous avons essayé d'évoquer dans cette étude: l'unité et 'l'internationalité' de la noblesse chrétienne des deux empires romain et franc. 13-15 De ces grandes families, pas très connues du public Français, Pierre Riché, Les Carolinglens une famille qui fit l'Europe, Paris 1983 (éd. allem. Stuttgart 1987) a donné, à la fin, des généalogies abbréviées (non sans petites erreurs), partiellement reprises par Michel Sot, Un historien et son Eglise: Flodoard de Reims, Paris 1993, 758-67: Agilolfiens, Bosonides, Welfs, Robertlens, Lambertides/ Widonides, Étichonides, Ottoniens, Wilhelmides, Unrochides, Girardides, Herbertides, Anjou. Elles seront traitées à fond, avec d'autres, dans Settipani ii: L'aristocratie mérovingienne et carolingienne (en préparation). En attendant, on consultera encore K. F. Werner, 'Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls al. Gr.', KdG i, Dusseldorf 1965, 83-142 (trad. anglaise: T. Reuter, Nobility ) ainsi que 'Die Nachkommen Karls d.Gr. bis um das Jahr 1000 (1.-8. Génération)', KdG iv, 1967, 403-83 et table généalogique à la fin du vol. Evolution politico-sociale intérieure: K. F. Werner, 'Kénigtum und Fürstentum im französischen 12.Jh.': Vorträge und Forschungen xii, 1968, 177-225, réimpr. dans Werner, 'Structures politiques du monde franc (VIe-XIIe s.)', London 1979 (article V qui, d'ailleurs, est centré sur les Xe-XIe s., base d'une société politique qui change au XIIe). Nous renvoyons encore, pour plus ample information, à notre livre annoncé 'pp. 6-7'. 15 Werner, Rotberti complices (v. 'p. 12'), surtout 169-181 (prosopographie autour de 33 noms caractéristique/ Leitnamen) et 190-3 (liste chronologique des documents ligériens cités, de 794 à 1046 et 1114); Werner, Les Robertiens, (v. 'p. 12'), 18-25, 'une histoire d'abbés laïcs' au-dessus d'une structure (durable) de trois couches vasalliques.

< previous page

page_21

next page >


page_23

< previous page

page_23

next page > Page 23

2 Kings, Chronicles, and Genealogies: Reconstructing Mediaeval Cenltic Dynasties David E. Thornton The study of kinship and genealogy is an integral part of prosopographical research. Indeed, it has been stated that 'the identification of family and relatives is the starting point of all prosopography'.1 This can be seen to hold as true for the eighteenth-century Members of Parliament studied by Sir Lewis Namier and the groups in late-Republican and earlyImperial Rome analysed by Ronald Syme, as well as for the various mediaeval studies which comprise this volume. The prosopographer is concerned with genealogy and kinship, not as an end in itself, but as a means of understanding the interactions between members of a given society and the formation of groups therein. Kinship, whether based on common blood, marriage, or such artificial ties as fosterage, has been an important medium for the succession to many offices, the transmission of property, and the formation of political and other mutual-interest groups; and therefore the relevant genealogical ties must be determined if these processes are be fully understood. Of course, such generalisation must be qualified. Not all genealogical relationships are necessarily important, and the interests of close kinsmen do not always coincide. Furthermore, the prosopographer must be careful to distinguish between, on the one hand, those genealogical ties (whether real or not) which would have been recognized as such by the historical figures under study and, on the other, those ties reconstructed by the modem scholar of which those figures may have been totally ignorant and which could not have determined their actions. Thus, the historian must begin to analyse prosopographical data by attempting, as thoroughly as possible, to reconstruct or reconstitute the kinship ties of the chosen subject, be that a specific historical figure or a defined group. As is illustrated by other chapters in this collection of essays, that is not always a straightforward procedure: genealogical reconstructions are often based upon cursory or dubious references found in sources whose primary concern is not the genealogical ties of the people mentioned therein, and many ties must remain unresolved or at least hypothetical. However, historians of mediaeval Ireland and 1 George Beech, 'Prosopography', in Medieval Studies. An Introduction, ed. James M. Powell, 2nd edn, Syracuse, NY 1992, 185-226, here p. 199; note also Lawrence Stone, The Past and the Present Revisited, London 1987, 59.

< previous page

page_23

next page >


page_24

< previous page

page_24

next page > Page 24

Wales are very fortunate in that they have access to what are very detailed genealogies of the ruling dynasties of those Celtic-speaking areas during the Middle Ages. It must be admitted that they are not entirely alone in this regardthere are, for example, genealogical tracts which trace the alleged Carolingian origins of various continental comital families but the Celtic material, and especially the Irish, is unrivalled in mediaeval Europe in terms of the overall volume and the degree of detail which it provides. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to outline briefly some of the problems encountered when reconstructing mediaeval Ireland and Welsh dynasties of the tenth and eleventh centuries, with especial reference to these genealogical sources.2 Any study of early mediaeval Irish or Welsh politics is almost entirely concerned with kings or other, non-ruling members of royal dynasties. During the period under consideration, both Ireland and Wales comprised a series of kingdoms ruled by different dynasties.3 Ireland, for instance, contained a number of large overkingdoms (or provincial kingdoms), themselves containing numerous smaller kingdoms and sub-kingdoms. An overkingdom was dominated by what might be termed a 'macro-dynasty': this constituted a number of dynasties spread throughtout the province which claimed a common ancestry (usual in the pre- and early Christian period) and which alternated in the overkingship of the province. In many cases the modern provincial names derive from those of the mediaeval macro-dynasties: Connaught from the Connachta; Ulster from the Ulaid; Leinster from the Laigin. Munster was dominated, first, by the Eoganachta, and later by the Dál Cais. In addition, there was the important macro-dynasty called the Uí Néill: one branch based in the north, at expense of the Ulaid, and the other further south in the Irish midlands. Genealogy was of great importance to these various dynasties, both as a means of representing their shared political interests, and as a means of distinguishing the dominant dynasties from those based in the sub-kingdoms. There was no single dynasty whose rule extended throughout Ireland, though at any one given point an individual king might have exercised an influence beyond his traditional kingdom. The concept of the king of Tara as 'King of Ireland', particularly in the earlier period, owed more to later Uí Néill propoganda than to historical fact. The situation in Wales was not dissimilar in that it constituted a series of kingdoms ruled by different dynasties, possibly extending their influence over a number of subkingdoms, but he picture we have is less detailed and works on a much smaller scale than that in Ireland.4 However, there were important developments in the late ninth and tenth centuries whereby a new dynasty the so-called 'Second Dynasty of Gwynedd'married into the ruling line of Gwynedd in north-west Wales and then gradually extended its influence over the greater part (but not all) of Wales, marrying into and replacing the earlier dynasties. In time, 2 For a more detailed discussion of many of the following points see David E. Thornton, Kings, Chronologies and Genealogies. Studies in the Political History of Early Mediaeval Ireland and Wales, Woodbridge forthcoming, esp. ch. 1. 3 For some useful introductions to these regions during this period see Donncha[dh] Ó Corráin, Ireland before the Normans, Dublin 1972; Wendy Davies, Wales in the Early Middle Ages, Leicester 1982. 4 For an attempt to illustrate the development of the kingdoms see Davies, Wales, 90-112.

< previous page

page_24

next page >


page_25

< previous page

page_25

next page > Page 25

however, this dynasty itself segmented into two main branches, each dominant in different parts of Wales. (This process will be considered in more detail below.)5 Any attempt to reconstruct the early mediaeval dynasties of Ireland and Wales should begin by drawing on the genealogical sources available. For Ireland a major source is, volume I of M. A. O'Brien's Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae, which is based on two of the earliest collections of genealogies and contains the names and relationships of an estimated 12-13,000 different individuals.6 This is to some extent simply the tip of the genealogical iceberg: many tracts are only available in unedited manuscripts (of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries) or in a few facsimileeditions. The Irish genealogies fall into two main types, whose value for the historian varies. On the one hand, we have so-called 'linear retrograde patrilines' (which I would term simply 'pedigrees') of the familiar form: X son of Y son of Z, and so on. And, on the other hand, we have (often complex) segrnentary genealogies, which give the names of more than one member of a generation. The genealogical sources from mediaeval Wales, while still of a fair volume, do not come close to the Irish material in the amount of information given or in the degree of complexity involved.7 For the most part, they are composed of retrograde patrilines, with selected segmentary sections. Our other main source for early mediaeval Celtic prosopography are the chronicles, written in Latin, the vernacular languages, or a mixture of both. For Ireland, these vary in date and detail. At one extreme we have the earliest surviving text, known as the Annals of Inisfallen, drawn up in the year 1092 and continued by later scribes until the early fourteenth century.8 At the other extreme, there is the very detailed Annals of the Four Masters, compiled in the seventeenth century, which, despite their late date, are (when used carefully) a very important source of information.9 Again, the Welsh chronicles are fewer in number and less detailed than their Irish counterparts, particularly for the earlier period, though they are still invaluable in providing narrative detail for the genealogical framework.10 The earliest surviving Welsh chronicle was drawn up in the mid-tenth century, but most 5 See below, pp. 37-40; also, Thornton, Kings, ch. 2. 6Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae, i, ed. M. A. O'Brien, Dublin 1962, rev. imp. by J. V. Kelleher, 1976. For the estimated contents see Brian Ó Cuív in a review of Corpus, I, ed. O'Brien, in Éigse x, 1961-63, 328-32, here p. 330; F. J. Byrne, 'Senchas: the Nature of Gaelic Historical Tradition', Historical Studies. Irish Conference of Historians ix, 1971, 137-59, here p. 139; Donnchadh Ó Corráin, 'Irish Origin Legends and Genealogy: Recurrent Aetiology', in History and Heroic Tale. A Symposium, ed. Tore Nyberg et al., Odense 1983, 51-96, here pp. 55-6. 7 Most of the mediaeval Welsh genealogies are edited in Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts, ed. P. C. Bartrum, Cardiff 1966. 8 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.503 (S.C. 11850): The Annals of Inisfallen (MS Rawlinson B.503), ed. and trans. Seán Mac Airt, Dublin 1951. 9Annála Rióghachta Éireann. Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, by the Four Masters, from the Earliest Period to the Year 1616, ed. and trans. John O'Donovan, 7 vols, 2nd edn, Dublin 1856. 10Annales Cambriae, ed. John Williams (ab Ithel), RS XX, 1860; Brut y Tywysogyon. Peniarth MS. 20, ed. Thomas Jones, Cardiff 1941; Brut y Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of the Princes. Peniarth MS 20 Version, trans. Thomas Jones, Cardiff 1952; Brenhinedd y Saesson or The Kings of the Saxons. BM Cotton MS Cleopatra B.v and The Black Book of Basingwerk NLW MS 7006, ed. and trans. Thomas Jones, Cardiff 1971; Brut y Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of the Princes. Red Book of Hergest Version, ed. and trans. Thomas Jones, 2nd edn, Cardiff 1973.

< previous page

page_25

next page >


page_26

< previous page

page_26

next page > Page 26

were given their extant form in the thirteen or fourteenth centuries. While the sources for early Irish and Welsh history are almost entirely either annalistic or genealogical, there is a group of charters pertaining to south-east Wales preserved in the Book of Llandaff though nothing comparable for the rest of Wales.11 Similarly, whether or not the early mediaeval Irish knew of and used charters, there are no surviving cartulary documents from Ireland for this early period. As stated above, the prosopography of early Ireland and Wales is limited almost entirely to kings and other members of the numerous dynasties as well as various types of cleric who in Ireland were themselves often members of a local dynasty.12 What kind of prosopographical information do these genealogical and annalistic sources provide? The genealogies, obviously, provide information mostly of a genealogical character, that is, names of members of the relevant dynasties and their relationships to one another. Thus, the linear pedigrees are limited to successive father-son relationships, only very rarely adding a collateral relative. On the other hand, the segrnentary genealogies naturally render more information and normally take the form of successive lists of the sons of a named individual, perhaps then naming those of one of the sons, then those of one of these grandsons, and so on before returning to a different segment of the earlier level. The status or offices of the figures named in these genealogies are not normally given and obviously it should not be assumed that every figure named was a king. A small number of regnal lists are preserved, giving names and sometimes reign-lengths, and any figure mentioned in these lists can be assumed to have been a king.13 Furthermore, in the Irish manuscripts, it is normally clear to which dynasty or kingdom a given genealogy pertains, either because a heading is given or because it occurs in conjunction with headed material. Women are hardly ever named in the main genealogical tracts, no doubt because political power was transmitted through the male line. However, a separate Irish tract called the Banshenchas ('Women History') survives in both prose and verse versions: these name important daughters of dynasts, state to whom they were married, and give the names of their sons.14 This tract provides a means of reconstructing the complex series of inter-dynastic marriages; but, to date, little substantial work has been done on the Banshenchas in order to determine, for example, whether or not 11The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv reproduced from the Gwysaney Manuscript, ed. J. Gwenogvryn Evans and John Rhys, Oxford, 1893. For analyses of these documents see Wendy Davies, An Early Welsh Microcosm, London 1978, and The Llandaff Charters, Aberystwyth 1979; but also the review of Davies' work by Patrick Sims-Williams in Journal of Ecclesiastical History xxxiii, 1983, 124-9. 12 Donnchadh Ó Corráin, 'The Early Irish Churches: Some Aspects of Organisation', in Irish Antiquity. Essays and Studies Presented to Professor M. J. O'Kelly, ed. Donnchadh O Corráin, Cork 1981, 327-41. With the increasing limitation of royal power within the hands of a smaller part of the main dynasty (see below p. 30), it is perhaps to be wondered to what extent many of the lesser members of the genealogies are to be considered strictly 'royal', though they probably wielded some degree of local political power. 13 King lists are essentially an Irish phenomenon, though some later lists do survive for Wales. See David N. Dumville, 'Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists', in Early Medieval Kingship, ed. P. H. Sawyer and I. N. Wood, Leeds 1977, 72-104, here pp. 96-102. 14 The most accessible edition and translation of this material is still M. E. Dobbs, 'The Ban-Shenchus', Revue celtique xlvii, 1930, 283-339; xlviii, 1931, 163-234; xlix, 1932, 432-89. A new edition by Muireann Ni Bhrolcháin is forthcoming.

< previous page

page_26

next page >


page_27

< previous page

page_27

next page > Page 27

these dynastic inter-marriages affected the political and military interaction between the relevant kingdoms. The later Welsh manuscripts also contain genealogies of the mothers of famous figures, sometimes termed Achau'r Famau ('Pedigrees of the Mothers'). Finally, it must be stated that neither the main genealogical tracts nor the Banshenchas contain absolute dates and any real additional detail pertaining to the figures named therein. For this sort of detail, we must turn to the chronicles. In referring to the actions of named individuals, the Irish chronicles give a small number of categories of information, though it should be stressed that not all the categories are always provided for every reference. Inevitably, men predominate in the annals. As well as the personal name and possibly an epithet or nickname, a patronymic is usually given. Most often this takes the form: Domnall mac Congalaig (Domnall son of Congalach).15 Occasionally, more than two generations are given, thus Mael Ruanaid mac Flainn meic Éichecháin (Mael Ruanaid son of Flann son of Éichechán) or the word ua (grandson) is used: Niall ua Eruilb (Niall grandson of Erulb). Furthermore, patronymics based on both mac and ua developed in the late tenth and eleventh centuries into surnames, which present particular problems for the historian.16 Status or office is normally stated, especially in records of death. For dynasts this would be rex or Irish rí, or one of a number of categories of lesser royal status. Various grades of cleric are mentioned though normally only when they died from bishop and abbot down to priest or scribe. Very rarely, non-royal secular figures are named and their offices given. Finally, geographical or political affiliations are provided, denoting the kingdom or dynasty of a king, or the ecclesiastical site with which a cleric is associated (sometimes an abbot is referred to as the comarba or successor of a named saint, thus helping to locate him). For a woman, we normally find that her patronymic and/or the name of her husband is provided. The task of reconstructing Irish and Welsh dynasties of the early Middle Ages is essentially therefore one of correlating the information given in the genealogies with that to be found in the chronicles, with the additional use of the cartulary material for south-east Wales. Other passing references to individual members of a dynasty for example, the occurence of Welsh kings as witnesses to Anglo-Saxon royal charters in the tenth century are useful but can only be understood once the two main groups of sources have been studied. The genealogies are usually the best starting point, as long sequences of genealogical relationships are stated explicitly, and the framework onto which the absolute dates found in the chronicles can be attached. This is a preferable approach to simply collecting all the notices of a given dynasty in the annals and attempting a reconstruction on the basis of the patronymics supplied there.17 The Irish tracts are organised for the 15 This and the following two examples are taken from the Annals of Ulster for 964: The Annals of Ulster (to A.D. 1131), i, ed. and trans. Seán Mac Airt and Gearéid Mac Niocaill, Dublin 1983, 404-5. 16 On the problems of this development for genealogical reconstructions see below, pp. 29-30. 17 Compare my reconstruction of kings of Conaille Muirtheimne of Co. Louth based on the genealogical tract in two later mediaeval manuscripts with work done earlier this century based on the chronicles alone: Thornton, Kings, ch. 4.

< previous page

page_27

next page >


page_28

< previous page

page_28

next page > Page 28

most along genealogical rather than geographical or political lines: that is to say, the genealogies of dynasties which claimed a common ancestor but which were not necessarily located within the same overkingdom are usually described in the same part of the manuscript.18 It is advisable to consult as many versions of a given pedigree or genealogical tract as are available and, if possible, look beyond vol. I of O'Brien's Corpusas the earliest manuscripts neither consistently give the superior transcriptions nor always preserve all the relevant material. Once the genealogies have been transcribed and compared, it is often necessary to determine how reliable the original overall scheme is: genealogies were not composed for the benefit of modem historians, but for less scholarly purposes such as political propoganda.19 Even though most of the structuring and manipulation of the genealogical schemes affects those levels corresponding to the fifth and sixth centuries when most of the early mediaeval dynasties traced their origins more recent levels could be altered in the favour of later dynasts; it has thus been stated that 'there is no ''historical threshold" beyond which genealogies are reliable or their historicity can be taken for granted'.20 The genealogies can then be correlated with the relevant references to be found in the annalistic sources. Here it is advisable to read one's way through all the extant chronicles covering the whole chronological range being studied rather than to rely solely on index references: most editions are provided with an index, sometimes organised by kingdom-dynasty as well as by person, but as not all annal-entries state the affiliations of the persons involved, many records might otherwise be missed. Even then, until the genealogies and chronicles have been thoroughly correlated as a whole, one can never account for every isolated reference. Again, all texts should be consulted since no one chronicle is fuller than all the others, and onomastic and chronological variants do occur. What, therefore, are the grounds for correlating the information found in the chronicles with the genealogies? When the amount of information provided by both the genealogical and annalistic sources is suitably abundant, the process of individual identification (or 'nominal record linkage') and dynastic reconstruction outlined above can be a relatively straightforward matter. If the relative chronological character of the genealogies corresponds to the absolute chronology of the chronicles (which, as we have seen, usually contain some sort of genealogical statement, such as a patronymic) then the identification can be made with some certainty. Thus, to take a simple example, the Cathal mac Conchobuir, king of Connaught, who died in 1010 can readily be placed in the pedigree of the Uí Briuin rulers of that overkingdom on account of correlation of sufficient genealogical, chronological 18 The modern editions of O'Brien and Bartram have full indices of persons as well as dynasties. They are often the starting point for work on other manuscripts' genealogies. Also, the large index of dynasties and kinship-groups in Séamus Pender, 'A Guide to Irish Genealogical Collections', Analecta Hibernica vii, 1935, 1-167, is somewhat dated but still very useful. 19 On this important character of the genealogies see Dumville, 'Kingship'; Ó Corráin, 'Irish Origin Legends'; David E. Thornton, 'Power, Politics, and Status: Aspects of Genealogy in Mediaeval Ireland and Wales' (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge 1991). 20 Ó Corráin, 'Irish Origin Legends', 83.

< previous page

page_28

next page >


page_29

< previous page

page_29

next page > Page 29

and onomastic (both personal and dynastic) information.21 In cases where, for instance, some sort of genealogical information or political affiliation is omitted in the annals, or where no suitably-named person is given in the extant genealogies, identification based on the remaining criteria is still possible though perhaps not as secure. Despite the obvious advantages provided by the genealogies, reconstruction can be hindered by various types of problem genealogical, chronological, onomastic, and so on and we shall consider some below. Some of these will be familiar to prosopographers of non-Celtic regions. For example, although they constitute the very stuff of genealogical and prosopographical research, names can present notorious difficulties. These include variant spellings of the same name, different names conflated by mediaeval scribes (or modern scholars!), changing surname usage, confusion caused by patronymics, and so on.22 Over and above these, there is the old problem of 'what's in a name'? What sort of information can be permissibly read into a single name about its bearer's geographical, political or social origins. Mere nominal correspondence is never sufficient grounds for identification: for instance, two namesakes cannot be linked if their chronological positions (whether absolute or relative) are incompatible. When analysing political affiliation or geographic location, we need to exercise a certain amount of flexibility: families could move about, and individual members could range over great distances. The situation is not dissimilar with status: family fortunes can change between generations; or, not all sons of kings or counts became kings or counts themselves; while in early mediaeval Ireland, for example, clerical dynasties developed often offshoots of local secular dynasties with abbatial succession passing from father to son. One of the more frustrating onomastic problems encountered when working with Irish material from the tenth century onwards is that of patronymics and surnames. As we have seen, the forms of personal names in the Irish chronicles are relatively simple: the name on its own; the name plus a patronymic based on mac or ua; or, the use of a surname based on Mac or Ua. Naturally, any genealogical information is valuable when attempting to reconstruct a dynasty or determine an individual's position within that dynasty. Problems begin to develop in the late tenth century when Mac and Ua were often (but not exclusively) used as the first element in surnames, both elements meaning 'descendant of' in this context.23 Anthroponymists are interested in establishing when this use of Mac and Ua as surname-elements began, and they consult the genealogies to determine the number of generations which separate the figure mentioned and his ancestor referred to in the surname. Thus, they would require two generations or more to be certain that mac was used as a surname, and not merely to indicate a patronymic; 21 For this example, compare the original pedigree in Corpus, I, ed. O'Brien, 172, with the reconstructed line in Ó Corráin, Ireland, 179. 22 Perhaps the most commonly confused Irish names were Eochu and Eochaid; other pairs include Muirchertach and Murchad, and Donnchad and Domnall. 23 On the beginnings of Irish surnames see Brian Ó Cuív, 'Aspects of Irish Personal Names', Celtica xviii, 1986, 151-84, here pp. 179-84.

< previous page

page_29

next page >


page_30

< previous page

page_30

next page > Page 30

and similarly, three generations or more to be sure that ua meant descendant and not just grandson. The genealogist approaches the issue from the opposite end, being concerned to establish some sort of relationship between the figure named and his ancestor whether as father, grandfather, or more distant and thus place him in the overall genealogical scheme. The manuscripts are of little use here as they employ the same abbreviated forms m. or mc. and h., whether they represent surnames or not, and it is only modern practice to distinguish between the alternatives by capitalizing the initial M or U in the case of a surname. Where there is some doubt, however, the modem editor may mislead his readers by using the capitalised forms.24 This problem is compounded by the fact that it is during the same period (tenth and eleventh centuries) that we start to find a decrease in the segmentary character of the genealogies, and a larger number of linear pedigrees, thereby reducing the amount of genealogical information available. Many collaterals (both individuals as well as whole dynastic segments), who perhaps had held the kingship but are not among the direct ancestors of the current king, will thereby be omitted from the scheme. It has been argued that this pattern was the result of a change in dynastic politics from broadbased lineage structures to 'a narrower, more powerful, and more exclusive lordly class'.25 We can of course compensate by drawing on the more limited genealogical information given in the chronicles. However, this is only possible when that information indicates a specific relationship and, as we have seen, the surnames do not provide that sort of specificity. We get many cases where the formula 'X ua Y' refers to a figure not mentioned in the genealogies so that it is not necessarily possible to determine whether X was grandson or descendant of Y. In such cases, the full reconstruction must remain incomplete or recognised as partly hypothetical due to a lack of sufficient data.26 Chronological difficulties are particularly encountered when using the material from early mediaeval Wales. The information supplied by the extant Welsh chronicles for the period before 1000 is comparatively thin, with the result that we do not have absolute dates for many of the dynasts named in the genealogies. As I have said, chronological considerations are important when making identifications: individual A cannot be the son of individual B if the absolute dates of their respective deaths are, say, a century and a half apart. But if we lack dates for one (or both) it becomes more difficult to evaluate the potential linkage. For example, if we know when A died and not when B did so, but we do know when C (the father of B) died, then we have a rough idea of when B was born and flourished and therefore can determine whether he could have been the father of A. The fewer dates available and the greater the number of generations involved, then the relative chronology becomes more problematic. There are two ways of estimating chronology (or 'date-guessing') based on genealogies: namely, generation24 Again, see Cuív, 'Aspects'. 25 Donnchadh Ó Corráin, 'Nationality and Kingship in Pre-Norman Ireland', Historical Studies. Irish Conference of Historians xi, 1978, 1-35, here p. 33. 26 For some examples of these problems see below (pp. 34-5) and Thornton, Kings, chs 3 and 4.

< previous page

page_30

next page >


page_31

< previous page

page_31

next page > Page 31

counting and genealogical synchronism. Both are problematic and should be applied with great care, if at all.27 Generation-counting involves estimating the date of a named member of a genealogy by counting the generations between him and one or more absolutely dated direct-ancestors or descendants, and is as old as Herodotus' principle of three-generations-to-a-century.28 The process today is somewhat more sophisticated than that, though the underlying idea remains basically the same. It has been recognised, for example, that different successional systems can cause different average reign-lengths and can in turn affect generational averages. Thus, there is no absolute generational average which can be applied to any and every genealogy. An individual generational average, or more correctly, the 'ithagenic dividend', is calculated by taking the number of years between the (known) obits of two people in a direct line of descent and then dividing that total by the number of generations which separate them; the resulting 'dividend' can then be used to estimate the obit of an undated member of the same genealogy.29 There are numerous practical problems with this approach, in addition to how useful the method is in the first place. Extraordinarily long or short lives could push the dividend up or down and so a long stretch of generations is preferred in order to compensate for this eventuality. However, over long periods of time, political or other factors such as successional practice could change, thus rendering the dividend meaningless. Calculations are often made with date-ranges rather than attempting to pinpoint specific dates: for instance, a generation-range of 25×33 years. While rightly erring on the side of caution, this approach means that a person would be dated within a range which will increase the greater the number of generations he stands from his direct relative. To be able to state that someone may have flourished anywhere within a range of a hundred or more years is not always useful to the historian. Whereas this generation-counting follows linear lines of descent, genealogical synchronism employs segmentary genealogies. Here one would seek to synchronize the relative positions of two or more named members of the genealogy, one of whom has absolute dates, in order to date the others. The underlying principle here is that two figures who stand the same number of generations after a common ancestor will have flourished about the same time. Here we are not concerned to calculate the generational average, whether that be a single figure or a range. This approach is fairly simple, not to say simplistic, and works best when applied to a small number of generations: two brothers are likely to have lived about the same time as perhaps are two first-cousins. However, the greater the number of generations between the figures and their shared ancestor, the greater the chance of divergence between collateral lines and therefore the less valuable the method 27 Thornton, Kings, ch. 1. 28 On generation-counting and 'date-guessing' see David P. Henige, The Chronology of Oral Tradition: Quest for a Chimera, Oxford 1974, 135-6, and 'Generation-Counting and the New Kingdom Chronology', Journal of Egyptian Archaeology lxvii, 1981, 182-4. 29 Molly Miller, The Sicilian Colony Dates. Studies in Chronology I, Albany, N.Y. 1970. For Miller's work on the Welsh material see: 'Date-Guessing and Pedigrees', Studia Celtica x/xi, 1975/6, 96-109, and 'Date-Guessing and Dyfed', Studia Celtica xii/xiii, 1977/8, 33-61.

< previous page

page_31

next page >


page_32

< previous page

page_32

next page > Page 32

becomes. Any attempt to guess-timate dates is, of course, dangerous, and should only be undertaken when other factors have been exhausted, and should be applied with as much caution as possible. I will illustrate some of the points raised above- both those pertaining to genealogy generally and those specific to the mediaeval Celts, including the problem of early Irish surnames by means of two case-studies. In both instances, we shall be concerned with a relatively important dynasty and present a diagram outlining the information which can be derived from the genealogical tracts and the chronicles. The first case-study is the Irish dynasty known as Clann Cholmáin, or 'Descendants of Colmán', which ruled as ríg Mide or Kings of Meath throughout the Middle Ages. This dynasty was a branch of the Southern Uí Néill based in the midlands, and their kingdom seems to have incorporated modem Co. Westmeath plus adjacent parts of Counties Offaly (to the south) and Longford (to the north-west). Their genealogies claimed a common ancestry with the kings of Knowth and Brega to the east, and they were one of the Uí Néill dynasties which alternated as Kings of Tara. The following discussion will concentrate on the dynasty in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and will thus be concerned with the descendants of Flann Sinna (or 'Flann of the Shannon') mac Maele Sechnaill who was king of Meath from 877 until his death in 916, and was King of Tara from 879 also until 916. All subsequent kings of Meath were descended from Flann, indicating that he and his sons had managed to oust a number of collateral lines which had held the kingship in the ninth century. As we shall see, the dynasty itself subsequently segmented into a number of rival branches though by the middle of the eleventh century the branch descended from Flann's son Donnchad Donn gained a monopoly of the kingship. This is not by any means the first attempt to work on this dynasty, though having gone into the material in some depth, I would disagree with or hesitate in accepting some of the conclusions drawn by earlier studies.30 The reconstruction presented as Figure 1 is based on the chronicles, the genealogies, and a regnal list entitled Ríg Uisnig, 'Kings of Usnagh'.31 Any name with a date is mentioned in the chronicle, and the date given is the obit, unless stated otherwise. I also provide abbreviated offices/titles where known: KM means King of Meath; KT means King of Tara; RD represents the Irish word rígdamna sometimes translated as 30 For earlier work on this dynasty see: Paul Walsh, 'The Ua Maeleachlainn Kings of Meath', Irish Ecclesiastical Record lvii, 1941, 165-83; F. J. Byrne in A New History of Ireland, ed. T. W. Moody et al., 9 vols, Oxford 1982-, ix, 130-1, 195-7; also Liam Cox 'The Ua Maeleachlainn Kings of Meath', Ríocht na Midhe v, 1972, 22-53. 31 The main genealogical tract on the Clann Cholmáin can be found in the following manuscripts: Dublin, Trinity College, MS 1298 (H.2.7), col. 2469 (also note 185d12); Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, MS 536 (23.P. 12), p. 80aa34 (the Book of Ballymote); Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS Advocates 7.2.6 (Gaelic VI), fo. 2 (11)Vb15; Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, MS 790 (23.D.17), p. 76a (see Séamus Pender, 'The O'Clery Book of Genealogies', Analecta Hibernica xviii, 1951, 1-198, here pp. 59-60); and, Dublin, University College, Add. Ir. MS. 14, p. 161. For the versions of pedigree of the main twelfth-century line see Corpus, i, ed. O'Brien, 159, 425; also Dublin, National Library of Ireland, MS G.2-3, fo. 10Vb9. For the regnal list see The Book of Leinster, formerly Lebor na Núachongbala, ed. R. I. Best et al., 6 vols, Dublin 1954-83, i, 196-8.

< previous page

page_32

next page >


page_33

< previous page

page_33

next page > Page 33

'heir-apparent' but possibly more cautiously meaning 'prince'. And LR represents the Irish word lethrí which means something like 'part-king', possibly 'joint-king'. The genealogies of the Clann Cholmáin comprise the main linear pedigree of the early-twelfth-century kings plus a number of other pedigrees of collateral lines. No segmenary detail is available in the surviving genealogical collections. In the diagram, any name given in CAPITALS occurs in the genealogies, with the corollary that all names left in lower-case are omitted from these pedigrees. Finally, it should be stated that there are a handful of figures named in the chronicles who are not given in Figure 1: some are explicitly linked to Meath, but I cannot find any connection with the main dynastic branches; and others could theoretically be linked to the dynasty (they have suitable patronymics and chronology) but this is not certain.32 For Figure 1, it can thus be seen that only 42 of the over 80 names given in the diagram have been capitalised. Thus, only about 50% of the discoverable male members of the dynasty of Clann Cholmáin who flourished between circa 900 and circa 1100 are named in the genealogies of the dynasty; the rest were omitted. Other patterns emerge. For instance, not all the lines of descent represented by the pedigrees appear to have been politically important, or at least we have two sequences of four and five generations respectively without any corresponding notice in the chronicles. And conversely, we have at least one case where successive generations of a dynastic segment held political power of some sort in Meath but are omitted from the surviving genealogies. Finally, not all kings of Meath during this period are accommodated for in the genealogies: Oengus mac Donnchada (945), Donnchad mac Domnaill (950), Fergal Got mac Oengusa (fl. 950), Carlus mac Cuinn (960), and so on. This situation of seemingly selective genealogy is not uncommon, especially in this later period when most of the genealogical sources for a dynasty comprise a single pedigree or (as in this case) a handful of pedigrees. However, this is clearly not simply a matter of omission due to the structure of the genealogies, but probably indicates the common desire to ignore individual dynastic rivals and rival dynastic segments on the part of the ruling segment at the time of compilation. Thus, whether due to such propaganda or not, it should be stressed that, despite their detail and volume, the genealogies are by no means a perfect aid to reconstructing mediaeval Irish dynasties. They provide an initial framework upon which the reconstruction can be based but in themselves are not exhaustive. There are two problems characteristic of the dynasty of Clann Cholmáin in this 32 Those linked to Meath include: Domnall ua Flainn, alias Donnchad mac Flainn (ob. 1076); Donnchad mac Domnaill (oh. 950); Flaithbertach mac Domnaill (oh. 1014); Flann ua Maele Sechnaill (fl. 1073); Gallbrat ua Cerbaill (ob. 1058); mac meic Aigennáin (fl. 1094); and, Muirchertach mac Maele Sechnaill (ob. 1049). Those not explicitly connected with Meath include: Aed ua Maele Sechnaill (fl. 1076); Conchobor mac Domnaill (ob. 936); Congalach ua Maele Sechnaill (ob. 1053); Donnchad mac Domnaill (ob. 924); Donnchad mac Maele Sechnaill (oh. 1013); Flaithbertach mac Loingsig (ob. 1038); Mael Ruanaid mac Donnchada (oh. 989); Mael Sechnaill (fl. 1030); Muirchertach Ua Maele Sechnaill (fl. 1032-43); Murchad Ua Maele Sechnaill (oh. 1032); and Oengus mac Flainn (ob. 1034). Some of these latter names may have nothing to do with Clann Cholmáin, but are included here for completeness' sake.

< previous page

page_33

next page >


page_34

< previous page

page_34

next page > Page 34 Page 35

Figure 1. Clann Cholmáin kings of Meath

< previous page


page_34

next page >

page_36

< previous page

page_36

next page > Page 36

period: the surname Ua Mael Sechnaill (or more correctly for the latter phase, Ua Maele Sechlainn) and the epithet Got ('The Stammerer'). I have already discussed above the problems which the surnames based on Mac and Ua pose for the reconstruction of Irish dynasties in this period. With the Clann Cholmáin, the problem is compounded by the fact that possibly four of its members in this period were called Mael Sechnaill and their descendants appear in the chronicles as Ua Maele Sechnaill. Firstly, there was Mael Sechnaill mac Maele Ruanaid (ob. 862) father of Flann Sinna: a number of Flann's sons appear in the annals as 'ua Maele Sechnaill' which we must here take to mean 'grandson of Mael Sechnaill'. Next, we have the great Mael Sechnaill Mór mac Domnaill, who died in 1022: he was probably the most important figure to bear the name; and the majority of rulers of Meath in the eleventh and later centuries to be summed Ua Maele Sechnaill were descended from him. We also have a Mael Sechnaill mac Maele Ruanaid meic Chonchobuir: two of his descendants, Loingsech mac Flainn (lector of Clonard) and Raen mac Muirchertaig (king of Meath), were called ua Maele Sechnaill in the chronicles, but if correctly placed in the genealogical scheme they were indeed his grandsons. Finally, we have Mael Sechnaill, father of Mael Sechnaill Got: a number of his descendants were called Ua Maele Sechnaill, but the exact resolution of the form is not always clear because his son also bore that name and because many of the genealogical relationships are not known (hence my dotted lines in this part of Figure 1). Thus, I would hestitate to decide when we have the surname and when not. This last dynastic segment is interesting in that it is associated with the epithet or nickname Got (sometimes given, with the definite article as in Got), meaning 'stammering, lisping', and used here as 'the Stammerer'.33 In addition to the aforementioned Mael Sechnaill Got mac Maele Sechnaill, a number of eleventh-century Meath dynasts bore that epithet and most of these were not given any additional genealogical affiliation in the chronicles except Ua Maele Sechnaill. Thus we have: Domnall Got (alias simply 'in Got'), king of Meath, who died in 1030; Donnchad Got who died in 1071 (he is not necessarily the same Donnchad Got whose son had died twenty four years earlier); Mael Ruanaid Got whose death in 977 is a little early; another Mael Ruanid Got who died in 1046; and three men called Cernachán Got, though only one, termed Ua Maele Sechnaill, can neccessarily be linked with the Clann Cholmáin. Only Fergal Got mac Oengusa can readily be located genealogically in a different dynastic segment (see Fig. 1); the rest could be associated in some way with that of Mael Sechnaill Got. It seems likely here that some, if not all, the men who bore the epithet Got were close kinsmen. Furthermore, one annalistic entry refers to the slaying of Conchobor mac Oengusa in 1023 lasna Gum, 'by the Gots', which may imply some sort of 33 See the relevant entry, s.v. 'got', in Carl J. S. Marstrander et al., Dictionary of the Irish Language based mainly on Old and Middle Irish Materials, Dublin 1913-76. It is added that Got is 'commonly used as a contemptuous epithet of Norsemen or foreigners in general of unintelligible speech'. Note also the comments of Walsh, 'The Ua Maeleachlainn Kings', 168; and in addition Hubert Butler, 'Who were "the Stammerers"?', Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland lxxx, 1950, 228-36, esp. p. 230.

< previous page

page_36

next page >


page_37

< previous page

page_37

next page > Page 37

collective identity or action by the men bearing that epithet. While it was not common in early mediaeval Ireland for such nicknames to be passed onto one's descendants like a surname and especially not on such a wide scale, this case was not wthout precedent: take, for example, the similarly repeated use of the epithet in Sinnach, 'the Fox', by members of the Uí Chatharnaig segment of the ruling dynasty of neighbouring Uí Néill kingdom of Tebtha.34 I have therefore included in the relevant section of Figure 1, all those called Got who cannot be identified genealogically. The second case-study is the mediaeval Welsh dynasty sometimes known as the 'Second Dynasty of Gwynedd'.35 This dynasty rose to power in the ninth century in the important kingdom of Gwynedd in north-west Wales, and subsequently extended its control throughout most (but not all) of Wales by the middle of the tenth. The dynasty was descended from Rhodri Mawr (king of Gwynedd from 844 until 878) whose father Merfyn Frych had assumed the kingship in early ninth century even though (according to the extant genealogies) he was not a direct male descendant of the earlier kings of Gwynedd but related to them only through his mother. Rhodri and his sons extended their kingdom by a combination of violence and by marrying into local dynasties, and various dynastic segments subsequently emerged. In the person of the famous Hywel Dda this large area temporarily came under the rule of a single king, but after his death in 950 the southern realms fell to his sons, while those in the north returned to the control of their northern cousins. Thus, the subsequent kings (and later Princes) of Gwynedd were the descendants of Rhodri's son Anarawd and those rulers in the southern kingdom of Deheubarth were descendants of Cadell ap Rhodri. Again, reconstruction of the dynastic genealogy (presented as Figure 2) was achieved by combining the surviving genealogies with the chronicles. The briefer character of the Welsh material overall means that this process is less complex (than that of Meath just discussed) and the final product less detailed. Problems of effective record linkage still occur however. Furthermore, I have limited myself here to reconstructing the Second Dynasty down to circa 1000, partly as this material has (to some extent) been neglected by scholars, and partly due to political changes in the eleventh century. Our genealogical sources for this dynasty fall into a number of groups reflecting their date of redaction and historical reliability. The earliest genealogies are two linear pedigrees of king Owain ap Hywel of Deheubarth (who died in 988).36 There are some segmentary genealogies of the descendants of Rhodri Mawr and (although they occur in manuscripts of a much 34 These were close kinsmen as their genealogies demonstrate; the use of the epithet seems to have spanned two or three generations and was applied to at least six different men in the late eleventh to late twelfth centuries. Furthermore, we find the plural form Sinnaig, 'the Foxes', used collectively of them in the annals. See M. E. Dobbs, 'The Genealogies of the Southern Ui Neill', Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie xx, 1936, 129, here pp. 9, 11, 14. 35 On this dynasty see, for example: Wendy Davies, Patterns of Power in Early Wales, Oxford 1990, 41-6; David N. Dumville, 'The "Six" Sons of Rhodri Mawr: A Problem in Asser's Life of King Alfred', Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies iv, 1982, 5-18; Thornton, Kings, ch. 2. 36Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts, ed. Bartrum, 9-10.

< previous page

page_37

next page >


page_38

< previous page

page_38

next page > Page 38

later date) they are useful.37 Finally, a series of pedigrees of late Welsh families (which claim to descend from some of Rhodri's less-important sons) are very dubious and have been ignored in this reconstruction.38 The same proceedure as above has been followed: dates are supplied (where known) from the chronicles; names which have been CAPITALISED occur in the genealogies. Some obvious points emerge. There are perhaps a total of 47 members of the dynasty who can be identified, though not all identifications are certain. Those denoted with a question-mark are uncertain: thus, for example, neither Iarddur ap Merfyn nor Ionafal ap Meurig is mentioned in the genealogies, though the patronymics given in the chronicles might suggest they were members of the dynasty. Of the 47, most are named in the genealogies. The exact status of many of these dynasts is not known; while in other cases, although they are termed king in the annals, the location of their kingdoms is not clear. This may reflect the nature of the dynastic expansion, with certain members not controlling a specific area as such but being considered part of the dynasty as a whole. Some interesting patterns emerge when the dynasty is set out thus. On the one hand, we can trace the process of dynastic expansion and segmentation. The two main branches, as we have seen, were descended from Rhodri's sons Anarawd and Cadell. Two other sons, Merfyn and Gwriad, are mentioned in the annals as are 37Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts, ed. Bartrum, 46-7, 100-2. 38 P.C. Bartrum, 'Pedigrees of the Welsh Tribal Patriarchs', National Library of Wales Journal xiii, 1963/4, 93146, here pp. 112-15.

< previous page

page_38

next page >


page_39

< previous page

page_39

next page > Page 39

Figure 2. The 'Second Dynasty of Gwynedd' to Circa 1000 their sons (dating down to the mid-tenth century). That these dynastic segments are not traced any further probably indicates that they were squeezed out of power by the two main lines. These two main segments also underwent segmentation, and eventually particular sub-branches (which had held power down to the late tenth century) would be superseded by their more successful cousins. These ultimately successful lines of descent (beyond circa 1000) are indicated by the two arrows in Figure 2. As such the transmission of political power in early mediaeval Wales was not dissimilar to that we have seen exercised in contemporary Ireland. A further point of interest emerges for the Second Dynasty of Gwynedd if (in the light of our reconstruction) we analyze the personal names borne by the members of the various constituent dynastic-segments. I cannot go into any great detail here, but can sketch the pattern briefly.39 Most of the names of these dynasts can be found in other Welsh genealogies, often associated with particular earlier dynasties. If the advent of the use of a given name by the Second Dynasty is correlated with the point at which the kingdom of that earlier dynasty fell under the sway of the Second Dynasty or at which a member of the Dynasty had married into the earlier one, it is usually the case that the use of the name does not precede the annexation or inter-dynastic marriage. Thus, members of the Second Dynasty appear to have named their sons according to naming-patterns associated with kingdoms they had either annexed or married into. Furthermore, once the Second 39 For a more detailed discussion of this see: David E. Thornton, 'Predatory Nomenclature and Dynastic Expansion in Early Mediaeval Wales', forthcoming.

< previous page


page_39

next page >

page_40

< previous page

page_40

next page > Page 40

Dynasty had segmented into the two northern and southern branches, the names given by the two branches were usually associated with earlier dynasties of either the north or south respectively. Thus in Figure 2, names such as Idwal, Iago, Cynan, Cyngen, and Ieuaf (used by the northern branch) had earlier been associated with the northern dynasties of Gwynedd and Powys; while names such as Clydog, Hyfaidd, Rhain, Maredudd and Llywarch (used by the southern branch) had previously been associated with the southern dynasties of Dyfed and Ceredigion. This process may be explicable as an attempt by the Second Dynasty and then its constituent segments to reinforce its political hold over a given region by associating itself onomastically with the relevant earlier dynasties. I have attempted to demonstrate in this paper that there is much to interest the prosopographically-minded historian in the study of early mediaeval Ireland and Wales. The character of that interest is, to some extent, dictated by the mainly genealogical nature of the source-material available: little can be determined concerning, for example, landholding by non-royals. In many respects, the student of mediaeval Ireland and Wales has at a great advantage over his English and Continental counterparts through access to these genealogies; but, as I hope I have illustrated, there are difficulties in dealing with these sources, both practically -which has been the main concern of this paper as well as theoretically particularly the political propaganda which was often the motive for the composition and transmission of the genealogies.

< previous page

page_40

next page >


page_41

< previous page

page_41

next page > Page 41

3 A West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century: the Family, Estates and Patronage of Beorhtric Son of Ælfgar Ann Williams In 1102, Gerald of Avranches, abbot of Cranborne in Dorset, transferred his monks to Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire, where he established a Benedictine abbey, of which Cranborne became a dependent cell. Much later, a monk of Tewkesbury wrote a history of his monastery. After a completely spurious account of the foundation of the original church in the eighth century by the eponymous hermit Tewk, he described how the monastery was re-established after the Viking raids. Its patron was Haylwardus 'a certain noble knight sprung from the illustrious stock of King Edward the Elder', and surnamed snew (snow), 'on account of his fair colouring'. With his wife, Alviva (OE Ælfgifu), Haylwardus re-founded Tewkesbury 'in the time of King Æthelred and St Dunstan' (that is, between 978 and 988) as a dependency of Cranborne Abbey; he was later killed at the battle of Assandune in 1016, leaving a son Algar, father of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar.1 The church of Tewkesbury appears in Domesday as part of the great estate at Tewkesbury, assessed at 95 hides. Of these hides, 45 were in demesne and 30 were held by men owing dues and services to the lord of Tewkesbury.2 The remaining 20 hides, distributed between seven vills, belonged to the church. Such an endowment suggests a substantial community and indeed the church, which stood at Stanway, is called a minster (monasterium) in Domesday.3 Minsterchurches were the centres of large parishes, over whose inhabitants their clergy exercised 1 BL MS Cotton Cleopatra C iii, fo. 220, printed in J. Caley and H. Ellis, Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, London, 1830, ii, 59. Associated with Tewk in the foundation legend are the duces Oddo and Doddo, who were, however, buried at Pershore, where Doddo had become a monk. The chronicler includes an inscription alleged to be from a chapel at Pershore founded by Doddo in memory of his brother Almaric; it is a rendering of the genuine inscription from Holy Trinity, Deerhurst, founded by Earl Odda in memory of his brother Ælfric (d. 1053). Earl Odda is clearly the Oddo of the Tewkesbury legend; Doddo is presumably Dodda cild, another eleventh-century thegn who attests one private and several royal charters in company with Odda of Deerhurst (Ann Williams, 'An introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', The Gloucestershire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R. W. H. Erskine, London, Alecto Historical Editions, 1989, 21-2; see also note 70 below). 2 See Table 3. 3 As often happens the 20 hides assigned to the church of Tewkesbury turn out when itemized to come to a different figure, 24 1/2 hides. The criteria for identifying a superior church in Domesday were (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_41

next page >


page_42

< previous page

page_42

next page > Page 42

Table 1. The families of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar and Æthelweard the Chronicler, ealdorman of the western shires

< previous page

page_42


next page >

page_43

< previous page

page_43

next page > Page 43

pastoral care. Many were founded in the earliest days of the English church, in the seventh and eighth centuries, but whether this was the case with Tewkesbury is difficult to say.4 The Tewkesbury Chronica contains much legendary and indeed invented material but some of its elements may be based on fact. The fair-complexioned Haylwardus, kinsman of Edward the Elder, seems to be a real person. His name is a garbled version of OE Æthelweard, and an Æthelweard appears at the right date as the founder not of Tewkesbury, but of Cranborne Abbey, Dorset, the original home of the Tewkesbury monks. A lost charter of Æthelred II, issued about 1000, confirmed the grants made to the abbey by Ælfgifu, widow of Æthelweard mew, the founder, with the consent of her son Ælfgar; about ten years later, the same Ælfgar made a further grant to Cranborne.5 Æthelweard mw can be identified as the Haylwardus of the Tewkesbury Chronica, which has rejected the unlikely by-name mw ('seagull') in favour of the more comprehensible 'snow'. His son Ælfgar is presumably Ælfgar son of Mw who, according to John of Worcester, fought on the Danish side at the battle of Sherston in 1016.6 He must also be the Ælfgar mw who attests charters of Æthelred II between 999 and 1009, being associated in the witness-lists with Æthelmawr and his father Æthelwold, to whom he may have been related.7 Æthelmter is probably Æthelmær se greata ('the Stout'), whose son Æthelweard was murdered on Cnut's orders in 1017, and his father may be Æthelwold the Stout, one of the witnesses to a lawsuit of 989-90. His name appears immediately before that of Ælfgar 'the Honiton man'; presumably one of the Devonshire Honitons is meant.8 If Ælfgar mw is identical with Ælfgar 'the Honiton man', he may have been a kinsman, perhaps a grandson, of Ælfgar 'the king's kinsman in Devon', whose death in 962 is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The alleged connection of (Footnote continued from previous page) established by John Blair, 'Secular minster churches in Domesday Book', Domesday Book.' a reassessment, ed. P. H. Sawyer, London 1985, 106. 4 It has been suggested that the eighth and ninth-century charters (S. 172, 185 and 1255) usually taken to refer to an early minster at Twyning actually relate to Tewkesbury, and further, that the minster itself lay at The Mythe, perhaps on the site of the late medieval building known as 'King John's Castle' (Anthea Jones and Jane Grenville, 'Some new suggestions about the pre-Conquest church of Tewkesbury', Southern History 9 (1987), 9-33). This tenement appears in Domesday as that part of Twyning whose pre-Conquest holders had commended themselves to Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. Their land had passed to Queen Matilda, who gave it to John the Chamberlain, and henceforth it descended with the honour of Gloucester, whereas the main manor of Twyning belonged to Winchcombe Abbey (Domesday Book, i, fos 163v, 165v; Domesday Book: Gloucestershire, ed. John Moore, Chichester, 1982, no. 1, 44 notes). There is no evidence that any part of Twyning belonged to Tewkesbury before the time of Domesday; indeed circumstantial evidence suggests that the acquisition of The Mythe was not only recent, but illegal (see the discussion of Kemerton and Bishop's Cleeve below, pp. 53-4). 5 The relevant charters are now lost, but transcripts were made in the eighteenth century, see C. R. Hart, Early charters of Eastern England, Leicester 1966, 253, 254. 6 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, sub anno 1016. 7 Simon Keynes, The diplomas of King Æthelred II, 'the Unready', 978-1016, Cambridge 1980, 209-10. 8ASC, sub anno 1017; P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters: an annotated list and bibliography, Royal Historical Society, London 1968 (hereinafter cited as S.), no. 877; A. J. Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, Cambridge, 1956, 130-1, 372-7, 387. In 1086, Honiton near Axminster was held by the count of Mortain and Honiton in South Molton by Odo fitzGamelin, for whom see below (Domesday Book, i, fos 104v, cf. 100, 116v).

< previous page

page_43

next page >


page_44

< previous page

page_44

next page > Page 44

Ælfgar mw's father Haylwardus with the royal line of Wessex brings to mind Æthelweard the Chronicler, a descendant of King Æthelred I.9 He was ealdorman of the western Shires from 977 to 998, and presumably held lands in the west of England.10 But the name Æthelweard is a common one. Ælfgar's father might equally well be the Æthelweard to whom Oswald, archbishop of York and bishop of Worcester, granted three hides at Clifford Chambers in 988, for land in Clifford Chambers is later found among the appurtenances of the manor of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, held by Ælfgar's son Beorhtric in King Edward's day.11 The connection between Ælfgar mw and Beorhtric son of Ælfgar is provided by Domesday Book. The lands which Ælfgar and his mother conveyed to Cranborne Abbey lay at Cranborne, Wimborne, Dewlish and High Ashton, all in Dorset, and at Loosebeare and Medland, both in Devon. Only High Ashton, Dorset, does not appear in Domesday. Cranborne Abbey held land at Wimborne St Giles, Dorset, and at Loosebeare, Devon (though not at Medland).12 Cranborne and Dewlish, however, belonged to Beorhtric, who also held Boveridge as the 9 For Æthelweard and his descendants, see The Chronicle of Æthelweard, ed. Alistair Campbell, London 1962, xii-xvi; Dorothy Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, Cambridge 1930, 118-9; Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 386-7; Simon Keynes, 'Cnut's earls', The reign of Cnut, ed. Alexander Rumble, Leicester 1994, 6770. Æthelweard's sister, Ælfgifu, was the wife of King Endwig; her will, which disposes of land in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire and Dorset, some of it acquired from King Edgar, mentions another brother, Ælfweard, a sister, Ælfwaru, and a sister-in-law, Æthelflæd (S. 1484, 737-8; Margaret Gelling, The early charters of the Thames Valley, Leicester 1979, pp. 75, 132-3. Æthelflæd was once identified as Æthelweard the Chronicler's wife, but the only evidence cited relates to Æthelflæd, daughter of Ealdorman Æthelmær, wife of the younger Ealdorman Æthelweard (Keynes, Diplomas of Æthelred II, 192, note 139). Ælfgifu's sister-in-law may have been the wife of her brother Ælfweard, though there is no reason why Æthelweard the Chronicler should not have been married more than once. See further note 69 below. 10 The extent of Æthelweard the Chroniclet's land is unknown. Under the terms of Ælfgifu's will (see previous note), he and his brother and sister received land at Berkhampstead, Hefts, and Mongewell, Oxon (the latter acquired by Ælfgifu from King Edgar), with reversion to the Old Minster, Winchester. In 1005, his son Æthelmær founded Eynsham Abbey, Oxon, but most of the land which he gave to the church was acquired, rather than inherited, from various sources, including his son-in-law, Æthelweard, who gave Eynsham itself, and his kinsmen Leofwine, who may have also been related to Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex, and Godwine, both of whom gave land in Oxfordshire. The lands which Æthelmær gave in exchange lay in Devon (Upottery, in Axminster hundred), Warwickshire, and Essex; the Essex land, at Lawling, had been bequeathed to Æthelmær by his kinswoman Ælfflæd, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth's widow. Esher, in Surrey, is the only estate which Æthelmær had received from his father Æthelweard (S. 911, 1486; Gelling, Early charters of the Thames Valley, pp. 138-9, 162-3; H. P. R. Finberg, Early charters of the West Midlands, Leicester 1961, pp. 66, 125). 11 S. no. 1356, H. P. R. Finberg, Early Charters of the West Midlands, Leicester 1961, 236; Domesday Book, i, fo. 163v, and see Table 3. The lease is preserved in the earlier of the Worcester cartularies, which dates from the first two decades of the eleventh century. An Æthelweard was the recipient of several other leases of land in Warwickshire and Gloucestershire from St Oswald; in some cases he was succeeded by an Æthelmær and he may have been a kinsman, perhaps a brother, of Eadric, the wealthiest lay tenant. of Worcester (to judge from the surviving leases) in St Oswald's time (Vanessa J. King, 'St Oswald and his tenants', forthcoming). 12Domesday Book, i, fos 77v, 104. Medland was held in 1086 by Godwine, a tainus regis, all of whose lands had previously belonged either to him, or to Alstan, presumably his father. Godwine's lands in Devon, along with those of Walter de Claville, his brother Goscelm, Ansgar of Montacute, Aiulf, Morin of Caen, Colwine and Godric, passed, with the lands held by the queen in succession to Beorhtric son of Ælfgar, to Robert fitzHamon, and formed part of the honour of Gloucester; Robert gave Medland to Tewkesbury Abbey (Domesday Book: Devon, ed. Frank and Caroline Thorne, Chichester 1985, chapter 24: no. 52, 13, notes).

< previous page

page_44

next page >


page_45

< previous page

page_45

next page > Page 45

abbey's tenant.13 Though he is not distinguished by his patronymic, the earlier history of the estates is enough to identify him as Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. It is Domesday Book which most clearly displays the wealth and power of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. This record of royal dues, real and potential, was produced twenty years after the Conquest and the dispossession of the Old English establishment which followed. The dominance of men of continental origin is evident in every shire; only a handful of Englishmen and women are to be found amongst them, all local rather than national figures, with comparatively small amounts of land. Alongside the holders of 1086, however, appear their predecessors, the men and women who held the same estates 'on the day when King Edward was alive and dead'. They are recorded because the foundation of William I's kingship was that he was Edward the Confessor's legal heir, with the corollary that his followers held their lands with the same rights, and the same obligations, as Edward's thegns. Much, of course, had changed between 1066 and 1086, and Domesday's account may indicate what was believed to be the case, rather than what was actually so. Pre-Conquest conditions were usually recorded because they bore upon lands and rights in dispute in 1086, so that the details given may be partial, slanted or even invented for the sake of making a good case. When all this has been said, however, there remains, embedded in the record of the Norman settlement, a picture of pre-Conquest lordship and landholding. The chief problem, of course, is to identify individual landholders among the mass of names recorded in Domesday Book.14 Such identification is not easy. In pre-Conquest England, each individual had a single, distinctive name, an idionym.15 Some, like Ælfric, Eadric and Leofwine, were used very frequently; others are rare and all occurrences are correspondingly more likely to refer to a single individual.16 The task of identification is complicated by the lack of consistently-used by-names. In themselves by-names are not rare in pre-Conquest England; examples of patronymics and metronymics (based on the mother's name) are plentiful, as are toponymics, occupational names and nick-names. Some could be inherited. The son of Ætheltic Bigga was called Esbern Bigga, and, as we have seen, the son of Æthelwold the stout was called Æthelmær the stout and the son of Æthelweard mw was Ælfgar mw.17 Occupational names could also be passed on from father 13 See below, p. 48. 14 The study of pre-Conquest landholders was greatly advanced by the publication of Olof von Feilitzen, The preConquest personal names of Domesday Book, Uppsala 1937. This is a list of names, not individuals, though some landholders are identified in von Feilitzen's notes. 15 Cecily Clark, 'Onomastics', The Cambridge history of the English language ii, ed. Norman Blake, Cambridge 1992, 551-2. 16 There are, for instance, only a dozen references to the name Earnsige, all in the neighbouring shires of Hereford, Worcester and Gloucester; the obvious assumption is that there is only one Earnsige and this can be confirmed by other evidence (see Ann Williams, ' ''Cockles amongst the wheat": Danes and English in the west midlands in the first half of the eleventh century', Midland History 11, 1985, 14; idem, 'An introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', 24). 17 For Æthelric and Esbern Bigga, see Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 387, 436.

< previous page

page_45

next page >


page_46

< previous page

page_46

next page > Page 46

to son; Ælfred Westou the schoolteacher (larwe) had a son called Eilaf larwe.18 It is possible that even toponymics could be inherited. Sired of Chilham, who held land in Kent on the eve of the Conquest, was probably descended from the earlier Kentish magnate, Siward of Chilham.19 But the process had not gone very far, and these cases are exceptional. Not only were by-names not consistently used but the same individual may also appear in a number of different guises. Most of the references to Bondi the staller, a royal official who was employed by William as well as by Edward, include his office, but some do not. The Kentish magnate Æthelnoth is distinguished within Kent by the appellation cild (boy, warrior, nobleman) but elsewhere is called Æthelnoth of Canterbury, or Æthelnoth the Kentishman. Leofwine of Bacton, who held a handful of estates in Essex and Suffolk, is sometimes designated by his toponymic and sometimes called Leofwine cild. He also appears simply as Leofwine and is described both as a free man (liber homo) and as a king's thegn. One might ask how, in Leofwine's case, do we know that all the appearances of this very common name relate to a single man, which brings us to another criterion of identity. The fiefs of some incoming Normans were made up of the confiscated lands of one or more named Englishmen. These English landowners, as antecessores, gave title to their Norman supplanters and cases of Norman landowners claiming estates because they had allegedly belonged to an antecessor are quite frequent in the folios of Domesday. If, therefore, an English name, even a common name, appears in connection with several manors in the possession of a single Norman, it is likely to be that of one of his antecessores. So it is with Leofwine cild of Bacton, most of whose lands belonged in 1086 to Walter the Deacon (see Table 2). Identification of English landowners is thus a matter of piecing together scattered notices, often only tenuously linked. Rarely if ever can we be sure that all the lands of a single individual have been identified; or that all the references are in fact to a single person. This is as true of the great men as it is of the less, which brings us to the subject of this paper, Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. The lands which may reasonably be assigned to him, or to men linked with him either tenurially or personally, are listed in Appendix I.20 The bulk of Beorhtric's land lay in Gloucestershire. He was the lord of Tewkesbury, a large estate which included, besides Tewkesbury itself, lands in 16 other vills; the whole was worth £100 in 1066 and assessed at 95 hides. Beorhtric held several other manors in Gloucestershire, at Thornbury, Old Sodbury, Avening, Fairford and Woolaston, plus the manors of nine thegns who had 'submitted 18 H.H.E. Craster, 'Some Anglo-Saxon records of the see of Durham', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, 1, 1925, 192. 19 Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 372, 419; Keynes, Diplomas of Æthelred II, 132-4. 20 I have given the hidage (or tax assessment) of the lands concerned, since it is not always clear from Domesday whether the figures given for previous value relate to 1066 or to some later, but pre-Domesday date. Moreover values of estates are very rarely, if ever, mentioned in pre-Conquest sources, whereas hidage is nearly always recorded; hence the Domesday hidage allows comparison with other pre-Conquest figures.

< previous page

page_46

next page >


page_47

< previous page

next page >

page_47

Page 47 Table 2. Leofwine of Bacton Manor

TRE tenant

1086 tenant

Bacton, Sf

Leofwine, liber homo of Earl Harold

Walter the deacon

Caldecota, Sf

demesne of Bacton

Walter the deacon

Caldecota, Sf

6 free men, commended to Leofwine of Bacton

Robert Malet

Cotton, Sf

Ansgar, commended to Leofwine of Bacton

Robert Malet

Milden, Sf

Leofwine of Bacton, King Edward's thegn

Walter the deacon

Bruntuna, Sf

Leofwine, thegn

Walter the deacon

Witnesham, Sf

Leofwine, liber homo

Walter the, deacon

Purleigh, Essex ( i )

Leofwine

Walter the deacon

Purleigh, Essex ( ii )

Leofwine cild

Walter the deacon

Colne Engaine, Essex

Leofwine

Walter the deacon

Helion Bumpstead, Essex

Leofwine cild

Tihel the Breton

Ulverston, Sf

Leofwine cild, commended to Ely

Odo of Bayeux

Wickham Market, Sf

Leofwine cild, commended to Ely

Odo of Bayeux

themselves and their lands under the power of Beorhtric'. All but Woolaston had passed through the hands of Queen Matilda, who died in 1083, and belonged to the king in 1086.21 One of Beorhtric's former Gloucestershire holdings was claimed in 1086 by the bishop of Worcester. In Worcestershire, Beorhtric appears as the bishop's tenant at Bushley and Barley, each assessed at one hide. Bushley was part of the episcopal manor of Bredon, and Barley was part of Ripple with Upton; both manors lay 21Domesday Book, i, fos 163-164. Woolaston was held by William de Eu (fo. 166v).

< previous page

page_47


next page >

page_48

< previous page

page_48

next page > Page 48

within the bishop's triple hundred of Oswaldslow.22 Beorhtric's holdings here were lnland, held for a temporary term in return for service.23 Only in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire is Beorhtric regularly identified by the use of his patronymic, but the fact that the bulk of his Gloucestershire land had belonged to Queen Matilda allows us to identify him with the Beorhtric whose manors in Wiltshire, Dorset, Cornwall and Devon also passed to the queen. In Wiltshire he held only the manor of Brixton Deverill, assessed at 10 hides, which Queen Matilda had given to the abbey of Bec. In Dorset, where he held just under 66 1/2 hides, the queen had succeeded to his manors at Cranborne, Frome St Quintin and Ashmore and had given his lands at Tarrant Launceston and Tyneham to La Trinité, Caen, of which she was the founder, and to one Anschitil fitzAmeline respectively. For reasons which have been discussed, it must be our Beorhtric who had held Count Alan's manor at Dewlish, and Boveridge, which belonged to Cranborne Abbey.24 In addition, he is probably to be identified as Walter de Claville's predecessor at Afflington.25 Six small estates in Cornwall had passed from Beorhtric to the queen; one was held in 1086 by Walter de Claville, and another by Aiulf, perhaps Aiulf the Chamberlain, sheriff of Dorset.26 In Devon, the queen held fifteen manors which had belonged to Beorhtric, to which must be added lands at Umberleigh, Northam and Sampford Peverel, which she gave to La Trinité, Caen, Saint-Etienne, Caen and Roger de Bully respectively.27 One of her tenants in Devon was the same Walter de Claville who held land of her in Cornwall, and appears as the successor of Beorhtric at Afflington, Dorset. Walter's brother Goscelm was also connected with the queen, holding four of her Devonshire manors at farm; that is, he paid a fixed annual rent for them and collected the profits. The brothers were probably royal officials of some kind; a man of Walter was a collector of geld in Tawton hundred.28 They held other lands 22Domesday Book, i, fos 173,180v. For Stoke Orchard, which the bishop of Worcester claimed, see p. 54 below. 23 It has been suggested that the Ætheltic 'brother of Bishop Beorhtric' who held Queenhill, another appendage of Ripple with Upton, was the brother of Beorhtric son of Ælfgat but 'Beorhtric' may be scribal error for Beorhtheah, bishop of Worcester (1033-38) who did have a brother called Æthelric. 24Domesday Book, i, fos 68v, 75v, 77v, 78, 79, 82v, 83. 25 Some, perhaps all, of Walter de Claville's Devonshire lands had come from the estate of Beorhtric (see below, pp. 49-50) and the same may be true of his land in Dorset (10 hides 3 1/2 virgates excluding Afflington). 26Domesday Book, i, fos 120-120v, and see note 28 below. 27Domesday Book, i, fos 101-101v, 104, 113, 120-120v. 28Domesday Book, i, fos 101, 104; Exon Domesday, fo. 497v; DB Devon, no. 24, 28, notes. Several of the queen's tenants seem to have been royal servants. Aiulf, who held Carwogie, Cornwall, may be Aiulf the chamberlain, sheriff of Dorset, whose brother, Humphrey the chamberlain, held Thornbury, Old Sodbury and Fairford, all in Gloucestershire, at farm, and to whom the queen had given land at Wickwar in the same county, which had belonged to three of Beorhtric's men (Domesday Book, i, fos 163v, 170). The Judhael who held Asprington, Devon, from the queen is perhaps the castellan of Totnes (for whom see John Bryan Williams, 'Judhael of Totnes: the life and times of a post-Conquest baron', ANS 16, 1994, 271-89). Robert d'Oilly, who held Shenington, Gloucestershire, at farm, was sheriff of Warwickshire; Gerard, holder of Kemerton, Gloucestershire, was a chamberlain, as was John, to whom the queen had given land at Twyning and Fairford in the same shire. Roger de Bully, lord of Tickhill, Yorkshire, held Sampford Peverel, Devon and Clifford Chambers, Gloucs; the former had been given to him by the queen with his wife, Muriel, who may have been a daughter of Eudo fitzHubert, the king's dapifer (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_48

next page >


page_49

< previous page

next page >

page_49

Page 49 Table 3. The manor of Tewkesbury Demesne

Berewicks, demesne

Berewicks, tenanted

Church

Fiddington

Fiddington

Non-demesne

Tewkesbury Southwick Tredington Fiddington Pamington Natton

Natton

?Walton

Walton

?Aston

Aston Stanway Taddington Lemington Washbourne Stanley Hanley Forthampton Shenington Clifford Chambers

file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_49.html (1 of 2)29.06.2009 22:55:47

page_49

in Devon in their own right, and at several places had succeeded to Beorhtric, or to men connected with him. In fact, since some of Walter's and Goscelm's estates are specifically said to have been 'added to Beorhtric's lands', most of their manors had probably belonged to him.29 The same is true of Ansgar of Montacute, who held seven tenements in Devon, four of which had been 'added to Beorhtric's lands'. Of the remaining three, two had been held by Beorhtric or by men connected with him.30 One was a virgate of land attached to Great Torrington, a (Footnote continued from previous page) (DB Devon, no. 27, 1 notes; A. S. Ellis, 'Biographical notes on the Yorkshire tenants named in Domesday Book', Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Journal 4, 1877, 143). 29Domesday Book, i, fos 112v, 113, 116; Exon, fo. 397. Like the lands of Beorhtric himself, those of Walter and Goscelm formed part of the later honour of Gloucester. It may be particularly significant that the tenements which they, and Ansgar of Montacute, held of Odo fitzGamelin at Great Torrington did not descend with the honour of Torrington, held by Odo's successors, but with the honour of Gloucester (DB Devon, no. 40, 2, notes). 30Domesday Book, i, fo. 116, Exon, fos 456v, 459v, 461, 462; DB Devon, nos 40, 1-7 and notes. Ansgar, also called Ansgar of Senarpont (dep. Somme), is probably Ansgar the Breton, a tenant of Robert count (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_49

next page >


page_50

< previous page

page_50

next page > Page 50

manor belonging to Odo fitzGamelin, and reappears in the entry for that estate in Odo's fief. Ansgar's virgate is there entered as an appurtenance, along with two other one-virgate holdings, belonging to Walter de Claville and Goscelm respectively.31 Both Great Torrington and six other manors held by Odo in 1086 had formerly belonged to Beorhtric.32 When the lands which passed to Walter de Claville, Goscelm, Ansgar of Montacute and Odo fitzGamelin are added to those held by the queen, Beorhtric's land in Devon amounts to at least 60 hides (possibly as much 94 hides) and his total estate, including lands held by men dependent upon him either personally or tenurially, comes to between 338 and 372 hides in six shires.33 This makes him one of the richest, perhaps the very richest thegn below the rank of earl in preConquest England.34 Beorhtric and his peers formed the upper stratum of king's thegns, surpassed only by the great earls; they appear in pre-Conquest sources as optimates ('best men') or proceres ('chief men'); both words might justly be translated as magnates. Their numbers were probably not large, perhaps no more than a hundred in King Edward's day.35 Domesday gives some insight into the structures of landholding and lordship at this level of society. The huge manor of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, is described in exceptional, though not unambiguous detail (see Table 3).36 After the Conquest it had come into the hands of William fitzOsbern, earl of Hereford, who had withdrawn the renders of two of its tributary lands, at Hanley Castle and Forthampton, and attached them to his castle at Hereford. This was certainly not the full extent of his predation, for the manor is said to have been 'destroyed and dismembered', and when it came into the hands of the queen's reeve, Ralph of Cardiff, its value had dropped from £100 before 1066 to only £12.37 This is probably why Domesday's account of Tewkesbury is largely in the past tense, with the addition of some details of its condition in 1086; the source is presumably a pre-Domesday, perhaps pre-Conquest description of the manor. (Footnote continued from previous page) of Mortain in Devon and Somerset (Domesday Book, i, fos 86v, 91v, 92v, 104v; Domesday Book: Somerset, ed. Frank and Caroline Thorne, Chichester, 1980, nos 1, 19; 19, 4:8:46). 31Domesday Book, i, fo. 116v; Exon, fo. 376v. In Domesday itself, the subtenures are held by francigenae, 'Frenchmen'; it is Exon which supplies their names (see DB Devon, no. 42, 6 and notes). 32Domesday Book, i, fo. 116v. 33 The lands of Walter, Goscelm and Ansgar which are specifically said to have belonged to Beorhtric are included in Appendix I; those which remain (apart from what has been 'added to Beorhtric's lands') are listed in Appendix II. 34 He heads the Table of 'non-earlish' landholders in Peter A. Clarke, The English nobility under Edward the Confessor, Oxford 1994, 38-9; though Dr Clarke's reconstruction of his estate differs in several respects from mine, not least in regarding Odo fitzGamelin's antecessor as a different Beorhtric from the son of Ælfgar (English nobility, 260-2, 265). 35 Clarke lists 100 men with estates worth £40 or more in 1066; Dr Fleming calculates that there were 70 thegns worth £60 or more at the same date (Robin Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England, Cambridge 1991, 65, note 47). 36Domesday Book, i, fos 163-163v. 37 Presumably Ralph received the estate in 1076, when William fitzOsbern's son, Earl Roger of Breteuil, forfeited his lands for his part in the rebellion of the Three Earls. The queen, or her agents, had made improvements, adding another plough to the 12 there in 1066, 13 burgesses and a market. By 1086 the manor was worth £40 and Ralph of Cardiff actually paid £550.

< previous page

page_50

next page >


page_51

< previous page

page_51

next page > Page 51

Tewkesbury was a manor of the kind often called 'multiple estates', whose constituent parts were dispersed through many vills, not necessarily forming a continuous block of territory (see Map 1). The centre or caput of the manor was the viii where the lord's burh or manor-house stood, which gave its name to the whole estate.38 This was, of course, Tewkesbury itself, and the hall and court of Beorhtric's manor-house are mentioned in Domesday. This central viii was exploited for the lord's direct profit, and its population consisted only of dependent peasants; 50 male and female slaves and 16 bordarii (smallholders) who dwelt (manebant) around the hall. Tewkesbury's bordars are evidence of its burgeoning urban status; by 1086 there were 13 burgesses paying 20s a year and a market paying 11s 8d.39 Appurtenant to the caput were forty-five hides of land in seven dependent vills or berewicks, which are described as in dominio. The pre-Conquest survey of a very similar manor, at Tidenham, Gloucestershire, describes berewicks containing not only demesne in the strict sense of land exploited directly for the lord's use, but also rent-paying lands, in the hands of the free peasants whom the Tidenham survey describes as geneatas.40 The same is true of Tewkesbury. The inhabitants of its forty-five hides of demesne include not only twenty-one villani, a bordarius and five coliberti (freed slaves) but also nine radcnihts or 'riding men', the Domesday equivalents of the Tidenham geneatas. Only the services of the radcnihts, who had to plough and harrow at their lord's court, are recorded. Three were sufficiently prosperous for their tenures, though not their names, to be specifically mentioned; one held two hides at Fiddington, distinct from the four hides of demesne in the same vill, a second held the whole berewick of Walton Cardiff, assessed at 3 hides, and the last the whole berewick of Aston, assessed at six hides.41 Oxenton, assessed at five hides, was included in the demesne of Tewkesbury; it had a hall of its own in King Edward's time, and is separately described and valued, but no tenant is named. The 45 hides of Tewkesbury's demesne were 'quit of all royal service and geld except the service of the lord himself whose manor it was'. To them were attached another 30 hides not in demesne, which, with the 20 hides belonging to the minster of Tewkesbury, 'have made quit and freed from all geld and royal service the 95 hides which belonged to Tewkesbury'. Their service, in other words, acquits the 38 Ann Williams, ' "A bell-house and a burh-geat": lordly residences in England before the Norman Conquest', Medieval Knighthood 4, 1992, 221-40. 39 The significance of such groups of smallholders in the development of small towns in the eleventh century has been demonstrated by Christopher Dyer, 'Towns and cottages in eleventh-century England', Studies in medieval history presented to R. H. C. Davis, ed. Henry Mayr-Harting and R. I. Moore, London 1985, 91-106; for Tewkesbury, see 96-7, 103. For a parallel case, see, Evesham, Worcs, where there were 27 bordarii servientes curie (Domesday Book, i, fo. 175v). 40 Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 204-7, 451-4. The survey dates from between 956 and 1061. 41 In the list of Tewkesbury's berewicks, Fiddington is assessed at 6 hides; the lord's share represents the later manor of Fiddington and Natton, based on Fiddington Farm, whereas the two hides held by the radcniht became Hall Court Manor, based on Fiddington Manor (Domesday Book: Gloucestershire, ed. John Moore, Chichester 1982, no. 1, 24, notes). It is not clear whether the 3 hides at Walton Cardiff and the 6 hides at Aston held by the radcnihts were identical with, or distinct from, the dependencies assessed at the same amounts in the list of berewicks; the former seems more likely.

< previous page

page_51

next page >


page_52

< previous page

page_52

next page > Page 52

Map 1. Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire [from Domesday Book: Gloucestershire, ed. John S. Moore, Chichester: Phillimore, 1982]

< previous page

page_52


next page >

page_53

< previous page

page_53

next page > Page 53

whole estate; in the rest of the land, the dues once rendered to the king are paid to Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. Tewkesbury was bookland, originally land conveyed by a royal charter or landboc, over which Beorhtric enjoyed the rights elsewhere described as sac and soc. This phrase has usually been interpreted in its strict legal sense, as suit of court, but it implied much more than this. The dependent lands not in demesne belonged to Tewkesbury in the sense that they owed dues and rents, including money-rents, to the lord of Tewkesbury. Such dues are described in Domesday Book as consuetudines, customary dues. They could not be unilaterally withdrawn, but since they were due from the land, not the holder, the latter could, in the Domesday phrase, 'give and sell', or dispose of it freely, provided the consuetudines continued to be paid by the new owner.42 Holders of such dependent land (called sokeland in the eastern circuits) can thus be described in Domesday as free (liber), or as holding freely (libere).43 The dependencies of Tewkesbury lay at Hanley Castle, Forthampton, Shenington and Clifford Chambers. Neither the names of those who held them before the Conquest nor the services which they owed are specified.44 Nor is their relationship to Beorhtric specified. Beorhtric was lord of the land which made up the manor of Tewkesbury, but he was not necessarily lord of the men who held the dependencies. Old English law codes distinguish between the landrica or lord of the land, to whom the consuetudines were due, and the hlaford, lord, who held the personal commendation of his men.45 Sometimes the holders of dependent land would commend themselves to the landrica who commanded its services, but they did not have to; they might chose another as their personal hlaford, or remain the king's men. In Domesday's phrase they could commend themselves (se vertere) to whomsoever they would.46 Title was conveyed by sake and soke, not by commendation, but it is not unusual to find disputes arising from the distinction between tenurial and personal lordship after 1066. In Domesday, the description of Tewkesbury is followed by six manors whose pre-Conquest holders had 'submitted themselves and their lands under the power of Beorhtric'; that is, they had commended themselves to Beorhtric. Domesday implies that this brought their land also into his power, but further investigation casts doubt on this assertion in at least two cases. Kemerton and 42 See David Roffe, 'From thegnage to barony: sake and soke, title and tenants-in-chief', ANS 12, 1990, 15776. 43 In Kent such land was called libera terra, 'free land', see A. Ballard, The Domesday Inquest, London 1923, 11921; 'An eleventh-century Inquisition of St Augustine's, Canterbury', British Academy Records of social and economic history of England and Wales 4, 1920, xxi. 44 In 1086 Robert d'Oilly, sheriff of Warwickshire, held Shenington at farm, and 4 hides in Clifford Chambers (assessed at 7 hides) had been given by the queen to Roger de Bully. Hanley Castle and Forthampton had been withdrawn from the manor by William fitzOsbern and were still attached to the king's farm in Hereford. 45 III Æthelred II, 4, 2; I Cnut, 8, 2; see David Roffe, 'Brought to book: lordship and land in pre-Conquest England', forthcoming. 46 In some shires, the Domesday commissioners recorded the names of the hlafordas to whom holders of dependent land (whether thegns, sokemen or liberi homines) were commended as well as that of the landrica to whom consuetudines were due (Richard Abels, 'An introduction to the Bedfordshire Domesday', The Bedfordshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and G. H. Martin, London, Alecto Historical Editions, 1991, 29, 38-40).

< previous page

page_53

next page >


page_54

< previous page

page_54

next page > Page 54

Boddington, held before the Conquest by Ljotr and in 1086 by Gerard the chamberlain, are also entered as part of the great manor of Deerhurst, which King Edward gave to Westminster Abbey. Such double entries often indicate disputes, and in fact the second entry, under Westminster's fief, complains that the lands 'always paid geld and did other services in Deerhurst hundred, but after Gerard had them he rendered neither geld nor service'.47 Ljotr, it seems, was personally commended to Beorhtric, but his land was attached not to Beorhtric's manor of Tewkesbury but to Westminster's manor of Deerhurst. Nevertheless it was appropriated after the Conquest by the holders of Tewkesbury, whether by the earl, the queen or the king is not clear. In any case, Westminster stood little chance of recovering its land against such opponents. A similar dispute involved the estate at Stoke Orchard (two hides and three virgates) held before 1066 by Hermer and Alwine and in 1086 by Bernard. This reappears as part of the manor of Bishop's Cleeve, belonging to the bishopric of Worcester; but Bernard had refused to do the service for it to St Mary's, Worcester.48 A man of Beorhtric's wealth and power might be expected to attract the commendation of lesser thegns, like Ljotr of Kemerton and Hermer and Alwine of Stoke Orchard. The thegns who had held Ashton-under-Hill, Wincot, Hentage and Twyning, are anonymous, as are the four men (homines) of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar, whose land at Wickwar had been given by the queen to Humphrey the Chamberlain.49 Dunning, who held land at Alderton and Dixton, can be traced elsewhere. The Annals of Winchcombe record that he gave churchscot of two virgates at Alderton and two at Dixton to Winchcombe Abbey in 1059.50 His name is not common in Domesday, and he is probably the man who held Eckington and Birlingham, Worcestershire, both of which lay in Westminster Abbey's manor of Pershore, and Donningstone, Devon, which preserves his name.51 Only in Gloucestershire is he said to have been commended to Beorhtric. In all these cases Domesday represents the men's land as well as their commendation as belonging to Beorhtric, though this need not have been so, and after the Conquest it passed to the queen. In contrast, the land at Acton 'Ilger' held by Æbbi, Beorhtric's man (homo), belonged in 1086 to Geoffrey de Mowbray, bishop of Coutances.52 Presumably Beorhtric held only Æbbi's personal commendation, without any interest in his land. Disputes similar to those over Kemerton and Stoke Orchard could arise over 47Domesday Book, i, fo. 166. Both Kemerton (8 hides) and Boddington (3 hides) lay within the hundred of Deerhurst. Ljotr's name is very rare and does not appear elsewhere in Domesday Book. 48Domesday Book, i, fo. 165. 49Domesday Book, i, fo. 170. 50 R. R. Darlington, 'Winchcombe Annals, 1048-1181', A miscellany f or Doris Mary Stenton, ed. P.M. Burnes and C. F. Slade, London, Pipe Roll Society 76, 1962, 116. 51Domesday Book, i, fos 105, 174v. His tenement at Eckington owed consuetudines of a day's reaping in the lord's meadows. 52Domesday Book, i, fo. 165. Acton 'Ilger', named after Geoffrey de Mowbray's tenant in 1086, was part of Iron Acton, held before 1066, by Harold, homo of Alwig hiles. It was given, with Wickwar, to Humphrey the chamberlain by Queen Matilda (see note 49 above). Both Iron Acton and Wickwar lay in Bagstone hundred.

< previous page

page_54

next page >


page_55

< previous page

page_55

next page > Page 55

lnland. Since this was land granted by the lord to a tenant for a term of lives, it could not be disposed of except in accordance with the terms of the lease, and, should the tenant forfeit his estates for any reason, returned to the lord.53 No lnland granted by Beorhtric can be identified in Domesday with any certainty, but he himself held lnland of the bishop of Worcester. His tenement at Bushley appears twice in Domesday. In the Worcestershire folios, it appears under the fief of the bishop, as appurtenant to his manor of Bredon, and Beorhtric is said to have paid an annual farm for it 'and moreover rendered to the bishop's soke whatever he owed to the king's service'.54 The full description of Bushley appears in the Herefordshire folios. It is entered under the Terra Regis, as part of the estate forfeited by Roger de Breteuil, earl of Hereford. Here we are told that Beorhtric had bought Bushley from Lyfing, bishop of Worcester (10381046), for three marks of gold (£18) 'and held it quit, so that he did no service from it to any man'.55 Bushley, held by Beorhtric of the bishop of Worcester, had been seized, with land belonging to Beorhtric himself, by Roger's father, William fitzOsbern, and the bishop had lost both his lnland and its service. The form of the entry for Tewkesbury allows us to glimpse the structure of a great pre-Conquest manor, which is obscured elsewhere by the re-distribution of Beorhtric's lands after 1066.56 In Devon, however, there are hints of a network of land and men like that in Gloucestershire. If, as suggested above, much of the land held by Walter de Claville and his brother Goscelm had once belonged to Beorhtric son of Ælfgar, then the men and women named as the pre-Conquest tenants were not independent landholders but personally or tenurially dependent on Beorhtric. This is sometimes explicit in the Domesday text or the comparable entries in Exon Domesday. The two anonymous thegns who preceded Walter de Claville at Leigh held from (de) Beorhtric son of Ælfgar and 'could not be separated from him', and the restriction on their tenure suggests that the land was thegnland, held in return for service.57 Wulfstan, the former holder of Goscelm's tenement of 'Wulfstan's cot' (Ulestanecote), held 'freely' from Beorhtric according to Domesday, but Exon says that he 'could not be separated from Beorhtric's land'.58 Since Wulfstan held 'freely', his land was presumably a dependency of one of Beorhtric's manors, owing consuetudines, but the place is unidentified and it is impossible to speculate on which one it might be. 53 II Cnut, 77, 77i. 54Domesday Book, i, fo. 173. 55Domesday Book, i, fo. 180v. Attached to the estate was a house in Worcester paying a mark of silver annually and a wood one league long by another wide; a forester held half a virgate of land and there were 4 villani, 8 bordarii, a reeve and a beadle, with 8 ploughs and a cowman (vaccarius) and a dairymaid. 56 There are similar descriptions in Domesday of Berkeley and Deerhurst, both in Gloucs, Leominster in Herefords and Bosham in Sussex (Domesday Book, i, fos 16, 17-17v, 163, 166, 180-180v). All were high-status manors, held by men in the upper ranks of the nobility; Berkeley and Bosham by Earl Godwine, Leominster by his daughter Queen Edith, and Deerhurst by Odda, earl of Worcester. All, like Tewkesbury, were in origin ecclesiastical estates, belonging to the minsters of Berkeley, Deerhurst and Leominster and the canons of Bosham. 57Domesday Book, i, fo. 112v; Exon, fo. 397; DB Devon, no. 24, 21, notes. See also note 60 below. 58Domesday Book, i, fo. 113; Exon, 397; DB Devon, no. 25, 27, notes.

< previous page

page_55

next page >


page_56

< previous page

page_56

next page > Page 56


page_56

Map 2. Beorhtric's estates in Devon [from Domesday Book: Devon, ed. Frank and Caroline Thorne, Chichester: Phillimore, 1985]

< previous page

page_56

next page >


page_57

< previous page

page_57

next page > Page 57

Leigh and the unidentified 'Wulfstan's cot' lay in south Devon, but most of Beorhtric's Devonshire estates were concentrated in a band running west to east across the northern hundreds of Hartland, Shebbear, Fremington, North Tawton, Witheridge, Tiverton and Halberton (see Map 2). The bigger, more valuable manors had been kept in demesne, first by the queen and subsequently by the king. The largest was Winkleigh, in North Tawton hundred, whose assessment of 5 1/2 hides is clearly preferential, for it contained land for 40 ploughs, and was at farm (to Goscelm) for £30. The list of its assets gives some impression of the manor: in demesne were two hides and 6 slaves; 60 villans had 3 1/2 hides and 40 ploughs, and there were 10 swineherds (porcarii), whose charges were presumably pastured on the 500 acres of appurtenant woodland; in addition, there were 80 acres of meadow, and a park for hunting, whose keeper (custos), Northmann, had a tenement of 1 1/2 virgates for his office. Winkleigh's berewicks are not only not specified, but not even mentioned in Domesday: later evidence reveals that they lay at Hollocombe, Birch, Collacott, Loosebeare, Titterton and Southcott. Only Loosebeare (assessed at half a hide) appears in Domesday, held by Cranborne Abbey, Dorset, to which it had been given by Beorhtric's father, Ælfgar.59 In some cases it is possible to reconstruct the tenurial and personal relationships between Beorhtric and his men. Smaller than Winkleigh but still valuable was Iddesleigh, in Shebbear hundred, assessed at three hides but with land for 22 ploughs, and rendering Æ14 per annum. Two dependencies are recorded (see Table 5). One is an unnamed virgate of land which Ælfwaru pet had held of Beorhtric; Walter de Claville held it in 1086, and it is entered a second time under his name. Exon adds that Ælfwaru 'could not be separated from Beorhtric with this land', which shows that this was part of the demesne of Iddesleigh. It was probably thegnland, granted by the lord to his tenant in return for some service. Unlike the holders of sokeland, such tenants did not have freedom of alienation, since the land was not theirs, but their lord's.60 The other dependency of Iddesleigh consisted of 2 1/2 virgates in North Tawton hundred; this probably lay at Upcott in Dowland, which belonged to the manor in the thirteenth century. Another tenement in Dowland was held in 1086 by Walter de Claville, who had attached it to Loosedon, also in North Tawton hundred. The land in Dowland had previously been held by two thegns in parage; Loosedon was part of Beorhtric's land before 1066, and had been held of him by Alweard mart. Alweard himself had held yet another part of Dowland, also in Walter's hands in 1086, and 'could go with his land to whatever lord he would'.61 Alweard mart had freedom of disposition and of commendation, but, as we have seen, this did not mean his land was unencumbered, and it is likely that all this land in Looseden and Dowland was appurtenant to one of Beorhtric's manors; probably Iddesleigh, 59DB Devon, no. 1, 64 and note; Domesday Book, i, fo. 104, and see notes 11 and 12 above. 60Domesday Book, i, fo. 101v; Exon, fo. 109; DB Devon, no. 1, 63 and notes. In the entry under Walter de Claville's name, the TRE tenant is named as Ælfgifu theof, who 'could not be separated from the king's manor' (Domesday Book, i, fo. 112v; Exon, fo. 388; DB Devon, no. 24, 22 and notes). 61Domesday Book, i, fos 101v, 112v; Exon, fo. 390; DB Devon, nos 1, 63: 24, 23-5 notes.

< previous page

page_57

next page >


page_58

< previous page

next page >

page_58

Page 58 Table 4. Halberton Hundred Manor

TRE holder

1086

HALBERTON

Beorhtric

Queen Matilda

Muxbere

5 thegns libere in paragio de Brictric; they could not be separated from him

Ansgar of Montacute

East Manley

Alweard

Goscelm

Sellake

Beorhtmær

Goscelm, of Baldwin de Meulles, sheriff of Devon

Leonard (i)

Ælfrun

Walter de Claville

Frawine

Morin [of Caen], serviens regis

Ash Thomas

Ælfgifu; added to Beorhtric's land

Goscelm

Sutton (i)

Godric; wrongfully added to Beorhtric's land

Ansgar of Montacute

Sutton (ii)

Eadric

Aiulf the chamberlain

(ii)

SAMPFORD PEVERELL Beorhtric

Roger de Bully(given by Queen Matilda)

Boehill (i)

Wulfrun

Walter de Claville

Boehill (ii)

Leofræd

Walter de Claville

BURLESCOMBE

Wulfgeat

Walter de Claville

Appledore

Wulfgeat, who could go where he would

Walter de Claville

Fenacre

Wulfgeat

Goscelm

Ayshford

Wulfweard

Walter de Claville

Canonsleigh

Ælfrun

Walter de Claville


page_58

Westleigh

Eadmær

Aiulf the chamberlain

WILLAND

Eadmær

Odo fitzGamelin

Note: the later parishes are in CAPITALS; the smaller places within the parishes are in lower case.

< previous page

page_58

next page >


page_59

< previous page

page_59

next page > Page 59

just across the border in Shebbear hundred.62 Alweard mart also held land attached to Beorhtric's manor of Ashreigny, in North Tawton hundred, which he had retained in 1086 by the queen's gift.63 Great Torrington, in Fremington hundred, which had passed to Odo fitzGamelin, stands comparison with Winkleigh. It was preferentially assessed, at three and a half hides, but had 40 ploughlands. Its assets included three virgates of demesne, with four ploughs and seven slaves; 45 villans and 10 bordars with 26 ploughs, 20 acres of meadow, 300 acres of woodland, and 25 swineherds rendering 110 pigs; it had been worth £24 but was worth only £20 in 1086. Little Weare, in Shebbear hundred, assessed at a virgate and also held by Odo, belonged to Great Torrington. Three more dependent tenements of a virgate each were held in 1086 by Ansgar de Montacute, Walter de Claville and Goscelm, Walter's brother. All three are entered a second time under the tenants' names. Ansgar's virgate, which is unnamed, was held by Ælfric before 1066; Walter's holding is probably Instow, held by Alweard (perhaps Alweard mart) in 1066 and Goscelm's was at Dodscott, previously held by, and named after, Dodda; both the latter lay in Fremington hundred.64 It is to be presumed that Ælfric, Alweard and Dodda owed consuetudines to Beorhtric son of Ælfgar as lord of Great Torrington. Perhaps the most interesting manor is that of Halberton (see Table 4 and Map 2). It was a hundredal manor, one of the few such manors in Devon not in royal or ecclesiastical hands.65 The manor of Halberton itself passed from Beorhtric to Queen Matilda. It must have included Muxbere, held by five thegns freely, in parage, of Beorhtric, from whom they could not be separated; this was held in 1086 by Ansgar of Montacute. Sampford Peverel, in Halberton hundred, had also passed from Beorhtric to the queen, who had given it to Roger de Bully. But the really striking aspect of Halberton hundred is that virtually all the tenements within 62 Alweard mart may still have been holding this land of Walter de Claville in 1086, see following note. 63Domesday Book, i, fos 101v, 118; DB Devon, nos 1, 65, 52, 30 and notes. Ashreigney takes its name from the de Reigny family, who also held Iddesleigh in the thirteenth century. Alweard mart's land at Wolfin, also in North Tawton hundred, passed, like Loosedon and Dowland, to Walter de Claville. Again Domesday describes him as a liber homo, and Exon says that he 'could go with his land to whichever lord he would'; but it seems likely that Wolfin, like Loosedon and Dowland, was appurtenant to one of Beorhtric's manors, probably Iddesleigh. Wolfin, on the River Nymet, was later called Merdesnymeth ('Mart's Nymet'), after Alweard mart (Domesday Book, i, fo. 112v; Exon, fo. 390v; DB Devon, no. 24, 28 and notes), and he may have continued to hold it in 1086 of Walter the Wild, who himself held of Walter de Claville; Domesday regularly omits sub-tenants of mesne-tenants unless there was particular reason to mention them (C. P. Lewis, 'The Domesday jurors', Haskins Society Journal 5, 1993, 26-7). 64 Ansgar's virgate is said to have lain in Great Torrington, and land in Dodscott formed part of the later manor, see Domesday Book, i, fos 112v, 116, 116v; DB Devon, nos 24, 26, 25, 4, 40, 2, 42, 6 and notes. Dodscott was held of Goscelm by Walter of Burgundy, who also held of Goscelm at Villavin and Newton Tracey, both in Fremington hundred; Newton Tracey was held T. R. E. by Alweard, perhaps the same who had held Instow (Domesday Book, i, fo. 112v; DB Devon, nos. 25, 1; 3-4 and notes). Villavin and Newton Tracey may also have been dependencies of Great Torrington, or another of Beorhtric's manors. 65 Halberton hundred may once have been united with Tiverton hundred whose caput at Tiverton was held by Gytha, Earl Godwine's wife, in 1066 (Frank Thom, 'Hundreds and wapentakes', The Devonshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and G. H. Martin, London, Alecto Historical Editions, 1991, 35, 40-1). Another hundredal manor in the hands of a king's thegn was Broad Clyst, the caput of Cliston hundred, which belonged to Ordwulf son of Ordgar, patron of Tavistock Abbey (see below, note 71; DB Devon, no. 1, 56 and notes).

< previous page

page_59

next page >


page_60

< previous page

page_60

next page > Page 60

Table 5. The manors of Iddesleigh and Great Torrington Manor

Holder TRE

Holder 1086

l. Iddesleigh

Beorhtric

[the queen]

Ælfwaru of Beorhtric

Walter de Claville

Loosedon

Ælfric

Goscelm

Loosedon

Alward mart of Beorhtric

Walter de Claville

Dowland (added to Loosedon)

2 thegns in parage

Walter de Claville

Dowland

Alward mart

Walter de Claville

2. Great Torrington

Beorhtric

Odo fitzGamelin

Beorhtric

Odo fitzGamelin

[appurtenances]: 1 virgate 2 1/2 virgates in North Tawton 100

[appurtenances]: Little Weare 3 virgates

3 francigenae (Walter, Ansgar and Goscelm)

a) 1 virgate

Ælfric

Ansgar de Montacute

b) Instow

Alward

Walter de Claville

c) Dodscott

Dodda

Goscelm

it were held by men who had elsewhere succeeded to some part of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar's estate. East Manley, Sellake, and Fenacre belonged to Goscelm; his brother Walter held Leonard, Boehill, Burlescombe, Appledore, Ayshford and Canonleigh; Odo fitzGamelin held Willand. Two tenements at Ash Thomas and Sutton, are said to have been 'added' to Beorhtric's land; the first was held by Goscelm, the second by Ansgar of Montacute. Another tenement at Sutton and land at Westleigh belonged to Aiulf the chamberlain, perhaps the same man who had received one of Beorhtric's manors in Cornwall.66 The only remaining tenement, at Leonard, was held in 1086 by Morin of Caen, a royal sergeant.67 It 66 See note 28 above. 67GDB, fo. 117v; DB Devon, no. 51, 14, notes. Morin also held land as a tenant of Baldwin de Meulles, sheriff of Devon (GDB, fo. 108v; DB Devon, nos 16, 169, 173-4, notes). His Devonshire land, like that of Aiulf the chamberlain, formed part of the honour of Gloucester (see note 12 above).


page_60

< previous page

page_60

next page >


page_61

< previous page

page_61

next page > Page 61

seems likely that Beorhtric was lord of the hundred as well as the manor of Halberton in 1066. Domesday can tell us about the wealth, in land and men of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. It reveals nothing about what part he played in the political and social life of eleventh-century England. Indeed little enough can be discovered about his wider career, or those of any other eminent layman below the rank of earl. He attests two charters of Ealdred, bishop of Worcester in the 1050s, in company with Odda, lord of Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, and his brother Ælfric. Odda is described by William of Malmesbury as a kinsman of King Edward, and may indeed have been related to Beorhtric, since he is arguably a descendant of Æthelweard the Chronicler, ealdorman of the Western Shires.68 Odda, who was also known as Æthelwine, is described by John of Worcester as 'the lover of churches, the protector of the poor, the defender of widows and orphans, the helper of the oppressed, the preserver of chastity'; this is an elaboration of the 'D' chronicler's eulogy ('he was a good man and pure and very noble'). He was patron both of Deerhurst and of Pershore Abbey in Worcestershire, whose lands were re-distributed by King Edward after Odda's death without heirs in 1056. William of Malmesbury names the original patron of Pershore as Æthelweard the Chronicler, ealdorman of the Western Shires, which office passed in turn to his son Æthelmæer, and to Æthelmær's son-in-law Æthelweard, exiled by Cnut in 1020. It was about this time that Godwine received the earldom of all Wessex, but when he was exiled in turn in 105152, a revived earldom of the Western Shires was given to Odda.69 Odda's association both with an abbey patronized by Æthelweard, and the ealdordom held by him and by his heirs, suggests some tie of kinship. Beorhtric son of Ælfgar is probably the Beorhtric who attests royal charters of the 1040s, 1050s and 1060s, often in association with Odda of Deerhurst, and the members of another west country magnate family, Ordgar and his brother Ælfgar and Ordgar's son Ordwulf.70 The latter were benefactors of Tavistock Abbey, and Ordwulf's lands in Devon can be reconstructed from Domesday Book.71 They too 68 S. nos 1406, 1409; Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 208-11; De Gestis Regum, ed. W. Stubbs, RS, 1887, i, 243. 69 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, sub anno 1056; ASC, 'D', sub anno 1056; De Gestis Pontificum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, RS, 1870, 298; Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 456-61; Williams, 'An introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', 28-9; Patrick Wormald, How do we know so much about Anglo-Saxon Deerhurst?, Deerhurst Lecture 1991, 1993, 9-18. After Godwine's return in 1052, Odda was given an earldom in Worcestershire. He is described in the fragmentary Annals of Pershore as the son of Ælfhere, ealdorman of Mercia, who died in 983, but see Ann Williams, 'Princeps Merciorum gentis: the family, career and connections of Ælfhere, ealdorman of Mercia, 956-83', ASE 10, 1982, 167-8. 70 S. nos 999, 1001, 1003, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1012, 1018, 1023, 1034, 1036, 1042. A memorandum of the bishop of Sherborne, issued in 1045 or 1046, is attested by Odda and his brother Ælfric and Ordgar and his two brothers Ælfgar and Escbearn (S. no. 1474, Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 200-3). Their names are followed by that of Dodda cild, probably the Dodda who attests charters in company with Odda, Ordgar and his kinsmen, and Beorhtric (Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 448; S. nos 998, 999, 1004, 1019, 1021, 1027, 1028, 1033, 1036; see also note 1 above). 71Domesday Book, i, fos 101,101v, 104v, 105, 113v, 114v, 115; see Clarke, English nobility, 326. Most of Ordwulf's estate, described as his honour in Exon, passed to the count of Mortain and his man Reginald de Vautortes (DB Devon, nos 1, 55; 56: 15, 44; 47 and notes).

< previous page

page_61

next page >


page_62

< previous page

page_62

next page > Page 62

were royal kinsmen, descendants of Ordgar, father of King Edgar's queen Ælfthryth and her brother Ordwulf, founder of Tavistock Abbey.72 In a charter of 1061, Beorhtric and Ælfgar are distinguished as consiliarii, though precisely what this might mean is unclear.73 Beorhtric son of Ælfgat was a rich and powerful king's thegn, a procer or optimas, whose lands passed, almost intact, into the hands of a single successor. The support of such magnates was essential to the smooth running of royal government, but such eminence was also dangerous to its possessor. Beorhtric's fortunes collapsed at the Conquest. What happened to him is unknown; perhaps he fought at Hastings with the levies of Wessex, or perhaps he was involved in the rebellion at Exeter in 1068. He had lost Tewkesbury itself before 1071, for it had been in the hands of Earl William fitzOsbern, who was given King Harold II's earldom of Hereford in 1067, and who was killed in the battle of Cassel, in Flanders, in February 1071. It was Earl William who was responsible for the 'destruction and dismembering' of Tewkesbury, withdrawing the revenues of Hanley Castle and Forthampton to his castle of Hereford. He also seized (illegally) the land at Bushley in Worcestershire, held by Beorhtric of the bishop of Worcester. Domesday enables us to discover something of the wealth, in lands and men, of one of the dominant figures in the west of England on the eve of the Conquest, but the downfall of the great earls and king's thegns after 1066 means that much of their social and political significance is irrecoverable. 72 H. E R. Finberg, 'The house of Ordgar and the foundation of Tavistock Abbey', EHR 53, 1943, 190-201; idem, 'Childe's Tomb', Lucerna, London, 1964, 186-203. Ordgar Devonensis attests Earl Leofric's alleged charter for Coventry Abbey of 1043 (S. no. 1226). 73 S. no. 1034; Simon Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor (sic)', ANS 10, 1988, 205, note 117.

< previous page

page_62

next page >


page_63

< previous page

next page >

page_63

Page 63 Appendix 1: The lands of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. Manor

Holder 1086

Hidage

Tewkesbury

Queen Matilda

95

Ashton

Gerard

4

Kemerton

Gerard

8

Boddington

Gerard

3

Wincot

Reginald (of Q.M.)

3

Alderton

Humphrey (of Kg.W.)

62

Dixton

Humphrey (of Kg.W.)

42

'Hentage'

Humphrey (of Kg.W.)

1

Twyning

John (of Q.M.)

2

Stoke Orchard

Bernard (of K.W.)

23

Thornbury

Queen Matilda

11

Old Sodbury

Queen Matilda

10

Avening

Queen Matilda

10

Fairford

Queen Matilda

21

Acton

Bishop of Coutances

22

Wickwar

Humphrey the chamberlain

4

Woolaston

William de Eu

2

Gloucestershire

Worcestershire


page_63

Bushley

Bishop of Worcester

1

Barley

Bishop of Worcester

1

[Queenhill]

Bishop of Worcester

[1]

Frome St Quintin

Queen Matilda

13

Cranborne

Queen Matilda

10

Ashmore

Queen Matilda

8

Boveridge

Cranborne Abbey

5

Dorset

(Appendix continued on next page)

< previous page

page_63

next page >


page_64

< previous page

next page >

page_64

Page 64 (Appendix continued from previous page) Appendix 1: The lands of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. Manor

Holder 1086

Hidage

Tarrant Launceston

Holy Trinity, Caen

10

Dewlish

Count Alan

15

Afflington

Walter de Claville

2 1 1/2

Tyneham

Anschtil fitzAmeline

3

St Mary's, Bec

10

Northlew

Queen Matilda

111

Halwill

Queen Matilda

1

Clovelly

Queen Matilda

3

Bideford

Queen Matilda

3

Littleham

Queen Matilda

1

Langtree

Queen Matilda

1 3 1/2

Iddesleigh

Queen Matilda

3 2 1/2

Winkleigh

Queen Matilda

52

Ashreigny

Queen Matilda

1 3 1/2

Lapford

Queen Matilda

22

Irishcombe

Queen Matilda

1/2

High Bickington

Queen Matilda

1 2 1/2

Wiltshire Brixton Deverill Devon


page_64

Morchard Bishop

Queen Matilda

2

Holcombe Burnell

Queen Matilda

1

Halberton

Queen Matilda

5

Ashprington

Queen Matilda

3

Northam

St Stephen's, Caen

2 1/2

Umberleigh

Holy Trinity, Caen

11

Sampford Peverell

Roger de Bully (QM)

32

Pool

Walter de Claville

1

Leigh

Walter de Claville

3 1/2

Loosedon

Walter de Claville

2

Shobrooke

Walter de Claville

1


< previous page

page_64

next page >


page_65

< previous page

next page >

page_65

Page 65 (Appendix continued from previous page) Appendix 1: The lands of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar. Manor

Holder 1086

Hidage

Loosedon

Goscelm of Exeter

2

Ulestanecote

Goscelm of Exeter

1

Muxbere

Ansgar of Montacute

Delley

Odo fitzGamelin

1

Little Weare

Odo fitzGamelin

1

Great Torrington

Odo fitzGamelin

Broadhembury

Odo fitzGamelin

4

Shapcombe

Odo fitzGamelin

1

Plymtree

Odo fitzGamelin

Hillersdon

Odo fitzGamelin

Poltimore

Haimeric

Dart

Odo fitzGamelin

1

32

21 2 313 1 1/2

Cornwall Connerton

Queen Matilda

3

Coswarth

Queen Matilda

Binnerton

Queen Matilda

Trevalga

Queen Matilda

2

Carwogie

Queen Matilda (Aiulf)

1

[unidentified]

Queen Matilda (Walter de Claville)

1 4


page_65

< previous page

page_65

next page >


page_66

< previous page

next page >

page_66

Page 66 Appendix 2: Lands possibly belonging to Beorhtric 1. Lands of Walter de Claville in Devon Manor

Holder TRE

Hidage

Bywood

[Matilda]

3 1/2

Bramford Speke

[Aelfgifu]

2

Withycombe

[Aelfgifu]

West Raddon

[Aelfgifu]

Washford Pyne

[2 thegns]

Drayford

[Ælfrun]

3

Sydeham

[Ælfrun]

1

Craze Lowman

[Ælfrun]

3

Kidwell

[Ælfrun]

1

Murley

[Alnoth]

2

Coombe

[Gunhard]

2

Boehill

[Wulfrun]

2

Boehill

[Leofræd]

3 1 1/2

Ayshford

[Wulfweard]

1

Appledore

[Wulfgeat]

2

Canonsleigh

[Ælfrun]

1 1/2

Leonard

[Sæmær]

3

Bere

[Wordrou]

2

1 2/3 1


page_66

*Buckland Tout Saints

[Wudumann]

1/2

Lurpridge

[Cola]

[Iddesleigh]

[Ælfgifu theof]

see Iddesleigh above

Dowland

[Alweard mart]

2

Dowland

[2 thegns]

1

Instow

[Alweard]

Chetelescote

[Ketel]

1

Wolfin

[Alward mart]

1

Burlescombe

[Wulfgeat]

Ciclet

[Gunnar]

2

Virworthy

[Edwin]

1

1 1/2

see Gt Torrington

1 1 1/2


< previous page

page_66

next page >


page_67

< previous page

next page >

page_67

Page 67 (Appendix continued from previous page) Appendix 2: Lands possibly belonging to Beorhtric 2. Lands of Goscelm An Devon Manor

Holder TRE

Hidage

Villavin

[Eadlufu theof and Eadgifu]

Huish

[Alwig]

Newton Tracey

[Alweard]

Dodscott

[Dodda]

see Gt Torrington

Riddlecombe

[Algar]

1

Brushford

[Alous]

Hampson

[Alweald]

1

Nichols Nymet

[Alweard]

1 1/2

Newton

[Beorhtwine]

Goodcott

[Godgifu]

1

Fenacre

[Wulfgeat]

2 1/2

Woodbeare

[Winemar]

1

Awliscombe

[Chenias]

1

Gittisham

[Chenias]

42

Uplowman

[Alnoth]

2

Coombe

[Alnoth]

2

Loteland

[Soteman]

1

Uplowman

[Almær the priest]

2 1/2 2

1

1/2


3

page_67

*Ash Thomas

[Ælfgifu]

2

East Manley

[Alweard]

2 1/2

Whitnage

[Wulfmær]

Farway

[Chenias]

Washbourne

[Algar]

*Buckland Tout Saints

[Ælfric]

1/2

Lupridge

[Snotta]

2

Herstanhaia

[Cniht]

Sellake

[Beorhtmær]

1 1 1

12 2


< previous page

page_67

next page >


page_68

< previous page

next page >

page_68

Page 68 (Appendix continued from previous page) Appendix 2: Lands possibly belonging to Beorhtric 3. Lands of Ansgar of Montacute in Devon Manor

Holder TRE

Cheldon

[Matilda]

Great Torrington

[Ælfric]

< previous page

Hidage 1 1/2 see Gt Torrington

page_68

next page >


page_69

< previous page

page_69

next page > Page 69

4 Joining the Dots: a Methodology for Identifying the English in Domesday Book* C. P. Lewis The potential rewards of a thorough and systematic study of the pre-Conquest landowners of Domesday Book are enormous. The Leofrics, the Ælfwines, and the Ulfs who owned land in England in the time of King Edward represent a landed society captured with a completeness unparalleled in early medieval Europe except for the conquerors who displaced them. Nowhere else for centuries to come, never again until modem times even in highly governed and well documented England were the toffs and their estates listed so fully and in such detail. The social and economic structures of the upper classes in a mature medieval society are there to be explored at the moment before the sledgehammer of foreign conquest fell. A proper understanding of what they have to tell about Anglo-Saxon England is important both for its own sake and because historians can hardly begin to explain the effects of the Norman Conquest until the groundwork is done on late Anglo-Saxon landed society (though it has not stopped them from trying). Most of the potential is untapped. There are studies of the earls in general, Earl Harold, the king's nephew Earl Ralph, aristocratic women, Archbishop Stigand, the king's priest Regenbald, the stallers, and the kindreds of Æthelwine of Warwick and Beorhtric son of Ælfgar,1 but the most ambitious treatment of the topic, which *Domesday Book is cited here in the form GDB (for Great Domesday Book) or LDB (for Little Domesday Book) with the folio number, a or b for the recto or verso, 1 or 2 for the column, and the line numbers or Domesday place-name. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ICC) and Inquisitio Eliensis (IE) are cited by page number in the edition by N. E. S. A. Hamilton, London 1876. Exon Domesday Book (EDB) is cited by folio in the Record Commission edition, Liber Censualis, Vocati Domesday Book; Additamenta, London 1816. 1 Robin Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England, Cambridge 1991, 55-71; Ann Williams, 'Land and Power in the Eleventh Century: the Estates of Harold Godwineson',Anglo-Norman Studies iii, 1980, 171-87; Ann Williams, 'The King's Nephew: the Family and Career of Ralph, Earl of Hereford', Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen Brown, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill, Christopher J. Holdsworth, and Janet L. Nelson, Woodbridge 1989, 327-43 at 331-8; Marc A. Meyer, 'Women's Estates in Later Anglo-Saxon England: the Politics of Possession', Haskins Society Journal iii, 1991, 111-29; Mary Frances Smith, 'Archbishop Stigand and the Eye of the Needle', Anglo-Norman Studies xvi, 1993, 199-219 at 204-13; Simon Keynes, 'Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)',Anglo-Norman Studies x, 1987, 185-222 at 194-7; K. Mack, 'The Staller: Administrative Innovation in the Reign of Edward the Confessor', Journal of Medieval History xii, 1986, 123-34; Ann Williams, 'A Vice-Comital Family in Pre-Conquest Warwickshire',Anglo-Norman Studies xi, 1988, 279-95; Ann Williams in this volume.

< previous page

page_69

next page >


page_70

< previous page

page_70

next page > Page 70

purports to deal with the 'English nobility' as a whole, is conceptually weak, methodologically unsound, and (perhaps fortunately in view of those comments) timid in its conclusions.2 Nearly all the work published to date has been confined to the wealthy, the prominent, and the powerful of the Confessor's kingdom. Only on a few limited fronts have investigators tried to enter the world inhabited by the lesser thegns and freemen.3 There has certainly been no systematic work on the abundant Domesday evidence for the mass of pre-Conquest landed society. Before any wider exploration can take place, some difficult questions about the identification of individuals must be faced. None of the published work offers an explicit or a satisfying methodology.4 The core of the problem is that, for the most part, Domesday Book recorded the English only by their forenames, Godwine, Ælftic, Æthelwine, and so on, leaving to historians the task of distinguishing individuals of the same name. There are exceptions where bynames are appended, but even for so well known a figure as Earl Harold, where the word comes was liberally interlined in the manuscript, there are instances where the name stands alone, leaving the reader wondering whether it refers to some other Harold.5 With common names and obscure men the scale of the problem is daunting. As multiple biography on a vast scale the pre-Conquest Domesday landowners are a classic of prosopography. The number of individuals is difficult to estimate. One moderately large region, the three border counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, and Herefordshire, had something in the order of five hundred landowners in 1066,6 though given the difficulties of identification there is necessarily a substantial margin of error around that figure. In other respects, the study of King Edward's thegns and freemen differs from early medieval prosopography as it has usually been conceived. On the one hand the scale and apparent comprehensiveness of the source inspires confidence about its uniform coverage and the comparability of data. Set against that, however, are the special problems posed by Domesday: the evidence is taken from a single slice through time, and all but a tiny proportion of the individuals concerned are recorded nowhere else. In order to use the abundant but curiously limited evidence well it is vital to know the limits of what can be achieved. The goal of identification is the reassembly under the name of each landowner of all and only the estates which he or she owned, separating out the manors belonging to others of the same name. That target is much easier to hit for some names than for others. Once identified, 2 Peter A. Clarke, The English Nobility under Edward the Confessor, Oxford 1994. 3 Richard Mortimer, 'The Beginnings of the Honour of Clare',Anglo-Norman Studies iii, 1980, 119-41 at 123-7; C. P. Lewis, 'The Formation of the Honor of Chester, 1066-1100', The Earldom of Chester and its Charters: a Tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, ed. A. T. Thacker (Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society lxxi, 1991), 37-68 at 43-54; C. P. Lewis, 'The French in England before the Norman Conquest', Anglo-Norman Studies xvii, 1994, 12344; Pauline Stafford, 'Women in Domesday', Reading Medieval Studies xv, 1989, 75-94. 4 Meyer, 127-8, lists his criteria but in an obscure and unhelpful way; Clarke does not explain his methods adequately, and the results provoke deep misgivings. 5 Listed in Olof von Feilitzen, The Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, Uppsala 1937, 284 n. 1. 6 C. P. Lewis, work in progress.

< previous page

page_70

next page >


page_71

< previous page

page_71

next page > Page 71

individuals can hardly ever be assigned to family groups, and not always slotted into the structures of lordship. Except in a very few cases nothing can be known of how the landed estates of Domesday had evolved. Before nominal linkage can be undertaken there is a preliminary stage of associating the Domesday spellings with the personal names which they represent, which is itself problematic. The existing guide, Olof von Feilitzen's comprehensive Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, was published as long ago as 1937. Although it remains invaluable as an index, its methods and conclusions are now seriously outdated. The Source A crucial first step is to understand how the names of pre-Conquest landowners reached Domesday Book. Although there have been enormous advances in understanding the making of Domesday since Feilitzen's time, no attention has been paid specifically to pre-Conquest landowners' names, which remain an area needing further research. It has long been known that for each manor the Domesday commissioners asked who held it in the time of King Edward. There was a reply for nearly every place in the country. Where they got their answers from is crucial, and leads to a consideration of the procedures of the survey. Feilitzen inhabited a world of Roundian innocence where panels of Domesday commissioners perambulated England from hundred court to hundred court, gathering oral depositions from the jurors, compiling 'original returns', and packing them off to Winchester, where they were laboriously rearranged in 'feudal form' by teams of Norman scribes. Feilitzen thus believed that the names of the pre-Conquest landowners were transmitted first in Old English speech from jurors to commissioners, written down in the localities, and later underwent several stages of copying by dictation to Norman scribes. Following Douglas he also believed that the completion of Domesday Book stretched into the early twelfth century, thus divorcing it by several decades from the time when the information was gathered.7 Largely as a result of his understanding of the way Domesday Book was made, but also because he was a student of the pioneering Anglo-Norman philologist R. E. Zachrisson,8 Feilitzen saw his primary task as disentangling the effects of AngloNorman phonology on the 'actual spoken forms':9 he wanted to reconstruct pre-Conquest personal names as they would have been before uncomprehending Frenchmen tried to get their tongues around them. Since Feilitzen's day, Domesday scholarship has seen the Galbraithian revolution, Sally Harvey's brilliant deduction of the written sources which preceded the final Domesday manuscripts, and the patient discovery and classification of those 7 Feilitzen, Domesday, 3-11. 8 Helge Kokeritz, 'Notes on the Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book', Namn och Bygd xxvi, 1938, 25-41 at 25-6. 9 Feilitzen, Domesday, 40-1.

< previous page

page_71

next page >


page_72

< previous page

page_72

next page > Page 72

sources by Sawyer, Clark, Roffe, and others.10 It has yet to assimilate Robin Fleming's restatement of the importance of oral depositions in the Domesday inquest, which might well have a bearing on landowners' names.11 Although a new picture of the making of Domesday may not yet be clear in all its details, three points can be stressed which concern the pre-Conquest personal names embedded in the text. The first is the role of the written documentation behind Domesday Book. It certainly included post-Conquest tax lists containing names of manors with their current owners, but as matters stand it would be premature to assert that similar pre-Conquest lists naming pre-Conquest owners were also available in 1086. There is no reference to such lists in the prolific oral testimony gathered during the Domesday inquest, but that may have been because litigants and jurors did not have access to them, or because they were not regarded as admissible evidence. A related difficulty is that the pre-Conquest landowners named in Domesday were not all in possession at the same single point in time, certainly not at the date of 1066 often claimed for them. Earls who had been dead for a decade before the Conquest were named as landowners alongside others who received their earldoms only in Edward's last years. The same may well be true of lesser men whose dates of death are unknown. The date for all pre-Conquest information was given in Exon Domesday (a preliminary arrangement of materials from the South-West) as 'the day on which King Edward was alive and dead', but the careful and orderly mind which planned and executed Great Domesday Book deliberately changed the phrase to 'in the time of King Edward' (tempore regis Eadwardi, in the form of the ubiquitous acronym TRE). Brevity alone does not explain the shortened version: it was also more accurate. The scribe knew he had to be vague about the time before the Conquest, presumably because he was aware that the information had come to hand from varied sources belonging to different dates. The crucial point at issue for deciphering the preConquest personal names as names is whether they originated in written texts (and if so what sort) or speech. In the present state of research, the best that can be suggested is that perhaps some entered the record from geld lists and others from the written or oral testimony of landowners in 1086 who were asked about their predecessors. It seems incredible either that full pre-Conquest documentation survived, or that the witnesses of 1086, even the English jurors, had perfect recall of tenurial conditions more than twenty years before. Both sources must have fed into the survey, producing a record of pre-Conquest tenure which is variable between circuits. Secondly, it is now clear that the main scribe of Great Domesday Book was English-trained and almost certainly an Englishman. Feilitzen's claim of significant Anglo-Norman phonetic influence on what he wrote can be dismissed on that score alone. Little Domesday Book, in contrast, was mostly written by three Norman-trained scribes, with a smaller but still noteworthy contribution from one 10 David Roffe, 'The Making of Domesday Book Reconsidered', Haskins Society Journal vi, 1994,153-66 at 153-4, and works cited there. 11 Robin Fleming, 'Oral Testimony and the Domesday Inquest',Anglo-Norman Studies xvii, 1994,101-22.

< previous page

page_72

next page >


page_73

< previous page

page_73

next page > Page 73

English hand.12 Locating the origin and training of the scribes matters because it has been established that there was scribal influence on Domesday place-names, which were taken from written sources, and which the English scribe of Great Domesday tried to spell on systematic principles.13 If that was also true of personal names which remains to be established it must be qualified by the observation that none of the scribes employed the traditional English spellings for English personal names (forms found, for instance, in late Anglo-Saxon charters and the Chronicle), but rather used Latin orthographic conventions.14 Name-forms in the surviving pre-Domesday satellites like Exon Domesday were closer to the English conventions than they were in the final recensions of Great and Little Domesday. The third point is about copying errors in Domesday Book, which were frequent among both personal names and placenames. All the scribes were working at speed, and the main scribe of Great Domesday was not simply making a fair copy but rearranging and abbreviating a mass of complex material as he wrote. Feilitzen was aware that there were copying errors in the corpus of personal names,15 but did not give them enough weight as an influence on the spellings. 16 John Dodgson has since counted more than thirty kinds of error attributable to straightforward scribal mistakes,17 and it is now accepted that much more attention needs to be paid in the elucidation of the Domesday spellings to how the names were written down than to how they might have been spoken aloud. Bad copying affected the personal names essentially by producing aberrant forms which can be mistaken for names other than those which they really represented. The complications of Domesday Book as a source for personal names are thus much better known now than they were in Feilitzen's day. At worst they involve making sense of forms whose initial (written or oral) provenance is uncertain, which were recorded and then written out several times over by scribes whose first language and form of script is also a mystery, perhaps from dictation in any of three languages, and obscured potentially by 'mishearing, mispronunciation, misreading and miscopying . . . bad and indifferent readers, writers, speakers, hearers and copyists . . . deafness and poor dentition'.18 Only at the final stage are there few doubts, when the names in Great Domesday were copied out by an 12 Michael Gullick and Caroline Thorn, 'The Scribes of Great Domesday Book: a Preliminary Account', Journal of the Society of Archivists viii (1), 1986, 78-80; Michael Gullick, 'The Great and Little Domesday Manuscripts', Domesday Book: Studies, ed. Ann Williams and R. W. H. Erskine, London 1987, 93-112 at 98105, 109-11; Alexander R. Rumble, 'The Domesday Manuscripts: Scribes and Scriptoria', Domesday Studies, ed. J. C. Holt, Woodbridge 1987, 79-99. 13 P. H. Sawyer, 'The Place Names of the Domesday Manuscripts', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library xxxviii, 1955-6, 483-506; Alexander R. Rumble, 'The Status of Written Sources in English Onomastics', Nomina viii, 1984, 41-56 at 48. 14 Cecily Clark, 'Onomastics', The Cambridge History of the English Language, ii: 1066-1476, ed. Norman Blake, Cambridge 1992, 542-606 at 544, 548-9; Cecily Clark, 'Domesday Book a Great Red Herring: Thoughts on Some Late-Eleventh-Century Orthographies', England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Carola Hicks, Stamford 1992, 317-31. 15 Feilitzen, Domesday, 7. 16 Kokeritz. 17 John McN. Dodgson, 'Some Domesday Personal Names, Mainly Post-Conquest', Nomina ix, 1985, 41-51 at 42. 18 Dodgson, Domesday Studies, 123-4.

< previous page

page_73

next page >


page_74

< previous page

page_74

next page > Page 74

English scribe working under the supervision of a Frenchman and employing Latin conventions. It is hardly surprising that interpreting the Domesday spellings sometimes has to involve what Dodgson candidly called 'improvisation and invention'.19 The difficulties on the whole apply less to personal names than to place-names, because English personal names in widespread use in 1086 would be known to most people involved in conducting the survey, and therefore much less likely to be confused than unfamiliar place-names. Personal names It follows from the remarks already made that Feilitzen's apparently magisterial work cannot be used uncritically as a guide to the names of the TRE landowners. His method was straightforward: name by name, remorselessly through the alphabet from Abba to Yric, he assigned every one of the thousands of Domesday names to the standardised form (its 'etymon' or 'ground-form') which he believed it represented. At the same time he sorted the names into 'etymological categories',20 labelling them according to linguistic origin as Old English, Old Norse, Old Danish, Old Germanic, and so on. Both the typology of names and the appropriateness of standardising them can be called into question. In the first place it is important to note that Feilitzen's concern was not with prosopography but with linguistics, and notably with phonology: how English and Norman pronunciation was reflected in the way they were spelled. Feilitzen's treatment was not his own invention, but it has been enormously influential on later students of pre-Conquest personal names in England. He himself stuck to it in all his later works,21 though did not live to undertake the new Onomasticon of AngloSaxon England which he planned for his retirement and which would have followed the same principles.22 It has been imitated by other onomasticians and especially in the burgeoning field of numismatic onomastics, the study of moneyers' names as recorded on the late Anglo-Saxon coinage.23 Historians implicitly adopt the same philological approach to personal names every time they use a standardised form. 19 Dodgson, Nomina, 41. 20 Feilitzen, Domesday, 1, 13. 21 Notably Olof von Feilitzen and Christopher Blunt, 'Personal Names on the Coinage of Edgar', England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes, Cambridge 1971, 208-9; Olof von Feilitzen, 'The Personal Names and Bynames of the Winton Domesday', Winchester in the Early Middle Ages: an Edition and Discussion of the Winton Domesday, ed. Martin Biddle, Oxford 1976, 143-229. Bibliography in Otium et Negotium: Studies in Onomatology and Library Science Presented to Olof yon Feilitzen, ed. Folke Sandgren, Stockholm 1973, 254-8. 22 Olof yon Feilitzen, 'Planning a New Old English Onomasticon', The Study of the Personal Names of the British Isles: Proceedings of a Working Conference at Erlangen, 21-24 September 1975, ed. Herbert Voitl, Erlangen 1976, 16-42; Kenneth Cameron's obituary of Feilitzen in The Times, 27 July 1976, p. 14. 23 E.g., Gillian Fellows-Jensen, 'On the Identification of Domesday Tenants in Lincolnshire', Nomina ix, 1985, 3140; Veronica Smart, 'Moneyers' Names on the Anglo-Saxon Coinage', Nomina iii, 1979, 20-8.

< previous page

page_74

next page >


page_75

< previous page

page_75

next page > Page 75

The framework for the study of pre-Conquest personal names has changed in two ways since Feilitzen's time. At a superficial level the terminology used in linguistic classification has been refined. The bizarrely inappropriate term Old Germanic has been replaced by Continental Germanic or, less often, Continental West-Germanic, the latter an attempt to bring onomastic terminology into line with that of historical linguistics. Discussions of Scandinavian names used in England tend now to call them Scandinavian or Anglo-Scandinavian, rather than Old Norse, Old Danish, and Old Swedish, in recognition of the fact that their precise northern origin is usually impossible to establish.24 These changes in themselves have not freed the terminology from a purely linguistic treatment, but in the late 1970s Cecily Clark and others began to take a socio-linguistic approach to names, a line which promises a radical attack on the old framework. The real weakness for historical purposes of Feilitzenian onomastics lies not in its terminology, but in its fundamental concepts. The master himself seems to have envisaged names as existing in linguistically pure forms which were distorted by speech, writing, and epigraphy, and which it was the business of the onomastician to decode and restore.25 That approach continues to be taken. The flaw is that personal names were not living bits of language in the first place. Lexically, the elements which made up a name like Beorhtwulf were related to ordinary words, in this case words meaning 'bright' and 'wolf', but in Cecily Clark's words, 'although ultimately derived from elements of common vocabulary' personal names are 'emptied of their original etymological connotation', even 'those whose form still coincides with that of the related lexical items'.26 Beorhtwulf's friends did not think of him as a bright wolf, though perhaps they made some comment when he was more than usually dim and sheeplike. More significantly it is also now argued that the elements in names behaved phonologically in a different manner from the corresponding words, precisely because they were devoid of lexical meaning.27 The new understanding of the phonology of names, taken together with the revolution in Domesday scholarship, kicks away Feilitzen's premise for decoding them. Feilitzen, moreover, applied his own rules too rigidly. For him a name meant what the spelling strictly demanded it to mean, no more and no less, within the confines of his understanding of the languages spoken at the time. An example will illustrate the sort of mistaken identities which can result. Next to one another in the middle of Feilitzen's alphabetical listing are Machel and Machern. Both 24 Feilitzen in the end argued for classification under 'a suitable Anglo-Scandinavian form', by which he seems to have meant the form which names originating in Scandinavia assumed once they were adopted in England: Study of Names, ed. Voitl, 23; cf. Clark's use of 'Scandinavian' in early 12th-century contexts: Cecily Clark, 'Battle c. 1110: an Anthroponymist Looks at an Anglo-Norman New Town', Anglo-Norman Studies ii, 1979, 21-41 at 33-41. 25 See esp. the comment in Feilitzen and Blunt, 209. 26 Clark, Camb. Hist. Eng. Lang. ii. 542; Cecily Clark, 'Onomastics', Camb. Hist. Eng. Lang. i: The Beginnings to 1066, ed. Richard M. Hogg, Cambridge 1992, 452-89 at 452-3; Cecily Clark, 'Personal Name Studies: Bringing them to a Wider Audience', Nomina xv, 1991-2, 21-34 at 26. 27 Fran Colman, Money Talks: Reconstructing Old English, New York 1992, as reviewed by Veronica Smart in Nomina xvi, 1992-3, 139-41.

< previous page

page_75

next page >


page_76

< previous page

page_76

next page > Page 76

names perplexed him. For Machel he hazarded a guess: 'If Germanic perhaps from Old Germanic Maghelm . . . with Anglo-Norman loss of final -m'. Machern had him stumped altogether ('Obscure'), though he was aware that it was recorded independently a little later.28 The key to their identification is the fact, which he did not notice, that Machel and Machern were neighbours, holding small manors in the far west of what then passed for Yorkshire, around the estuary of the river Lune below Lancaster.29 None of the places concerned is as much as five miles from any of the others, and they surely belonged to one person whose name, for whatever reason, was spelled in two different ways in the final recension of Domesday Book. In this case as in many others, in order to make a successful identification of a TRE landowner, etymology has to be subordinate to other factors. That is not to say that onomastics can be abandoned altogether, since without some rules it would not be possible to state, even at the simplest level, that different Domesday spellings like Herald and Harold were variations of the same name referring to one individual. In Gillian Fellow-Jensen's words: 'The student of the personal nomenclature of Domesday Book must not rest content with etymologising the individual forms as they occur.' Other evidence, where it exists, has to be brought into play. For Lincolnshire she has shown how information within Domesday about the identity of pre-Conquest landowners (for instance in multiple entries relating to the same manor) shows that a person's name might be spelled in a variety of ways, which on strictly etymological grounds would be reckoned as different names. Geoffrey de la Guerche's predecessor Leofwine is a case in point: his name was sometimes given accurately as Leuuinus, sometimes inaccurately as Leduinus, perhaps because in speech the /f/ sound was omitted and some waxeared scribe heard it as a glottal stop and reconstructed the sound as a /d/.30 Scholars have now become accustomed to trenchant criticism of a narrowly philological approach to personal names.31 Understanding the form of names is essential before individuals can be identified, but in many cases the names cannot be determined until the individuals have been identified already, and there are relatively few counties where there is as much supplementary information as for Lincolnshire. To sum up: prosopography and onomastics are interdependent and have to be approached as mutually supportive disciplines. An awareness of how names were actually used is thus an essential corrective to onomastic proprieties. What people were called were not authentic etyma in standardised Old English or Old Norse but real names. The written language laid a veneer of conformity upon a range of names that were in actuality as diverse as England was a regionally differentiated, multi-dialectal society, only partially literate in the West Saxon literary standard. The reality of naming can be seen in an example like the two Cheshire freemen whose names were spelled Osgot and 28 Feilitzen, Domesday, 323. 29 GDB 332a2, lines 9-12. 30 Fellows-Jensen, 'Lincolnshire', 32-8. 31 Clark, 'Wider Audience', 25-7.

< previous page

page_76

next page >


page_77

< previous page

page_77

next page > Page 77

Ansgot. For Feilitzen they had the same name, Old Norse Ásgautr (or Old Danish Asgot), from which both spellings can be derived phonologically.32 His observation was linguistically valid but socio-linguistically irrelevant: their actual names were different enough for Domesday to be able to distinguish them. Osgot and Ansgot, as names, were as different as, say, modem Neil and Nigel: derived ultimately from the same source but used as two distinct names. How, then, to approach personal names from a more meaningful socio-linguistic perspective? A simple division on the eve of the Conquest between insular and continental names is a helpful start.33 There were, of course, continental names in England before the Conquest, because there were men and women from the continent who had settled in England. However, from the socio-linguistic point of view, as soon as a name which originated outside England entered the name-stock through being regularly given by English-speaking parents, it became an English name. Names which in linguistic terms are Anglicised names of ultimately Scandinavian origin are thus in socio-linguistic terms wholly and unambiguously English. In light of the primacy for historians of a socio-linguistic attitude, some observations need to be made about the stock of personal names in use in the mid-eleventh century. The English way of forming personal names followed principles which have long been understood.34 The predominant form was the dithematic name of the type of Sellar and Yeatman's Ethelbreth, Athelthral, and Thruthelthrolth,35 formed from large and largely interchangeable stocks of first and second elements. In earlier centuries, name-giving had been a sort of Old English Just a Minute in reverse, in which parents could give names only if there was alliteration, variation, or repetition, though the rules had loosened by the eleventh century.36 On the other hand there were monothematic names like Snot and Pilluc37 which, for reasons which may have been obvious even at the time, have usually been regarded as socially less elevated than the traditionally aristocratic and heroic dithematic names. The repertoire of names and elements available for use in the mid-eleventh century was clearly very wide. It included many forms not well recorded in earlier centuries (which is not to say that the scanty records are a clear reflection of reality), and which Feilitzen was overinclined to attribute to continental sources.38 It is also clear that English naming had been greatly enriched by the Vikings, and again by names introduced from Denmark and Normandy during the eleventh century. Many imported names were widely adopted and thoroughly Anglicised, 32 GDB 26362 Cotintone; 264b2 Nestone, Haregrave; 266b2 Lai; Feilitzen, Domesday, 165-6. 33 John S. Moore, 'Family-Entries in English Libri Vitae, c. 1050 to c. 1530: Part I', Nomina xvi, 1992-3, 98-128 at 128. 34 Clark, Camb. Hist. Eng. Lang. i. 456-71. 35 Walter Carruthers Sellar and Robert Julian Yeatman, 1066 and All That, Methuen Paperback edn, London 1975, 24. 36 Henry Bosley Woolf, The Old Germanic Principles of Name-Giving, Baltimore 1939, 118-42. 37 Feilitzen, Domesday, 368; Feilitzen, 'Winton Domesday', 168. 38 Cf. comments in Thorvald Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England in Old and Middle English Times, Uppsala 1916, 261-80, esp. 268, 273.

< previous page

page_77

next page >


page_78

< previous page

page_78

next page > Page 78

so that, for instance, names which in Norway had ended in -biorn, -gautr, and -geir came to have the English terminations -bern, -god, and -gar,39 and so that the social nuances which some names carried were quite different in England and Scandinavia.40 It was probably Scandinavian influence, too, which facilitated the spread much mole widely through society of monothematic names, a particularly rich vein in the Scandinavian tradition.41 Alongside the enrichment and diversification of the English name-stock from Scandinavian sources there was also an explosion in the popularity of certain traditional names. The English name-stock as a whole at the time of the Norman Conquest thus included names long used in England, besides others adopted more recently from outside. Some of the adoptions might still have had Scandinavian overtones in certain contexts, so that when Earl Godwine called three of his sons Swein, Harold, and Tostig, some people remembered that their mother was Danish. Not much later, when the Frenchman Earl Ralph called his son Harold, it was a tribute to the English earl, not a claim to be Danish. By 1066 Harold's name was no more Scandinavian than in 1995 the name Kylie was Australian. The comment in both cases might be that the names originated in other countries and were first adopted in England in particular cultural circumstances, but the essential point is that personal names can and do naturalise within a generation of their arrival in a culture. There were marked regional patterns in the stock of names. Those originating in Scandinavia had been adopted differentially, so that in the Danelaw they seeped down through a much deeper social range than elsewhere. None the less there were some which were quickly taken up over the whole of England, just as there were others which did not spread even throughout the Danelaw but were confined to Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire, or East Anglia alone.42 Regional variation in a widely used name can be seen in a case like the name which Feilitzen standardised as Old Norse Áskell. It occurs in three types of spelling, distributed geographically: Oschil and Oschetel only in East Anglia and Shropshire; Anschil in the South-East, the southern Danelaw, and central Wessex; and Aschil more widely in a swathe that runs from Yorkshire through the Midlands.43 What may once have been a single imported name was clearly branching into three distinct regional English forms. There were also regional patterns of naming among the insular name-stock. Some names were given throughout the country and in all classes of society, but others were regionally or socially determined. For instance the very common name Leofric was widespread but not evenly spread, common in the Midlands and North 39 John Insley, 'Some Scandinavian Personal Names from South-West England', Namn och Bygd lxx, 1982, 77-93 esp. 79-82, 90. 40 John Insley, 'Regional Variation in Scandinavian Personal Nomenclature in England', Nomina iii, 1979, 52-60 at 52-3. 41 Feilitzen, Domesday, 23-4; Insley, 'Regional Variation', 58. 42 Feilitzen, Domesday, 25-6; Insley, 'Regional Variation', esp. 53-7. 43 Feilitzen, Domesday, 167-8.

< previous page

page_78

next page >


page_79

< previous page

page_79

next page > Page 79

but rare in Wessex, and with even more finely sifted concentrations, for example, in north-west Mercia but not Yorkshire, and in Suffolk but not Norfolk.44 An example might clarify the distinction between linguistically Old English names and socio-linguistically English names. Feilitzen unhesitatingly derived the name Coleman from the Old Germanic Colman, adding a learned aside to the effect that 'In North English sources Col(e)man is usually < OIr Colmán, which is also the base of ON Kalman',45 though Ekwall preferred the Old Irish derivation throughout.46 As an explanation of the name such linguistic expertise addresses only ultimate origins, not current usage. In mid and late eleventh-century England it was far from uncommon, at a certain level in society, being the name of at least one moneyer,47 of Bishop Wulfstan's friend and biographer,48 of an Oxford burgess, and (at the best estimate) of ten TRE landowners: a huntsman in the Surrey Downs, Archbishop Stigand's man in Norfolk, the magnate Wihtgar's man in Essex, Beorhtric's man in the Vale of Aylesbury, thegns or thriving ceorls in coastal Hampshire, the Kennett valley, and near Banbury, and three small Suffolk freemen who had different lords.49 In other words, whatever the origins of the name, it had been naturalised in England before the middle of the eleventh century, though on the Domesday evidence its use by the landed classes may have been restricted to Wessex and East Anglia. Moreover it is clear that the name was always spelled with a medial -e-, evident also from the Worcester monk's cryptograph, cplfmbn,50 which confirms its Anglicisation and distinguishes it in use from any Irish or continental progenitor. Nominal linkage The foregoing remarks on personal names are all by way of preamble to the task of nominal linkage, a painstaking sifting through each name in search of connections which might identify individuals possessing several manors, and of absences of connection which might serve to indicate that they were different men who happened to be namesakes. The task is huge, since there were perhaps 1,000 different forenames,51 and the more common among them can occur several 44 Feilitzen, Domesday, 313-15. 45 Feilitzen, Domesday, 218. 46 Eileft Ekwall, Early London Personal Names, Lund 1947, 24. 47 Ekwall, 24. 48 William of Malmesbury, Vita Wulfstani, ed. Reginald R. Darlington, Camden 3rd ser. xl, 1928, pp. viii-ix, xxxvi, xxxix-xl, and refs in text from index. 49 GDB 35a1 Waltone; 35b1 Tornecrosta; 47b1 Ruenore; 60a1 Sewelle; 150a1 Estone; 154a2, line 3; 161a1 Midelcumbe, Cestitone; LDB 40b Roinges; 101b-102a Weninghou; 180b Fornesseta; 227b Cronkethor; 240a-b Intewda; 322a Gislingheham; 419a Wordham; 437b Sumersham. 50 N. R. Ker, 'Old English Notes Signed Coleman', Medium Aevum xviii, 1949, 29-31; William P. Stoneman, 'Another Old English Note Signed ''Coleman" ', Medium Aevum lvi, 1987, 78-82; the simple code of substituting for each vowel the consonant next in the alphabet was widely used: Aelfric's Colloquy, ed. G. N. Garmonsway, 2nd edn, London 1947, 9. 51 Feilitzen listed some 1,203 etyma, but many prove on closer inspection not to be separate names for one reason or another.

< previous page

page_79

next page >


page_80

< previous page

page_80

next page > Page 80

hundred times apiece. It is also very much more a matter of balancing probabilities than of reaching confidently for certainties. For every Leofmann who leaps to view with a neatly potted history (modest thegn, one manor in south Hampshire held in parage from the king, another nearby as tenant of Earl Godwine, both taken from him by King Harold),52 there was a ragged army of Leofrics swarming in their dozens over almost the whole country and defying every attempt to distinguish one from another. For each name the search for connections starts with a scattering of dots across the map of England. There is no infallible way of knowing which dots should be joined up to draw the estates of an individual, only a number of factors to which attention should be paid. Bynames are of primary importance. The English did not have hereditary surnames but there was an active tradition of forming bynames in order to distinguish men of the same forename. They have been classified into four types, familial, local, occupational, and nicknames,53 but alongside true bynames should be reckoned other sorts of additions to names, especially status descriptions like earl, bishop, thegn, sokeman, and freeman, and phrases such as 'the man of'. Although bynames were widely used in late Anglo-Saxon England, the way Domesday Book was compiled tended to dispense with them and many which occur in the satellite texts were omitted by the scribe of Great Domesday for the sake of brevity.54 For example, the information that was gathered in Cambridge-shire about the county's landowners called Godwine, preserved in the satellites but omitted from Domesday itself, adds the following information: Eadgifu the fair's man Godwine cild was identical with the man also holding from her whom Great Domesday misspelled as Godwig, and also identical with Earl Waltheof's man Godwine;55 the abbot of Ely's man Godwine at Stetchworth was a different person from the abbot's man Godwine at Papworth;56 Asgar the staller's man Godwine was a different person altogether, with the distinctive byname wambestrang ('womb-string', an obscure, but to his friends no doubt hilarious reference to his umbilical cord);57 and there was yet another Godwine with land at Horseheath (where Godwine cild had property), who was called Godwine of Linacre.58 The satellites also show, as Domesday does not, that Godwine the priest and Godwine of Fulbourn survived to 1086 and were summoned during the Domesday survey as jurors for their hundreds.59 The English used bynames simply to distinguish people of the same name when 52 GDB 38a2 Halingei, Sudbertune (1st entry). 53 Gosta Tengvik, Old English Bynames, Uppsala 1938; Gillian Fellows Jensen, 'On the Study of Middle English By-Names', Namn och Bygd lxviii, 1980, 102-15 at 102; Gillian Fellows Jensen, 'Some Problems of a Maverick Anthroponymist', Study of Names, ed. Voitl, 43-61 at 52, 60-1; Clark, Camb. Hist. Eng. Lang. i. 469-71. 54 Rumble, 'Status of Written Sources', 48. 55 GDB 19362 Fuleberne, Horsei (2nd part); 194b2 Witeuuelle; 195b2, lines 11-18 from end; 196a2-b1 Westone; 201b2 Teversham; 202b1 Hochintone, Ovre; ICC 22, 25, 28, 30, 82, 92; IE 105. 56 GDB 190bl Stuuicesworde; 199a2 Stivicesuuorde; 199b2 Papeuuorde (3rd part); 199b2-200a1 Melrede; ICC 18; IE 104, 108, 111. 57 GDB 197a2 Motdune; ICC 54-5; Tengvik, 357. 58 GDB 198a1 Horsei; ICC 30. 59 C. P. Lewis, 'The Domesday Jurors', Haskins Society Journal v, 1993, 17-44 at 42, where the likely (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_80

next page >


page_81

< previous page

page_81

next page > Page 81

the need arose; they were not permanent extra names applied in all circumstances. Some individuals had more than one byname, like the housecarl and king's thegn who was called Burgheard of Shenley in the Buckinghamshire folios and Burgheard of Mendlesham in Suffolk.60 To return to the Leofrics for a moment: it is striking that three of the four with nicknames were free peasants with a few acres each in the hinterland of the great Suffolk port town of Dunwich,61 hence the need of their neighbours to distinguish them as Leofric cobbe, Leofric snipe, and Leofric coc, freely translatable as fat Leofric, skinny Leofric, and (perhaps, though other meanings are possible) that cocky bugger Leofric.62 No doubt then as now, nicknames were used whenever a social group included more than one person of the same forename. It follows from all this that it is unsafe to assume that an individual who was given a byname in Domesday Book had it appended every time he or she was listed. Five other factors can be brought to bear on identifications. The first and most important is the rarity of the name under consideration. Scores, possibly hundreds of them occur so infrequently that only one person can be involved. Many are indeed 'unique' in the sense of being used only once in the whole corpus of Domesday Book and the satellites. From a single letter of the alphabet, there is no mistaking Odfrid, Odil, Oghe, Ollova, Orc, Orde, Ordgrim, Ordheah, Ormketel, Orthi, Osgar, Ostula, Otho, Oudfride, Ovalet, and the Devon name given in the main text as Odeva and in Exon Domesday as Oseva: about a third of the names beginning in O-.63 At the other end of the scale the most frequent clearly did not belong to only one person apiece. Most of the commonest were traditional Old English names which are known from other sources to have been popular names diffused widely through society. Of the seventy possible names made up of the first elements Ælf-, Æthel-, Beorht-, Ead-, God-, Leof-, and Wulf- and the second elements -gar, -geat, -mæer, -noth, -ric, -sige, -weald, -weard, -wig, and -wine, only nine combinations were not found among the Domesday landowners, and thirty-five were very common, alongside a handful of other names such as Northmann, Sigeweard, Swegn, Toki, Thorkell, Ulfkell, and Ulf. Some of them are found hundreds of times in Domesday Book, and the Ælfwines and Leofrics and a few others will have to be identified in their dozens. The names which occur frequently in Domesday Book were of two kinds: some were popular common names, others the names of great lords with many estates. Harold and Stigand fall into the latter category, easy to identify because they usually had 'earl' or 'archbishop' interlined in the text. Another well worn example is the name Merlesuain, with fortynine instances scattered across the West Country, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire, all of which belonged to the one man who (Footnote continued from previous page) identity of the juror Godwine of Fulbourn with the TRE Godwine, lord of a large manor in Fulbourn,was unaccountably ignored. 60 Lewis, 'Honor of Chester', 49-50. 61 LDB 314a Mensemara; 334b Diresham; 344b-345a Sternesfelda. 62 Tengvik, 305-6, 361,366. 63 Feilitzen, Domesday, 333-43.

< previous page

page_81

next page >


page_82

< previous page

page_82

next page > Page 82

was sheriff of Lincolnshire. Merlesuain is identifiable because his name was an unusual formation, because he was documented outside Domesday Book as a rebel against William I, and because the great majority of his lands were given to one Norman, Ralph Pagenel.64 The last point brings in the second factor in identification: succession to estates after 1066. Where one of the conquerors held a swathe of manors assigned to a single TRE personal name it is fair to assume that the pre-Conquest names all referred to the same person. Indeed it is clear that William I transferred many pre-Conquest estates intact (or virtually so) to his barons. The dispossessed English were regarded as the antecessores of the Normans. The word literally meant 'ancestors' or 'predecessors', but is often translated by the more neutral 'antecessots'. Many pre-Conquest landowners can and have been identified by their successors, and the method is so well established that it needs little elaboration here. The antecessors who have been traced so far have mostly been substantial thegns, but lesser men can be traced in the same way, like Earl Hugh of Chester's predecessor Burgheard, a thegn with eleven manors worth almost £50 a year in East Anglia, Buckinghamshire, and Essex,65 or, further down the social scale, Trasemund, two of whose three manors in Wiltshire and Dorset fell to Osbern Giffard,66 and Friebern, two of whose three manors in Suffolk and Essex were acquired by Geoffrey de Mandeville.67 In those three examples, as in many others, not quite all the estates of the pre-Conquest landowner passed to the Norman. Thus the fact that estates ascribed to one pre-Conquest name were divided after 1066 does not of itself mean that they had not belonged to one person TRE. There are two reasons for that. In the first place, much land was distributed among the conquerors on principles other than antecessorship.68 Secondly, after the initial succession there may have been other events in the history of the estate, and all the circumstances of tenurial change down to 1086 need to be taken into account, not just a bare comparison of TRE and 1086 owners. Anschil of Ware is a good example: his extensive estate in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire was given first to Ralph Taillebois, who died before 1086 and was succeeded by Hugh de Beauchamp, perhaps his son-in-law. Hugh, however, did not own all Anschil's lands in 1086. Ralph's widow Azelina kept some of them as part of her dower, and, moreover, before he died Ralph had given Ware to Hugh de Grandmesnil in an exchange. There might have been a further exchange too, as some manors assigned to an Anschil (arguably Anschil of Ware) belonged in 1086 to Eudes fitz Hubert the steward, and in return some 64 Feilitzen, Domesday, 326; Clarke, Nobility, 322-4 (where the list of estates has six small errors in the placenames, three wrong values, and three manors and a house in Exeter missing altogether). 65 GDB 146b2 Senelai; 147a1 Senelai; LDB 63b Witham; 152b Fundehala; 285b Melnessam; 299a Saxtedam; 301a Ilcheteshala; 301a-b Soterlega; 30lb Croscroft; 301b-302a Kessingalanda; 302a Katietuna. 66 GDB 7262 Orchestone; 82a2 Manestone; 82bl Hille. 67LDB 62a Fenne; 63a Phennam; 396a Haverhella; 41lb Scottunam. 68 Fleming, Kings and Lords, 145-214.

< previous page

page_82

next page >


page_83

< previous page

page_83

next page > Page 83

of the estates of Eudes's own predecessor Wulfmær of Eaton Socon were in 1086 unexpectedly in the hands of Azelina Taillebois.69 The third main factor in making identifications is the geographical distribution of the manors concerned, which is especially powerful when taken together with the rarity of the name. The name Cynestan occurs only four times in Domesday Book, on two small manors in east Cornwall and two more just fifteen miles away in west Devon.70 Clearly they belonged to one man, a small West Country thegn worth less than £10 a year. Succession after the Conquest does not help his identification directly, as the Cornish manors passed to the count of Mortain and the Devon ones to Judhael of Totnes, but that was because the two newcomers were given defined geographical territories in the South-West, rather than the estates of antecessors. A common name could be borne by more than one individual in a locality. For example, there were many Alwines in Bedfordshire, who can be identified with some confidence on the basis of their bynames, their lords, and their Norman successors.71 In counties where information from bynames is more scanty or non-existent it is very difficult indeed to disentangle Alwines and other bearers of common names. Compared with rarity, succession, and distribution, the other two factors to be taken into account are less important, though even they can sometimes be decisive. First, there is the fact that sometimes a pair of personal names or a larger group is found at more than one place. A complicated pattern of permutations of names before and after the Conquest in various manors in Warwickshire and adjoining counties, together with the vital clue of a reference to six brothers, has been used by Ann Williams as the basis for identifying a group of kinsmen who survived the arrival of the Normans: Æthelwine the sheriff, his father Beorhtwine, his brothers Leofwine, Eadmær, Alsige, Æthelmær, Ælfric, and Ordric, his sons Thorkell, Ketelbern, and Guthmund, and his kinsman (possibly an uncle) Eadwine. The exercise is all the more remarkable in that many of their names were among the commonest in Anglo-Saxon England.72 Without the knowledge of their family link, teased out of Domesday Book and other sources, it would have been difficult or impossible to identify them as individuals. Finally there is the question of estate size. It is a plain fact that the king and queen, and the earls and their families, tended to own large manors, and likely that most owners of large manors were men and women of standing, either locally or nationally. That means that the holder of a large but apparently isolated manor, who cannot be identified on any other basis, should be searched for elsewhere, though it will not necessarily produce a certain identification. The fact that big manors belonged to important people does not mean that small manors never did. Armed with the various aids to identification it will now be helpful to set out 69VCH Herts. i. 276, 283-4; VCH Beds. i. 200-1. 70 GDB 108bl-2 Bradewode; 108b2 Kari; 122a2 Pedeleford, Bichetone. 71 R. P. Abels, 'An Introduction to the Bedfordshire Domesday', The Bedfordshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R. W. H. Erskine, London 1991, 53. 72 Williams, 'Vice-Comital Family'.

< previous page

page_83

next page >


page_84

< previous page

page_84

next page > Page 84

some examples. First are some names which occur only a handful of times and where geography and estate size make a decisive contribution. The names Ceolric and Theodgar both occur three times. All the Ceolrics were in Somerset, about twenty miles apart, and probably belonged to one man,73 but the Theodgars were widely scattered in south-east Hampshire, north Wiltshire, and Northamptonshire, and probably represented three men.74 The manors of the three Theodgars were all small, the largest being only 2 1/2 hides worth 40 shillings (in 1086), and at such distances apart were not manageable as an estate. Similarly scattered but larger manors attributed to one name might well have belonged to one lord. Of the three which belonged TRE to Hugh, Dedworth in Berkshire was forty miles from Tackley in Oxfordshire, which was another twenty miles from Pillerton Priors in Warwickshire, but they were worth 80, 160, and 20 shillings respectively, and moreover the Hugh who owned them was King Edward's trusted chamberlain.75 Next is an example where post-Conquest succession has to be examined flexibly. The woman's name Wulfgifu was fairly common, given that not many women were recorded at all as landowners TRE. There was a moderately wealthy Wulfgifu in Suffolk and smaller landowners of the name in Bedfordshire, Cheshire, and Lincolnshire, but it was especially common in Wessex. Twice, a byname was interlined: beteslau, probably meaning 'Betti's widow'. With or without the byname, Wulfgifu occurs at thirty-five manors scattered across southern England between Canterbury and Barnstaple, with a concentration in Hampshire. Altogether they were worth about £164 a year and assessed at 172 hides. If they did refer to the same lady, she would have been among the richest thirty estate owners in the land. In 1086 the manors were divided among no fewer than twenty-two lords, which seems to point to a plurality of West Saxon Wulfgifus. On the other hand the relative rarity of the name elsewhere and the coherence of the geographical pattern does not support the existence of so many namesakes. In fact, there is a pattern among the holders of the manors in 1086 which suggests that the estates of a single Wulfgifu had fallen into King William's hands and been distributed piecemeal. He had certainly given one manor to the abbey of St Mary at Rouen and restored another to the monks of the New Minster at Winchester (from whom Wulfgifu herself had held it as a tenant). Others had belonged, or still did in 1086, to the king's wife, both his half-brothers, a clutch of his closest friends, and no fewer than eight of his sheriffs and chamberlains.76 That evidence serves to identify all the West Saxon Wulfgifus as one woman. 73 GDB 91a1 Cipestaple; 93a2 Curi (2nd entry); 97b1 Sindercome. 74 GDB 38a1-2 Malpedresham; 70b1 Clive (1st entry); 22362 Fordinestone. 75 GDB 63a1 Dideorde; 157a2 Tachelie; 239a2 Pilardetune; Lewis, 'Honor of Chester', 50. 76 GDB 10a2 Perie (2nd entry); 22b1 Warlege; 22b2 Horstede; 24b2 Prestetune; 27b1 Hame; 38a1-2 Malpedresham; 39a2 Anne; 43a2 Lavrochestoche; 45a1 Sireburne; 47b1, last 5 lines; 50a1 Ferlege; 50a2 Etham (2nd entry); 51b1 Herdebrige; 62b2-63a1 Siford; 63a1 Bagenore; 67a2 Gardone; 69a2 Wintreburne (1st entry); 70b1 Tedelintone; 74b2 Clive (1st entry); 85a1 Bochehamtone, Wintreburne (2nd entry), Sonwic; 88a1 Nortone; 91b1 Lochestone; 91b2 Chinwardestune; 102a2 Bocheland, Herlege, Torsewis, Raweberge; 103a2 Talebrige, Ulvredintune, Tapelie; 104a2 Rourige; 107a2 Cliste; 111a1 Stoche; 113a1 Mideltone. The list in Clarke, Nobility, 363-4, omits three manors in Wiltshire, one in Kent, and four in Sussex, has one wrong value, and makes a hash of Wulfgifu's byname.

< previous page

page_84

next page >


page_85

< previous page

page_85

next page > Page 85

A more complex example is the substantial pre-Conquest landowner Baldwin fitz Herluin, of French descent, who seems to have had twenty-nine manors assessed at 157 hides and worth almost £140 a year, placing him in the top rank of the king's thegns. After the Conquest they were mainly divided between Hugh de Grandmesnil and William fitz Ansculf, with Baldwin himself surviving as a tenant of the latter, though five of the manors were dispersed among five other great lords. From the geographical point of view, the unity of the pre-Conquest estate and thus the identity of Baldwin are shown by the fact that it spread over a group of eight contiguous shires in the south Midlands and was entirely contained within a radius of fifty miles.77 Thus an unusual name, a geographical pattern, and some coherence in the distribution of the estate after the Conquest can be combined to suggest a convincing identification. The geographical argument for identification is often the most compelling, but a couple of cases will have to serve as illustrative of the scores that could be produced. The names Alwacer and Everwacer occur in Domesday respectively nine and six times (making them fairly infrequent), but only in Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hampshire. They were concentrated in north Somerset, and in one locality a manor attributed to Alwacer lay alongside one of Everwacer's. The distribution, the rarity, and the sharing of a common final element strongly suggest that there were only two men, kinsmen very likely, perhaps even brothers. As it happens there is confirmatory evidence of a link between them, since both Alwacer and Everwacer's son Ælfric survived in 1086 as tenants of Glastonbury abbey.78 It would not be possible to make an equally confident identification from a similar distributional pattern for a pair of common names sharing a final element. Where a rare name, geographical clustering, and common descent after the Conquest all converge, there is clearly a strong case for a solid identification. The king's thegn Avelin had three manors rated at 18 hides and worth £22 a year almost adjoining one another in mid Buckinghamshire, with a couple of his sokemen close by, all of which passed to Bishop Odo.79 A Sussex thegn called Haming held three of his manors TRE from the king and two more from Earl Godwine, all within a fifteen-mile stretch of the south Downs, and together worth £12 10s a year. The manors fell into two rapes, and the most westerly thus passed to William de Warenne and was lost, but the count of Mortain allowed Haming to keep the other four as his tenant.80 The range of problems and possibilities in producing convincing Domesday identifications can be illustrated by taking, finally, two names from the Welsh borders, one where the balance of probability is that they did not refer to the same person and the other where they did. The common name Leofric occurs frequently in the borders: three times in Cheshire, six in Shropshire, and twice in Hereford77 Lewis, 'The French', 140-1. 78 GDB 47a2 Esse; 72a1 Stortone; 90a1 Blacheford; 90b2 Brentemerse; 95a1 Werre, Middeltone; 95a2 Spercheforde, Honspil; 95b1 Contune (1st entry), Harpetreu, Ecewiche; 96b2 Worsprinc; 97b2 Opopille, Stoche (1st entry), Cilele; 98a1, lines 4-7, Contone; 107b1 Essoic; EDB 170b2 Brentamersa. 79GDB 144a1 Danitone, Herdeuelle; 144b1 Wadruge, Estone. 80 GDB 2062 Clotintone; 21a1, lines 1-4; 21a2 Essete; 21b1 Ferles (3rd part); 26b1 Rotingedene.

< previous page

page_85

next page >


page_86

< previous page

page_86

next page > Page 86

shire, sprinkled all the way from the Mersey marshes to the Forest of Dean.81 None of the manors is near any other, or linked by common descent or pairings with another name. There are no bynames and none of them was a large manor. It seems that there were eleven separate Leofrics holding land in the borders, of whom the richest had only 3 hides worth 80 shillings, and only two or three others more than 1 hide. The name makes a stark contrast with Dot, which occurs twenty-six times over the whole country, heavily skewed towards the North-West, with seventeen in Cheshire and one in each of Shropshire and south Lancashire.82 The others are single examples in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Cambridgeshire, and two in each of Essex and Suffolk.83 The name did exist elsewhere: an inhabitant of the town of Battle about 1110 was called Ælfric Dot, Dot presumably being his father's name.84 This at last is where nominal linkage literally means joining the Dots. Outside the NorthWest the name was distributed thinly across a hundred-mile stretch of five contiguous counties. The largest holding there was one of only 2 hides worth 40 shillings, and all the others were of less than 1 hide, one as little as a share (with one other man) in 10 acres. The two Essex holdings, not far apart, might have belonged to one man; the others cannot have done so as they were too small and scattered. In short, the Dots outside the North-West were geld-paying freemen. Inside Cheshire the seventeen Dots were highly concentrated in two groups. Eight lay in north-central Cheshire within a five-mile radius. Huyton and Tarbock in south Lancashire are twelve miles distant but the names of pre-Conquest landowners in the intervening district (Warrington hundred) were not recorded in Domesday and Dot might have owned land there too.85 The other eight in Cheshire were scattered less compactly over an eighteen-mile stretch of the southern county boundary, with the final, unidentified, place somewhere in the same general area, and the Shropshire manor fourteen miles away. Within Cheshire and its neighbouts one or more Dots thus held nineteen or twenty manors. Was there one Dot or more? It is just credible that a personal name so rare in England as a whole was more fashionable in Cheshire, but hardly likely that the shire harboured many of the name. Two Dots in Cheshire is the highest convincing number, and it is difficult to believe that a name favoured in the families of mere freemen in the south-east Midlands should have occurred separately in two thegnly families in the North-West. One Dot seems much more likely. Time-consuming as it is, the reassembly of estates under their owners is a false horizon. The nature of Domesday Book itself and the exiguity of other sources 81 GDB 185b1 Hope; 186a2 Tornebede (2nd part); 254a2 Hetune; 255a2 Aitone; 256a1 Langedune; 258a1 Piceforde, Munete; 259b1 Lach; 263b1 Troford; 265b1 Berchesford; 266a2 Estone. 82 GDB 259b1 Routone; 263b2 Cotintone; 264a2 Calmundelei; 264b1 Socheliche, Bicretone; 265a1 Calvintone; 265b1 Estune, Santune; 265b2 Wivelesde, Steple; 266a1 Mulintune; 266b2 Motburlege; 267a1 Lege, Wimundisham, Pevre; 267a2 Witune; 267b1 Epletune, Gropenhale; 269b1, lines 9-10. 83 GDB 150b1 Soleberie; 218b2 Bistone; LDB 43a Wicfort; 67a Cinguehellam; 297b Sueftlingan; 404a Pileberga; ICC 7. 84 Clark, 'Battle', 27, 36. 85 GDB 26962 Walintune.

< previous page

page_86

next page >


page_87

< previous page

page_87

next page > Page 87

mean that pre-Conquest Domesday prosopography will always have two dimensions missing, or at least present only in part: family and lordship. Rare cases like the reconstructed family of Æthelwine the sheriff make the rest of Domesday tantalising. We shall simply never be able to pick out most of the other siblings, cousins, and spouses. Given what is known about the complexities of Anglo-Saxon family inheritance that is a major shortcoming. Then there is lordship. Late Anglo-Saxon England was a society structured around lordship of men and land. Domesday Book contains abundant but far from comprehensive evidence of both, and there has been a lively debate about how much more it fails to reveal.86 This is not the place to add to the discussion, except to say that in some counties the structure of lordship is well recorded by copious entries to the effect that landowners held 'of' or 'under' named lords, or were 'the men of' another, whereas in others that sort of information was either not collected or was edited out during compilation. It is easy enough to state the principles on which a prosopography of the pre-Conquest landowners of Domesday Book would have to be undertaken; difficult, time-consuming, and until one of the promised Domesday databases appears mind-numbingly boring in practice. The means of identification suggested here are full of uncertainties, but it is unlikely that they will fail to reveal any major pre-Conquest landowner. At lower social levels it will be easier to identify men and women with unusual names than those with common ones. For all that, and despite the inevitable lacunae of family and lordship, the effort will be worth while. A systematic, methodologically and conceptually sound prosopography of Edward the Confessor's thegns and freemen will be enormously rewarding: joining the Dots will one day reveal the social structure of English landownership just before the Norman Conquest. 86 Peter Sawyer, '1066-1086: a Tenurial Revolution?', Domesday Book: a Reassessment, ed. Peter Sawyer, London 1985, 71-85; Robin Fleming, 'Domesday book and the Tenurial Revolution', Anglo-Norman Studies ix, 1986, 87-102; David Roffe, 'From Thegnage to Barony: Sake and Soke, Title, and Tenants-in-Chief's , Anglo-Norman Studies xii, 1989, 157-76.

< previous page

page_87

next page >


page_89

< previous page

page_89

next page > Page 89

5 The Prosopographical Study of Anglo-Norman Royal Charters David Bates This paper's central theme is that the prosopographical analysis of charters must take into account the diplomatic of the documents under discussion and the social structure which produced them. Its focus is as much methodological as interpretative. It will take issue with the approach taken in previous prosopographical analysis of Anglo-Norman royal charters. It must, however, be stressed at the outset that while such work represents a legitimate subject for criticism, the real villain of the piece is the wretched English practice of calendaring charters rather than printing full texts with appropriate critical apparatus. This has been profoundly harmful as far as prosopographical studies are concerned since it irretrievably conceals all that is important in the document concerned The foundation for my observations is the edition of the English, Norman and French acta of William I for the period between 1066 and 1087 on which I have been working for many years, and which will soon be complete. As a result, the paper does not venture much beyond 1087, although I would hope that the conclusions proposed will enable myself and others to do so. The new edition will replace the incomplete and inaccurate calendar of William's acts published in 1913 by H. W. C. Davis, the first volume of the Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorurn.1 The fundamental criticisms of that volume are well known and have been extensively rehearsed.2 Its replacement will contain 353 acta, 72 of which were not calendared either by Davis or in the list of 'Errata and Addenda' in the second volume of the Regesta. In the framework I shall be describing, counting attestations is of only limited * An earlier version of this paper was given to the Early Medieval Europe Research Group (EMERGE) in Edinburgh. I am grateful to members of the group and of the Oxford conference for their helpful comments. 1 Throughout this article, references are given to my forthcoming edition of William I's acta, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I, 1066-1087, ed. D. Bates, to be published by Oxford University Press (henceforth, Bates, Regesta). As an interim measure, I have also given references to good modern editions of acts where they exist. 2 E.J. King, 'John Horace Round and the Calendar of Documents Preserved in France', Anglo-Norman Studies IV: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1981, ed. R. A. Brown, 1982, 93-103, 202-4; D. Bates, 'The Conqueror's Charters', in England in the Eleventh Century, ed. C. Hicks, Harlaxton Medieval Studies, ii, Stamford 1992, 1-3.

< previous page

page_89

next page >


page_90

< previous page

page_90

next page > Page 90

value; both documentary loss, which could affect the conclusions in an obvious way, and documentary survival, which could give unjustified prominence to a particular kindred group, can, as we shall see, drastically distort the picture. The statistics of attestations have meaning only on the basis of a full understanding of documentary form and its implications. It follows that all attestations do not necessarily have equal significance either for an understanding of politics and power or for an individual's career. The proposed methodology therefore differs radically from that employed by Professor C. Warren Hollister in the only systematic analysis of power relations based on royal charters.3 Its central premise is that prosopographical analysis should focus initially on the form and content of the writs and charters on which we have to rely, rather than taking the pattern of attestations as its starting point. The Anglo-Norman world which I am discussing was one in which the inter-play of 'public' and 'private' forms of power were reflected in documents whose form was structured by lordship, family and custom. All documents must be evaluated with this statement in mind. Of the 353 acta in the new Regesta, 207 are for English beneficiaries. There are in total 146 acta for Norman and continental beneficiaries. Of these 107 are for Norman churches and religious houses, 9 for Manceau and 30 for institutions outside the lands which William ruled. The acta from the two sides of the Channel represent several different diplomatic traditions of which the Norman and the English are of course the dominant- and have to be analysed according to different principles. To put the matter simply, while the vast majority of Norman and continental acta are diplomas followed by signa, a very high proportion of the English are writs which have few or no witnesses. Even at this simple level, mere counting of signa and testes just will not do. A writ with a single witness tells us something about that individual witness. It also fulfils an expectation that the writ would have a single witness; it therefore tells us nothing of the multitude who might or might not otherwise have been present and whose witness was not required by the document's customary form. A further complication is that sixty-one out of the English acta are arguably forgeries or authentic documents which have been significantly rewritten. One illustration will show how the identification of forgeries can affect conclusions. The key document for analysing the twenty-one dubious William I writs for 3 Cf. C. W. Hollister, 'Magnates and ''Curiales" in Early Norman England', Viator viii, 1977, 63-81; reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World, London and Ronceverte 1986, 97115. This article contains Hollister's tables of attestations for the period up until the early years of Henry I's reign. Others among his articles have extended the methodology into Henry I's reign. Note should be taken of Hollister's statement that 'The figures can doubtless be refined when David Bates' new edition of William I's charters and the Santa Barbara Domesday database become available. But I am confident that errors in my valuation and attestation figures will turn out to be trivial and, above all, not biased towards the proving of a thesis': Hollister, Magnates, xiii. While the differences outlined in this article are, in my view, far from being trivial, it should be acknowledged at the outset that what I would regard as Hollister's erroneous approach stems fundamentally from an unavoidable reliance on calendared charters in Regesta. His use of the evidence, as it was available to him, and as he understood it, was impeccable. His confidence (and that of others) in Regesta was, however, in my view, seriously misplaced.

< previous page

page_90

next page >


page_91

< previous page

page_91

next page > Page 91

Westminster abbey is a writ which deals with the Hampshire manor of Eversley.4 Written by a scribe known to have been active in the time of abbot Herbert of Westminster (1121 × 1136),5 its nine witnesses form a group who appear on many Westminster writs and who can only have been together at Christmas 1081, a time when king William was certainly in France and when one of the witnesses, count Robert of Meulan, is known to have been at the court of the French king Philip I.6 Count Robert appears as a witness to eleven of these fabricated writs. Hollister identified Robert as one of William I's leading curiales with twenty-three supposed attestations.7 As it happens, count Robert was on any measure among the uppermost élite of the Anglo-Norman realm during William the Conqueror's reign, but leaving aside any conclusions that we might draw from other documents, eleven attestations must immediately be subtracted from Hollister's total. Even documents which were demonstrably written during William's reign cannot be taken entirely at face value. This is especially so when we are dealing with the lengthy confirmation charters and pancartes which were so much a feature of the period.8 Here, Lucien Musset's study of the confirmation charters and the pancartes from the abbey of SaintEtienne of Caen is of central importance.9 One among these very lengthy and elaborate documents, a confirmation dating from 1066 × 1077, was clearly the source from which a second text was produced.10 Both survive as originals. The first, while having many of the characteristics of a solemn diploma, also contains numerous erasures, interlineations and interpolations which have been convincingly shown to have been the basis for the second improved version of the confirmation. This second version incorporates all the amendments and corrections made to the first, but it also sometimes rearranges the material into a more logical order and it includes additional donations. While the first has twelve signa, the second has thirty-six non-autograph signa, which include eleven of the signa of the first, written in smaller script by the same scribe who wrote the text of the charter; the omission is the king's son Henry. The second set of signa appear therefore to have been inserted into the second, with the result that chronological contradictions have been introduced into the final version of 4 Westminster Abbey Muniments, no. xxiii; Westminster Abbey Charters 1066c. 1214, ed. E. Mason, assisted by Jennifer Bray, London Record Society, xxv, London 1988, no. 34 (Regesta, i, no. 143; Bates, Regesta, no. 331). 5 P. Chaplais, 'The Original Charters of Herbert and Getvase, Abbots of Westminster (1121-1157)', in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, ed. P.M. Barnes and C. F. Slade, Pipe Roll Society, new series, xxxvi, London 1962, 95; reprinted in P. Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration, London 1981, XVIII, 95. 6Recueil des actes de Philippe Ier, roi de France (1059-1108), ed. M. Prou, Paris 1908, no. CVI; for William's itinerary, see Bates, Regesta, Introduction. 7 Hollister, Magnates, 109. 8 All the confirmations and pancartes confirmed by William I will appear in Bates, Regesta, nos 30, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 59, 61, 62, 149, 158, 164, 166, 167, 175, 179, 212, 215, 217, 255, 260, 261,271, 280, 281(I), (II), (III). 9Les actes de Guillaume le Conquérant et de la reine Mathilde pour les abbayes caennaises, ed. L. Musset, Caen 1967, 2541; see also, D. Bates, 'Les chartes de confirmation et les pancartes normandes du règne de Guillaume le Conquérant', in Les pancartes bénédictines du Xle siècle, forthcoming. 10 Musset, Actes, nos 4A, 4Abis (Bates, Regesta, nos 45, 54).

< previous page

page_91

next page >


page_92

< previous page

page_92

next page > Page 92

the signa, the most glaring of which is the inclusion of bishop Hugh of Lisieux, who died in 1077, and bishop William of Durham, who was appointed in 1080. The non-autograph presentation of the signa on this Saint-Etienne diploma has concealed a process of accumulation. If we have to deal with such a problem when we deal with 'originals' I use the inverted commas advisedly we can only speculate on the scale of this practice's impact on documents known only through later copies. An important illustration and confirmation of the correctness of this approach to these documents lies in the fact that the only original of this type of lengthy Norman confirmation charter with autograph signa, the charter confirming the possessions of the abbey of Lessay, demonstrates in a vivid and extreme way the manner in which attestations could be accumulated over a long period of time. Although the quality of the facsimile on which we now have to rely precludes a precise analysis of the different hands the original perished in the fire which destroyed the Archives Départementales of La Manche in 1944- it is quite obvious that signa were gathered from an initial confirmation, possibly from a visit to England and on other occasions as well, and that attestations continued to be sought from individuals until well on into the twelfth century.11 The main conclusion to be drawn from this discussion of confirmation charters is that in the case of documents of this type, we can no longer assume that those who attested were in the king's presence at the moment that the confirmation was made. Rather they must represent the individuals whose confirmation the beneficiaries of the document believed to be desirable. It must also be recognised that, in the case of confirmations, pancartes, conventiones and reports of pleas, we are dealing with documents which resemble literary texts more than externally authenticated deeds of title.12 The way in which such texts evolved over time has implications for the status of any royal charter and indeed any other document which was included in them; the same may often be true of texts which appear in cartularies. All such documents should be treated as editions rather than copies. We must therefore always seek to measure the distance between the royal/ducal confirmation which undoubtedly took place and the copy we now possess. Very often, we cannot be at all confident that what we now possess represents accurately the event of confirmation. Every piece of information in every document we consult must be carefully assessed with this in mind. Much the most numerous among William's Norman acta are short diplomas which usually, but not invariably, have only a small number of signa. Three originals from the abbey of Saint-Etienne of Caen have twelve, five and five respectively.13 An original for the abbey of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, dating from the 11 Musée des Archives Départementales, Paris 1878, planche XVIII (Regesta, i, nos 125,198, calendaring separately two versions of the same document). For a discussion of this complex charter, Bates, Regesta, no. 175. 12 For further discussion, see Bates, 'Les chartes de confirmation', and the forthcoming Introduction to Bates, Regesta. 13 Musset, Actes, nos 3, 5, 10 (Bates, Regesta, nos 46, 47, 51).

< previous page

page_92

next page >


page_93

< previous page

page_93

next page > Page 93

year 1080, has nine,14 a 1085 Fécamp original, eight15 two Troarn originals, fourteen and around fifteen (the text of the signa is badly damaged) respectively,16 a La Croix-Saint-Leufroy original, four,17 and one for Rouen cathedral, two.18 This pattern is confirmed in copies of diplomas from a wide range of beneficiaries. Thus, for example, none of the nine Cerisy William I diplomas have more than six signa,19 three of the La Trinité-du-Mont of Rouen diplomas have nine signa, one has fourteen and one has three.20 The diplomas with the most numerous signa are the two for Bayeux cathedral, with twenty and twenty-six.21 Another Fécamp diploma has fifteen and a 1082 La Trinité of Caen diploma has nineteen.22 It must also be noted that some among these diplomas include testes as well as signa; an original diploma for Saint-Etienne of Caen, for example, demonstrates a three-stage process of attestation and other cases of multi-layered confirmation can be cited.23 Some among these shorter Norman diplomas must therefore be analysed according to the same principles as the confirmation charters. The signa of the majority of the diplomas give the impression of being chosen with the contents of the diplomas in mind. At its simplest, the choice reflects authority and kinship; the four signa of the La Croix-Saint-Leufroy diploma consist of William, Mathilda, the lord and the diocesan bishop, and the five of a Saint-Amand diploma are William, Mathilda, the donor and his two sons.24 These basic patterns are replicated across numerous diplomas, even when the number of signa is much larger. Thus, for example, the nine signa of a Saint-Gabriel diploma consist of William, Mathilda and their eldest son Robert, the donor, his wife and his son, and the diocesan bishop, along with two of the greatest Anglo-Norman magnates, Roger de Montgommery and Roger de Beaumont.25 The fifteen signa of a Troarn diploma are William, Mathilda and their son Robert, the archbishop 14 Archives Départementales de la Seine-Maritime, 14 H327 (Bates, Regesta, no. 246). 15 P. Chaplais, 'Une charte originale de Guillaume le Conquérant pour l'abbaye de Fécamp', in L'abbaye benedictine de Fécamp. Ouvrage scientifique du XIIIe centenaire, 4 vols, Fécamp 1959, i, 103-4; reprinted in Chaplais, Essays, XVI, 103-4 (Bates, Regesta, no. 144). 16 R.-N. Sauvage, L'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn au diocese de Bayeux, des origines au seizième siècle, Caen 1911, 302-03, 456 (Bates, Regesta, nos 283, 284). 17 P.-F. Lebeurier, Notice sur l'abbaye de La Croix-Saint-Leufroy, Evreux 1886, 46, no. 3 (Bates, Regesta, no. 165). 18 Archives Départementales de la Seine-Maritime, G8739 (Bates, Regesta, no. 229). 19 Bates, Regesta, nos 89-97. It should be noted that all these short notitia of WillJain's confirmations for Cerisy are preserved in apancarte confirmed in 1120, and may have been subject to editing in the interim period. 20 Bates, Regesta, nos 231,232, 233, 234, 236 (Regesta, i, nos. 6, 29, 55, 20, 126). 21 Bates, Regesta, nos 26, 27 (Regesta, i, nos 75, 76) 22 Bates, Regesta, nos 141 and 60 (Regesta, i, no. 149; Musset, Actes, no. 9). 23Musset, Actes, no. 3 (Bates, Regesta, no. 46). For a discussion of multiple confirmations, C. Potts, 'The Early Norman Charters: a New Perspective on an Old Debate', in England in the Eleventh Century, 34-6. 24 Above, note 20; M.-J. Le Cacheux, 'Histoire de l'abbaye de Saint Areand de Rouen des origines à la fin du XVIe siècle', Bulletin de la société des antiquaires de Normandie xliv, 1936, 250-51 (Bates, Regesta, no. 237). 25 L. Musset, 'Actes inédits du XIe siècle: I. Les plus anciennes chartes du prieuré de Saint-Gabriel (Calvados)', Bulletin de la société des antiquaires de Normandie lii, 1952-54, 137-9 (Bates, Regesta, no. 256).

< previous page

page_93

next page >


page_94

< previous page

page_94

next page > Page 94

of Rouen, the two bishops in whose dioceses the properties granted were located, the donor, his wife and son, his lord and his two sons, and the founder of the monastery and his two sons.26 The fourteen signa of a La Trinité-du-Mont diploma are all local figures, with the exception of William, and the donor and his wife.27 Similar patterns can also be detected among the lengthy type of Norman confirmation charters and pancartes.28 The appearance of the surviving originals of both short diplomas and confirmations suggests that they were written in advance of confirmation, that a considerable amount of parchment was left blank to accommodate the signa and that the scribe inserted the names of the signa after the crosses had been made.29 Their production probably took the form of negotiation between the beneficiary and the grantor which, when concluded, was followed by the writing of the document and its presentation to William for confirmation; this process at its starkest is illustrated by an original Troarn diploma whose corroboration clause makes no reference to royal confirmation at all.30 The dominant influences in the making of most diplomas were clearly those of lordship and kinship. Very few among the signa appear to have been selected at random. Very few are therefore a direct commentary on an individual's power-relationship with the king/ duke; instead they are a direct comment on his or her relationship to the gift or agreement being recorded. We are fortunate that a letter of St Anselm describes the procedure by which such documents were brought to completion; the king simply refused to confirm the diploma which Anselm had brought from Normandy to England for confirmation until all the donors were present.31 A smaller number of diplomas for Norman beneficiaries have a larger number of high-status signa those in this category include some of the documents already discussed, such as the pancartes and confirmation charters from Saint-Etienne of Caen, the two Bayeux cathedral diplomas and the shorter Saint-Etienne of Caen diploma associated with the abbey's consecration. There is also a strong tendency for the Norman reports of pleas and conventiones from William's reign to have a larger number of more prestigious testes and signa than the majority of Norman diplomas. A record of a settlement between the abbeys of Saint-Etienne and La Trinité of Caen, for example, includes three bishops, abbot Baldwin of Bury St Edmunds and several great magnates among its signa, while a conventio involving the Fécamp priory of Saint-Gabriel mentions that the agreement was reached in 26 Bates, Regesta, no. 282 (Regesta, i, no. 173). 27 Bates, Regesta, no. 234 (Regesta, i, no. 20). 28 This applies in the cases of the confirmations of the possessions of Fontenay, Grestain, Le Bec, Saint-Sauveurle-Vicomte and Saint-Martin of Sées: Bates, Regesta, nos 149, 158, 166, 260, 271. 29 See further, the Introduction to Bates, Regesta. 30Huic donationi ego Rogerius interfui, et quia per me facta est, hanc ipse firmavi et super altare sancti Martini lignum mea manu secundum toorein hoc idem significans posui, astante videlicet domno Durando abbate cure omni fratrum cohorte coramque fidelium meorum asistente multitudine, quarta videlicet feria sancti Pentecosten. S [ignum] Willelmi regis, etc...: Sauvage, 456 (Bates, Regesta, no. 283). 31Sancti Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi: Opera Omnia, ed. F. S. Schmitt, 6 vols, Edinburgh 1946-61, iii, no. 118.

< previous page

page_94

next page >


page_95

< previous page

page_95

next page > Page 95

the presence of William, his two eldest sons, the archbishop of Rouen, five Norman bishops, and unnamed abbots and nobles.32 These documents indicate that there were occasions on which the full weight of the 'public' authority of William's Normandy that is, of the king/duke and his great men was brought to bear. Prosopographical analysis of them needs to bear in mind earlier remarks about the way in which signa could be accumulated. But at the least they show who was considered to be a member of the élite and therefore expected to attend the royal/ducal court. My conclusions on the social and political role of the Norman episcopate, published elsewhere, stress its enduring public and political importance.33 They take issue with the application to Normandy by Marie Fauroux of JeanFrançois Lemarignier's idea that the bishops' role was diminishing before 1066 and continued to diminish as older Carolingian and post-Carolingian forms faded.34 The key point is that the evolution of the diplomatic form of the shortstyle Norman diplomas discussed above eliminated the need for episcopal confirmation. Their testimony is therefore both relevant and irrelevant to their personal and political importance: since episcopal confirmation was not required, their absence is not proof that the bishops collectively became less important. On the contrary, when diplomas can be shown to have been confirmed at great assemblies, or when agreements were made and pleas settled, bishops were invariably present. It is possible that bishops were confined somewhat more than in the period up until to the 1020s to affairs which we might identity as more specifically religious, but there is no doubt that their Carolingian public role continued. Although the structure of Norman political society undoubtedly diversified during the eleventh century, bishops remained close to its centre. The texts of the diplomas and their attestations demonstrate that William's wife and elder sons were set above and some way apart from the aristocracy. With sixty-one, forty-six and thirty-eight attestations respectively, Mathilda, Robert (Curthose) and William (Rufus) out-distance all other attestors. There are documents which show William and Mathilda acting in partnership and diplomas in which William's confirmation is said to have been given with the agreement of his family.35 Mathilda's prominence is also demonstrated by the well-known evidence for her status as William's regent in Normandy, a position which she can now be shown to have been holding as late as 1080 x 1081.36 Robert Curthose is quite 32 Musset, Actes, no. 17 (Bates, Regesta, no. 64); Musset, 'Saint-Gabriel', 139-41 (Bates, Regesta, no. 257). 33 D. Bates, 'Le rôle des évêques dans l'élaboration des acres ducaux et royaux entre 1066 et 1087', in Les éveques normands du XIe siècle, ed. P. Bouet and F. Neveux, Caen 1995, 109-15. 34 See Recueil des actes des dues de Normandie de 911 àd 1066, ed. M. Fauroux, Caen, 1961, 59. 35 E.g., in presentia regis et regine Anglorum and His auditis rex et regina iusserunt in a narrative of a plea written for the church of Saint-Léonard of Bellême: Cartulaire de Marrnoutier pour le Perche, ed. P. Barret, Mortagne 1894, no. 3; Bates, Regesta, no. 29. Also, e.g., uxore mea Mathildi et filiis Rotberto videlicet et Wilelmo annuentibus, confirmavi: L. Musset, 'Recherches sur les communautés de clercs séculiers en Normandie au XIe siècle', Bulletin de la société des antiquaires de Normandie Iv, 1959-60, 36; Bates, Regesta, no. 199. I have not given full references for the attestations of Willlam's closest kindred so as not to burden excessively the article's footnotes. 36 For Mathilda's rôle in the government of Normandy, see D. Bates, 'The Origins of the Justiciarship', (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_95

next page >


page_96

< previous page

page_96

next page > Page 96

often given prominence among William's sons most interesting of all is a reference from the year 1068 to him ruling in Normandy while his father ruled in England37 yet there are also many instances when he is not distinguished either in rank or status from his younger brother William.38 Taking into account only diplomas with multiple high-status signa and instances when an individual attests a diploma with whose contents he has no apparent connection, the most frequent attestors after these three are Roger de Montgommery with thirty-one attestations,39 Roger de Beaumont with twenty-six,40 his son Robert de Beaumont/count at Meulan with twenty-three,41 count Robert of Mortain with thirty three,42 earl Hugh of Chester with seventeen,43 and count Alan with seventeen.44 These six -probably unsurprisingly are as good as identical with the six leading lay magnates identified by very different methods by Hollister.45 A more probing analysis impossible to undertake here would examine closely the pattern of attestations. One illustration of potential results is supplied by Roger de Beaumont, who attests only one English diploma, and who is shown by Norman reports of pleas to have performed a special role in the government of the duchy.46 The acta's attestations also underscore the importance within Normandy of a group of prominent individuals with largely Norman territorial interests; this is shown by the relatively frequent appearances cutting across the lines of kinship and lordship of Fulk d'Aunou, Richard de Courcy, Hugh de Gournai and Ralph de Montpinçon, as well as the much better known count (Footnote continued from previous page) Anglo-Norman Studies IV: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1981, ed. R. A. Brown, iv, 1982, 7-8. Her status as Willliam's deputy in 1080 x 1081 can be deduced from the last section of an account of a plea between the abbey of Marmoutier and Robert Bertran: Fauroux, no. 151. For its date see Bates, Regesta, no. 200. 37 . . . regnante Philippo in Francia, Guitielmo regum nobilissimo apud Anglos, Rotberto filio eius principante apud Normannos et Cenomannos: Bates, Regesta, no. 179, from a late eleventh-century pancarte of the abbey of Saint-Désir of Lisieux, which was destroyed in 1944. 38 Robert Curthose is styled comes in twenty-nine out of forty-six attestations and William Rufus in eight out of thirty-eight. In the remainder both are usually described as filius regis. Robert is either styled comes Normannorum, comes Cenomannorum or both, or described as exercising some sort of authority in Normandy and/ or Maine in nine diplomas (Bates, Regesta, nos 27, 158, 172,173,179, 204, 205, 251, 281); interestingly, five out of the nine are for non-Norman beneficiaries (nos 172, 173, 204, 205, 251). In one case Robert is called regisprimogenitus (no. 261). Attention should also be drawn to the way in which the two brothers are associated in confirmations alongside their father, as in the example cited in note 35. See Bates, Regesta, Introduction, for a discussion of this evidence. For now, see R. H. C. Davis, 'William of Jumièges, Robert Curthose and the Norman Succession', EHR xcv, 1980, 597-606. 39Bates, Regesta, nos 26, 27, 39, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 141,146, 149, 153, 158, 174,181, 199, 211,215, 217, 235, 255, 256, 257, 262, 269, 286. In order to save space, references in this note and in notes 41-45 and 48-50 are to the forthcoming Bates, Regesta, only. 40 Bates, Regesta, 26, 27, 29, 30, 39, 45, 46, 47, 49, 53, 54, 59, 141,149, 158, 162, 197, 198, 212, 215, 229, 235, 244, 256, 262, 281. 41 Bates, Regesta, nos 27, 30, 39, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 59, 65, 101,141,144,176, 229, 235, 248, 257, 260, 264. 42 Bates, Regesta, 26, 27, 39, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 64, 138, 141,146,149,151,156,181,193, 201,217, 235, 236, 242, 246, 252, 255, 271,279, 281,286. 43 Bates, Regesta, nos 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 59, 60, 141,206, 208, 242, 255, 264, 266(II)/267(II), 279. 44 Bates, Regesta, nos 46, 54, 59, 60, 64,144,146,154,156,193, 201,244, 253, 266(II)/267(II), 268, 270. 45 Hollister, 'Magnates and "Curiales" ', 109. 46 Bates, Regesta, no. 39 (Regesta, i, no. 137); Bates, 'Justiciarship', 6-7.

< previous page

page_96

next page >


page_97

< previous page

page_97

next page > Page 97

William of Évreux and William de Breteuil.47 Yet the final, strong emphasis, in John Le Patourel fashion, must be on the dominance of a small group whose life-style must have resembled the king's and which transcended the narrower limits of kingdom and duchy. Landed interest does not appear to have been the sole determinant of a magnate's itinerary; earl Hugh of Chester, for example, whose interests were primarily English for much of William's reign, attests frequently on both sides of the Channel, whereas Richard fitz Gilbert and William I de Warenne, whose lands place them among the foremost cross-Channel magnates, attest primarily in England.48 On the basis of my methodology, novi hornines, such as Eudo dapifer and Roger Bigot, although much wealthier in terms of lands in England than in Normandy, were also figures of cross-Channel significance.49 The new Regesta will contain two-hundred-and-seven acta written for English beneficiaries. These consist of thirty Old English writs, eighty-four Latin writs, five bilingual writs, twenty-five texts which are either diplomas or memoranda written on behalf of one party in a plea, thirty-one documents which are twelfth century fabrications which have arguably been constructed from an authentic eleventh century base, and thirty documents which are arguably entirely fabrications of the twelfth century or later. Our main concern is with the twenty-five diplomas or plea reports- eighteen of these are diplomas for English beneficiaries and two are diplomas for continental beneficiaries written in an English style -and the one hundred-and-nineteen writs which can with a fair degree of certainty be assigned to William's reign. It is important at the outset to stress the significance of the distinction between diplomas and writs. The kinds of evidence they can supply differs considerably. The predominant characteristic of most of the diplomas is their continuation of Old English diplomatic form. Five of them are bilingual diplomas written in a traditional Anglo-Saxon style. Many others have English diplomatic formulae.50 The three original English diplomas most obviously showing Old English influence are for the abbeys of Bury St. Edmunds and Saint-Denis and for the bishopric of Exeter.51 These usually have large numbers of high-status signa arranged according to social status after the manner of late Anglo-Saxon diplomas. It is notable that when a diploma was produced in continental style for an English 47 D. Bates, 'Normandy and England after 1066', EHR civ, 1989, 854-55. Fulk d'Aunou, Bates, Regesta, nos 51, 59,138, 212, 255; Richard de Courcy, Bates, Regesta, nos 27, 48, 50, 51, 54, 64, 145, 197, 208, 248, 257, 280; Hugh de Gournai, Bates, Regesta, nos 45, 48, 50, 53, 54, 59, 197, 251; Ralph de Montpinçon, Bates, Regesta, nos 27, 198, 238, 280; count William of Evreux, Bates, Regesta, nos 49, 53, 54, 59, 166, 248, 262, 264; William de Breteuil, Bates, Regesta, nos 30, 48, 50, 53, 54, 59, 244, 255. 48 Richard fitz Gilbert attests only one Norman diploma, Bates, Regesta, no. 52. In England, he attests nos 82, 146, 153, 154, 166, 176, 181,255. William de Warenne appears in three Norman diplomas, Bates, Regesta, nos 54, 59, 212, and three English, nos 60, 82, 253. He attests as donor on two other English diplomas, nos 101, 176. 49 Eudo dapifer: Bates, Regesta, nos 27, 48, 50,146, 206, 208, 240, 242, 255,262, 269. Roger Bigot: Bates, Regesta, nos 30, 48, 50, 60, 146, 176, 264, 266(II). 50 This topic will be fully discussed in the Introduction to Bates, Regesta. See also, S. D. Keynes, 'Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)', Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1987, ed. R. A. Brown, x, 1988, 185-222. 51 Bates, Regesta, nos 39, 138, 254 (Regesta, i, nos 26, 28, 137).

< previous page

page_97

next page >


page_98

< previous page

page_98

next page > Page 98

beneficiary, as in the case of an apparent original for Lewes priory, it still has a large number of high-status signa after the manner of an English diploma.52 Likewise, some diplomas for continental beneficiaries concerning English property also tend to have larger numbers of signa.53 On the other hand, there are also English diplomas and diplomas concerning English property with relatively few attestations: these have to be analysed in the same way as their Norman equivalents. Although the numbers of the signa on these documents show that the majority were confirmed at great assemblies attended by king, royal family and magnates, continuing the tradition of the most solemn of pre-1066 English diplomas, a note of caution should none the less be sounded in relation to their value for assessing any individual's political status. We should not, for example, necessarily draw any conclusions about whether any particular individual was in or out of favour. This point is most obviously underlined when we have two diplomas, such as those for the church of St Martinle-Grand and for the bishopric of Wells, which both date from Whitsun 1068.54 The Wells diploma, with a number of signa with West Country connections, quite clearly emphasises its local importance as well as the great occasion at which it was confirmed. The two in combination are a formidable demonstration of the vast concourse of notables who must have gathered at court for a great religious festival. A second note of caution must be struck because of the relatively small number of diplomas which survive from William's reign; we would, for example, be very sparsely informed about the magnificence of the crown-wearings of William's later years without the 1081 Bury St Edmunds diploma with its forty signa.55 But, it we adopt the same principles as were followed in relation to continental diplomas and concentrate on those diplomas which appear to reflect confirmation at major gatherings, then a small number of lay magnates emerge as proportionately prominent in English diplomas. They are count Alan, Henry de Ferrières, Roger d'Ivry, Roger de Montgommery, Robert, count of Mortain and Richard fitz Gilbert.56 With the possible exception of Richard ritz Gilbert, whose attestations tilt heavily towards England,57 this pattern can only signify that the group as a whole followed cross-Channel itineraries in the same mould as William's. The address-clauses of almost all the Old English writs reproduce the pattern characteristic of the pre-1066 English writ, that is, they are addressed either specifically to the officials of the shire-court of a particular shire or to all officials 52 Bates, Regesta, no. 176 (Regesta, i, no. 232). 53 Note, for example, Bates, Regesta, nos 60, 101,232, 253 (Regesta, i, nos 149, 192, 29, 147). See also, Bates, Regesta, no. 141. 54 Bates, Regesta, nos 181,286 (Regesta, i, nos 22, 23). 55 For the citronology of these crown-wearings, see now Bates, 'Conqueror's Charters', 5-9. 56 Count Alan: Bates, Regesta, nos 39, 60, 146, 154, 156, 193, 253. Henry de Ferrières: Bates, Regesta, nos 39, 60,139,146, 255. Roger d'Ivry: Bates, Regesta, nos 82,153, 255,286. Roger de Montgommery: Bates, Regesta, nos 39, 60, 146, 153, 181,255, 286. Robert, count of Mortain: Bates, Regesta, nos 39, 60, 138, 146, 156, 181, 193, 286. Richard ritz Gilbert: Bates, Regesta, nos 39, 82, 146, 153, 154, 176, 181,255. 57 Above, note 48.

< previous page

page_98

next page >


page_99

< previous page

page_99

next page > Page 99

of all shires in which the institution concerned held lands. They also stress the communal character of the shire with the phrase 'and all my thegns' or some variant on it. There are minor variations within this general framework. which will be surveyed in detail in the Introduction to the forthcoming edition. The vast majority of these writs date to before 1070. As is well known, they supply invaluable information about a regime in transition. Prosopographically, they illustrate, for example, the earldoms of immediate post-Conquest England and the survival of Englishmen as sheriffs.58 William's Latin writs diverge dramatically and decisively from this Old English pattern. They suggest a significantly changed structure of power. The overall impression is that William I's regime in England retained the basic textures of English local government, but was both more centralised and more secular than the one which preceded it. While observations of this kind need to be qualified by an awareness that nearly all the writs concerned survive only in copies and that address-clauses are one of the parts of a writ most likely to have been abbreviated by later scribes, the probability that they do indicate a genuine change is shown by the fact that two out of the three surviving original Latin writs from William's reign are all addressed only to a single layman.59 A further conclusion is that these Latin writs draw our attention to an English kingdom over which William retained ultimate authority, but within which the exercise there of was often delegated through an administrative group among whom archbishop Lanfranc was preeminent. The most important evidence is again supplied by the writs' address clauses. Only ten of the Latin writs, for example, are actually addressed to the appropriate diocesan, a layman, who is often identified, or is identifiable, as the sheriff and the men of the shireri.60 Two writs of bishop Odo of Bayeux and a further group of eight writs, while differing in detail, also arguably retain the traditional formula of the Old English writ.61 In contrast, sixteen writs are addressed only to the sheriff and other lay officials of the shire-court, omitting the bishop; it should be noted, however, that of these, three, all for Christ Church, Canterbury, have the appropriate diocesan as the writ's beneficiary, which might explain his omission from the address-clause.62 Also, four writs for Abbotsbury, Bury St Edmunds, Evesham and Westminster have the ecclesiastical and lay officials of the shire, but do not 58 C. P. Lewis. 'The Early Earls of Norman England', Anglo-Norman Studies XIII: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1990, ed. M. Chibnall, 1991, 215-18; J. A. Green, 'The Sheriffs of William the Conqueror', AngloNorman Studies V: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1982, ed. R. A. Brown, 1983, 131-32. 59Facsimiles of English Royal Writs to A.D. 1100 presented to V. H. Galbraith, ed. T. A.M. Bishop and P. Chaplais, Oxford 1957, plates XXIV, XXV (Bates, Regesta, nos 326, 334). 60Bates, Regesta, nos 2, 8, 136, 182, 300, 313, 315, 341,346, 352 (Regesta, i, nos 109, 226, 245, 211, 86, 181,212, 270, 252, 284). 61 Bates, Regesta, nos 35, 72, 84, 85, 87, 135, 137, 160, 219, 287 (Regesta, i, nos 43, 102, 100, 99, 175, 186, 282, 194, 130, 160). 62 Bates, Regesta, nos 32, 33, 40, 43, 70, 73, 75, 227, 249, 289, 309, 310, 329, 330, 343, 348 (Regesta, i, nos 31a, 223, 138/139, 176, 248, 218a, 209, 214, 250,17, 288h, 230). The three Christ Church writs are Bates, Regesta, nos. 70, 73 (Regesta, i, no. 176), 75. Bates, Regesta, nos 70, 75, 289 are among the documents not calendared in Regesta.

< previous page

page_99

next page >


page_100

< previous page

page_100

next page > Page 100

mention the thegns.63 Out at this total of twenty-one writs, nine do not mention the communal character of the shire court, while ten do and two have the shorter ceterisque omnibus fidelibus suis, a variant on this. The address-clauses of twenty-four writs include an individual or individuals whose responsibilities manifestly encompassed more than the shires with which the documents were concerned. In three cases, two of which are for the abbey of Abingdon and one for Samson the chaplain, Lanfranc's name appears ahead of a consortium of local magnates who were powerful in the shires in which the abbey held lands and ahead of the sheriff and the lay officials of the shirecourt.64 A much larger group among these documents. twenty-one in total, is addressed exclusively to individuals whose responsibilities appear to be national rather than local. In all cases, the addressees were presumably charged with acting on William's behalf in a matter which could sometimes be local and sometimes national. Thus, for example, a Bury St. Edmunds writ is addressed to count Robert of Eu, Hugh de Montfort and Richard son of count Gilbert, and is concerned with all the abbey's lands.65 The same three laymen appear in the address-clause of the famous writ ordering the sheriffs of England to return church lands, alongside archbishop Lanfranc and bishop Geoffrey of Coutances.66 A considerable number of this group of writs is addressed to a combination either of Lanfranc and bishop Odo of Bayeux or Lanfranc and bishop Geoffrey of Coutances.67 It is notable that the vast majority of these writs date from the period after 1076, that is, from the period when William was rarely in his kingdom. They underline what is already well established, namely, that the kingdom was dominated by a small extremely wealthy élite. They do not necessarily suggest any diminution in the importance of the shire-court; rather, I suspect, they illustrate the new regime's determination to reinforce its rule. They may well reflect difficulties in maintaining control over the localities and over local officials; if so, they also point to one which was capable of taking drastic measures to remedy the situation.68 The practice of witnessing writs relatively uncommon in William's reign -also indicates an interesting trend, the emergence of a small group of more obviously administrative and court-based individuals. Witnessing is obviously derived conceptually from the short-style Norman diploma. Early practice has something in common with Norman forms, since the witnesses are often individuals with a direct interest in the document. Towards the end of the reign, however, the pattern is changing; witness is evidently borne not by an interested party, but 63 Bates, Regesta, nos 3, 41, 132, 323 (Regesta, i, nos 203, 44, 104, 417). 64 Bates, Regesta, nos 4, 5, 265 (Regesta, i, nos 49, 200, 210). 65 Bates, Regesta, no. 42 (Regesta, i, no. 258). The twenty-one writs are Bates, Regesta, nos 42, 83, 88, 102, 119127, 129, 134, 190, 221,222, 285, 307, 347 (Regesta, i, nos 258, 98, 66, 179, 276, 155, 156, 129, 154, 157, 153, 151, 152, 94, 185, 288e, 177, 97, 166, 184). Bates, Regesta, no. 222 is among the documents not calendared in Regesta. 66Bates, Regesta, no. 129 (Regesta, i, no. 94). 67 Bates, Regesta, nos 102, 119-21, 123-27, 134, 285, 307, 347. Above, note 65, for their equivalents in Regesta. 68 The writs appear to reinforce some of the themes in R. Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England, Cambridge 1991, 183-214.

< previous page

page_100

next page >


page_101

< previous page

page_101


by someone known to be prominent in the kings entourage.69 The individuals concerned are Roger Bigot, Roger d'Ivry, Urse d'Abetot and Eudo dapifer, a group whose prominence at court stretches on into William II's reign. Their appearance in these writs must, however, be set alongside diplomas for English and Norman beneficiaries concerning English property, which date from the last seven years of William's reign, and which demonstrate beyond any doubt the presence alongside the king of large numbers of high status Signa.70 The inception of the practice of witnessing writs indicates the existence of an élite based on the court: their presence does not, however, indicate the exclusion of the magnates, rather a new way of supplying documentary authority. This paper does not try to set out any unbreakable rules, merely to draw attention to some significant patterns. No methodology can cater for the 'rogue' attestation; we should note, for example, the appearances of guests at court such as Geoffrey de Chaumont or abbot Vitalis of Westminster in Normandy in the year 1080.71 The conclusions I have drawn may an some respects seem disappointing. The methodology after all reveals something only too familiar to historians of earlier periods, a political world dominated by the potentes and principes. Fundamentally it demonstrates the continued domination of political society by an established élite and the role of kingship/dukeship as the gravitational centre of that society. Novi homines were as ever intruded into the élite through the agency of royal power and could enter it through service at court. But the idea of distinguishing between curlales and non-curiales is fundamentally flawed: all but the most obdurate backwoodsman fell into the former category, while the fact that some relied more on service at court than others for their careers does not mean that they were necessarily closer to the king politically. The charters suggest that post-Conquest English political society may well have been sui generis in that great power was ruthlessly and extraordinarily concentrated. They underline the importance of the royal kindred and they make a contribution to women's history. They also emphasise the continuing political importance of bishops. They suggest that the social and political structure of eleventh-century Normandy was one in which kinship and lordship were of immense importance. They confirm the continuation in Normandy of great assemblies in palatio of the Carolingian type, even if the powerful intrusion of social forms associated with the 'private' world of kinship and lordship underlines the scale of the changes which had accompanied and followed the year 1000.72 They also suggest, however, that the political societies of Normandy and England in and 69 There are twenty-five witnessed Latin writs of William I. See the Introduction to Bates, Regesta, for a discussion. 70 Bates, Regesta, nos 39, 60, 146, 153 (Regesta, i, nos 137, 149, 147, 204). 71 J. Dunbabin, 'Geoffrey of Chaumont, Thibaud of Blois and William the Conqueror', Anglo-Norman Studies XVI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1993, ed. M. Chibnall, 1994, 112-14. For abbot Vitalis, see Bates, Regesta, nos 236, 246, 257 (Regesta, i, nos 126, 127; Archives Départementales de la Seine-Maritime 14 H327 [no. 246]). 72 For the impact of these changes on charter attestations, Potts, 'Charters', 34-9. In general, D. Bates, Normandy before 1066, London and New York 1982, chapter 3; cf. D. Barthélemy, 'La mutation féodale a-t-elle eu lieu-? (Note critique)', Annales ESC xlvii, 1992, 767-77.

< previous page

page_101

next page >


page_102

< previous page

page_102


after 1066 would have been easily recognisable one to another. A glance into the future indicates that the methodology may also have relevance to the disagreement between Frank Barlow and Warren Hollister on the nature of William II's relations with the great magnates. Put simply and in full awareness that other evidence can be brought into play since most of William II's acta are writs, Hollister's attestation statistics are almost totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed.73 When we enter the twelfth century world when methods of charter production become more centralised, the methodology will, however, need refinement. 73 Hollister, Magnates, xiii-iv; F. Barlow, William Rufus, London 1983, 156-75, 211-13.

< previous page

page_102

next page >


page_103

< previous page

page_103


6 Wace as Historian Elisabeth van Houts The purpose of this paper is to assess Wace's reliability as an historian in his Roman de Rou, and in particular the historical basis for his list of the Conqueror's companions drawn up in Part Three, lines 8329 to 8705.1 Wace was born around 1110 in Jersey.2 His maternal ancestor (grandfather or, more likely, great-grandfather) almost certainly was Turstin, chamberlain of Duke Robert the Magnificent.3 He occurs as witness to a number of charters issued in connection with the attempted invasion of England by Duke Robert in 1033.4 The fleet was diverted from its course and ended in Jersey.5 Turstin's position in the ducal household made him a colleague of Fulbert, father of Herleva, Duke Robert's concubine, and may therefore account for Wace's unique information on the reigns of Robert the Magnificent and William the Conqueror, for example about Herleva herself and her children by Herluin of Conteville, who were half-siblings of the Conqueror, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, Count Robert of Mortain and the often forgotten Muriel. She married Eudo 'au chapel' vicomte of the Cotentin, whom Wace lists as one of the Conqueror's advisers in 1066.6 Other information provided exclusively in the Roman de Rou concerns the history of the abbey of Cerisy-la-Forêt and its early grants which Wace traced in charters still available today.7 Details of Duke Robert's pilgrimage to Jerusalem cannot easily be corroborated 1 I am very grateful for the comments, additions and corrections provided by several members of the conference, David Bates, Matthew Bennett, Michael Jones, Katharine Keats-Rohan, Daniel Power and Ann Williams. 2 Most of what follows is based on E. du Meril, 'La vie et les ouvrages de Wace',Jahrbuchfiir Romanische und Englische Literatur i, 1859, 1-8; C. H. Haskins, Norman Institutions, New York 1918, 267-72; Wace, iii, 15-18 3The identification of Turstin the chamberlain (Tosteins in pt 3, line 3225 (1,281)) as Wace's maternal ancestor was first suggested by Gaston Paris (Romania, ix, 1880, 526-7; Wace, iii, 140, 225) on the basis of an emendation of an otherwise incomprehensible passage. Although the point cannot be proven, most historians, including myself, are in favour of accepting Paris's attractive hypothesis. 4 Fauroux, nos 69 and 76, which were both re edited by S. Keynes, 'The Aethelings in Normandy', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii, 1990, 173-205 at 202 and 204; J. Adigard des Gautries, Les norns de personnes scandinaves en Normandie de 911 à 1066, Lund, 1954, 332 (no. 21), 333 (no. 26). 5 Jumièges, ed. van Hours, ii, 76-78. 6 Wace, pt 3, lines 6003-9 (ii, 108): E Yon manda al Chapel, / qui a feme aveit Muriel,/seror le duc par sa mere,/e Herluin aveit a pete;/ne sai se enfes d'els nasqui,/mais onques parlet n'en oi. Cf. E.M.C. van Houts, 'The Ship list of William the Conqueror', Anglo-Norman Studies, x, 1987, 161 n. 15. 7 Fauroux, nos 99, 167, 195; Haskins, 271.

< previous page

page_103

next page >


page_104

< previous page

page_104


Names mentioned in Wace's Roman de Rou 3e p. lines 8329-8705. The numbers correspond with the Appendix.

< previous page

page_104


next page >

page_105

< previous page

page_105


in a similar way and the most likely source of his knowledge would have been family tradition.8 While Wace's maternal ancestors help to explain some of his intimate knowledge of the ducal family, we do not, unfortunately, know anything about Wace's paternal family. All we know is that his father told him the number of ships of the 1066 invasion fleet stationed at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme, but whether this is based on his father's eyewitness account or someone else's remains unclear.9 Perhaps Wace was a member of the Wace family, whose members held extensive possessions in the Channel islands of Guernsey and Jersey. If so, it is puzzling that, unlike the poet Wace, they all are listed with first names and the surname Wace.10 One of them, Richard Wace, was a canon of Bayeux in the last quarter of the twelfth century. This appointment suggests that now and then a prebend was set aside for the Waces and, if indeed there is a relationship with our Wace, that he did not receive his canonry exclusively for services rendered as a court poet and historian.11 Wace himself had first been destined for a military career, for he refers to himself as having been a vaslet (a boy before he was knighted).12 As a still young boy he was sent to Caen for some elementary education, presumably at SaintÉtienne, after which he went to the Ile-de-France for further studies.13 He returned to Normandy to work again, as 'clerc lisant', at Caen until in the 1160s he moved to Bayeux after King Henry II had given him a prebend.14 While at Bayeux he appeared in at least three documents. The earliest dates from 1169 and is an agreement between Bishop Henry II of Bayeux (1165-1204) and Abbot Gilbert of Troarn. The document as printed in the Livre Noir of Bayeux does not give any witnesses, but the copy preserved in the Troarn cartulary mentions Wacius 8 A variety of pilgrimage stories circulated in eleventh-century Normandy, e.g. in the Brevis Relatio, ed. J. Giles, London, 1845, 1-3; Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, 82-4; E. M. C. van Houts, 'Normandy and Byzantium in the eleventh-century', Byzantion, lv, 1985, 544-59. The loss of the first part of William of Poitiers' biography of William the Conqueror is particularly sad for our assessment of the veracity of this group of narratives. 9 Wace, pt 3, lines 6417-32 (ii, 123; translation Van Houts, 'The Ship list', 163 n. 22). 10Cartulaire des îles normandes. Recueil de documents concernant l'histoire de ces îles, Jersey, 1924, 202-3, 2201, 292-3; Antiquus cartularius ecclesiae Baiocensis (Livre noir), ed. V. Bourrienne, Rouen-Paris 1902, i, 50-1 (no. xlii) Geoffrey Wac acts as witness in a charter of Herbert Poisson of 1135x47. 11Antiquus cartularius, i, 73-5 (no. lvi): Richardurn Wacii canonicum nostrum (24 June 1200) and i, 102-3 (no. lxxx): Ricardo Wasce (listed with other canons as witness in 1182 x 1205). 12 Wace, pt 3, line 6424 (ii, 123): bien m'en sovient, mais vaslet ere (I remember it well although it was before I was armed as a knight); van Houts, 'The Ship list', p. 163, n. 22 and M. Bennet, 'Wace and warfare', AngloNorman Studies, xi (1988), 37-57. 13Wace, pt 3, lines 5305-5308 (ii, 84): En l'isle de Gersui fui nez,/a chaem fui petiz portez,/illoques fui a letres mis,/pois fui longues en France apris. For the school of Caen, see R. Foreville, 'L'école de Caen au XIe siècle et les origines normandes de l'université d'Oxford', Études médiévales offerres d M. le doyen Augustin Fliche, Paris 1952, 81-100; D. M. Nicholl, Thurstan of York (1114-1140), York 1964, 3-7; M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, Oxford 1978, 102-5. 14 Wace, pt 3, lines 5309-18 (ii, 84): quant jo de France repairai/a Chaem longues conversai,/de romanz faire m'entremis,/mult en escris e mult en ils./Par Deu aie e par le rei/-altre fors Deu servir ne dei -/ m'en fu donee, Deus li rende,/a Baieues une provende./Del rei Henri segont vos di,/nevo Henri, pere Henri.; see also pt 3, lines 172-76 (ii, 167): fors li reis Henris li secunt;/cil me fist duner, Deus lui rende,/a Baieues une provende,/e meint autre dun me ad duné;/de tut lui sace Deus bon gré! For the term 'clerc Ilsant', see Wace, pt 3, line 180 (ii, 168): e clerc lisant en lur tens fui.

< previous page

page_105

next page >


page_106

< previous page

page_106


canonicus.15 The second charter is from 1174 and lists Wascius among the witnesses of an agreement between Richard of Hornmet and the Bayeux chapter in the presence of King Henry II.16 The third one is undated and refers to Wace as Magister Wascius. Since there is no reference to his status as canon the document probably predates Wace's appointment as canon. It is, however, interesting that the charter in question concerns the regular canons of PlessisGrimoult, a house founded on the forfeited estates of Grimoult of Plessis, one of the rebels of the Val-ès-Dunes uprising in 1047 about whom Wace, as we will see, is so knowledgeable.17 We do not know when he died. The connections with the ducal house assured him of a request to write his opus magnum, the Roman de Rou, after 1155 when he had finished the Roman de Brut, his adaptation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae, dedicated to Eleanor of Aquitaine.18 Writing the Roman de Rou took several years. He put down his pen after 1173/74 when he was forced, so he tells us, by Henry II to hand over his work to his colleague Benoit of Saint-Maur.19 Why this happened is still something of a mystery, though recently Professor Gouttebrose has argued that Wace took Becket's side in the investiture conflict and was therefore sacked from his job as court historian.20 Whatever the reason for him falling out with the king, it is important to understand that he began writing the Roman de Rou while favoured by Henry II and his wife Eleanor and that he received his canonry, as he himself confesses, as a reward for his labour. The Roman de Rou can be divided into three sections of which we are concerned with the third. This comprises the history of the dukes of Normandy from Duke Richard I (943-996) to the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106. It is an adaptation of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum in the version of Orderic Vitalis with some material deriving from the anonymous Bredaction. Besides the GND Wace used an astonishing number of other sources both historiographical and documentary as well as oral traditions. The most striking examples of his unique information, which can be verified by documentary sources, relate to the early part of William the Conqueror's reign and to the post-Conquest history of the Cotentin and Bessin up to the year 1106. With regard to the pre-Conquest period the most important 15 The documents were first discussed by Du Meril, 'La vie', 6-7. Antiquus cartularius, i, 161-4; R. N. Sauvage, L 'Abbaye de Saint-Martin deTroarn au diocèse de Bayeux des origines au seizième siècle, Caen 1911, 81, n. 2 which refers to Paris BN MS lat. 10086, fol. 13r-v. 16 The 1174 charter is printed inAntiquus cartularius, i, 54-6 (no. xlv). 17 The charter is unpublished but quoted by Du Meril, 'La vie', 6-7. A fourth charter from 1172 (Migne PL cl, c. 77) cited by Du Meril should be dismissed for it refers to a MagisterAcio canonicus, who is probably the same as theAzo subdecanus who appears alongside Wace in the 1174 charter. 18 Ed. I. Arnold, 2 vols, SATF, Paris 1938-40. 19 Wace, pt 3, lines 11419-11440 20 J.G. Gouttebroze, 'Pourquoi congédier un historiographe, Henri II Plantagenêt et Wace (1155-1174)', Romania, cxii (1991), 289-311; see also E. M. C. van Houts, 'The adaptation of the ''Gesta Norman-norurn Ducum" by Wace and Benoit', Non nova, sed nove. Mèlanges de civilisation médiévale dédiés d Willem Noomen, ed. M. Gosman, J. van Os, Groningen, 1984, 115-25. Both Professor Gouttebroze and I stress the importance of the fact that Wace relied on the Gesta Normannorum Ducum (GND) as edited by Orderic Vitalis in contrast to Benoit who used the GND in the version of Robert of Torigni, who inserted many passages from Dudo of Saint-Quentin's chronicle on the dukes of Normandy.

< previous page

page_106

next page >


page_107

< previous page

page_107


example of Wace's original historical work is his account of the 1047 rebellion culminating in the battle of Val-èsDunes. While he may have used a lost chan-son-de-geste for this episode, it is much more likely that he tapped local sources, both narrative and oral. A good example is Wace's interest in Grimoult de Plessis, who was, it seems, the main Norman protagonist besides Duke William's cousin Guy of Burgundy.21 After his defeat Guy was sent back home, the other rebels were punished, but eventually all were pardoned, except for Grimoult. He was thrown into prison at Rouen where he remained chained in fetters for just under thirty years until his death in 1074. The harsh justice exercised by William the Conqueror was obviously meant to deter others from committing treason.22 Not only did Grimoult lose his freedom, he also lost his estate. After his death in 1074 it was granted in its entirety to Odo of Bayeux, who used the fief to create seven prebends for the canons of Bayeux, while he himself held on to the manor of Plessis and the nearby forest of Montpinchon.23 The charter confirming the grant, as well as several documents describing the Plessis fief, like the 1133 inquest and Geoffrey of Anjou's charters, were readily available to Wace at Bayeux cathedral where he consulted them. He also combined them with oral information given to him presumably by the descendants of those involved. For example, Wace tells us about one of Grimoult's men, Serlo of Lingèvres, father of Hugh.24 This Serlo lived on and became a benefactor of Saint-Etienne at Caen, where he intended to become a monk. Of his sons only Ranulf can be found in charters.25 Serlo died after 1082 but another Serlo of Lingèvres, who was presumably his grandson, still had business contacts with Bayeux for he shared the rights of crop at Carcagny, most of which was held by the bishop of Bayeux, as we know from the 1174 charter, which I mentioned earlier as one of the ones witnessed by Wace. This evidence 21 Neither William of Jumièges nor William of Poitiers mention Grimoult of Plessis (Jumièges, ed. van Houts, ii, 120-2; Foreville, 16). 22 It is perhaps significant that Grimoult was not killed straightaway. For a stimulating discussion of the gradually changing attitudes to punishment for treason, see J. Gillingham, '1066 and the introduction of chivalry into England', Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy. Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. G. Garnett, J. Hudson, Cambridge 1994, 31-55. 23Antiquus cartularius, i, 4-6 (no. iii) at 5: [after a detailed list of Grimoult's estates William explains that treason is the reason for the forfeit and grant to Odo] Nunc vero quum ipse [Grimoult] perfidus, pro reatu infidelitatis suae et crimine insidiarum suarum quibus adversum me perjuraverat, ea jure justiciae sibi et heredibus suis perdidit. . . That Bishop Odo created seven, and later an eighth prebend, is explained in the 1133 Bayeux Inquest (H. Navel, 'L'enquête de 1133 sur les fiefs de 1' évêché de Bayeux', Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie, xlii, 1934, 5-80 at 15-16: Dixerunt etiam praedicti juratores quod rex Willelmus dedit Odoni, fratri suo, Baiocensi episcopo, feodum Grimoudi de Plesseyo in incrementurn ecclesiae Baiocensis toturn integrum, post mortem Grimoudi, qui in carcere regis apud Rothomagum mortuus est et sepultus in cimeterio Sancti Gervasii extra villam, habens adhuc tibias in compedibus ferreis, in signurn proditionis de qua erat ab ipso rege acussatus. Episcopus veto de eodem feodo fecit septem praebendas, et retinuit in dominium suum manerium de Plesseyo, cum foresta de Montpinchon. 24 For Serlo of Lingèvres, see Fauroux, no. 169, a charter for Cerisy-la-Forêt from 1035 x 66. I have been unable to trace his son Hugh. 25Les actes de Guillaume le conquérant et la reine Matilde pour les abbayes caennaises, ed. L. Musset, Caen, 1967, nos 7 and 18. Serlo's son Ranulf received a horse from Abbot Gilbert as payment for his father's girl. Ranulf also was a tenant of the nuns of Sainte-Trinité, see Charters and Custumals of the Abbey of Holy Trinity, Caen. Part 2 the French Estates, ed. J. Walmsley, Oxford 1994, 110.

< previous page

page_107

next page >


page_108

< previous page

page_108


confirms the view that Wace consulted documentary, narrative and oral material for the compilation of his Roman de Rou describing events which took place about one hundred years before his own time. For the post-Conquest history of Normandy Wace's editor, A. Holden, and Marjorie Chibnall agree that Wace used Orderic Vitalis's Ecclesiastical History.26 However, they also agree that Wace supplemented details not found in Orderic's story, in particular his detailed account of the final days of Robert Curthose's reign in Normandy: the fighting in the Bessin, the fall of Bayeux and the treason of the inhabitants of Caen form stories which are virtually unequalled by other sources.27 Without the Roman de Rou we should not be aware that before the fall of Bayeux a tournament took place just outside its walls between Robert of Arques, for Robert Curthose, and a soldier called Bruno who fought for Henry I. Henry's champion Bruno was killed and after Duke Robert's defeat Robert of Arques found it safer to leave the country and seek a new career in Apulia.28 The treacherous behaviour of the citizens of Caen meant that that city escaped the fire and destruction that had befallen Bayeux earlier on. A prominent role, according to Wace, was played by Thierry, son of Ralph fitz Ogier, who was one of the wealthiest burghers of Caen. The charters of both Saint-Etienne and Sainte-Trinité confirm Wace's story. On several occasions at the end of the eleventh century Ralph fitz Ogier acted as witness for benefactors of Saint-Etienne and for the abbot and monks. His son's support for Henry, as related by Wace, reflects his own support for Henry against Duke Robert which went back to at least 1087x94 when he was present at an agreement between the royal brothers arranged by the nuns of Saint-Trinité. He acted on Henry's side, not Robert's.29 It is interesting that Wace is not shy to hide his own feelings about the treason of the Caen burghers and frankly expresses his horror of the way in which Duke Robert Curthose lost Caen.30 These examples concerning Wace's conscientiousness as an historian of Normandy in the eleventh and early twelfth century can easily be multiplied. I will not do so but instead I want to stress the point that writing in the 1150s, 1160s and 1170s Wace worked as a historian very much in the mould of his colleague and contemporary Robert of Torigni, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, despite the fact that he wrote verse and used the vernacular. Although we can prove his authority for some of his pre and post-Conquest Norman information, there still exists a huge historiographical question mark over Wace's authority for the history of the Norman conquest of England. Like the passages I have discussed above, this 26 Wace, iii, 111. Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, ed. M. Chibnall, 6 vols, Oxford 1969-80, iv, xxixxii. 27 The siege and fall of Bayeux has also been movingly described in a contemporary Latin poem by Serlo, canon of Bayeux, see E. M. C. van Houts, 'Latin poetry and the Anglo-Norman court: the Carmen de Hastingae proclio', Journal of Medieval History, xv, 1989, 44-5. 28 Wace, pt 3, lines 10945-11060 (ii, 292-5). David rejects Wace's picture of fierce resistance of the inhabitants of Bayeux as wishful thinking by pointing out that Canon Serlo describes the fall as quick and due to weak and incompetent resistance (Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Cambridge, Mass. 1920, 165-6). 29Les actes, ed. Musset, nos 7, 14, 18, 25, 27; Charters and Custumals, ed. Walmsley, 123-4 30 Wace, pt 3, lines 11285-96 (ii, 303).

< previous page

page_108

next page >


page_109

< previous page

page_109


subject deserves fresh investigation. The list of the Conqueror's companions has proved to be the most controversial aspect of Wace's work and it is time to re-open the discussion from a new point of view. I hardly need to remind you of the roller-coaster fate of this list. Up to the time of Edward Freeman historians and genealogists happily quoted it as an important source, but John Horace Round's vitriolic assault on Freeman's use of Wace's Roman de Rou dealt the study of this topic a blow from which it hardly recovered.31 Round's influence even permeated the minds of independent scholars who, it seems, wished to accept Wace's testimony like, for example, L. C. Loyd, who included Wace's testimony on Hugh Bigot as the only reliable section of the list: 'Speaking generally this catalogue of Wace's seems historically worthless, but he was a canon of Bayeux cathedral and his statements as to persons and still more to places cannot be entirely neglected.'32 Similarly the anonymous editors of the Cartulaire des îles normandes in their discussion of the Carteret family inserted, without disclosing their source, Wace's information on the earliest known members of the family: the 'novel chevalier' Humphrey and Malger. Wace and these editors were right, for the two new knights did exist and received land in south-west England, as we can read in Domesday Book.33 As if it were not enough that hardly any bona fide historian dared to mention Wace, in 1943 David Douglas in his article on the companions of the Conqueror expressed his scepticism of the value of this section of the Roman de Rou in strong language.34 It took another forty years for counter arguments to surface. In 1981 Matthew Bennet returned to the problem of the list and proposed an intriguing hypothesis. He argued that the list contained some real historical names, but that the names did not reflect historical persons participating in the conquest of 1066, but that they reflected names of those Anglo-Normans who in 1173-74 supported the rebellion of the young Henry against his father King Henry II. Bennett concluded that perhaps Wace's roll-call of Young Henry's partisans contributed to Wace's fall from royal grace shortly after the rebellion. Bennett's suggestion is particularly interesting because it draws attention to Wace's attempt to redress the balance between the Norman contribution and that of other 'nations' within the Plantagenêt realm.35 His conclusions, however, like those of Round and Douglas, were based only on a study of a sample of names. No one has yet, as far as I am aware, tried to identify and list all the names. This I have now done, but before we can embark on a thorough assessment of the list's historical value we must first look closely at the lay-out of the list. The list appears as lines 8329 to 8705 in Part Three of the Roman de Rou and forms the end of the account of the battle of Hastings. Wace's editor, A. Holden, 31 J. H. Round, Feudal England. Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, London 1895, new edn 1964, 258-321. 32 L.C. Loyd, The origins of some Anglo-Norman Families, ed. C. T. Clay and D. C. Douglas, Leeds 1951, 15; see below Appendix no. 54. 33 See below Appendix no. 24. 34 D.C. Douglas, 'Companions of the Conqueror', History, xxvii, 1943, 129-47. 35 M. Bennett, 'Poetry as history? The "Roman de Rou" of Wace as a source for the Norman conquest', AngloNorman Studies, v (1982), 19-39.

< previous page

page_109

next page >


page_110

< previous page

page_110


used the early thirteenth-century manuscript of Battle Abbey, London, BL, MS Royal 4 c xi, if. 249rb-278rb, as his base text and therefore all the spellings of the names are those of the Battle copy.36 All other copies, judging by the critical apparatus of Holden's edition, present many variations, which only in a few cases where the Battle scribe went astray help to restore the correct name. The narrative of the main account of the battle is mostly based on the well-known Latin chroniclers like William of Jumièges, William of Poitiers, Orderic Vitalis, William of Malmesbury and the anonymous author of the Brevis Relatio. While they mostly agree about the main stages of the battle they give very few details on the individual fighters concerned. The few who are common to Wace and these earlier sources have been omitted from my discussion on the grounds that their presence in 1066 is undisputed and has been surveyed satisfactorily elsewhere. Therefore here I will concentrate on the 116 names of the list itself. There are roughly speaking three types of references to people. First, there are participants mentioned by first name and surname with a short or long account of their actions. They form the smallest group of 17 names.37 Secondly, there are the participants mentioned by first name and surname without any information on their deeds; they amount to 22.38 These two categories do not present any serious problems, for most of the persons can be identified and the likelihood of them having taken part in the battle of Hastings is very great indeed. The third category, however, contains the names of participants who are indicated merely as the lord of such and such place. Douglas called them 'territorial designations' which formed 'the most damning argument against [Wace] being regarded as a reliable authority'.39 They amount to 77 names and as such form the largest number. I have arranged Wace's list of names alphabetically in an appendix, which is printed at the end of this article. Each name carries a number which corresponds with one on the map and shows you the locality. A second number following the name means that Wace links the two names in one or two sentences. I also give the relevant quotation from Wace in each case, followed by my notes which help to identify the individual of 1066 or give more information about his family. For the identification I have used charter collections, Domesday Book and the work of the Linacre Unit for Prosopographical Research. Whereas most of the names can be identified there remain a few problem cases. There is only one name, 'Victrie' (Appendix, no. 107), which I cannot identify. Then there are several names which can be identified by more than one place: Ferté, la Mare, Sassy and Tracy (Appendix, nos 36, 56, 92 and 101).40 Also, there are three names which I have 36 For the manuscript, see Wace, iii, 19-21 37 Appendix, nos 1a, 10, 11, 13, 24, 32a, 40, 42, 50, 51, 53a, 54, 65, 89, 95a, 97, 110. 38 Appendix, nos 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 26, 35, 56a, 57, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 82, 98, 108. 39 Douglas, 'Companions of the Conqueror', 131; Appendix, nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 17a, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109. 40 Appendix, no. 62 is Montfort. In theory this could be a reference to the lord of Montfort-l'Amauri in France.

< previous page

page_110

next page >


page_111

< previous page

page_111


identified with place names but for which I cannot find families: Cintheaux, Lithaire and Rubercy (Appendix, nos 25, 53 and 83). The most encouraging result of this exercise is the sheer number of names which can be identified. They belong to men who witnessed charters for the monasteries of Saint-Étienne and Sainte-Trinité at Caen, the cathedral of Bayeux, and other churches in Normandy in the second half of the eleventh century or the first half of the twelfth century. Very often they are the grandfathers or indeed great-grand-fathers of Wace's contemporaries and in that respect Bennett's work has been confirmed; for example, we find: Gilbert of Asnières the Old (no. 2), Robert of Beaufour (no. 12), Robert Bertram (no. 13) the old Humphrey of Bohon (no. 15) Hugh of Bolbec the Old (no.16) or, when we jump to the end of the list, William of Roumare (no. 82) William of Sémilly (no. 93), William of Vieuxpont (no. 108) and William of Warenne (no. 110). Interesting supplementary information about some of the people can be found in the cases of Thurstin, son of Rollo, who carried the Conqueror's banner and whom Wace identifies as originating from Bec near Fécamp (Appendix, no. 11). He might have got Thurstin's name from Orderic's Ecclesiastical History, but if he did, he supplemented it with extra details.41 Another very important story is that of William Patrick of La Lande (Appendix, no. 51). With his wife Gisela he was a benefactor of Saint-Étienne at Caen and also held land of the bishop of Bayeux both in Normandy and Kent. Lucien Musset, the editor of the Caen charters, not having used Wace's information, failed to identify his place of origin. According to Wace, William when he was a small boy saw William the Conqueror and Earl Harold passing through La Lande on their way to Brittany in 1064. On that occasion William Patrick witnessed Duke William give arms to Earl Harold. What is so extraordinary about this story is that it occurs as testimony of William Patrick in the list of companions and not, as one might have expected, in the chronologically more correct place in his brief account of the Breton expedition, which Wace relates in Part Three, lines 5665-72. That story is the standard Norman story as given by William of Poitiers and therefore represents the written tradition, whereas in the list Wace relates the oral tradition handed down, as I will suggest below, by William Patrick's namesake and grandson. Other stories provide snippets of information highlighting aspects of the fighting at Hastings. Wiliam of Vieuxpont, the lord of Montfort (probably Hugh II of Montfort) and William Malet were helping each other against the English (Appendix, nos 108, 62, 53a). Nigel of the Cotentin, undoubtedly a son of Nigel II who himself did not take part in the conquest, is described as having been in the company of Ralph of Gael and Breton soldiers, a combination which, judging by the fact that they were neighbours, is very likely indeed (Appendix, nos 40 and 89). Henry of Ferrières is said to have fought at one stage alongside the castellan of Tillières, presumably Gilbert Crispin (Appendix, nos 35 and 98). The archers of Vaudreuil and Breteuil are singled out for their courage as is a vassal of Grentemesnil who at one point helped the duke (Appendix, nos 19, 105 and 44). Then there are also the sad stories of Engenulf of 41 Even Douglas seems prepared to accept Wace's information here ('Companions of the conqueror', 140).

< previous page

page_111

next page >


page_112

< previous page

page_112


L'Aigle and Robert fitzErneis who both got killed during the battle (Appendix, nos 32a and 50). With regard to the third category of names, Douglas's 'territorial designations', I have been able in most cases to show that persons carrying these names lived in 1066 and that cirumstantial if not more positive evidence shows that that are very likely to have taken part in the events of 1066. Often Wace links two names together, no doubt in order to save space and make the list not unnecessarily long. Douglas's argument that these names do not count because if Wace could not find a person's first name that must mean that he never existed is flawed.42 He is scathing about Wace's alleged ignorance of Hugh Bigot's ancestor.43 However, Wace does not refer to Hugh Bigot's ancestor, but to Hugh Bigot the ancestor in a similar way as he refers to 'so and so the Old (senior)'. Another good example illustrating Douglas's hyper critical attitude can be found by applying his own method of the use of charters. Douglas cites several cases of individuals witnessing 1066 charters and concedes that these people were very likely companions of Duke William's English expedition.44 However, he did not use the charter issued at Bonneville in the summer of 1066 while preparations for the invasion were well under way. It lists as witnesses amongst others, but grouped together, Geoffrey of Sai, Turgis of Tracy and Ralph of Saint-Jean-le-Thomas, three of the people who almost certainly crossed with the Conqueror to England and yet, are listed only by their place of origin in the Roman de Rou.45 The Appendix also shows that many of the names listed by Wace can be found in Domesday Book. In cases where we have the first name and the surname there is usually no doubt that it concerns the same person. A good example is the old William of Moyon mentioned by Wace (Appendix, no. 67) who can be identified with William of Mohun the tenantin-chief in Somerset, whose grandson William of Moyon was a contemporary of Wace in Normandy. More problematic are the names belonging to the third category of 'territorial designations'. The lord of Saint-Clair-sur-Elle is listed by Wace as having taken part in the battle of Hastings. (Appendix, no. 85) Whether he was one of the two Domesday landholders, Haimo and Hubert, we do not know; whether these two men were related to the William of Saint-Clair who was a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux from 1120 onwards is also unclear. Despite these uncertainties the evidence suggests that men from Saint-Clair, including the lord of the manor, took part in the Norman conquest and that Wace knew this. Another objection raised by Douglas in the context of the debate on the Conqueror's companions is the fact that Domesday landholders did not necessarily take part in the conquest and that therefore identifying names from Wace's list with names in Domesday Book distorts our image of the historical reality.46 In the two decades following the conquest of England there are indeed many cases in which land changed hands once, or twice, from English owners to 42 Douglas, 'Companions of the Conqueror', 131-2. 43 Douglas, 'companions of the Conqueror', 132. 44 Douglas, 'companions of the Conqueror', 141-2. 45 Fauroux, no. 232 dated to the period between 27 May and 16 July 1066. Appendix, nos 84, 86 and 101. 46 Douglas, 'Companions of the Conqueror', 132-3

< previous page

page_112

next page >


page_113

< previous page

page_113


newcomers, but also between new settlers.47 While I accept these facts I am inclined to follow my common sense which suggests that William the Conqueror handed out land to those who had supported him in 1066. This does not exclude the possibility of the arrival of newcomers in the wake of the conquest. As far as Wace is concerned he probably listed all names of those whom he thought had at the time of the conquest fought for Duke William. A different aspect of Wace's list is the order in which the names are listed and the possibility that the list reflects the organisation of fighting in conrois. Military historians agree, mostly on the basis of chanson de geste material, that fighting in conrois was the norm. A conroi would consist of about 20 men who knew each other well, trusted each other and had had experience of fighting together. Contamine suggests that they were units which were 'usually recruited through a family lineage or feudal relationship and were supposed to stay grouped together around a flag or a leader or were united by a common war cry.'48 Wace does not give any evidence for war cries in his account of the battle of Hastings but in his story on Val-ès-Dunes he gives four examples: the French cried 'Monjoie', Duke William cried 'God help us', Nigel of the Cotentin and Ranulf of Bessin used variations of 'Saint-Sauveur', while Haimo del Denz cried 'Saint-Amant'.49 Presumably similar cries were used at Hastings. There is only one occasion in the list where Wace specifically refers to the fighting in one conroi. In lines 8471-2, he says that the lords of 'Victrié', Lassy, Vaudry and Tracy fought in one conroi.50 Apart from the first name we can identify all other places as being in the neighbourhood of Vire. Vaudry lies just to the east, Lassy lies about 10 kilometres to the north-east while Tracy-le-Bocage is another 10 kilometres futher north. Lassy and Tracy-le-Bocage were both fiefs of the bishop, while Alice of Vaudry was a benefactor of Bayeux and contemporary of Wace. As a canon of Bayeux Wace was in an excellent position to know whether and how men were recruited to collaborate in tactical units. Of course one can raise the objection that Wace might have projected knowledge of military logistics in his own time back to a previous century. But even if one could prove that this is the case, there still is a fair chance that the formation of tactical units or conrois in 1066 followed similar patterns in the mid-twelfth-century. Other places in the 1066 list linked by Wace may also reflect groups of soldiers fighting together, for most of them originated from places not too far from each other to make a joint effort impracticable. But how precisely the logistics of recruitment and action in battle worked we do not know. Much more research into patterns of landholding and military service is needed before we can draw any definite conclusions.51 47 R. Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England, Cambridge 1991, chapter 5, 144-82. 48 p. Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, trans. M. Jones, London 1984, 229-30 and references given there. 49 Wace, pt 3, fl. 3935-44 (ii, 33). 50 Appendix, nos 52, 101,106, 107. 51 Michael Jones suggested the possibility that the linking of names in pairs of two by Wace may reflect the formation of brothers-in-arms as we know the system from the late Middle Ages. This is an exciting proposition, which on the basis of today's knowledge unfortunately cannot be assessed.

< previous page

page_113

next page >


page_114

< previous page

page_114


The evidence which I have put before you thus far suggests very strongly that the list is neither arbitrarily put together nor fictitious. If, then, it reflects the historical reality as Wace and his contemporaries, on whose testimonies he based his account, saw it about one hundred years after the events took place, how did Wace collect the stories? One glance at the map makes it plain that the majority of names occur in the modem departments of Manche and Calvados, which cover precisely the area with which Wace was most familiar, as we have already seen from the examples taken from the pre and post-Conquest history of Normandy. Fortunately, we can be much more specific about his sources of information for just under half the names belong to tenants, sub-tenants and benefactors of Bayeux cathedral and the ducal monasteries at Caen, the very places where Wace worked and lived. In other words, the names belong to the members of the churches' familia, the patrons and servants who were daily commemorated by the monks and clercs, including Wace, who prayed for the well being of their souls. Wace's likely informants from Bayeux were his colleagues. Richard of Bohun, grandson of Humphrey of Bohun (Appendix, no. 15), was dean of the cathedral. Philip de Harcourt was its bishop, while his nephew William was the cathedral's treasurer; both were descendants of the lord of Harcourt, who at some stage during the battle gave his horse to Duke William (Appendix, no. 45). Radulf and Robert Gouvix were both canons (Appendix, no. 43), Roger of Le Hommet was archdeacon till 1161 (Appendix, no. 47) and William of Tournebu was dean from 1151 till 1182 (Appendix, no. 100). They would have told Wace about their grandfathers' exploits in William the Conqueror 's army, even though we can only find documentary trace of William de Tournebu's grandfather shortly after 1066. Amongst the Bayeux tenants was William Patrick, grandson of the eyewitness of the 1064 Breton campaign. At least two occasions are known that William Patrick the younger attended Bayeux meetings, where he might have met Wace eager to collect more information about 1066.52 Not only men, but women connected with Bayeux also passed on family traditions relating to the Norman conquest. The information about the participation of the lord of Sémilly probably came through Cecily, sole heiress of Sémilly and benefactor of Bayeux cathedral. She married Enguerrand of Le Hommet, who took her name and passed it on to their son William of Sémilly who became dean of Bayeux in the early thirteenth century (Appendix, no. 93). And there was Alice of Vaudry, who told Wace about her own, or her husband's, ancestors from Vaudry near Vire (Appendix, no. 106). A similar list can be composed for families connected with the Caen monasteries. Whereas the links between Wace and the Norman peninsula are obvious, those between him and the Pays-de-Caux in the north are less self-explanatory. Some stories may have reached him through descendants of the contemporaries of 1066. For others the monks of Fécamp were responsible. In 1162 Wace was present at the translatio ceremony in the monastery of Fécamp, when King Henry II had the 52Antiquus cartularius, i.15 and Recueil des actes de Henri II, ed. L. Delisle, E. Berger, 4 vols, Paris, 190927, i, 480-1, no. 335 dated to 1156 and 1172-3. Regesta, iii, no. 810 shows that he was in Bayeux in 1151.

< previous page

page_114

next page >


page_115

< previous page

page_115


bodies of Dukes Richard I and II reburied behind the main altar.53 The role of this monastery in the logistical organisation of the Norman conquest is well known. The Ship list, which I discussed several years ago, was compiled by its monks.54 It would be very surprising to think that Wace did not take advantage of his visit by collecting details for his Roman de Rou. I have already referred to Thurstan of Bec's origins from Fécamp's neighbourhood (Appendix, no. 11). Other interesting evidence concerns Wace's identification of Duke William's messenger to Earl Harold on the eve of the battle with Hugh Margot, a monk of Fécamp. Hugh's name was obviously preserved at that monastery.55 Having stressed the importance of oral witnesses in the transmission of information bridging two or three generations after the events of 1066 one should not forget the importance of the written sources. We have already seen that Wace delved into monastic archives and looked through charters for additional information to supplement the narrative sources he used. In this process he may have used charter material for the names of those he listed. That he did not chose arbitrarily from the documents is clear, for they contain many more names he could have cited than he actually did. For the main narrative of the Conquest he used the Latin sources I have listed before. Many must have been available at Bayeux as part of the cathedral library or as part of individual bishop's collections, the most important of which was that of Bishop Philip of Harcourt which after his death went to Le Bec.56 Wace probably read Orderic's work at Saint-Étienne at Caen, whose mid-twelfth-century copy has survived as Rome, Vatican, MS Reg. Lat. 703b.57 The Brevis Relatio, also in a mid-twelfth-century copy (London, BL MS Sloane 3103), was available at Saint-Sauveurle-Vicomte.58 By way of conclusion I should like to argue that Wace interviewed his contemporaries in western Normandy, and in particular at Bayeux and Caen, about their knowledge of their ancestors 's past. This information concerned not only the pre and post-Conquest history of the duchy, but also the Norman conquest period itself. The testimonies about the involvement of his contemporaries's grandfathers and great-grand fathers in 1066 formed an important addition to the Latin chronicles, which barely relate the names of individual soldiers of the Conqueror's army. In order to preserve their memory Wace included them in the Roman de Rou. His information is not infallible. It should be used in conjunction with other material. But where charter material clearly supports the list of Wace we cannot ignore this 53 Wace, pt 3,11. 2241-46 (i, 244). 54 Van Houts, 'The Ship list', 167-8. 55 Wace, pt 3, 11. 6757-8 (ii, 135). 56 For the cathedral library of Bayeux, see E. Coyecque, in: Catalogue général des manuscrits, x, 1889, 205-6; Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, vii, ed. M. C. Garand, G. Grand, D. Muzerelle, Paris 1984, ix. An inventory of Bishop Philip of Harcourt's library is printed in Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, ed. G. Becker, Bonn 1885, no. 86, 199-202. 57Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, ed. Chibnall, i, 121. It is one of the very few manuscripts from this monastery which survived the plundering of 1562 (Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine, vii, p. ix, n. 10; Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, 104, n. 1.) 58 Van Houts, 'Ship list', 180 n. 4.

< previous page

page_115

next page >


page_116

< previous page

page_116


evidence. Surely the third and fourth generation living in Normandy in the mid-twelfth century knew more of the history of the Norman conquest of England than we do. The stories of the descendants of the Conqueror's companions might be piecemeal, slightly distorted or incomplete, but Wace nevertheless recognized their importance and included them in his history. Where he could he put them alongside written traditions as found in the Latin narratives or charters. This combination, then, of oral and written family history is perhaps Wace's most important contribution to the historiography of the Norman conquest of England. Appendix of names mentioned by Wace in his Roman de Rou Part 3, lines 8329 to 8705 Abbreviations used Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne

Antiquus cartularius ecclesiae Baiocensis (Livre noir), ed. V. Bourrienne, 2 vols, RouenParis 1902-3

Barlow, Rufus

F. Barlow, William Rufus, London 1983

Battle

Anglo-Norman Studies. Proceedings of the Battle Conference

Cartulaire des îles normandes

Cartulaire des îles normandes. Recueil de documents normandes concernant l'histoire de ces îles, Jersey 1924

Crouch, The Beaumont Twins

D. Crouch, The Beaumont Twins. The Roots and Branches of Power in the Twelfth Century, Cambridge 1986

DB

Domesday Book

Delisle, Saint-Sauveur-le- Vicomte L. Delisle, Histoire du château et des sires de Saint Sauveur-le-vicomte, Valognes 1867 Douglas, 'Companions'

D.C. Douglas, 'Companions of the Conqueror', History xxvii, 1943, 129-47

Douglas, DM

D.C. Douglas, Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury, London 1944

EYC

Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. C. T. Clay, 10 vols, 1935-65

Green, Government

Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, Cambridge 1986

Green,' Lords of the Vexin'

J. Green,' Lords of the Norman Vexin', War and Government in the Middle Ages. Essays in Honour of J. O. Prestwich, ed. J. Gillingham, J. C. Holt, Woodbridge 1984, 47-65

Farrer

W. Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees..., 3 vols, Manchester 1923-5

Fauroux

Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie de 911 à 1066, ed. M. Fauroux, Caen 1961

< previous page

page_116


next page >

page_117

< previous page

page_117


Haskins

C. H. Haskins, Norman Institutions, New York 1918

IEAL

Inquisitio Eliensis, In: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, London 1876

Keats-Rohan, 'Aspects of Robert of Torigny

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'Aspects of Robert of Torigny's genealogies revisited', Nottingham Medieval Studies xxxvii, 1993, 21-7

Keats-Rohan, 'Le problème

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'Le problème de la suzeraineté et la lutte pour le pouvoir: la rivalité bretonne et l'état anglo-normand 1066-1154', Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire et d'Archéologie de Bretagne lxviii, 1991, 45-69

Keats-Rohan, 'The prosopography

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'The prosopography of postconquest England: four case studies', Medieval Prosopography xiv, 1993, 1-52

Loyd, Origins

L.C. Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, ed. C. T. Clay, D.C. Douglas, Leeds 1951

Musset, AC

Les actes de Guillaume le Conquérant et la reine Mathilde pour les abbayes caennaises, ed. L. Musset, Caen 1967

Navel

H. Navel, 'L'enquête de 1133 sur les fiefs de I'évêché de Bayeux', Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie, xlii, 1934, 5-80

OV

Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, ed. M. Chibnall, 6 vols, Oxford 1969-80

Porée

A.A. Porée, Histoire de l'abbaye du Bec, 2 vols, Évreux 1901

Recueil des actes de Henri II

Recueil des actes de Henri II, ed. L. Delisle, E. Berger, 4 vols, Paris 1909-27

Reg.

Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 3 vols, Oxford 1913-68

Rotuli, ed. Round

Rotuli de dominabus etpueri . . ., ed. J. H. Round, London 1913

Sanders, English Baronies

I. J. Sanders, English Baronies; a Study of their Origin and Descent: 1086-1327, Oxford 1960

Sauvage

R. N. Sauvage, L'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn au diocèse de Bayeux des origines au seizième siècle, Caen 1911

Van Houts, 'Robert of Torigni as genealogist' E. M. C. van Houts, 'Robert of Torigni as genealogist' Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, ed. C. Harper-Bill, C. Holdsworth, J. L. Nelson, Woodbridge 1989, 215-34 Van Houts, 'Ship list'

< previous page

E. M. C. van Houts, 'The Ship list of William the Conqueror', Anglo-Norman Studies X, Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1987, Woodbridge 1988, 159-83

page_117


next page >

page_118

< previous page

page_118


Walmsley Charters and Custumals of the Abbey of Holy Trinity, Caen. Part2 The French Estates, ed. J. Walmsley, Oxford 1994

1. Abbeviile (Somme) Wiestace d'Abevile pt 3, line 8429 (ii. 199) Eustace, count of Boulogne; an important Domeday Book landholder. 1a. Alan Fergant, error for Alan Rufus Alains Fergant, quens de Bretaigne pt 3, lines 8689-98 (ii. 209); also lines 6367-8 Alan Fergant, duke of Brittany, did not take part in the conquest. Wace confuses him with Alan Rufus, son of Eudo count in Brittany and brother of Count Brian, a tenant-in-chief in England (Keats-Rohan, Battle, xiii (1990), 160-1, n. 15). 2. Asnières (Calvados, c. Isigny) Gilebert li viel d'Asnières pt 3, line 8533 (ii. 203) Musset, AC, nos 8, 22 Radulphus de Asnières occurs in connection with William of Colombières [q.v.] and William of Sémilly [q.v.] Walmsley, pp. 56 and 127: Ste Trinité had 30 acres at A. The bishop of Bayeux held land there as well (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 22, 49; Navel, p. 18). 3. Aubigni (Manche, a. Coutances) e li boteilliers d'Aubinié pt 3, line 8470 (ii. 200) No contemporary evidence that Roger d'Aubigni, father of William I d'Aubigni, was apincerna (Loyd, Origins, p. 7). Before 1047 a William d'Aubigni (Roger's brother?) had married a sister of Grimoult of Plessis. Bougy and Danvou (Calvados) held by this couple of Grimoult passed to the bishop of Bayeux (Navel, pp. 16, 27 n. 20-22, Green, Government, pp. 229-30); in the 12th c. these lands were held of Bayeux by William II d'Aubigni (d. 1176) who married Queen Adela of Louvain, widow of King Henry I (Navel, p. 36, n. 144). 4. Aulnay-sur-Odon (Calvados) + 27 cil de Combrai e cil d'Alnei pt 3, line 8645 (ii. 207) cf. Gohier de l'Alnei lines 10935, 10939, 11065-8); Ingelran, son of Ilbert, gives church to Saint-Etienne at Caen (Musset, AC nos 7, 18-19). For Gunther of Aulnay as castellan of Bayeux, see OV, vi. 60, 78. 5. Aumâle (Seine Mar., a. Neufchatel) sire d'Aubemare pt 3, line 8419 (ii. 198) Adelaide, half-sister of William the Conqueror, married (1) Enguerrand of Ponthieu, lord of Aumale, (2) Lambert of Lens, (3) Odo of Champagne. Odo's son Stephen succeeded to Aumâle. Loyd, Origins, p. 9. It is possible that this Aumale represents an unidentified place in the Cotentin, from which Robert 'de Albemarle', tenant-in-chief in Devon originated (DB 113a). 6. Aunou-le-Faucon (Orne, a. Argentan) e cil qui ert sire d'Alnou pt 3, line 8426 (ii. 199)

< previous page

page_118


next page >

page_119

< previous page

page_119


Fulk I d'Aunou, benefactor of Saint-Etienne and Sainte Trinité at Caen (Musset, AC, nos 2, 8, 10, 22; Van Houts, 'Shiplist', p. 169). 7. Auvilliers (Seine Mar., c. Neufchâtel) od lui li sire d'Auviler pt 3, line 8618 (ii. 206) Hugh of Auvilliers, tenant of Robert Malet (Loyd, Origins, p. 9) Avenel see Biards les 8. Avranches (Manche) D'Avrancein i fu Richarz pt 3, line 8467 (ii. 200) Richard Goz, vicomte of Avranches, still alive in 1068 (Van Houts, 'Shiplist', p. 169); also Loyd, Origins, p. 9. 9. Baqueville-en-Caux (Seine Mar., a. Dieppe) de Basquervile i fu Martels, pt 3, line 8521 Geoffrey Martel, father of William Martel steward of King Henry I (Van Houts, 'Robert of Torigni as genealogist', p. 228). 10. Beaumont-le-Roger (Eure, a. Bernay) Roger [vat. Robert] le viel, cil de Belmont pt 3, lines 8329-38 Robert, not his father Roger, took part in the conquest of England. He was a large tenant-in-chief in England. Loyd, Origins, p. 13. 11. Bec-aux-Cauchois (Seine Mar., c. Valmont) E cil qui tient son gonfanon/ Tostein, filz Rou le blanc ou non,/del Bec, joste Fescamp, fu nez pt 3, lines 8673-6 (ii. 2089) also lines 7633-46 Thurstin, son of Rollo, benfactor of abbey of Boscherville (Reg. ii. no. 1012 Tenant-in-chief and tenant of Walter Giffard (DB 147r, 15lb); OV, ii. 172; Douglas, 'Companions', pp. 140-1). 12. Beaufour (Calvados, c. Cambremer) Robert, li sire de Belfou pt 3, line 8425 (ii. 199) Robert of Beaufour with brother William witnesses charter of Humphrey of Bohun (Fauroux, no. 185 (c.1042-66)); Robert is probably the father of Richard de Beaufour (Fauroux, nos 141,183), who with his brother Humphrey witnesses gifts of Hugh of Montfort for Saint-Etienne (Musset, AC, nos 2, 56). Richard's daughter married Hugh II of Montfort. 13. Bertram, Robert [Bricquebec (Manche, a. Valognes)] Robert Bertram, qui esteit torz,/ mais a cheval esteit mult forz,/ cil aveit od lui grant efforz,/ mult i out homes par lui morz. / pt 3, lines 8501-85-4 (ii. 202)


page_119

Robert Bertram, son of William Bertram, who was a son of Thurstan of Bastembourg, was vicomte of the Cotentin. On his deathbed (?) Robert donated land to Sainte-Trinité and Saint-Etienne at Caen (Musset, AC, nos 2, 7, 8, 14; also Fauroux, nos 147, 148, 151, 156, 205, 224; Reg. i. 168); for his son William, see Walmsley, pp. 126-7. 14. Biards, les (Manches, c. Isigny-le-Buat) ensenble od lui cil de Biarz/ . . . Des Biarz i fu Avenals pt 3, lines 8468, 849 (ii. 200, 202) Rannulf Avenel, tenant of Robert, count of Mortain, c.1082 (Reg., i. 146; Keats-Rohan 'The prosopography', p. 32).

< previous page

page_119

next page >


page_120

< previous page

page_120


Bigot see Maltôt. 15. Saint-André-de-Bohon (Manche, a. Saint-Lô, c. Carantan) e de Bohon li veil Onfrei pt 3, line 8450 (ii. 200) Humphrey de Bohun (Fauroux, nos 151, 185; Reg. i. 121, 125, 133, 165). Landholder in England (DB 262b) Father of Humphrey II (d. 1129). Humphrey III d. 1166; Geoffrey of Bohun, witness for Bishop Odo in 1093 [Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 32]; Richard I of Bohun, dean of Bayeux (? -1151) and bishop of Coutances. Loyd, Origins, p. 16; Green, Government, p. 236. 16. Bolbec (Seine Mar., a. Le Havre) li vielz Hue de Bolbec pt 3, line 8535 (ii. 203) Hugh of Bolbec, tenant of Walter Giffard; Rotuli de dominabus et pueris . . ., ed. J. H. Round (London, 1913), pp. xxxixxli; Loyd, Origins, p. 17; Porée, i. 329-30. Landholder in England (DB 150d). 17. Bonnebosq (Calvados, a. Pont-l'évêque) e li sires de Bonesboz pt 3, line 8537 (ii. 203) Earliest attested member is Robert of Bonnebosq, despoiler of lands of Sainte-Trinité at Caen (Walmsley, p. 126) and King Henry I's only (?) casualty at Tinchebray (letter of the priest of Fécamp, EHR, xxv (1910), p. 296); Robert of Bonnebosc left a widow, Avicia of Crèvequeur in 1185 (Rotuli, ed. Round, p. 16). 17a. Botevilain toponym or patronym? Holden, iii. index suggests first name + 103 Botevilain e Trosebot,/ cist ne dotent ne colp ne bot,/mult s'i firent le jot hair/ as cols receivre e al ferir. pt 3, lines 85814 (ii. 205) Robert, son of William, Botevilain held honour of Wahull according to the Northamptonshire Survey (Farrer, i. 80-1). 18. Bréhal (Manche, a. Coutances) + 86 de Saint-Johan e de Bréhal pt 3, line 8512 (ii. 202) Ilger 'de Brehelo' attested a charter for Mont-Saint-Michel 1066 × 86 by John of Dol (Avranches BM, MS 210 f. 66v). 19. Breteuil (Eure, a. Evreux) ensenble od els cil de Bretoil,/ a maint Engleis creverent l'oil/ od les saetes acerees/ qu'il aveient od els portees. pt 3, lines 8507-10 (ii. 202) honour of Breteuil, belonged to William fitz Osbern, a large landholder in England. 20. Brucourt (Calvados, c. Dives-sur-Mer) + 30, 31 de Crievecoer e de Drincort/e li sire de Briencort/ sivent le duc quel part qu'il tort. pt 3, lines 8642-4 (ii. 207)


page_120

Robert, son of Ralph 'de Brucourt' and his brother Gilbert occur in the time of William I (Cartulary of Saint-Pierre at Práux, nos 454-6; Arch Eure H 711, f. 141v-143r); in no. 458 William 'de Brucourt' makes a grant before the count of Evreux and Hugh of Montfort; at the foundation of Saint-Evroult of Mortain in 1082, Gilbert 'de Brucourt' gave a moiety of the church of Roncey (Manche, c. Cerisy-la-Salle). Geoffrey and Gilbert 'de Brucourt' occur in 1154 × 64 (Haskins, p. 325). Robert 'de Brucourt' was a witness for bishop

< previous page

page_120

next page >


page_121

< previous page

page_121


of Bayeux in 1179 × 89 (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 18); he was lord of Maizy, wich Walter Giffard held of Bayeux (idem, index s. Maizy). 21. Brix (Manche, a. Valognes) + 47 cil de Brius e cels de Homez pt 3, line 8513 (ii. 202) Robert de Brus was tenant-in-chief in Yorkshire (DB, 332c-333a). 22. Cahagnes (Calvados, a. Vire) + 28 de Chaaignes e de Coisnieres pt 3, line 8534 (ii. 203) William of Cahagnes, sheriff of Northampton (Reg. i. 288b, 383, 476); J. Green, in Battle, v (1982), p. 141; Barlow, Rufus, p. 188); major tenant of Robert of Mortain, and perhaps of Odo. In 1133 Cahaignes was fief of bishop of Bayeux (Navel, p. 16; B. Golding, Battle, xiii (1990), 137-8); Loyal, Origins, p. 52; Green, Government, p. 239 William was a tenant-in-chief in England (DB, 225c). 23. Cailly (Seine Mar., c. Clères) + 88 Cil de Saint Segus e de Quaillié pt 3, line 8519 (ii. 202) Osbern of Cailly, brother of Roger of Clare benefactor of St. Ouen at Rouen (Fauroux, no. 191 c.1050 × 66); William of Cailly was a tenant of Warenne in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk (Lloyd, Origins, p. 22; EYC, vii. 109; DB 160a; C. Lewis, The Haskins Society Journal, v (1993), 40). Another William of Cailly was tenant-in-chief in Berkshire (DB 6lb). 24. Carteret (Manchel a. Valognes) de Cartrai Onfrei e Maugier,/ qui esteit novel chevalier pt 3, line 8451 (ii. 200) Humphrey and Malger of Carteret Humphrey, Mauger and Mauger's son Drogo are mentioned as tenants in England (DB 102b, 103a, 105b); Renaldus (d. c.1125) and his wife Lucy are mentioned in charters. One of their sons was called Humphrey. (Cartulaire des îles normandes, pp. 50-62; Loyd, Origins, p. 25). 25. Cintheaux (Calvados, a. Falaise) + 43 Cil de Goinz e de Sainteals pt 3, line 8523 ??? 26. Colombières (Calvados, c. Trévières) e Guillame de Columbieres pt 3, line 8532 William of Colombières had interest in lands at Asnières given by Radulf of Asnières [q.v.] to Sainte-Trinité at Caen (Musset, AC, nos 8, 22); also link with William of Sémilly [q.v.]. Wiliam of C. gave land to abbey of Troarn in 1068 (Sauvage, no. ii, pp. 348-51). In c.1149 × 51 Philip de C. excommunicated by bishop of Bayeux (Ant cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 235-63) and in 1153 × 63 benefactor of Bayeux to attone for his nephew Robert's murder of Beatrice of Harcourt, niece of Bis. Philip of Harcourt (idem, i. 39-40; Recueil des actes de Henri II, i. cxciv (1156 x 61); Loyd, Origins, p. 30). 27. Combray (Calvados, a. Thury-Harcourt) + 4 Cil de Combrai e cil d'Alnei pt 3, line 8645 (ii. 207)


page_121

Earliest attested member is Alfred of Combray, nephew of Ranulf of Presles (Reg. ii. nos 1023 (11137) and 1088a (1115)).

< previous page

page_121

next page >


page_122

< previous page

page_122


28. Cornieres [now Actoville] Calvados, a. Caumont) + 22 de Chaaignes e de Coisnieres pt 3, line 8534 (ii. 203) Church of Cornières granted to Lessay by Turstin Haldup and his son Eudo (Reg. ii, no. 1441). 29. Courcy-sur-Dives (Calvados, a. Falaise, c. Morteaux-Couliboeuf) + 49 Cil de Corcié et cil de Jort/ i ont le jor maint home mort/... e li seneschals de Corcié/pt 3, lines 8481-2, 8526 (ii, 201,203) Richard of Courcy, witness in time of William I and was tenant-in-chief in England (Reg. i, many attestations; DB, 159a; Loyd, Origins, p. 36; Green, Government, pp. 242-43). 30. Crèvecoeur (Calvados, a. Lisieux) + 31, 20 de Crievecoer et de Drincort/e li sire de Briencort/ sivent le duc quel part qu'il tort. pt 3, lines 8642-4 (ii. 207) Earliest attested members: Hugh, juror of Bayeux inquest of 1133, who had a son called William. And Robert, possibly Hugh's brother, who held land of Haimo III in 1130 (Douglas, DM, p. 55, n. 16); Bayeux held mill at C. in 1149 (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 49); For Hugh and William of C. encroaching on Bayeux's right of holding a fair at Crèvecoeur (idem, i. 223). Crispin see Tiilières 31. Drucourt (Eure, c. Thiberville)+ 30, 20 de Crievecoer et de Drincort/e li sire de Briencort/ sivent le duc quel part qu'il tort pt 3, lines 8642-4 (ii. 207) The church of Drucourt was given by Wiliam Crispin II to Le Bec (Porée, i. 331, 656). 32. Epinay-sur-Odon (Calvados, c. Villers-Bocage) + 79 cil d'Espinei e cil de Port Herbert, son of Geoffrey, d'Epinay and his sister Matilda were benefactors of Troarn in 1068 (Sauvage, no. ii, p. 350 and pp. 302-3). 32a. Erneis, ritz de Robert, qui fu filz Herneis . . . [died during battle]./ pt 3, lines 8621-34 (ii. 206-7) Robert, son of Erneis and nephew of Rodulf I of Taisson, died at Hastings (Douglas, 'Companions', pp. 142-3; Douglas, DM, p. 35); grandfather of Robert who in 1151 x 2 encroached on Bayeux land (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 33-4). 33. Etouteville (Seine Mar., a. Yvetot) e li sire de Stotevile pt 3, line 8428 (ii. 199); see also pt 3, line 5033 [siege of Ambrières] soldiers of 'Stutevile' guarded the castle Robert I of Stuteville attested a charter of St. Évroult before 1089; he fought on Robert Curthose's side at Tinchebrai in 1106 (OV, vi. 84; EYC, ix, 1-14). 34. Eu (Seine Mar.) + 90


page_122

Li sire de Saint Galeri/ li quens d'Ou bien i feri/pt 3, lines 8699 - 8700 (ii. 209) Robert, count of Eu (d. c.1090); tenant-in-chief in many counties in England.

< previous page

page_122

next page >


page_123

< previous page

page_123


35. Ferrières -Saint-Hilaire (Eure, a. Bernay, c. Broglie) Henri, li sires de Ferrieres pt 3, line 8365 (ii. 196) Henry of Ferrières (many attestations in Reg. i) and tenant-in-chief in many counties in England. 36. Ferté-Frénel (Orne) or Ferté Macé (Orne) e li sire de la Ferté/ maint Engleis a acraventé;/ grant mal i firent li plusor/ e mult i perdirent des lot. / pt 3, lines 8577-80 (ii. 205) if Ferté-Frénel: see honour of Breteuil and their tenants the Fresnels (OV, ii. 36, iii. 332, vi. 218; Crouch, The Beaumont Twins, p. 106); if Ferté-Macé: William, nephew of Bishop Odo of Bayeux was its lord (Douglas, DM, p. 35; Fauroux, no. 131). 37. Saint-André-de-Fontenay (Calvados, a. Caen) e li sire de Fontenei pt 3, line 8646 (ii. 207) Godfrey or his son Peter, according to charter of Peter's son Roger for Saint-Etienne at Caen (Reg. ii. no. 1352). 38. Fougères (IIle-et-Vilaine) Grant priés en out cil de Felgieres,/ qui de Bretaigne out genz mult fieres,/ pt 3, lines 8363-4 (ii. 196) Maino of Fougères (Fauroux, no. 160 (c.1050 × 64)) died c.1066 when his son Ralph was not of full age. By 1086 Ralph was married to a daughter of Richard of Clare and a tenant in Buckinghamshire (DB, 151c); Keats-Rohan, Battle, xiii (1990), pp. 162, 167; Loyd, Origins, pp. 142-3. 39. Gacé (Orne, a. Argentan) ensenble od els cil de Gacé pt 3, line 8528 (ii. 203) tithe of church at Gacé given by William the Conqueror to Sainte Trinité at Caen (Musset, AC, nos 8, 11, 12; Walmsley, pp. 6, 11). 40. Gael, Ralph de (Ille-et-Vilaine, a. Rennes) Joste la compaigne Neel/ chevalcha Raol de Gael, / Bret esteit e Bretons menout,/ por terre serveit que il out,/ mais il la tint assez petit/ ker il la forfist, ço fu dit. / pt 3, lines 8493-8 (ii. 201-2); also lines 6371-2 Ralph of Gael, son-in-law of William ritz Osbern; exiled after 1075 rebellion (Keats-Rohan, Battle, xiii (1990), p. 167). 41. Glos-la-Ferrières (Orne, a. Argentan, c. Ferté-Frenel) + 91 e cil del Sap e cil de Gloz pt 3, line 8538 (ii. 203) For Glos family, tenants of honour of Breteuil, see Crouch, The Beaumont Twins, 104-6. 42. Gournay-en-Bray (Seine Mar., a. Neufchâtel) eli veil Hue de Gornai,/ ensenble od lui sa gent de Brai;/ od la gent que cist menerent/ mult en ocistrent e tuerent. pt 3, lines 8455-8 (ii. 200); see also pt 3, line 4818 [battle of Mortemer]


page_123

Hugh of Gournay (Fauroux, nos. 190, 219; Reg. i. nos 6a, 69, 105, 125, 170-1). His daughter (?) Matilda was nun of Sainte Trinité at Caen (Musset, AC, no. 25). He held land in Essex (DB, 89b); Loyd, Origins, p. 47.

< previous page

page_123

next page >


page_124

< previous page

page_124


43. Gouvix (Calvados, a. Falaise, c. Bretteville-sur-Laize) + 25 cil de Goinz e de Sainteals pt 3, line 8523 (ii. 203) Roger of Gouvix held Bayeux land in 1144 (Ant. cart, ed. Bourrienne, i. 46, 52-3) and witnessed for Bayeux in 1151 (Recueil des actes de Henri II, i. xx); Radulf and Robert of Gouvix were canons of Bayeux in 1185 and 1165 x 1205 (idem, i. 122-3, 101, 148-9). 44. Grentemesnil (Calvados, c. Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives) un vassal de Grentemaisnil . . . pt 3, lines 8437-48 (ii. 199-200) Hugh of Grentemesnil? (William of Poitiers, p. 197; Douglas, DM, p. 56) Loyd, Origins, p. 47. 45. Harcourt (Eure, c. Brionne) li sire point de Herecort/ sor un cheval qui mult tost cort,/ de quant qu'il poet le duc secort;/ pt 3, lines 8639-41 For Harcourt family, tenants of the Beaumonts, see Crouch, The Beaumont Twins; Loyd, Origins, p. 51. Philip of Harcourt was bishop of Bayeux (1142-63); William of Harcourt was treasurer of Bayeux in 1152 × 3. Albereda of Harcourt was widow of William Trussebut in 1185 (Rotuli, ed. Round, pp. 27-8). 46. Haie-du-Puits, La (Manche, a. Coutances) Donc point li sire de la Haie/ nul n'esparne ne ne manaie/ ne nul n'en fiert qu'a mort ne traie,/ ne poet garir qui il fait plaie./ pt 3, lines 8571-4 (ii. 204-5) Earliest attested members of La Haye family are Robert, grandson of Turstin Haldub, and his wife Muriel (charter for Lessay= 1126 Reg. ii. no. 1576; also Loyd, Origins, p. 51). According to the Spalding Register (f. 413r) Robert's wife Muriel was the daughter of Picot, son of Colswain of Lincoln. Thus she was the granddaughter and not the daughter of Colswain, cf. Green, Government, p. 258. 47. Hommet, Le (Manche, a. Saint-Lô) + 21 cil de Brius e cels de Homez pt 3, line 8513 (ii. 202) belonged to honour of Reviers; Loyd, Origins, p. 52; Keats-Rohan, 'Aspects of Robert of Torigni', pp. 24-7; in 1161 Roger of Le Hommet, archdeacon of Bayeux became archbishop of Dol (Chronique de Robert de Torigni, ed. line Delisle, Rouen-Paris 1872, i, 332-3); Enguerrand of Le Hommet married Cecilia of Sémilly [q.v.] (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 110-12). 48. Ivry-la-Bataille (Eure, a. Evreux) + 109 Cil de Vitrié e d'Urinié pt 3, line 8575 (ii. 205) [var. Ivrié B; Lirié C] Hugh of Ivry was butler of William the Conqueror in 1067 (Reg. i. 55; Loyd, Origins, p. 52). Roger was a benefactor of Saint-Etienne at Caen (Douglas, DM, p. 56) and held land in many counties in England. 49. Jort (Calvados, a. Falaise c. Morteaux-Couliboeuf) + 29 cil de Corcié et cil de Jort/ i ont le jor maint home mort;/ pt 3, lines 8481-2 (ii. 201) Robert, son of Nigel, gave church at Jort to Saint-Désir at Lisieux in 1049 x 58 (Fauroux, no. 140). Is he the same person as the Robert of Jort who held Hoton (Leics) from the king (DB, 236d)?


page_124

< previous page

page_124

next page >


page_125

< previous page

page_125


50. Laigle (Orne, a. Mortagne) E Engerout de Laigle i vint . . . pt 3, lines 8459-64 (ii. 200) Engenulf of Laigle died at Hastings (OV, ii. 176; Lloyd, Origins, p. 52). 51. La Lande-Patry (Orne, c. Fiers) Guillame Patric de la Lande . . . [saw Harold being given arms on way to Brittany] pt 3, lines 8585-8600 (ii. 205-6) William Patrick of La lande and his wife Gisela were benefactors of SaintÉtienne at Caen (Musset, AC, no. 14 cf. nos 8, 11). After Odo of Bayeux lost his lands in Kent William held Patricksbourne (Sanders, English Baronies, pp. 135-6) He was a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux in Normandy (Ant. cart. ed. Bourrienne, i. 15; Loyd, Origins, p. 76). 52. Lassy (Calvados, a. Vire) + 107 cil de Victrié e de Lacié/. .. e uns chevaliers de Lacié pt 3, lines 8471, 8527 (ii. 201,203) Ilbert I of Lassy (d. c.1093), tenant of bishop of Bayeux in Normandy and England (W. E. Wightman, The Lacy Family . . . (Oxford, 1966), pp. 215-26); Loyd, Origins, p. 53. 53. Lithaire (Manche, c. La Haye-du-Puits) e li sire de Lutehare pt 3, line 8421 (ii. 198) ??? 53a. Malet, Guillaume Guillame que l'en dit Malet . . . [receives support from the lord of Montfort and William of Vieuxpont [q.v.]] pt 3, lines 8339-52 (ii. 195-6) William Malet was at Hastings (William of Poitiers, p. 204; Carmen, lines 587-92); Loyd, Origins, p. 56. 54. Maltôt (Calvados, c. Evrecy) l'ancestre Hue le Bigot/qui aveit terre a Maletot/ e as Loges e a Chanon/ pt 3, lines 8547-9 (ii. 204) Hugh Bigot was brother of Roger Bigot (d. 1107), tenants of the bishop of Bayeux. Their tenants were Ansketil of Maltôt and his son Roger (Musset, AC, nos 7, 18); Loyd, Origins, pp. 14-15; for Loges and Savenaye as Bayeux fiefs, see Navel, p. 18. 55. Manneville (Seine Mar., either c. Bacqueville or c. Offranville) e li sire de Magneville pt 3, line 8430 (ii. 199) Geoffrey of Mandeville, tenant-in-chief in many counties in England (Keats-Rohan, 'The prosopography', pp. 8-12). 56. Mare, la, unidentified + 99 e cil de Touke e de la Mare pt 3, line 8422 (ii. 199) ???


page_125

56a. Marinion, Roger de Cinquelis Raol Taisson/e li veil Roger Marmion/ s'i contindrent comme baron,/ pois en orent grant guerredon. / pt 3, lines 8489-92 Roger Marmion, father of Robert Marmion (d. 1106) and brother of William Marmion, who agreed that in 1106 Robert's widow Hadvisa would become

< previous page

page_125

next page >


page_126

< previous page

page_126


nun at Sainte-Trinité (Musset, AC, no. 27; Walmsley, no. 9, pp. 119-20); Loyd, Origins, p. 60. 57. Mayenne (Mayenne) De Meaine li veil Gisfrei pt 3, line 8449 (ii. 200) [Holden identifies him erroneously with Geoffrey de Mortagne, William of Poitiers, p. 196] Geoffrey of Mayenne, although his participation is very unlikely (Keats-Rohan, 'Le problème de suzerainité', pp. 66-7). 58. Molay, le (Calvados, c. Le Molay-Littry) + 58 + 83 del Viez Moeli e de Monceals/ . . . de Rebelchil e del Molei pt 3, lines 8524, 8647 (ii. 203, 207) The forest of Le Molay was granted to Cerisy in 1032 (Fauroux, no. 64); Le Molay was the home of William Bacon, benefactor of Sainte-Trinité where his sister became a nun. The Bacon family were tenants de vetere of William Montfiquet in 1166 (Loyd, Origins, pp. 10-11). 59. Monceaux (Calvados, a. Bayeux) + 58 del Viez Moeli e de Monceals pt 3, line 8524 (ii. 203) William of Monceaux was tenant of the bishop of Coutances (DB, 87d, 88c-d, 89a; Loyd, p. 67). 60. Montbray (Manche, a. Saint-Lo, c. Percy) + 84 cil de Monbrai e de Saié pt 3, line 8576 (ii. 205) Robert of Mowbray, earl of Northumbria, benefactor of Saint-Etienne; Roger of Mowbray gave daughter as nun to Sainte-Trinité (Musset, AC, nos 2, 7, 8, 22); Loyd, Origins, p. 71. 61. Montfiquet (Calvados, c. Balleroy) Eli sire de Montfichet/ qui de bois garder s'entremet,/ pt 3, lines 8545-6 (ii. 204) Loyal, Origins, p. 68: William of Montfiquet held a fief of Robert Gernon in 1087; father of ? William of Montfiquet (Reg. ii. nos 1283, 1400-2, 1518, 1609, 1645, 1719). 62. Montfort, probably the same as 63 quant vint li sire de Montfort pt 3, line 8346 (ii. 196). 63. Montfort-sur-Risle (Eure, a. Pont-Audemer) Hue, li sires de Montfort pt 3, line 8479 (ii. 201) Hugh II of Montfort, see Douglas, DM, pp. 65-70; Van Houts, 'Ship list', p. 169 Loyd, Origins, p. 68. He was a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux (Navel, p. 16). 64. Montgommery (Calvados, c. Livarot) e Roger de Mongomeri pt 3, line 8701 (ii. 209) Roger of Montgommery, large landholder in Normandy and England. file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_126.html (1 of 2)29.06.2009 22:56:32

page_126

K. Thompson, Historical Research, lx (1987), 251-63; Lloyd, Origins, pp. 68-9. 65. Mortain (Manche) Li quens Robert de Moretoig . . . pt 3, lines 8633-8 Robert of Mortain, half-brother of William the Conqueror, d. 1095. Large

< previous page

page_126

next page >


page_127

< previous page

page_127


landholder in Normandy and England (B. Golding, Battle, xiii (1990), pp. 119-44). 66. Mortemer (Seine Mar, c. Neufchatel-en-Bray) Donc poinst Hue de Mortemer pt 3, line 8617 (ii. 206) Hugh of Mortemer (d. 1148/50) in error for his father Ralph, who was a large landholder in England (Loyd, Origins, p. 70; Keats-Rohan, 'Aspects of Robert of Torigny', pp. 23-4). 67. Moyon (Manche, a. Saint-Lo, c. Tessy-sur-Vire) i viel Willame de Moion/ ou ovoc lui maint compaignon; pt 3, lines 8487-8 (ii. 201) William of Mohun, tenant-in-chief in Somerset (DB 95c-96b); is probably related to Alfred of Moyon, whose sister and niece were nuns at Sainte-Trinité (Musset, AC, no. 8) and to William of Moyon, tenant of bishop of Bayeux in 1154 (Ant. cart, ed. Bourrienne, i. 32-33) 68. Moulins-la-Marche (Orne, a. Mortagne) e dam Willame de Molins pt 3, line 8433 (ii. 199) William of Moulins-la-Marche, son of Walter of Falaise, who married Albereda, dau. of Guidmund of M.-1.-M. (Ov, iii. 132; Fauroux, no. 225; Reg. i. 140, 310; Reg. ii. 1594). He died in 1100. 69. Moustiers-Hubert (Calvados, a. Lisieux) des Mostiers Hubert Paienals pt 3, line 8500 (ii. 202) William Paynel, who also held land at Bricqueville and Hambye, died in 1087; he was the father of Ralph Paynel (Ov. iv. 113; Reg. i. nos 228, 269, 299, 319, 412, 446, 477), who was sheriff of Yorkshire, where he held much land. Loyd, Origins, p. 77; EYC, vi. 1-10. 70. Néhou (Manche, a. Valognes) e li sire de Neauhou pt 3, line 8423 (ii. 199) For the Reviers family, see Keats-Rohan, 'Aspects of Robert of Torigny', 26-7. 71. Ouilli (Calvados, c. Bretteville-sur-Laize) + 92 e cil d'Oillié e de Sacié pt 3, line 8529 (ii. 203) Robert I d'Oilli, held land in many counties in England (Reg. i, passim); Sanders, English Baronies, p. 54; Green, Government, pp. 264-5. 72. Orbec (Calvados, a. Lisieux) e dam Richart, qui tint Orbec pt 3, line 8536 (ii. 203) Richard of Clare, see R. Mortimer, Battle, iii (1980), pp. 119-41. 73. Orval (Manche, a. Coutances, c. Montmartin-sur-Mer) + 94 Cels de Sole e cels d'Oireval pt 3, line 8511


page_127

Renaldus of Orval (Musset, A C, no. 19) held one half of the church at Baupte; benefactor of Lessay (Reg. ii. nos 621, 1442); Richard of Orval was chaplain of King Henry I (Reg. ii. 544, 572, 1431).

< previous page

page_127

next page >


page_128

< previous page

page_128


74. Oubeaux, les (Manche, c. Isigny) + 85 cil d'Onebac e de Saint Cler pt 3, line 8619 (ii. 206) the cantor of Bayeux was financed by income from Les Oubeaux in 1271 (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, ii. 163-4). 75. Pacy (Eure, a. Evreux) cil qui ert sire de Pacié pt 3, line 8525 (ii. 203) Fitz Osbern family; Loyd, Origins, pp. 75-6 76. Perrières (Calvados, c. Morteaux) de Torneor e de Praerer pt 3, line 8531 (ii. 203) Robert of Perrières, tenant of bishop of Bayeux (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 97); Radulfus of Perrières. was canon of Bayeux and witnessed charter together with Wace (idem, i. 56, 142-6). 77. Le Pin-au-Haras (Orne, c. Exmes) e cil qui iert sire des Pins/ tuit cils furent en la bataille/ n'i a cil d'els qui mult n'i vaille. pt 3, lines 8434-6 (ii. 199) For Le Pin family, tenants of Beaumont, see Crouch, The Beaumont Twins, pp. 5, 23. 78. Pirou (Manche, c. Lessay) e un chevalier de Pirou (Ms. Peitou) pt 3, line 8424 (ii. 199) The church of Pirou was given to Lessay by Turstin Haldup; (Reg. ii. 1441). William of Pirou was butler in 1115, 1123 (Reg. ii, p. xii) 79. Port-en-Bessin (Calvados, c. Ryes) + 32 cil d'Espinei e cil de Port pt 3, line 8480 (ii. 201) Hugh, son of Hubert of Port, sheriff of Hampsire; retires c.1096 as monk of St Peter at Gloucester (Reg. i). He was tenant of Bishop Odo (Douglas, DM, p. 54, Navel, p. 30, n. 66) and held land in many counties in England. 80. Prêsles (Calvados, a. Vire, c. Vassy) de joste lui cil de Praels pt 3, line 8522 (ii. 203) Roger of Prêsles, tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester. His widow Ada gave tithe of Colomby-sur-Than to Sainte-Trinité at Caen (Musset, AC, no. 27); Ranulf, son of Turstin of Prêsles, had as heir Alfred of Combrai [q.v.] (Reg. ii. p. 329; Keats-Rohan, 'The prosopography', pp. 27-8; Sauvage, p. 155). 81. Reviers (Calvados, c. Creully) cil ki fu sire de Reviers/ out grant plenté de chevaliers,/ cil i ferirent as premiers,/ Engleis folent od les destriers/pt 3, lines 8483-86 (ii. 201) See Néhou


page_128

82. Roumare (Seine Mar., c. Maromme) e dam Guillame de Romare pt 3, line 8420 (ii. 198) William of Roumare, son of Gerold of Neufmarché, see the latter's charter of c.1070, ex inf. D. Bates. 83. Rubercy (Calvados, c. Trévières) + 58 de Rebercil e del Molei pt 3, line 8647 (ii. 207) ???

< previous page

page_128

next page >


page_129

< previous page

page_129


84. Sai (Orne, a. Argentan) + 60 cil de Montbrai e de Saié pt 3, line 8576 (ii. 205) Geoffrey of Sai present at Bonneville in 1066 (Fauroux, no. 232; died after 1084 (Reg. i. 199). Loyd, Origins, p. 96; Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 2nd edn, p. 351). 85. Saint-Clair-sur-Elle (Manche, a. Saint-Lô) + 74 cil d'Ouebac e de Saint Cler pt 3, line 8619 (ii. 206) Haimo of Saint-Clair held land from Eudo 'au Chapel' and Roger Bigot shortly after 1086; much of the land had been taken from Ely (IEAL, 182-3); Hubert of Saint-Clair was a tenant of the count of Mortain in Somerset and Dorset (DB 79c, 92a); William of Saint-Clair, was a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux and the honour of Gloucester, from 1120 onwards (Reg. ii. 1231, 1512-13, 1719, 1821-2, 1824, 1363); Loyd, Origins, p. 88; for suggestions about the family connections, see Green, Government, pp. 272-3. 86. Saint-Jehan le Thomas (Manche, c. Sartilly) + 18 de Saint Jehan e de Brehal pt 3, line 8512 (ii. 202) Ralph of Saint-Jean-le-Thomas was present at Bonneville in 1066 (Fauroux, no. 232); Thomas of Saint-Jean was sheriff of Oxfordshire (Reg. ii. 885, 897, 958 etc.). With his brothers John and Roger witnessed for Mont Saint Michel (Reg. ii. 1422, 1459); Loyd, Origins, pp. 88-89. 87. Saint-Martin-le-Gaillard (Seine Mar.) e li sires de Saint Martin pt 3, line 8432 (ii. 199) Reinald of Saint-Martin (Fauroux, no. 123; Van Houts, 'Robert of Torigni', p. 228); Loyd, Origins, pp. 90-1. 88. Saint-Saens (Seine Mar. a. Neufchatel-en-Bray) + 23 Cil de Saint Segus e de Quaillié pt 3, line 8519 (ii. 202) var. Saint Sen or Seu, D; S. Sere B, Sanc Sen C] Lambert of Saint-Saens (d. c.1089 ü 93), father of Helias J. de Bouvris, in: Autour du pouvoir ducal Xe-XIIe siècles, ed. L. Musset (Caen, 1985), pp. 155-7. 89. Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (Manche, a. Valognes) Bien firent cil de Beeissin/ e li baron de Costentin,/ e Neel de Saint Salveor... / pt 3, lines 8353-62 (ii. 196); 8493 Joste la compaigne Neel If Nigel II of Saint-Sauveur (d. 1092), vicomte of the Cotentin, Delisle, Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, i. 21 doubts whether he took part in conquest of England. Much more likely it was Nigel, son of Nigel II, alive in 1073, 1076 and predeceased his father (idem, pp. 26-7). Liesse, daughter of Nigel Ill, in due course inherited the honour of SaintSauveur. She married c. 1145 Jordan Taisson (d. 1178), son of Radulf Taisson and Adeliza (idem, pp. 31-4), whom she survived 90. Saint-Valéry-en-Caux (Seine Mar., c. Yvetot) + 34 li sire de Saint Galeri/ e li quens d'Ou bien i feri/pt 3, lines 8699-700 (ii. 209)


page_129

Ranulf of Saint-Valéry was tenant-in-chief in Lincs. in 1086 (DB 364d), probably enfeoffed by Bishop Remigius, who had been the aulmoner of Fécamp (Loyd, Origins, p. 92 and Van Houts, 'Ship list', pp. 167-8)

< previous page

page_129

next page >


page_130

< previous page

page_130


91. Le Sap-André (Orne, a. Argentan) + 41 e cil del Sap e cil de Gloz pt 3, line 8538 (ii. 203) Family were tenants of honour of Breteuil. OV mentions Robert, son of Heugon c.1050 (OV, ii. 32, 36); Crouch, The Beaumont Twins, pp. 104-5 92. Sassy? (Calvados, c. Morteaux) + 71 (other possible identifications are Sacey (Manche, c. Pontorson); La Saussaye (Eure, c. Amfreville-la-Campagne); Saussay-la-Campagne (Eure, c. Etrepagny); Le Saussey (Calvados, c. VillersBocage) or Sassey (Eure, c. Evreux) e cil d'Oillié e de Sacié pt 3, line 8529 (ii. 203) Osbern 'de Salceid/t, Saceio' was a tenant-in-chief in Devon (DB, 116d), while Ralph 'de Salceit' was a tenant of the Lacy family in Herefordshaire (DB, 181b) 93. Sémilly (Manche, a. Saint-Lo, c. Saint Clair-sur-Elle) e li sire de Semillié pt 3, line 8520 (ii. 203) William of Sémilly sold land at Asnières to Radulf of Asnières [q.v.] with the consent of William of Colombières [q.v.]. This land was given to Sainte-Trinité (Musset, AC, no. 8; cf. nos 7, 22). He was still alive in 1080 ü 2. His greatgranddaughter Cecily married Enguerrand of Le Hommet (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 110-12). Cecily's son William of S. was a canon of Bayeux 1213-26. (idem, ii. passim). 94. Soules (Manche, c. Canisy) + 73 cels de Sole e cels d'Oireval pt 3, line 8511 (ii. 202) The church and forest of Soules were given to the bishop of Coutances (Fauroux no. 214:1056 ü 66) For family of Soules, tenants of earls of Huntingdon and kings of Scotland (Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, p. 98). 95. Soligni (Manche, a. Avranches, comm. Curey, cant. Pontorson) e li sires de Sollingnié pt 3, line 3469 (ii. 200) Tenants of the earl of Chester (Loyd, Origins, p. 98; Keats-Rohan, 'The prosopography', p. 11) 95a. Taisson, Raoul de Cinquelais Raol Taisson/ e li viel Roger Marmion/ s'i contindrent comme baron/ pois en orent grant guerredon/ pt 3, lines 8489-92 also section on battle of Val-ès-Dunes lines 4830 etc. Rodulf II Taisson was at Caen in June 1066. Benefactor of Sainte-Trinité, where his sister became a nun (Musset, AC, nos 8, 11). See also his cousin Robert fitz Erneis [q.v.]; Jordan Taisson witnesses for bishop of Bayeux in 1169 and frequently occurs with King Henry II. (Ant. Cart., i. 62; Recueildy des acres de Henri II, passim). His wife was Liesse of Saint-Sauveur (q.v.). 96. Tancarville (Seine Mar., c. Saint-Romain) li chanberlenc de Tancharvile pt 3, line 8427 (ii. 199) probably Ralph, father of William of Tancarville chamberlain of king Henry I; Loyd, Origins, p. 101.


page_130

< previous page

page_130

next page >


page_131

< previous page

page_131


97. Thouars (Deux Sèvres, a. Bressuire) e li visquens, cil de Toarz/ n'i fu mie le jor coarz/ ... e de Toarz dan Nameri/ pt 3, lines 8465-6, 8702 (ii. 200, 209); also lines 6364-6 Aimeri, vicomte of Thouars, see J. Martindale, in Battle, vii (1984), pp. 224-45. 98. Tillières (Eure) e cil qui donc gardout Tillières, Guillaume que l'en dit Crespin pt 3, lines 8366, 3431 (ii. 196, 199) Gilbert II Crispin and his brother William of Neaufles or his nephew William II Crispin; Green, 'Lords of the Vexin', 5556; Porée, i. 179 99. Touques (Calvados, a. Pont-l'Évêque, c. Trouville-sur-Mer) + 56 e cil de Touke e de la Mare pt 3, line 8422 (ii. 199) land held by Robert and Croc, sons of Roger given to Saint-Martin du-Bosc, priory of Fécamp (Fauroux, no. 218 (1059 ü 66)). 100. Tournebu (Calvados, c. Thury-Harcourt) + 76 del Torneor e de Praeres pt 3, line 8531 (ii. 203) William of Tournebu witnessed a charter for Sainte-Trinité at Caen in 1080/1-83 (Musset, AC, no. 15); Simon of Tournebu was steward of bishop Philip of Harcourt at Neuilly and William of Tournebu was dean of Bayeux, 1151-82 (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 90); Simon of Tournebu frequently witnesses charters of King Henry II (Recueil des acres de Henri II, passim) 101. Tracy (Calvados, c. Villers-Bocage or Calvados, c. Ryes) + 106 cil de Victrié e de Lacié,/ de Valdairié e de Tracié, icil furent en un conroi ... pt 3, line 8472 (ii. 201) Turgis of Tracy was at Bonneville in 1066, cf. Geoffrey of Sai [q. v.] and Ralph of Saint-Jean-le-Thomas [q.v.]. In 1133 William Picot held land of the bishop of Bayeux at Tracy, identified by Navel, pp. 17, 30, n. 62 as Tracy-sur-Mer. Loyal, Origins, p. 104; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 104. 102. Troisgots (Manche, a. Saint-Lô) e cil qui donc teneit Tresgoz;/ ... pt 3, lines 8539-44 (ii. 203) Humphrey, son of Alberic was a tenant in Norfolk and Essex (DB, 262a-b, 417b), where he also held land in exchange for possessions in Normandy (DB, 436a) (Loyd, Origins, pp. 106-7). Identification ex inf. K. Keats-Rohan. 103. Trossebot unidentified + 17a Botevilain e Trosebot,/ cist ne dotent ne colp ne bot,/ mult s'i firent le jor hair/as cols receivre e al ferir. pt 3, lines 85814 (ii. 205) Earliest attested members: Roger of Trussebut (Reg. ii. 1749) as witness with Ingran of Sai; William of Trussebut, mentioned by Ov as having been raised from low origins (OV, vi. 16-17; EYC, x. 5-22); At an unspecified date Robert Trussebut encroached on land of Bayeux (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 315).


page_131

104. Vassy (Calvados, a. Vire) e li sire de Vaacié pt 3, line 8530 (ii. 203) Enguerrand of Vassy was tenant of bishop of Bayeux in 1133 (Navel, p. 18). Alfred of Vassy witnessed for bishop of Bayeux in undated charter of third

< previous page

page_131

next page >


page_132

< previous page

page_132


quarter of 12th c. (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 287); cf. Robert 'de Veci', who held land in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire (DB, 363b, 225b) 105. Vaudreuil (Eure, c. Pont de l'Arche) li arcbier de Val de Rooil/ qui esteient de grant orgoil pt 3, 1. 8505-6 (ii. 202) belongs to ducal demesne. 106. Vaudry (Calvados, c. Vire) + 101 de Valdairié e de Tracié pt 3, line 8472 (ii. 201) [var. nal daiaire MS, Du Vaudari D, Del Val dairi B] [with Lassy, 'Victrie' and Tracy in one conroi]. During King Henry II's reign Alice of Vaudry ('de Waldari') gave her land at Rucqueville (Calvados, c. Creully) to the bishop of Bayeux (Ant. cart., ed. Bourrienne, i. 37; Recueil des acres de Henri II, i. ccclxvi, p. 503 for correct identification). Sainte-Trinité had been given land there by Adelaide, sister of Eudo 'au Chapel' (Walmsley, pp. 4, 6). 107. 'Victrié' unidentified + 52 cil de Victrié e de Lacié pt 3, line 8471 (ii. 201) [with Lassy, Vaudry and Tracy in one conroi] ??? 108. Vieux Pont (Calvados, 4km n. e. of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives) e dam Guillame de Vez Pont pt 3, line 8347 (ii. 196) [mentioned with William Malet and the lord of Montfort] Robert of Vieuxpont was juror in 1076 (Delisle, Saint-Sauveur pp. 26-7, no. 36) and William of Vieuxpont was listed as one of the despoilers of the lands of Sainte-Trinité (Walmsley, p. 127) in the reign of Robert Curthose. 109. Vitré (Ille-et-Vilaine) + 48 Cil de Vitrié e d'Urinié pt 3, line 8575 (ii. 205) Andrew of Vitré, son-in-law of Count Robert of Mortain, held land in Cornwall (DB, 120a, 125a); Keats-Rohan, Battle, xiii (1990), p. 170 and 'Le problème de suzeraineté', p. 56, n. 24. 110. Warenne (Seine Mar.) e de Garene i vint Willemes/ -mult li sist bien el chief li helmes - / pt 3, lines 8453-4 (ii. 200) William of Warenne, see Van Houts, 'Ship list', p. 169; EYC, vii. 1-9.

< previous page

page_132

next page >


page_133

< previous page

page_133


7 Religious Patronage and Lordship: the Debate on the Nature of the Honor Emma Cownie The motivations behind making a donation to a religious house were complex, as spiritual concerns merged with temporal.1 In looking at patterns of patronage received by regular monastic houses I have established a secular context for the resulting distribution. Patterns of religious patronage reflected the networks of social, political and spiritual bonds that made up Anglo-Norman society. Monastic houses were located in the centre of networks of personal and local relationships. At one level donations were transactions between the donor and the head of the monastic community, the abbot. Yet, at the same time the donor was part of several intermeshed networks which were determined by ties of kinship, lordship, local loyalty and friendship. Likewise the abbot was constrained by both spiritual and worldly ties; to his own community, to the Christian Church and to his own earthly family. In this paper I will attempt to describe these patterns and the explore their implications for understanding the nature of Anglo-Norman society after 1066. The fact that networks of religious affiliation did not coincide exactly with tenurial landholding patterns is significant. I want to ask two principal questions. What can patterns of gift-giving tell us about the structure of lordship and the nature of the honor? And which was the more important consideration when making a donation to a religious house in post-Conquest England, family ties or lordship/feudal ties? I want use the study of patterns of religious patronage to illustrate just how these, sometimes conflicting, forces shaped the actions of postConquest society. I will also argue that Sir Frank Stenton's view of honorial society still has much to recommend it, albeit in a modified form. My study of patterns of patronage has so far been confined to the first seventy years after the Conquest and to honors which have found modem historians, therefore, my conclusions at this stage of my investigations have to remain provisional. When William the Conqueror's forces arrived in England in 1066 they encountered a country served with an already long-established network of religious 1 I would like to thank for their comments and advice at various stages of writing this paper: Professor David Bates, Professor David Crouch and Mr Vince Moss.

< previous page

page_133

next page >


page_134

< previous page

page_134


foundations. This network was uneven in its coverage of the realm and non-existent north of the river Humber. The Anglo-Saxon monasteries and the royal house had been linked together by a double bond: of loyalty and by participation in government.2 Many of the English houses continued to fulfil these roles in post-Conquest society, for example, Bury St. Edmunds, Westminster, Gloucester, St. Albans and later Abingdon, and even attracted donations from the newcomers.3 However, the post-conquest settlement of England also saw the gradual establishment of additional new monasteries on the recently acquired lands of William's followers. This piecemeal permeation of the socio-religious structure by an arrangement which was quintessentially Norman served an important function. John Le Patourel observed 'the combination of the castle, monastery and borough, or of two of these elements, [...] formed one of the chief instruments of Norman colonisation in Britain'.4 New religious houses were commonly founded on the principal residence of the founders' estates, the caput, frequently accompanying castles.5 Before the turn of the century Arundel, Belvoir, Dunster, Eye, Lewes. Montacute, Pontefact, Totnes and Tutbury had both castles and monasteries. Until the turn of the eleventh century seigneurial foundations were comparatively few in number but impressive in their ability to attract grants from their founders' tenants. An examination of the geographical position of these late eleventhcentury foundations reveals that their establishment was an important part of the process of colonisation and consolidation in post-Conquest England. The location of these foundations was far from being random. In southern England these seigneurial-type foundations were situated on the peripheries of the kingdom. There were two main reasons for this. The first was that most other regions of southern England were already covered by English monasteries; these houses were filling gaps. Secondly, by virtue of their location houses such as Bramber and Arundel on the south coast, and Chester and Shrewsbury, founded in the reign of William Rufus near the Welsh border, were performing an important strategic role in the process of colonisation and consolidation. I have already mentioned the fact that tenants patronised their overlords' foundations. It was common for the generosity of the king and his tenant-in-chiefs, to be 'copied' by their tenants.6 This was particularly evident in the case of new foundations where local tenants would 'rally round with grants', as Richard 2 For this point see observations made by J. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain 1000-1300, Cambridge 1994, 12. 3 For Gloucester see my article 'Gloucester Abbey, 1066-1135: An Illustration of Religious Patronage in AngloNorman England', England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, eds D. Bates and A. Curry, London 1994, 143-57. 4 J. Ie Patourel, The Norman Empire, Oxford 1976, 317. See also M. W. Thompson, 'Associated Castles and Monasteries in the Middle Ages: A Tentative List', Archaeological Journal cxliii, 1986, 305-21. 5 For a discussion of the association of lordship with the siting of castles see R. Eales, 'Royal Power and Castles in Norman England', The Ideals and Practices of Medieval Knighthood, eds C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey, iii, Woodbridge 1990, 49-78. 6 D.C. Douglas showed that the Norman barons followed the example of the duke during the monastic revival of the mid-eleventh century: William the Conqueror, London 1964, 105-18.

< previous page

page_134

next page >


page_135

< previous page

page_135


Mortimer has observed in the case of Stoke by Clare, Suffolk.7 This pattern of patronage was not only geographically widespread in its character, but also seemingly unaffected by the order of the new foundation concerned. In England, feudal ties were complex, men were commonly tenants of more than one overlord and could also be tenantsin-chief in their own right. The dispersed nature of many lordships and split allegiances of the honorial baronage therefore made for a labyrinth of local interests and allegiances. This situation meant that in many cases the patronage of a particular foundation could act as a sign of the association of a tenant's interest with the honor as well as a mark of allegiance to the lord himself. The seigniorial foundation could thus act as a cohesive force in local society. The study of these patterns of religious patronage can be used to provide insight into our understanding of the structure and nature of lordships in post-Conquest England. For Sir Frank Stenton post-Conquest society was one in which the honor was all important, functioning as a 'feudal state in miniature'.8 Stenton's depiction of the honor was as an 'enclosed world'. He recognised that there was a distinction to be made between two broad categories of tenants, the first group consisting of men who had interests outside of the honor, the second group of men who held land exclusively of one lord. However, it was this second type of tenant Stenton argued that 'we should bear in mind when we are trying to form an impression of the honorial baronage of the eleventh century'.9 Modem scholarship has challenged and rebuffed Stenton's thesis of the honor as an 'enclosed world'.10 In discussing the role and function of the honor court, Marjorie Chibnall has asserted that 'capable though it was of dealing with much of the every day business of the honor [it] was not an enclosed and self sufficient world'.11 Greater emphasis has been laid on the significance of Stenton's first category of honorial tenant; those men who had interests outside of the honor.12 David Crouch amongst others has chosen to stress the composite nature of the honorial baronage, as a significant number of men held of several lords not one.13 The composite nature of the honorial baronage has also been emphasised by Crouch, as well as noted by David Carpenter, Richard Mortimer, Barbara English, John Hudsons, Jacques Boussard, Paul Dalton and Christopher Lewis.14 7 R. Mortimer, `Land and Service: The Tenants of the Honour of Clare',Anglo-Norman Studies viii, 1986, 195; for the honor of Clare see also R. Mortimer, 'The Beginnings of the Honour of Clare', Anglo-Norman Studies iii, 1981, 119-41; J. C. Ward, 'The Place of the Honour in Twelfth-Century Society: The Honour of Clare, 1066-1217', Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History xxxv, 1983, 191202. 8 F. M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism 1066-1166, Oxford 1939, 50. 9 Stenton, English Feudalism, 99. 10 These include among their ranks Marjorie Chibnall, David Crouch, Richard Mortimer and Paul Dalton. 11 M. Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England 1066-1166, Oxford 1986, 173. 12 Stenton, English Feudalism, 99. 13 D. Crouch, 'Debate: Bastard Feudalism Revised'', Past and Present cxxvii, 1991, 170. 14 D. Carpenter, 'Debate: Bastard Feudalism Revised: Comment 2', Past and Present cxxxi, 1991, 189; Mortimer, 'Land and Service', 145; Mortimer, 'Beginnings of the Honour of Clare', 137; B. English, Lords of Holderness: A Study in Feudal Society, Oxford 1979, 156; J. Hudson, 'Milsom's Legal Structure: Interpreting Twelfth Century Law', Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis: The Legal History (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_135

next page >


page_136

< previous page

page_136


The strength of any 'aristocratic fellowship at the heart of every great honor' was, by and large, determined by the structure of the honor. This in turn was reflected in the scale of donations to honorial foundations. The relatively compact nature of the honors of Pontefract, Richmond, Chester and Shrewsbury explains the impressive extent to which the honorial barons supported their overlords' new foundations.15 Christopher Lewis has drawn attention to the fact that the differing tenurial structures of the two honors of Shrewsbury and Chester explain the different patterns of patronage given by their tenants.16 Shrewsbury, 'less monolithic tenurially' than the exceptionally cohesive Chester, received little or no interest from the tenants of the honor who were not earl Roger's own men. Lewis has also asserted that St Werburgh's, Chester, was 'not just Earl Hugh's personal monastery but a religious house for all his men in Cheshire'.17 Furthermore, the honorial community which Hugh created found in the abbey a 'focal point for its loyalty to him and an expression of its cohesion as a group'.18 Richard Mortimer has suggested that the foundation of Stoke by Clare perhaps deliberately acted as an aid to 'help concentrate [tenants'...] loyalty on their Clare connection'.19 The dispersed nature of many honors and tenants with divided lordship meant that in many cases the patronage of a particular foundation acted as a sign of the association of a tenant's interest with the honor as well as a mark of allegiance to the lord himself. It is evident that the men who made up the bulk of the benefactors of the honorial foundations were of modest means and usually tenants solely of that overlord. For such 'family' barons there were strong forces at work which propelled potential patronage towards the religious foundation associated with the lordship or honor. In Stenton's list of the leading men of the honor of Peak four of his sole tenants of the honor, or their sons, were benefactors of William Peverel's foundation of Lenton.20 The only baron with significant extra-honorial interests to patronise Lenton was Robert de Pavilly.21 The tenants of the honor of Richmond who patronised their overlord's foundation of St Mary, York, held their lands almost exclusively of count Alan.22 Ensiant Musard, Ribald the count's brother, Robert (Footnote continued from previous page) Review lix, 1991, 64; J. Boussard, Le Gouvernement d'Henri II Plantagenêt, Paris, 1956; P. Dalton, Conquest. Anarchy and Lordships 1066-1154, Cambridge 1994, 249-56; C. P. Lewis, 'The Formation of the Honor of Chester, 1066-1100', The Earldom of Chester and its Charters, ed. A. T. Thacker, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society lxxi, 1991, 59-61. 15 For Chester see G. Barraclough, 'The Earldom and County Palatine of Chester', Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire Transactions ciii, 1951-52, 23-57. For St Werburgh's and the earldom and honor of Chester see also R. V. H. Burne, The Monks of Chester: A History of St. Werburgh's Abbey, London 1962; B. M. C. Husain, Cheshire under the Norman Earls 1066-1237, Chester 1973. 16 I would like to thank Christopher Lewis for allowing me to see his chapter on the churches in advance of the publication of The Welsh Borders, 1042-1087. 17 Lewis, 'The Formation of the honor of Chester', 55. 18 Lewis, 'The Formation of the honor of Chester', 55. 19 Mortimer, 'Land and Service', 195. 20 Stenton, 98. These tenants were Robert de Heriz, Warner, Sasfrid and Payn. Benefactors of Lenton included Robert de Heriz, Geoffrey de Heriz, Robert fitz Warner, Sasfrid, Robert fitz Payne: W. Farrer, Honours and Knights' Fees, Manchester 1923, i, 148, 168, 171,181. 21 Farrer, Honours and Knights' Fees, i, 192. 22Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. W. Fatter, i-iii, Edinburgh 1914-16; eds C. T. Clay and E. M. Clay index (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_136

next page >


page_137

< previous page

page_137


de Mosters, Hervey, Ansketel, Odo the chamberlain and Wihomarc held lands of Alan both within and outside Yorkshire exclusively from Alan.23 In the honor of Chester, where the leading barons' interests were divided between Cheshire and the rest of the honor, St Werburgh's was patronised by 'not only almost all the main honorial barons but also [by] one or two of the barons' own men'.24 This was largely because of all the major barons of the honor, only Walter de Vernon held lands from another lord.25 Honorial integrity was, therefore, instrumental in securing the scale of donations received by houses such as Lewes, Stoke by Clare and Chester. The scale and scope of such tenant donations has important implications for evaluating the existence and strength of any particular honorial community. Lordship was manipulated to procure 'donations' from tenants for chosen foundations. Robert Malet's foundation charter to Eye priory leaves little doubt as to the force of the lord's persuasion, addressing 'the other men, knights and sokemen of his jurisdiction he grants and commands that they shall make gifts to his monastery of Eye according to their resources.26 This was not an isolated instance of tenants having little 'choice' in the location or timing of their so-called generosity. Bartholomew de Glanvill gave to his father's foundation of Bromholm, Norfolk, two parts of five of his men's tithes and the whole tithe of two others.27 The Yorkshire tenants of the Lacy family conveniently switched their attention successively from St Clement's, Pontefract, to St John's, Pontefract, and then to Nostell, as and when the Lacys established each foundation. This would seem to suggest that either they were very supportive of their lord's new projects and followed this change in fashion and/or they did not have much actual choice in the matter. Wealthy undertenants also used this device to augment their gifts. Herbert fitz Helgot granted to Shrewsbury abbey the vill of Norton and the church of Stanton 'with all his tithes. and [those] of all his knights (militum) and every thing that pertains to that church'.28 There are several examples of blocks of tenants entered in charters who gave similar quantities of tithes or other gifts to their lord's foundation. It is difficult to ascertain how much co-operation there was on the part of the tenants in these transactions. There are two considerable blocks of such grants given by Roger Bigod's tenants to Thetford.29 A copy of William Peverel's charter confirms to his foundation, Lenton priory, 'all [that] my men contributed for the health of their (Footnote continued from previous page) to vols i-iii; ed. C. T. Clay, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, Extra Ser., iv-xii, 1935-65, v, 38, 124, 177, 181, 284-5, 285, 306. 23VCH York, ii, 157-60. 24 Lewis, 'The Formation of the Honor of Chester', 55, 59. 25 Lewis 'The Formation of the Honor of Chester', 60. Walter de Vernon was also a benefactor of St Werburgh's: Cartulary or Register of the Abbey of St Werburgh Chester, ed. J. Tait, 2 vols, Chetham Society, ns, lxxix, lxxxii, 1920-3, i, 21. 26Eye Priory cartulary and Charters, ed. V. Brown, 2 vols, Suffolk Records Society, xii, xiii, 1992-4, i, 16. 27Monasticon, v, 63. 28The Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, ed. U. Rees, 2 vols, Aberystwyth, 1975, i, 33. 29Monasticon, v, 149.

< previous page

page_137

next page >


page_138

< previous page

page_138


souls, namely two parts of the whole of their demesne and of all the tithes they possess'. This grant was made by no less than twenty of William's men.30 Likewise at Castle Acre William II de Warenne's confirmation charter lists the names of nine men who are described as the earl's 'men [who] gave their tithes'.31 At the laying of the foundation stone of Norwich cathedral priory Hubert de Ria gave two thirds of the tithes from his demesne in Norfolk and 'many other folk gave two thirds of their demesne and a few gave a third to the aforesaid monastery'.32 Ralph de Limesy's grant of Hertford as a cell to St Albans was apparently made 'with the praise of his men' (laudantibus hominibus suis).33 Later in the same document Ralph made the grant of the tithes of his men' suggesting that the impetus actually came from Ralph. Rights associated with burial could also be granted by overlords in this way. Tenants received genuine spiritual and social benefits in return for their tithes, even if the initiative was not all their own. It seems likely that burial or some form of fraternity with the monks or canons of a house was granted in exchange for grants of tithes far more frequently than the records would otherwise suggest. The Textus Roffensis lists countless instances of 'society' granted in return for the gift of tithes to Rochester cathedral priory.34 At Peterborough the abbey knights negotiated with the monastery for burial rights in return for which 'each and every knight shall give two portions of his tithes to the sacrist of Peterborough. Moreover at the end of his life, a third part of his whole property, with his knightly accoutrements both in horses and arrnour, shall be carried with him to the burial of the dead man and offered to God and St Peter'.35 In a dispute with Thetford over the location of Roger Bigod's burial the bishop of Norwich produced witnesses to testify that Roger had given his body 'with those of his barons' to Norwich cathedral.36 In 1107 Peter de Valognes granted to his foundation of Binham two thirds of the tithes of his knights who held from him in Norfolk, 'with their consent'.37 Peter also promised that if these said knights died in England they were to be buried at Rinham and that house would receive the manors of which it already received the tithes. Regardless of where these men were buried they were to pay one mark each year to St Albans, the mother house of Binham. When tenants supposedly asked the overlord to grant their lands. or asked for a confirmation charter, at times the driving force probably belonged to the lord and the tenants were unwilling. Varying degrees of acquiescence appear to be at play in particular series of grants. When William de Briouze made a grant to Battle abbey 'on behalf of a 30Monasticon, v, 111. 31Monasticon, v, 50. 32The First Register of Norwich Cathedral Priory, ed. H. W. Saunders, Norfolk Records Society, xi, 1939, 50-1. 33Monasticon, iii, 299. 34Textus Roffensis, ed. P. H. Sawyer, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile, 2 vols, vii, xi, Copenhagen 195762, fos 183v-191r. 35The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, ed. W. T. Mellows, London 1949, 90-1. 36Monasticon, v, 152. For this dispute see B. Golding, 'Anglo-Norman Knightly Burials', The Ideals and Practice of Medieval Knighthood, eds C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey, Woodbridge 1986, 35-6. 37Monasticon, iii, 346.

< previous page

page_138

next page >


page_139

< previous page

page_139


knight of his named Hanselin' he also made a grant of his own and assented to the two grants from Ralph fitz Theodore, another knight of his, and 'his man', Tetbert, who entered that house as a monk.38 The motivation and degree of compulsion behind donations to honorial-type foundations can, therefore, only be speculated upon. Blocks of grants of tithes may have been actually systematically granted by overlords. The occurrence of such blocks of grants should not be over emphasised; they were not uncommon but they were not the norm either. On closer examination of the evidence, however, it becomes evident that there are a number of departures from this apparently neat model of tenants patronising the overlord's foundation. Firstly, it is important to remember that we are not always comparing like with like. The honorial communities were established at different times, they developed at different rates and varied greatly in size and composition. In the case of smaller lordships the number of potential tenants-benefactors for the lord's foundation was going to be fewer and the forces at work motivating donations weaker. Consequently, the numbers of tenant-benefactors of houses such as Belvoir, Wymondham and Binham were much smaller than those for Lewes, Chester and Stoke by Clare. Furthermore, not all lordships had any such obvious 'honorialtype' foundation to act as a focus for the community during this periods for example, the honor of Holderness before the foundation of Meaux in 1151.39 Secondly, not all tenants patronised their lords' foundations and men who held of more than one honor did not patronise all the religious foundations associated with those honors. The dispersed nature of many honors and the abundance of tenants with divided lordship meant that the threat of tenants patronising 'rival' religious houses was all too real. Richard Mortimer has shown how some Clare tenants in Suffolk also patronised Bury St Edmunds, in Essex gave to Dunmow priory and in Surrey gave to Merton and Waverley priories.40 Paul Dalton has shown how a number of Percy tenants passed by the Percy foundations of Whitby and Sallay to patronise the rival houses of Nostell, Bridlington and Selby. Clearly tenants' religious patronage was 'by no means always confined within the honor'.41 There were different levels and different degrees of loyalty, affiliation and tenurial cohesion within the honorial baronage. Stenton's view of honorial society, therefore, has to be broadened to take greater account of these tenants with split allegiances, instead of concentrating on what Crouch terms the 'family' barons of the honor. As Dalton puts it: 'the strength and autonomy of seigniorial lordship in this period has been overestimated'.42 This modified view of the nature of feudal society also has important repercussions for understanding the political behaviour of a notable section of aristocratic society. 38The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. E. Searle, Oxford 1980, 88-90. 39 English, The Lords of Holderness 1066-1260, 25-6. 40 Mortimer, 'Land and Service', 195-6. 41 Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, 253. 42 Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, 256.

< previous page

page_139

next page >


page_140

< previous page

page_140


The actions of the man who held of several honors was clearly going to be 'radically different' from his peers who were 'family' barons.43 I would like to illustrate how status of tenure could determine and shape generosity by examining the actions of three men of modest wealth and standing in post-Conquest England. The first of these was Hubert de Montchesney, who held lands worth only £7 in Domesday. Hubert patronised his overlords' foundation of Eye and Thetford.44 He, or possibly his son Hubert II, also granted the church of St Mary, Edwardstone, Suffolk to Earls Colne in 1115. which was a cell of Abingdon abbey.45 The second man was Ribald, brother of the counts of Richmond, who held lands worth just over £26 in Norfolk and £5 in Yorkshire.46 Ribald's generosity was confined to two Yorkshire religious foundations closely associated with the honor of Richmond.47 Ribald's earliest donation was to his overlord's foundation of St Mary's, York, in the time of abbot Stephen (c. 1080-1112?). Later, sometime after c.1121, Ribald made a grant to the cell of St Mary's, St Martin's priory, Richmond. Finally, in contrast, Gilbert Blund who in 1086 held land in Suffolk worth at least £9 10 shillings, probably over £15, focused his charitable efforts solely on founding Ixworth priory, Suffolk, around the turn of the eleventh century.48 Clearly wealth by itself is an unreliable guide to forecasting what sort of tenant would give solely to the lord's foundation, to others, or whether he would found his own. The principal explanation for these differing patterns of behaviour lies in the nature and shape of the tenurial holdings of these men. Gilbert Blund was a military tenant of the honor of Eye and also of Bury St. Edmunds.49 Gilbert, however, was a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk and his father Robert had been sheriff of Norfolk before 1086.50 Ribald, on the other hand, held solely from count Alan of Richmond and exclusively patronised houses associated with the honor of Richmond.51 Hubert de Montchesney, however, as well as owing twelve knights' fees as a tenant of the honor of Eye, and was probably the dapifer of the honor, 43 D. Crouch, The Beaumont Twins: The Roots and Branches of Power in the Twelfth Century, Cambridge 1986, 127. 44Domesday Book, ii. fos 319b, 325a, 436a-b; Monasticon, v, 149; iii, 405; Eye Priory Cartulary, i, 15. For the Montchesney family see GEC, ix, 411-14. 45Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. Stevenson, 2 vols, RS ii, 1858, ii, 61-3; Cartularium Prioratus de Colne, ed. J. L. Fisher, Essex Archaeological Occasional Papers, i, 32-4; A. Binns, Dedications of Monastic Houses in England and Wales, 1066-1216, Woodbridge 1989, 70. 46Domesday Book, i, los 311b-d, 312d, 313a; ii, fos 144b, 145b, 146a-b, 148a, 149a-b, 150a. For Ribald see VCH York, ii, 158; Early Yorkshire Charters, v, 1, 154, 248, 297-9, 306-7, 311, 357. Ribald's name was entered in the Durham and Hyde abbey libri vitae: Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. J. Stevenson, Publications of the Surtees Society, xiii, 1841, 58; Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. W. de Gray Birch, Hampshire Records Society, 1892, 65. 47Monasticon, iii, 551, 603; Early Yorkshire Charters, v, 298-9, 306-7. 48Domesday Book, ii, los 312a, 314a, 316a, 395a. A certain 'Gilbert' also held of Robert Malet: ibid., ii, fos 305b, 306a-b, 307a, 309a, 311b, 313a, 326b, 327a; Binns, Dedications, 137. 49The Red Rook of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall, 3 vols, RS lxxxxix, 1896, i, 392, 408, 411. 50 I. J. Sanders, English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent, Oxford 1960, 3; J. A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, London 1990, 60. 51 For the honor of Richmond see J. F. A. Mason, 'The Honour of Richmond in 1086', EHR, lxxviii, 1963, 703-4.

< previous page

page_140

next page >


page_141

< previous page

page_141


was also a tenant-in-chief in his own right at Wyverstone, in Suffolk.52 However, in the light of the knowledge of the fact that Hubert married Muriel de Valognes, whose son Hugh became a monk at Thetford, the pattern of Hubert's patronage becomes more understandable.53 Here, for the first time, I have touched upon the issue of family ties as an influencing force on patterns of patronage. So far this paper has considered the forces of lordship at work behind tenant donations to honorial monasteries. I want now to consider other powerful forces at work behind determining the patterns of religious patronage; family ties, friendship, locality, and the dictates of fashion.54 The shape of the branches of aristocratic family trees often coincided with patterns of patronage. What can be observed from an examination of family ties is that parents' foundations were almost always faithfully looked after by their heirs. This point has been illustrated by Jennifer Ward's work on the Clare family.55 She has described how St Neot's, in Huntingdonshire, which was refounded by Richard of Clare in the late eleventh century, was endowed by the descendants of Richard and his wife, Rohaise. Yet it should also be pointed out that successive generations were rarely as generous as the original founders. In post-Conquest England this was largely due to the fact that newer family foundations usually soaked up fresh grants, although the older establishments were still maintained.56 There were fluctuations in patterns of patronage between successive generations. Heirs did not follow their ancestors' generosity blindly as dictates of fashions prompted younger members to turn to the patronage of 'new' orders.57 Looking at the grants of the Gant and Brus families it is clear that the heirs of the founders of Bardney, Bridlington and Whitby continued to patronise their foundations at least for a generation.58 The forces at work behind the decision to establish a new foundation, although broadly comparable, were not entirely identical with those involved in making a donation. The commitment involved in establishing a new community was much more enduring and also involved considerably greater supervision on the part of the founder and his family. Making a donation was, usually, less expensive than founding a house. It was not uncommon for heirs to confirm and even augment their father's donations to one, maybe two, religious houses. Beyond the second 52Red Book of the Exchequer, i, 364; Domesday Book, ii, fos 436a-b. 53Monasticon, v, 151. 54 In his study of religious patronage in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries J. T. Rosenthal argues that the family and the locality influenced the flow of donations but rarely monopolised the direction of gifts: The Purchase of Paradise 1307-1485: Girl-Giving and the Aristocracy, London 1972, 124. 55 J. C. Ward, 'Fashions in Monastic Endowments: The Foundations of the Clare Family 1066-1314', Journal of Ecclesiastical History xxxii, 1981, 427-51. 56 For a survey of the changing relationship between barons and religious houses in England see E. Mason, 'Timeo Barones et Donas Ferentes', Studies in Church History xv, 1978, 61-75. 57 For the 'new' orders in Britain see J. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain 1000-1300, Cambridge 1994, 63-84. 58 For monastic patronage over the generations see remarks made by P. D. Johnson, Prayer, Patronage. and Power: The Abbey of la Trinité, Vendôme 1032-1187, New York 1981, 86; C. B. Bouchard, Sword, Miter and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980-1198, Ithaca 1987, 150.

< previous page

page_141

next page >


page_142

< previous page

page_142


generation, the religious house would be lucky to see a confirmation of the original donor's grant, let alone additional donations. These donations by lineal descendants would seem to reinforce the argument for the strength and vitality of the honor. And it is easier to find patterns of benefactions following the lineal descent of a family than along collateral lines but some examples can be found; the younger sons and daughters of the Warenne family patronised the family foundations of Lewes and Castle Acre.59 Emma de Gant, wife of Alan de Percy, patronised her brother Walter's foundation at Bridlington, rather than her husband's family foundation of Whitby.60 Occasionally the collateral kin followed each other's gift-giving patterns too. The best two examples of this phenomenon that sprang to my mind, however, involved non-honorial foundations. The two branches of the d'Aubigny family were benefactors of St Albans and Roger de Pîtres, his wife Adeliza, his brother Durand and his son Walter of Gloucester all made donations to St Peter's, Gloucester.61 The Paynel brothers, Fulk and Ralph, both had associations with Marmoutier, founding Holy Trinity, York, and Tickford as cells to that house.62 Both branches of the Lisures family were consistent supporters of Blyth priory, which had been founded by their overlord Roger de Busli.63 It also appears that women sometimes acted as conductors of religious enthusiasm, mirroring continental trends.64 Marriage brought both allies and obligations. Many northern families married into others with which they had similar interests. William fitz Nigel, the constable of Chester who married Agnes de Gant, in fact already held from the Gants at Bessingby in Yorkshire.65 When grants came from grantors distantly related to the founder by marriage, such as from Eustace fitz John to Bridlington, the influence of that connection was probably fairly weak. It is difficult to tell when family ties are instrumental in procuring grants unless documents state that the gift is for the soul of a relation associated with that house. Grants from women most commonly state such dedications. For examples in 1085 Ermelina de Lacy gave land in Duntisbourne Abbots, Gloucestershire, to Gloucester abbey where her husband was buried 'for the salvation of her husband's soul'.66 Yet for all these examples of kin appearing to follow kin in patterns of 59Monasticon, v, 3, 51; Farrer, Honours and Knights' Fees, iii, 311: Early Yorkshire Charters, viii, 9. 60Monasticon, vi, 286. 61Domesday Book, i, f. 59d; Monasticon, ii, 220; Regesta, ii, no. 1161; Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, 11071091, ed. D. E. Greenway, London 1972, 6-7. For the d'Aubigny family tree see L. C. Loyd, 'The Origin of the Family of Aubigny of Cainhoe', Bedfordshire Record Society xix, 1937, 101-12; Historia et Cartularium rnonasterii sancti Petri Gloucestriae, i, 58, 69, 81, 112, 118, 246-7, 352; ii, 128. 62Regesta, ii, nos 714, 715; CDF, 1228; Early Yorkshire Charters, vi, 69, 72; Binns, Dedications, 107. 63 W. F. Carter and R. E Wilkinson, 'Fledborough family of Lisures', Transactions of the Thoroton Society xliv, 1940, 14-34. 64 For remarks on women acting as transmitters of enthusiasm for a particular religious house see Johnson, Prayer, Patronage, and Power, 88; Bouchard, Sword Miter and Cloister, 142-9. For more recent remarks on this phenomenon and Crusading see J. Riley-Smith, 'Family Tradition and Participation in the Second Crusade', The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, ed. M. Gervers, New York 1992, 101-8. 65Early Yorkshire Charters, ii, 428. 66Historia et Cartulariurn monasterii sancti Petri Gloucestriae, i, 73.

< previous page

page_142

next page >


page_143

< previous page

page_143


benefactions there are many people evidently 'going their own way'. Agnes de Fossard followed her father and grandfather in patronising Nostell priory but her aunt Gertrude 'chose' to patronise, with her son Stephen, Bridlington priory, a house previously unassociated with her family or her husband's family.67 Her gift was later to be augmented by her husband, Jordan Paynel. Here personal preference and possibly dictates of fashion must have had a part to play. Some families' patronage was so diverse as to defy categorisation. Before the mid-twelfth century the various members of the different branches of the Peverel family patronised between them at least twelfth different religious houses and founded another three.68 From this list only one house, St Mary's, York, was patronised by two members of the same family.69 New landed interests, whether acquired or inherited, usually meant pious interests were re-orientated. Ranulph Meschin only became involved with his uncle's foundation of Chester after he had inherited his earldom, after the death of his cousin Richard in 1120. When the Clare family became earls of Gloucester in 1217 their power base moved from the east of England to the west and their pious interests became focused on Tewkesbury abbey.70 Patronage of a predecessor's foundation was a useful tool to buttress the position of a new lord. David Crouch has illustrated the effective use of religious patronage as a means of both infiltrating and establishing authority within an acquired or confiscated honor.71 The important point to note is that new lords would not have made the effort to patronise the honorial foundation if it did not in some way embody the honorial community 'spirit' or have some influence on the honorial barons. This initial survey of the evidence would seem to suggest that patterns of patronage were primarily influenced by locality and tenurial status but could also be influenced by family ties and shifts in fashion. Furthermore, considerations of the locality could override those of lordship and family ties. The two Percy tenants, Picot and later his son Robert, who chose to disregard their lord's foundations of Whitby and Sallay, did so in favour of the geographically close institutions of Nostell and Bridlington, respectively.72 Joan Wardrop's work on Fountains abbey has illustrated the devotion to the abbey felt by the local people, those of both 67Early Yorkshire Charters, ii, 150-1; Monasticon, vi, 286. 68 These were Shrewsbury, Gloucester, St Albans Barnwell, Montacute, Savigny, Tiron and Plymton, Thorney, Le Bec, St Mary York and Garendon, and they also founded St Martin le Grand, London, Hatfield Peverel and Lenton: Monasticon, ii, 601; iii, 519, 536; vi, 53; Two Cartularies of the Augustinian Priory of Bruton and the Cluniac Priory of Montacute, eds F. W. Weaver and C. H. Maxwell-Lyte, Somerset Records Society, viii, 1894,126; CDF, no. 997; Liber Memorandorum Ecclesie de Bernewelle, ed. J. W. Clark, Cambridge 1907, 41-3; Historia et Cartulariurn monasterii sancti Petri Gloucestriae, i, 94, 392; Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley, 3 vols, RS xxviii, 1867-9, i, 67; Regesta, ii, nos 1547, 1958, 1973; Early Yorkshire Charters, i, 350-1; Farrer, Honours and Knights' Fees, i, 148, 179. 69 It has been noted elsewhere by Janet Burton that the range of benefactions made by the well-to-do could be huge. She quotes the example of Roger de Mowbray who made donations to over forty religious institutions in England and Normandy: Monastic and Religious Orders, 227. 70 Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 227-8. 71 D. Crouch, 'Strategies of Lordship in Angevin England and the Career of William Marshal', Ideals and Practice of Medieval Knighthood, eds C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey, ii, Woodbridge 1988, 8-9, 12-13. 72 Cited in Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, 253.

< previous page

page_143

next page >


page_144

< previous page

page_144


knightly and lesser rank.73 My research on the benefactors of the Old English house Thorney has shown how there were significant underlying ties which bound men and the abbey together within the locality and formed the context in which patronage took place. The majority of the benefactors' territorial holdings were located less than twenty-five miles from Thorney abbey.74 Generations of families made, renewed, disputed and quitclaimed grants to the abbey. Not only was the consent and approval of close relatives, whose potential inheritance was being granted to the abbey, essential to the granting of gifts but so too was the presence of witnesses at the ceremony. For example, Odo de Revel's grant and his son Andrew's confirmation of land given in Folksworth were witnessed in turn by two generations of men; Robert and Henry de Longueville, Roger and Ralph of Chesterton, Roger and Gilbert of Folksworth, Bernard and Ralph fitz Bernard and Hugh and William Olifard.75 Andrew's confirmation was also witnessed by Bernigo Monk and Roger of Cantilupe. These men were neighbours but they were also joined by parallel bonds of lordship as five representatives of these families were tenants of the Lovetot family.76 Locality and lordship intermingled as the dominant themes amongst the lesser benefactors here. It should be stressed that the physical proximity of the new foundations would have prompted many tenants to give to their lord's foundation quite willingly. Tenants received very real spiritual, social and political benefits from patronising monasteries close to their holdings. To patronise a more distant foundation without greater means or influence would have been senseless. Thus, if the local house was closely associated with the honor then their 'loyalty' was given a visible means of expression and their generosity tied them to that locality. Thus, for tenants with largely local interests the honor was a tangible reality. The significance of the locality was also important for the patronage received by Old English religious houses, as I have already illustrated with the case of Thorney. The uneven structure of honorial society was the setting, then, for the patronage of the existing English monasteries in post-Conquest England. The 'looseness' of the honor and tenurial conditions enabled individuals to make grants to the Old English monasteries even though they were not directly associated with the Anglo-Norman aristocracy or their honors. The patronage these houses received was, therefore, largely piecemeal in nature and mostly given by local men and royal officials, who usually had interests in the region. The English monasteries did not, as a rule, act as seigneurial monasteries in the way that Chester, Lewes and Clare did. There are a few cases which appear to have been exceptions to the rule: St Peter's, Gloucester, Rochester, which served a bishopric, and St Albans in 73 Joan Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and its Benefactors 1132-1300, Kalamazoo 1987. 74 For example, Roger of Stibbington (Huntingdonshire), Tovi of Lowick (Northamptonshire), Gilbert of Folksworth (Huntingdonshire), Henry de Longueville (Orton Longueville, Huntingdonshire) and Robert of Huntingdon. 75 CUL, Additional MSS 3020-1, f. 77r. 76Red Book of the Exchequer, i, 372-3.

< previous page

page_144

next page >


page_145

< previous page

page_145


Hertfordshire. Of all these examples only St Alban's consistent association with members of the d'Aubigny family and their tenants approaches that of a truly seigneurial monastery. What I have presented here is a picture of various patterns of religious patronage which illustrate how post-Conquest society was composed of a series of multi-layered networks. My first main point is that the social structure could accommodate all the different patterns of patronage: Old English foundations, honorial foundations, family foundations, and the 'new' orders. Furthermore, it allowed for shifts in taste to follow changes in fashion. The motivation behind religious patronage was always mixed; primarily influenced by locality, lordship and tenurial status but it could also be influenced by family ties, friendship ties, shifts in fashion and personal preferences and personalities. The donor's wealth and status of tenure was vital in deciding how their allocation of religious patronage was likely to be determined. The king had the greatest degree of autonomy in locating his grants and privileges. His tenants-in-chief were to some extent tied to promoting and maintaining their honorial foundations but they were largely free to patronise elsewhere and to be influenced by kinship ties and new trends in fashion. At the highest echelons of society the greatest tenants-in-chief could 'afford' to acknowledge and be influenced by family ties. But for those lower down the social scale, particularly tenants of a single overlord, feudal ties and considerations of the locality became more important. For the honorial tenant a sense of duty and loyalty was mixed with what feudal bonds would allow. Tenants were expected to support the honorial foundation just as much as the founder and his heirs were. Thus, although the lord was faced with the 'problem of loyalty and how to keep it', founding an honorial monastery could be an effective means of utilising the magnetism of the locality and of binding at least some of his tenants to his honor.77 For many 'honorial' tenants (i.e. those who held solely of one lord) notions of a 'choice' of religious house as the recipient of their generosity were largely inappropriate.78 For these people, then, loyalty to the honorial community would have been strong. Patronage of the honorial foundation was also a means of identifying less committed men. Split allegiance meant that other tenants were legitimately afforded a form of 'choice'. This 'choice', however, was still heavily influenced by ties of family and friendship and neighbourhood. My second main point is that Sir Frank Stenton's vision of the honor in post-Conquest England as a 'feudal world in miniature' and an 'enclosed world' has to be modified in favour of the composite picture of 'honorial' society. Stenton himself acknowledged that there were two broad categories of tenants: those with 77 Crouch, The Beaurnont Twins, 113. 78 For similar conclusions see J. Walker, 'The Motives of the Order of St Lazarus in England in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries', Monastic Studies, ed. J. Loades, Liverpool 1990, 171-81. He argues that for 'the majority of the grants, ties of family and lordship probably did more than anything to lead people to patronise the order. In the case of people lower down the social scale, ties of geography and awareness of the actions of one's peers were also important'.

< previous page

page_145

next page >


page_146

< previous page

page_146


interests outside of the honor, and those who held land exclusively of one lord.79 Stenton may have placed too much emphasis on the second of these two groups but modem scholarship is beginning to look in danger of paying it insufficient attention. There remained at the centre of the 'honor' a solid core of tenants whose interests were bound to the honor, the lord, the locality each other and the religious house. Thus, the modified picture of the honor I would argue for would be one of a solid core of 'honorial' tenants complimented by a number of tenants with interests outside the lordship whose allegiance depended on considerations of tenure, family ties, locality and friendship. This revised model has to he seen in the context of the conditions I have outlined above. The best word to describe tenurial conditions in post-Conquest England is 'uneven'. There were different levels and different degrees of loyalty, affiliation and tenurial cohesion within the honorial baronage. So, in answering the question: how strong was the honor? the answer has to be: it depends which honor you are talking about. Individual honors were very different from each other and to attempt to make broad generalisations about strength and coherence requires much care and many qualifications. In some places Stenton's model of the honor works and in others it does not. Strength depended on local conditions and the balance between the groups of the two sorts of tenants. A sense of the community's strength can be gauged from the scale of donations to the honorial house. It was pointed out above that honorial communities were established at different times, they developed at different rates and varied greatly in size and composition. But in all cases part of the answer to the question of how strong an honor was has to depend on the geography and utility that supported it. Strategies of lordship were in fact supported by geography. Horizontal themes apply only to those tenants with diverse resources, interests and tenure. This all demonstrates how honorial society was by no means entirely centrifugal or centripetal in its nature, both forces were evidently at work. Ultimately, much depended on the patterns of tenure, part inherited and part created in the years after 1066. 79 Stenton, English Feudalism, 99.

< previous page

page_146

next page >


page_147

< previous page

page_147


8 Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress's Party in South-West England1 Judith A. Green The role of the family in aristocratic politics in Anglo-Norman England has been until recently a relatively neglected topic for a combination of reasons. In the first place, historians of Anglo-Norman England have had other preoccupations. There has been an inevitable concentration on the issues of continuity and change at the Norman Conquest, and also on lordship, feudalism, and military obligation. Kinship, insofar as it has been studied, has tended to be viewed through genealogists' spectacles. Moreover those who have written about the possibility of family ties shaping political strategies are faced with the fact that in Anglo-Norman England nearly everyone turns out to be related to everyone else, and it is fatal to assume that the more distant family relationships counted for much in political terms, as Professor Sir James Holt warned in his addresses to the Royal Historical Society on the theme of 'Feudal Society and the Family in Early Medieval England'.2 In a recent paper Dr Keats-Rohan considered the themes of the family, the fief, and the feudal monarchy in relation to the Bretons and Normans in England during the century following the Conquest. She suggested that region of origin had an important part to play in shaping families' attitudes to political events in the Anglo-Norman realm. Bretons were less concerned about the fate of Normandy than those 'super-magnates' with large cross-Channel estates, who, she argued came predominantly from upper Normandy. Furthermore, the Bretons in England came from different factions in Brittany and this conditioned their outlook. Finally, Bretons had close ties with west Normans and (though this was not stated explicitly) a similar political outlook predisposing them to favour the Angevin cause after 1135.3 Her paper raised important related themes, the centrality of family and the 1 I should like to thank Robert Bearman, Ian Green, and Katharine Keats-Rohan for helpful discussions in preparing this paper for publication. 2J.C. Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family in Early Medieval England: III. Patronage and Politics', TRHS, 5th set. xxxiv, 1984, 1-25. 3 K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'The Bretons and Normans of England 1066-1154: the family, the fief and the feudal monarchy', Nottingham Medieval Studies, xxxvi, 1992, 42-78; see also K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'William I and the Breton Contingent in the non-Norman Conquest',Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii, 1991, (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_147

next page >


page_148

< previous page

page_148


ongoing significance of cross-Channel interests, and it raised a crucial question about divided allegiances during the Civil War and the extent to which these were conditioned by what she aptly described as geo-political factors. She injected a fresh non-insular perspective into our approach to the politics of Stephen's reign and the motives of baronial participants which deserves further study. How important were continental origins and ongoing links in shaping conflicts in England? How important were loyalties within extended family groups? How quickly were such interests transmuted over time and distance? Should we view Normans and Bretons in England as falling into two camps, those from upper Normandy on the one hand, and their opponents on the other? In the following paper political society in the four south-western counties of England, Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset is considered as a case study against which the role of family relationships in forming political allegiances may be assessed. Although only part of the wider political picture, these counties were remarkable for the their support for the empress between 1138 and 1141. Wiltshire and Gloucestershire also had strongly Angevin supporters, but the king had greater resources of his own in these counties and fought hard to stop the Angevins breaking out of the southwest. It is suggested here that in the four south-western counties a few rebelled initially for motives that were probably very specific, and that once Robert of Gloucester had opted to break with Stephen, family relationships and sworn alliances meant that most families declared for the empress and that support for her remained relatively solid. In other words, the war in the west was triggered by the actions of a few individuals, but its course was also shaped by preexisting features of political society. 1. The Formation and Development of a New Elite The south-west obtruded itself on the notice of King William and his Normans relatively soon after 1066. Queen Gytha, Harold's mother, retired to Exeter and organized revolt against the Normans. William marched thither and persuaded the locals to hand the town over to his men, then ordered a castle to be built which he entrusted to his kinsman Baldwin son of count Gilbert. Harold's sons were able to recruit forces from Ireland, and the local population, or at least some of them, were prepared to fight the Normans too. There was a real possibility that there would be a countercoup by the Godwinsons in the south-west, at a time when the Normans were relatively precariously situated. Harold's sons invaded in 1068, tried but failed to take Bristol, moved on to Devon and Cornwall and then retreated to Ireland with their booty. They returned in the following year and landed in the mouth of the river Taw but were repelled by Count Brian of Brittany and William (Footnote continued from previous page) 157-72; M. Jones, 'Notes sur quelques families bretonnes en Angleterre après la conquête normande', Mémoires de la société d'histoire et d'archéologie de Bretagne, lviii, 1981, 73-97.

< previous page

page_148

next page >


page_149

< previous page

page_149


de Vauville.4 An attack by the men of Dorset and Somerset on Montacute was repelled by Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances. Apart from the castellan of Exeter, the three leaders mentioned in the chronicle accounts were a Breton, Brian, son of Count Eudo, William de Vauville from Vauville near Cherbourg, and Geoffrey bishop of Coutances. It is unlikely that this choice of men was coincidental, and at least a possibility that they were chosen because it was relatively easy to bring up reinforcements from west Normandy to the south-west.5 Count Brian and William de Vauville were to disappear from the records, for reasons which are not clear. One possibility was an involvement in the rebellion of 1075 in which Bretons were involved, but there is no evidence on this point. The bishop of Coutances, who had evidently joined the expedition of 1066 to augment the resources of his see, had become a major landholder in the south-west by 1086, but even his estates were outclassed by those of King William's half-brother, Robert count of Mortain. Robert probably acquired a stake there early as his antecessor Edmer Ator had estates in the region, but at some stage, probably after the departure of Count Brian, he was granted virtually all the land in Cornwall not in the hands of the church. He built a castle at Launceston and another at Montacute in Somerset, around which he had granted lands to his principal tenants. There are few pieces of information about the details of the land distribution of the Conqueror's reign, and much depends on working out a balance of probabilities as to who got what, and when. Thus the fact that Judhael of Totnes succeeded to the lands of the last known pre-Conquest sheriff of Devon is one of the clues which suggests that he was an early arrival.6 What we can see in operation here as elsewhere is the principle of succession to a named antecessor modified by military exigencies. Where necessary compact lordships were created, especially near the coast. Baldwin son of Count Gilbert received large estates in Devon with concentrations round Exeter and Okehampton, guarding one of the inland routes to Cornwall. Earl Hugh of Chester held the lands of Alnoth, evidently a staller, and possibly (though this is disputed), Eadnoth the staller.7 The likelihood is that he received these in about 1068 before he became deeply involved in the midlands and was appointed earl of Chester, and by 1086 all his manors were in the hands of tenants. In the south there was a clutch of landholders round Poole in Dorset. 4Orderic, ii, 224; Judith A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, London, 1990, 35 for the suggestion that William may have been the first Norman sheriff of Devon. 5 Prof. Michael Jones pointed out in discussion following the paper the likelihood that even Bretons may have come via west Normandy rather than directly from Brittany. There is also the possibility to be considered that there were Bretons in south-west England before 1066. C. L. Sinclair Williams has drawn attention to Bretel, who held Trevellion in Cornwall TRE, and suggests he is possibly to be identified with Bretel of St Clair, the later tenant of the count of Mortain, Domesday Book, i, 124b, 'Who was Bretel of Trevellion, tempore Edward the Confessor?', Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries, xxxv, 1982-86, 394-7. 6Domesday Book, i, 109, 109b, 110. 7 For a discussion of Alnoth's identity see C. P. Lewis, 'The Formation of the Honor of Chester, 1066-1100', The Earldom of Chester and Its Charters, ed. A. T. Thacker, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, lxxi, 1991, pp. 48-9.

< previous page

page_149

next page >


page_150

< previous page

page_150


The Anglo-Saxon burh of Wareham was granted to Hugh FitzGrip who came from upper Normandy;8 Roger FitzGerold of Roumare, also in upper Normandy, was established at nearby Corfe Mullen;9 William de Briouze from southern Normandy received Purbeck, possibly at the time his Rape of Bramber was created;10 and Roger of Beaumont received Archbishop Stigand's huge estate of Sturminster Marshall.11 Further west there were two compact coastal lordships: Totnes and Trematon. Totnes was held by Judhael, a man whose name suggests Breton ancestry, though his family background has not been established with certainty.12 Trematon was held by Roger de Vautorte, a man of Robert of Mortain.13 Along the north coast of Cornwall a castle was built at some stage at Bossinney near Tintagel.14 The bishop of Coutances held a compact lordship centred on Barnstaple where the sons of Harold had earlier effected a landing. He also held Bristol and William de Mohun from Moyon in Manche held a lordship centred on Dunster.15 A glance at the tenurial map of 1086 shows very clearly the importance of coastal defence in land distribution. Turning from estates to their new lords, we find men recruited from most of the main continental regions which supplied men for the Conquest, but relatively few from Flanders or from the départements of Nord, Seine-Maritime, or from Eure. Some estates were given to men from the Conqueror's inner circle, as we have seen, and others found that they acquired lands in the south-west because their antecessors had held them. Walscin of Douai, presumably from Douai in the départment of Nord, was the only major landholder from this part of northern France. He married an English wife, Edith, probably not long after the conquest.16 Walscin may have had some connection with the queen, who held large estates in the south-west, or perhaps he came in the train of Eustace of Boulogne, who seems briefly to have had a role in the region.17 8 Hugh gave land at Waddon in Dorset to St Mary, Montivilliers, near Rouen, Domesday Book, i, 79. He was the brother of Geoffrey Martel, of Bacqueville-en-Caux, L. C. Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, Harleian Society, ciii, Leeds 1951, 60-1. 9 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 87. 10 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 20. 11Domesday Book, i, 80. 12 John Bryan Williams, 'Judhael of Totnes: the life and times of a post-Conquest baron', Anglo-Norman Studies, xvi, 1993, 274, for the suggestion that Judhael may have been the son of Alfred the Giant mentioned by Orderic, iii, 100-02. 13 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 42; see also Ian N. Soulsby, 'The Fiefs in England of the Counts of Mortain 1066-1106', University of Wales M.A. thesis (1974), chapter 4. 14 In 1086 Bossinney was held by the monks of St Petroc of the count of Mortain, and by 1166 by Roger de Mandeville of Earl Reginald, Domesday Book, i, 121; Red Book of the Exchequer, 3 vols RS (London, 1896), i, 262n; see O. J. Padel, 'Tintagel in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries', Cornish Studies, xvi, 1988, 61-6; and the same author's 'Geoffrey of Monmouth and Cornwall', Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, viii, 1984, 11 for the point that there is as yet no reason to believe that there was a castle at Tintagel before the thirteenth century; for the fortifications at Bossinney, Peter Rose, 'Bossinney Castle', Cornish Archaeology, xxxi, 1992, 138-42. 15 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 66. 16 Walscin, together with William de Vauville, William de Courseulles, Roger Arundel, and Serlo de Burcy, attested a royal diploma in 1068, Regesta, i, no. 23; for Edith and her manor of Uffculme see H. P. R. Finberg, 'Uffculme', Lucerna, London 1964, 204-21. 17 The possibility that Count Eustace briefly had a role in the south-west is raised by his inclusion in the (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_150

next page >


page_151

< previous page

page_151


William de Courseulles and Roger Arundel came from the region west of Bayeux, and were both probably recruited by Odo of Bayeux.18 The south-west was one of the few regions of England where Odo did not himself have a major stake, holding only single manors in Dorset and Somerset which he had taken over from Earl Leofwin. William and Roger each held estates in Dorset and Somerset, but not in other regions of England, suggesting that they were established at about the same time (and they occur as witnesses to the diploma of 1068). Serlo de Burcy probably came from Burcy near Vire. Nothing is known of his background, but a relationship with Nigel de Burcy, tenant of Earl Hugh, is possible.19 From Falaise came William de Falaise who married Serlo's daughter, and from Pommeraye not far from Falaise, Ralph de Pomeroy and his brother William Capra.20 Bretons and men from the Cotentin peninsula were certainly well represented in the south-west, however. The count of Mortain's tenants included men with Breton names (Dodman, Brian, Wihomarch), and Ansger the Breton.21 Some may have been in place when Count Robert received his estates, especially if the possibility is accepted that Count Brian was Robert's predecessor in Cornwall, but could also simply reflect the close ties between families in north-east Brittany with the Avranchin and Mortain, to which Dr Keats-Rohan has drawn attention.22 It is significant that Robert's tenants in the south-west were on the whole men who were not his tenants elsewhere, and perhaps may have been brought over when his estates were augmented. A possible parallel here is the way Roger of Montgomery's Shropshire tenants were in the main a different group from those in Sussex. The former, but not the latter, were recruited from his patrimonial estates. Overall what is noticeable about the new elite, apart from the strong representation of west Normans and Bretons, is the number who did not hold land outside the south-west. Clearly there were those who did, most notably Count Robert and Bishop Geoffrey, but others, like Baldwin son of Count Gilbert, William de Falaise or William de Courseulles, received land here and not in other (Footnote continued from previous page) writ issued in English by King William for Regenbald the chancellor, Regesta, i, no. 9. In 1086 the Countess of Boulogne had dower land in Dorset, which again suggests that the count had had some interest here. 18 For the Norman origins of the Courseulles family, see Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 33. The precise place of origin of the Arundel family has never been established, but Roger Arundel had a tenant in Dorset named Robert Tilly, see Domesday Book, ed. J. Morris, Dorset, 47, 4 and note. Abbot William of St Stepben's, Caen, bought land from Roger, Recueil des Actes de Henry II, roi d'Angleterre et duc de Normandie, concernant les provinces françaises et les affaires de France, ed. L. Delisle and E. Berger, 4 vols, Paris, 1906-27, i, 279. 19Domesday Book, i, 267b. Ranulf de Praers gave whatever he held in the churches of Burcy and Praers (Presles, département Calvados, canton Vassy) to a cell of St. Martin Troarn in the early twelfth century, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester c. 1071-1237, ed. G. Barraclough, The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, cxxvi (1988), no. 9 (confirmation charter by Earl Richard and Henry I) and notes. 20 Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norrnan Families, 78-9. 21Domesday Book, i, 79, 79b, 92, 93 (Dodman); 124 (Brian), 125 (Wihomarch). Ansger the Breton was an undertenant in Devon and Somerset, Domesday Book, i, 104b, 91b, 92b; Keats-Rohan, 'Bretons and Normans of England', 49-50. 22 Keats-Rohan, 'Bretons and Normans of England', 51.

< previous page

page_151

next page >


page_152

< previous page

page_152


parts of England. The inference is that although the redistribution of lands of lesser thegns was not complete even in 1086, the major distribution occurred early, and the beneficiaries by and large did not proceed to become involved in the takeover of the midlands or the north. Both factors, the strong representation of Bretons and west Normans, plus the concentration of their interests in the south-west, must have helped to created a sense of solidarity. This may be compared with northern England in the twelfth century, where, as I have argued elsewhere, the localization of landholding was one of the factors which helped to create a distinct northern society.23 In the period down to 1135 the vicissitudes of fortune brought changes to the composition and shape of the landed aristocracy but did not alter fundamentally the characteristics established in the post-Conquest years. On the contrary, families were able to establish and strengthen alliances with their neighbours. The four most important changes in the period were the removal of the count of Mortain and the bishop of Coutances, the granting out of the queen's lands to Robert FitzHaimon, who was followed by Robert of Gloucester, and the creation of an honour for Richard de Redvers.24 Robert of Mortain and Geoffrey of Coutances each supported the revolt which broke out in England to reject William Rufus in favour of his elder brother Robert duke of Normandy. Robert of Mortain was pardoned for his involvement, and died in 1095.25 It is not clear when and on what terms his son William was allowed to succeed him, as there is no evidence that he ever swore allegiance to Rufus. He evidently accepted Henry I in 1100 however.26 William was hopeful for gains from the new king, but what was on offer was not the earldom of Kent which he asked for, but marriage to the queen's sister, which he declined.27 By 1104 William was in revolt and lost his lands in England.28 Before then, however, he had taken steps to found a priory at Montacute which he generously endowed with lands and property.29 His foundation charter interestingly makes no reference to prayers for the salvation of Rufus or Henry or Matilda, and it is witnessed by several tenants. In the charter issued by Henry I and Matilda a number of gifts are said to have been made by these men (not the count). On the face of it William had not sought 23 Judith A. Green, 'Aristocratic Loyalties on the Northern Frontier of England c. 1100-1174', England in the twelfth Century: Proceedings of the 1988 Harlaxton Symposium, Woodbridge 1990, 83-100. 24 Richard de Redvers held the manor of Mosterton in Dorset in 1086, Domesday Book, i, 83. The holding, which was listed with the lands of the king's thegns, was not afterwards found in the possession of the Redvers family as Bearman has pointed out, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon, ed. R. Bearman, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new set., xxxvii, 1994, 17. 25 B. Golding, 'Robert of Mortain', Anglo-Norman Studies, xiii, 1990, 122. 26Regesta, ii, nos 492, 497, 510, 544, 573 (in the address clause). 27 For William's request of the earldom of Kent, William of Malmesbury, De gestis regum, ii, 473. The marriage is discussed by C. Warren Hollister, 'The Anglo-Norman Civil War: 1101', reprinted version in Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions, London, 1986, 78 and n. William was present at the meeting between Henry and his brother, and according to Wace was a negotiator between the two sides, Wace, ii, 442. 28ASC, 1104; Orderic, vi, 58. 29Two Cartularies of the Augustinian Priory of Bruton and the Cluniac Priory of Montacute, Somerset Record Society, viii, 1894, no. 1.

< previous page

page_152

next page >


page_153

< previous page

page_153


or secured royal approval for his foundation, and the king and queen subsequently gave him none of the credit.30 William's estates were not regranted as a whole, and some of the more important under-tenants became tenants-in-chief. His demesne estates in Cornwall, the later honour of Launceston, and those dependent on Montacute, possibly passed to Ranulf the king's chancellor as custodian, but what happened to them after Ranulf's death in 1123 is not clear.31 Some of the Devon estates were later found in the possession of the Redvers family.32 Bishop Geoffrey had retired from England to his Norman see where he died in 1093, at which point, according to Orderic, his nephew Robert de Mowbray inherited his estates.33 This is not impossible, but if Robert did hold them, it can only have been briefly, for he lost his lands after leading the revolt of 1095. The honour of Barnstaple was dismembered, the bulk passing to Judhael of Totnes.34 Judhael's career after 1086 had entered a difficult phase. At some stage, possibly in 1088, he had lost Totnes, and was replaced there by Roger de Nonant.35 It has been suggested that Judhael may have received Barnstaple in the early years of the twelfth century, and that his rehabilitation came under Henry I.36 Rufus's second major decision which affected the south-west was the grant of his mother's lands not to his younger brother Henry, who asked for them, but to his friend Robert FitzHaimon. Robert's father Haimo was lord of Torigny-surVire not far from Moyon.37 Rufus may have had good reason for being reluctant to grant Henry land in England, and he may also have wished to endow FitzHaimon with lands conveniently situated for his advance into Wales. The prominence of men from the south-western counties in south Wales has been remarked; once again the seaways were no obstacle but rather an assistance to communications.38 After FitzHaimon's death in 1107 his lands passed by marriage with one of his daughters to Robert of Gloucester. 30Regesta, ii, nos 1367, 1368. 31 For Ranulf the chancellor, Golding, 'Robert of Mortain', 138-9. Golding does not, however, suggest that Ranulf was custodian of the two honours, though this is a possibility and could be compared with the role of Richard of Beaumais, a clerk in the household of Roger of Montgomery, who took over the administration of the Shropshire estates after 1102. 32Charters of the Redvers Family, 24. There is no obvious explanation of the circumstances in which these manors passed to the Redvers family, though Bearman's suggestion that the occasion may have been Baldwin's marriage to an unidentified woman named Adeliz is the likeliest possibility. If this is correct, Adeliz was possibly related to William of Mortain. 33 Orderic, iv, 278. 34 Williams, 'Judhael of Totnes', 282-3. 35 There is no evidence yet as to the origins of Roger de Nonant. Possibilities include Nonant, Calvados, comm. cant. Bayeux, or Nonant-le-Pin, Orne, comm. cant. Le Merlerault, suggestions I owe to Dr Keats-Rohan. 36 Williams, 'Judhael of Totnes', 283; R. A. Higham, 'The Origins and Documentation of Barnstaple Castle' in T. J. Miles, 'The Excavation of a Saxon Cemetery and part of the Norman Castle at North Walk, Barnstaple', Proceedings of the Devonshire Archaeological Society, xliv, 1986, 74-84. 37 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 50. 38 I. Rowlands, 'The Making of the March: Aspects of the Norman Settlement in Dyfed', Proceedings of the Battle Conference, iii, 1980, 148, 150.

< previous page

page_153

next page >


page_154

< previous page

page_154


The last major change occurred shortly after the accession of Henry I when he granted very large estates to Richard de Redvers. Richard's name was derived from Reviers in Calvados, near Creully, where his neighbours included Robert FitzHaimon and Earl Hugh of Chester, and he also had estates centred on Néhou in the Cotentin.39 Richard received the Isle of Wight and estates in Hampshire, most or all of which had been held by William FitzOsbern, thus replicating one of the Conqueror's earliest decisions to entrust a region vulnerable to attack from the sea to a trusted lieutenant.40 The fact that Richard was also given valuable estates in Devon raises a question as to whether the Devon estates were given at the same time. The Devon estates included several very valuable royal manors and the subordination of several Domesday tenants-in-chief. Unfortunately it is difficult to know precisely when Richard received any of his lands, but it looks as though he had authority (and therefore, presumably land) in Devon by 1103.41 Geoffrey de Mandeville, who was a Redvers tenant on both sides of the Channel and a tenant-in-chief in his own right, seems to have been sheriff and to have had custody of Exeter castle by 1103.42 Henry was clearly aiming to strengthen his position in Devon and possibly had doubts about the loyalty of William of Mortain. It is just conceivable that he thought of making Richard earl of Devon- the scale of landed endowment and the subordination of lands of other tenants-in-chief is certainly suggestive and his failure to do so may have given Richard's son Baldwin an ambition if not a sense of grievance.43 It is also significant, however, that Richard was being slotted into a region where he would find friends and, in all probability, kinsmen. His acceptability as an overlord must have been eased by this consideration. Henry showed particular favour to men from west Normandy and Brittany, where he recruited many mercenaries, and it is not surprising that some who received lesser grants of land in the south-west in his reign, such as Ruald FitzWigan and Alan de Dinan, came from these regions.44 It is likely that in the first year or two the west Norman element was particularly influential at Henry's court. These were the men, after all, who had helped him when he needed help. Moreover in the first months and years of his reign he had to work to build up support amongst the Anglo-Norman magnates generally, and many must have doubted his ability to overcome the powerful coalition ranged against him. It was also the time when David of Scotland was probably making contacts and friends at his brother-in-law's court. Professor Barrow drew attention to the west-country 39 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 85; Charters of the Redvers Family, 1-2. 40 Orderic, ii, 260 for the grant of the Isle of Wight. 41 Richard's own charters cannot be dated precisely, see Charters of the Redvers Family, nos 1-5; for his earliest occurrences in royal documents see Regesta, ii, nos 633, 662, 773. 42Regesta, ii, no. 649. 43 It is interesting to note that the late medieval account of the foundation of Forde abbey stated that Henry first gave Richard Tiverton, then the honour of Plympton and the third penny of the county of Devon, and that afterwards he received the Isle of Wight, Dugdale, Monasticon, v, 381. 44 Keats-Rohan, 'The Bretons and Normans of England', 57-8, 71; K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'Two Studies in North French Prosopography', Journal of Medieval History, xx, 1994, 25-37; Michael Jones, The Family of Dinan in England in the Middle Ages, Dinan 1987, 18-20.

< previous page

page_154

next page >


page_155

< previous page

page_155


origins of a number of Norman families in Scotland. As he pointed out, Somerset is a surprising recruiting ground compared with northern England or the honour of Huntingdon, but it is perfectly explicable in the context of the court of Henry I.45 Hugh de Moreville from Morville near Valognes began to witness David's charters by about 1118 and may well have been in his service some years previously.46 He may have been a son of Richard de Morville, a tenant of Richard de Redvers.47 Another branch of the family held land of Nigel d'Aubigny.48 Professor Barrow has identified one of the witnesses of David's foundation charter for Selkirk abbey, probably drawn up about 1120, as Robert of Bampton from Bampton in Devon.49 Within a few years a man named Robert of Montacute occurs as a witness, and the Lovels of Castle Cary may also have been amongst the early recruits.50 Robert of Bampton and Ralph Lovel are mentioned as rebels against Stephen, Robert as early as 1136 and Ralph in 1138. Tracing the routes and timing by which families like the Morevilles or, to take another example, the enterprising Foliots, arrived in England, is not easy. Some may have sent sons to England earlier than we know and their identities are concealed in the ranks of Domesday under-tenants. Let us take the Foliots as an example: a man named Rainald or Reginald Foliot witnessed a charter of Nigel of the Cotentin c.1060.51 In 1086 a man named Rainald held manors in Wiltshire which were afterwards held by members of the Foliot family.52 In the twelfth century there were Foliots in Normandy at Montfarville and Vauville, and they were related to the Foliots who were tenants of the earls of Devon, and also possibly to Gilbert Foliot, abbot of Gloucester and later bishop.53 There were also Foliot families on the honours of Wallingford and Huntingdon, to name but two further branches. There was a clear tendency of Foliots to crop up on the lands of principal Angevin adherents.54 This line of argument cannot be pushed too far, as the Foliots were also related to the Chesneys who supported Stephen. Nevertheless they provide an interesting example of solidarity in the honorial baronage. In 1125 Henry's only legitimate child, the empress Matilda, was widowed and the king, still lacking a male heir after the wreck of the White Ship, had her brought back to England. All the magnates swore an oath of allegiance to her, and David and Stephen were the first to take the oath. The support of David was crucial to 45 G. W. S. Barrow, The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, Oxford 1980, 100. 46Early Scottish Charters, ed. A. C. Lawrie, Edinburgh 1905, nos 32, 35; Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 70-84. 47 Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 71 n. 48Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107-1191, ed. D. E. Greenway, British Academy, Records of Social and Economic History, new series, I, London 1972, xxxiv. 49 Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 100. 50 Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 100-1. 51 L. Delisle, Histoire du Château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, Valognes, Paris, Caen 1867, Preuves, 34-5; Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 43-4; A. Morey and C. N. L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters, Cambridge 1965, 42. 52 Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, 261. 53 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 43-4; Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, 42. 54 Morey and Brooke, Gilbert Foliot, 38-42.

< previous page

page_155

next page >


page_156

< previous page

page_156


the king's plans, not only as the holder of a great honour in England but also since 1124 king of Scots and capable of making a real difference to Matilda's prospects of success. He may well have been committed to her on personal grounds and from his point of view it was better that his niece should succeed than William Clito. In 1127 Henry and David worked together to persuade Archbishop Thurstan of York to consecrate a bishop of St Andrews without a profession of obedience, dropping a lawsuit at Rome which he might well have won.55 Henry's conciliatory approach to David can be paralleled by a whole string of concessions in the late 1120s and early 1130s designed to bring the magnates, lay and ecclesiastical, at least to acquiesce in the prospect of Matilda's succession even after the lady had been married to the heir of the count of Anjou.56 At the time of the first oath of allegiance the elite must have been aware that the idea was a second marriage for Matilda, but the identity of her bridegroom may not have been widely known. Roger of Salisbury was to claim later that the deal had been that she was not to be married outside the kingdom without consultation. Roger evidently used this lack of consultation to excuse his breaking his oath; nevertheless what he was saying was not impossible.57 It is evident that an inner group was aware of and negotiated the marriage, most conspicuously Robert of Gloucester, Brian FitzCount, and David of Scotland. Robert and Brian accompanied the empress to Normandy, and they also held an audit of the king's treasure (or treasury) in 1128-9. This sequence of events cannot have been coincidental, and it is likely that the audit was connected with the expenses of the wedding, coming after Henry's efforts to prevent his nephew successfully gaining control of Flanders. The audit was followed by sweeping changes in the ranks of sheriffs, and the appointment of two men as custodian sheriffs of eleven counties. Significantly their commission did not cover the south-west, or the west. The evidence relating to our four counties in 1129-30 and the years preceding indicates how the king's men were already very influential. Warin, sheriff of Dorset, Wiltshire (and probably Somerset), remained in place. He was a man of lesser status under the eye of Bishop Roger of Salisbury, who clearly managed to escape any responsibility for any financial shortfall.58 Robert Arundel had been hearing pleas in Devon and Cornwall, and forest pleas in Dorset, and he and William FitzJohn had borne witness to a surplus against the county farm of Somerset.59 William's origins are obscure.60 His son Henry was called Henry de 55 Judith A. Green, 'Anglo-Scottish Relations, 1066-1174', England and her Neighbours 1066-1453, ed. Michael Jones and Malcolm Vale, London 1986, 61-2. 56 Judith A. Green, The Aristocracy of Norman England, Cambridge 1997, 287-90. 57 William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, 5. 58 Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Fourth Series, iii, Cambridge 1986, 278. 59P[ipe] R[oll] 31 Henry I, ed. J. Hunter for Record Commission, London, 1833, 154, 155 (forest pleas), 159 (with his companions), 13 (surplus of Somerset). 60GEC, xii, 2, 270; Payn FitzJohn and William his brother witnessed Regesta, ii, nos 1722, 1730; no. 1723 was witnessed by Payn, Eustace and William FitzJohn, as was no. 1782, the foundation charter of Cirencester ('suspicious'). An alternative identification has been proposed by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_156

next page >


page_157

< previous page

page_157


Tilly (viz. Tilly-sur-Seulles). This may have been a family possession or acquired, perhaps through the influence of Robert of Gloucester. In England William held ten knights' fees of Robert of Gloucester.61 William married Denise, daughter and heiress of Ralph de Mandeville of Marshwood and in 1138 held the castle of Harptree in Somerset against the king.62 Finally, Richard FitzBaldwin of Okehampton lacked children. The devolution of the honour after Richard's death in 1136 or 1137 is not altogether clear but the honour eventually passed to Richard's great-niece, Matilda of Avranches, who married yet another of Henry I's illegitimate children, Robert FitzRoy.63 The castle of Exeter probably remained in the custody of Richard FitzBaldwin until 1135: at least, it appears that Baldwin de Redvers laid hands on the royal castle in 1136.64 In the short term, however, Richard FitzBaldwin, who had been sheriff for a number of years, was replaced by Geoffrey de Furneaux, a Redvers man.65 It looks as though this change was a favour to Baldwin de Redvers, but can we be certain about the standing of Baldwin in the final years of Henry I's reign? Baldwin had succeeded to his father's estates almost certainly as a minor. He witnessed Henry I's documents, but only occasionally, and it is by no means certain how close he was to the king. There is the question of the large sum of five hundred marks for forest offences for which he was accounting at the exchequer in 1130. Whether this was a penalty, as Stenton thought, or the fines resulting from an eyre Baldwin (Footnote continued from previous page) that William should be identified with the William FitzJohn son of Hamon, a benefactor of Bruton priory, Bruton Cartulary, Two Cartularies, Bruton, nos 180-1. See also Regesta, ii, no. 1600, a confirmation for St Stephen's Caen, including a confirmation by Geoffrey de Mandeville of gifts by Geoffrey de Tilly and his brother Ralf of land at 'Govilla', Saint-Germain and a field in Vérolles in Tilly. For William FitzJohn, a key officer in Normandy under Duke Geoffrey and Henry II see Recueil des Actes de Henri II, introduction, 47980. 61 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 103-4; Red Book of the Exchequer, i, 288. 62 Sanders, English Baronies, 64; Gesta Stephani, ed. and trans. K. R. Potter with an introduction and notes by R. H. C. Davis, London 1976, 66. 63 Richard was the last surviving son of Baldwin FitzGilbert. According to the history of Forde (Brightley) abbey of which Richard was the founder, he was succeeded by his sister Adelicia, vicecomitissa. The latter (husband unnamed) had a daughter Alicia who succeeded her mother, and was married to Ranulf Avenel. Alicia's only daughter Matilda married, first, Robert d'Avranches and, secondly, Robert FitzRoy, Dugdale, Monasticon, v, 3778. Adelicia died in 1142, Plympton annals, Ungedruckie Anglo-Normanische Geschichtsquellen, ed. F. Liebermarin, Strassburg and London, 1879, 29. This account is at variance with the pedigree recorded in GEC, iv, 317, where an unnamed daughter of Baldwin is said to have married (1) William of Avranches, by whom she had a son Robert, who married a daughter of Gilduin of Dol and was the mother of Matilda d'Avranches, and (2) Ranulf Avenel. A man named Ranulf Avenel was dead before 1130, PR 31 Henry I, 60. Ranulf seems to have been succeeded by a son of the same name, and the latter by a son William. Ranulf the younger and his aunt, Adeliz, made gifts to Plympton priory including the church of Exeter castle, Charters of the Redvers Family, pp. 182-3. Robert d'Avranches was living in 1130, when his proffer for a large sum for malivolentia towards the daughter of Gilduin of Dol is recorded, PR 31 Henry I, 155. Matilda is said to have married twice. The identity of her first husband was differently reported in later lawsuits, F. W. Maitland, Bracton's Notebook, 3 vols, Cambridge, 1887, ii no. 170, iii, no. 1569, as cited GEC, iv, 317. By 1158 her second marriage, to Robert FitzRoy, had taken place, for he was pardoned £8 donum comitatus in Devon, presumably for his wife's lands, PRs 2-4 Henry II, 159; H. M. Peskett, 'Two Twelfth Century Charters of the Honour of Okehampton', Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries, xxxii, 1971-73, 103-4. 64Gesta Stephani, 32. 65 Green, Government of England, p. 255.

< previous page

page_157

next page >


page_158

< previous page

page_158


conducted, as has also been suggested, the result was the same: it was Baldwin who was responsible.66 The fine was not new and may not have related to Devon, but it raises a question about his standing in the eleven-twenties. 2. The Formation of the Empress's Party Baldwin de Redvers was one of the first of the Anglo-Norman magnates to rebel against Stephen, within a matter of weeks after David of Scotland, who invaded northern England and took over the castles there as soon as he heard of the old king's death. Both revolts can be represented as matters of principle, and doubtless were, but each also had specific objects. David wanted to recover the lost provinces of Cumbria and Northumbria. We are less sure of Baldwin's object. Only Richard of Hexham, a northern chronicler, refers to Baldwin having been refused a 'certain honour' before he seized Exeter castle and garrisoned it against the king.67 Custody of the castle and control of the shrievalty were not unlikely goals. The shrievalty had been held successively by FitzBaldwin, then a Redvers man, then FitzBaldwin, and then a Redvers man again.68 In a more general way Baldwin may have wanted his authority over the county to be recognised, perhaps with the grant of an earldom. Baldwin had two allies in 1136, Robert of Bampton and Alfred FitzJudhael.69 Robert had a particular grievance, the loss of the manor of Uffculme which the king had just restored to Glastonbury, the abbot of which was his own brother.70 Robert lodged a counter-claim, refused to surrender Uffculme, and barricaded himself into his castle at Bampton until he received judgement. When his appeal failed, he was ordered to hand over his castle to the king's men. Stephen arrived to besiege Bampton but found that Robert had already left.71 Alfred seems to have been in possession of one of his father's lordships, presumably Barnstaple, but still had claims upon Totnes. Indeed, it is a moot point whether he or Guy de Nonant was lord of Totnes in 1130 for Alfred called himself 'of Totnes' but it was Guy who had made a proffer for a fair there.72 Alfred may have been briefly at Stephen's 66PR 31 Henry I, 153; F. M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism, 2nd edn, Oxford 1961, 221; Charters of the Redvers Family, 5 and n. 67 Richard of Hexham, 'De Gestis Regis Stephani et de Bello Standardii', Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett 4 vols RS, London, 1884-9, iii, 143. Finberg thought the chronicler's comment was an ex post facto explanation, and suggested that Baldwin and Robert may have been uneasy about Stephen's promise personally to adjudicate claims brought by churches to property of which they had been deprived since 1087, 'Uffculme', 216-219. 68 Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, 35-6. 69Gesta Stephani, 28, 30, 36-8. 70 Finberg, 'Uffculme', 213-14. 71 Finberg, 'Uffculme', 214-16; Robert is one of the few lay lords to account for a past 'aid of knights' in the 1130 pipe roll, as was Baldwin de Redvers. The precise nature of such aids, and the timing of the levy referred to in the pipe roll is unclear, though in both cases the aid is described as 'old' rather than 'of the previous year', which suggests it probably went back several years, PR 31 Henry I, 153, 154. 72PR 31 Henry I, 157 (the entry is incomplete in the printed text but the manuscript reveals an initial A(lur de Toteneis), 153; cf. Regesta, ii, nos 1645 (Henry I's charter for the Londoners, see following note), 1912.

< previous page

page_158

next page >


page_159

< previous page

page_159


court in 1136 if we are to accept the authenticity of Stephen's charter to the Londoners, and possibly he wanted a grant of Totnes from the king.73 In 1136, however, events went Stephen's way. He successfully besieged Exeter, causing Baldwin to retire first to Carisbrooke and then to Normandy. Robert of Bampton retreated to Scotland, and Alfred seems to have died within a short space of time.74 Stephen appointed Richard FitzBaldwin as sheriff of Devon in 1136, and in the same year he set in hand the refoundation of Buckfast as a Savigniac house.75 Stephen had particularly close associations with Savigny, and it is hard to avoid associating the refoundation with a desire to strengthen his authority. The Nonant family were patrons of the house but by 1141 Roger de Nonant, by then presumably lord of Totnes, had joined the Angevins and was with Matilda at the rout of Winchester.76 By 1139 Stephen had in place a redoubtable commander based at Barnstaple, Henry de Tracy. The earlier stages of Henry's career, before he erupts into the pages of the Gesta Stephani, are not clear. Henry was probably related to the Tracy family which occurs in connection with Mont Saint Michel. In 1110 William de Tracy, Rohese his wife, his sons Turgis and Henry and his sister Geva were benefactors of the abbey.77 In 1172 Turgis de Tracy held two knights' fees of the duke and had eight in his own service, and Oliver, son of Henry de Tracy, held a knight's fee of the count of Mortain.78 Loyd suggested that Henry might have come from the county of Mortain and thus have been a new man of Stephen.79 If he was, he was a rare bird, because Stephen does not seem to have brought over anyone else from Mortain. Moreover, Henry was possibly related to William de Tracy, another illegitimate son of Henry I, who held the honour of Bradninch under Henry I.80 Henry acquired Barnstaple by some means, possibly by marriage to a sister of Alfred FitzJudhael.81 This background suggests that if anything Henry de Tracy 73 Green, 'Financing Stephen's War', 106-7. 74Gesta Stephani, 44-6, 54; Alfred FitzJudhael had been succeeded at Barnstaple by 1139, see below. 75Regesta, iii, nos 500, 800. Davis and Cronne suggested that Stephen's charter granting Buckfast to Savigny was probably issued either on the way to the siege of Exeter or on the way back. The possible implications of the timing of the refoundation were noted by J. Stéphan, A History of Buckfast Abbey, Bristol, 1958 edn, 23. 76 F. C. Hingeston Randolph, The Register of John de Grandisson, bishop of Exeter, iii, London, 1899, 1569ff; Gesta Stephani, 128. 77Cal. Does. France, 170. 78Red Book of the Exchequer, ii, 628, 635. 79 Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, 104-6. 80 Reichel, 'Feudal Baronage', VCH, Devon, i, 562; Gesta Stephani, xxvii-xxviii and n. Davis pointed out there that Henry de Tracy witnessed a charter for William de Tracy, grandson of William de Tracy, Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W. H. Hart, 3 vols RS, London, 1863-67, ii, 180. 81 O.J. Reichel, 'Feudal Baronage', VCH Devon, i, 557 suggested that Henry may have married a daughter of Alfred. Dr Bearman has pointed out (pers. comm.) that Henry's charter for Barnstaple made no specific reference to Alfred as his predecessor, and he suggests that Stephen may simply have made an outright grant of the honour to Henry, Dugdale, Monasticon, v, 198. There is no reference either to Henry de Tracy in the early pipe rolls of Henry II's reign. William de Briouze, who married a daughter of Judhael, occurred in 1159 owing 1000 marks for his part of the honour of Barnstaple, PR 5 Henry II, 60; Cal. Docs. Fr, 460-1. In 1165 Henry's son Oliver de Tracy accounted for and paid £16 13 s. 4 d. (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_159

next page >


page_160

< previous page

page_160


might have supported the Angevins; that he did not do so may reflect personal commitment to Stephen, as Loyd suggested, or some grievance of which nothing is known. At any rate, Henry fought with determination to uphold Stephen's cause. It is not unreasonable to suppose that in 1136 Baldwin and his allies knew of David's invasion and were hoping to raise a second front in Devon, but as events turned out they could not persuade enough men to join them. The stance of Robert of Gloucester must have been critical in many men's eyes.82 Belatedly and probably reluctantly Robert had sworn allegiance to Stephen. As one of the two leading lay magnates in the south-west, and overlord of the estates of some families in England and Normandy, his reluctance to break openly with the king was surely a major deterrent to others to rebel, but by 1138 his situation had altered. Robert had left Stepben's army in Normandy, afraid for his life, and remained in Normandy whilst Stephen returned to England. A delay followed before Robert formally defied the king in May 1138, and it seems most likely that Robert was negotiating with his allies, to ensure that when he did finally break with the king he would not suffer the fate of Baldwin. This time there are signs of contact between King David and Earl Robert and his supporters, in that David's invasion of northern England is said to have been urged on him by Robert of Bampton and his kinsmen.83 Luck was on Robert of Gloucester's side in 1138 in one respect, in that Stephen's decision over the fate of the honour of Lacy of Herefordshire, whilst it secured for a time at least the support of Miles of Gloucester, was contested by the disappointed parties.84 Two of them, Gilbert de Lacy and Geoffrey Talbot, tried to take over the city of Bath and bring it under the sway of Bristol which, according to the author of the Gesta Stephani, became a centre of resistance (or robbery, depending on one's point of view) in the earl's absence.85 A third, William FitzAlan, fortified the castle of Shrewsbury against the king.86 Meanwhile a wider coalition of magnates in the south-west was in open revolt. (Footnote continued from previous page) for an aid (viz. 25 knights at a rate of one mark per knight), whilst William, who accounted for the same amount, was pardoned, PR 11 Henry II, 80. In 1168 William de Briouze's debt of 1000 marks was entered again on the pipe roll, with the comment that he was not to be summoned for it unless by the king himself. For the subsequent history of the lordship, Sanders, English Baronies, 104. 82 There has been some discussion about Earl Robert's position between December 1135 and Whitsuntide 1138 when he formally broke with Stephen, see Robert B. Patterson, 'William of Malmesbury's Robert of Gloucester: A Re-Evaluation of the Historia Novella,' American Historical Review, lxx, 4, July, 1965, 983-97; Joe W. Leedom, 'William of Malmesbury and Robert of Gloucester Reconsidered', Albion, vi, 1974, 251-63; D. Crouch, 'Robert, earl of Gloucester and the Daughter of Zelophehad', Journal of Medieval History, xi, 1985, 227-43. 83Gesta Stephani, 54. 84 The ramifications of this dispute are reconsidered in Judith A. Green, 'Aristocratic Women in Early TwelfthCentury England', Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance, ed. C. Warren Hollister, Woodbridge 1997, 76-7. 85Gesta Stephani, 58-66. 86 Orderic, vi, 520. William's father had been sheriff of Shropshire in the reign of Henry I, and William perhaps believed he had a claim to the shrievalty and the castle after Payn FitzJohn was killed, Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, 72.

< previous page

page_160

next page >


page_161

< previous page

page_161


Some of the leaders were listed by Orderic Vitalis: Ralph Lovel, William de Mohun, William FitzJohn, and Robert of Lincoln at Wareham.87 Ralph Lovel and William FitzJohn might have been expected to rebel, given their track record. William de Mohun is a less conspicuous figure. He had kept a low profile in the previous reign and may have spent lengthy periods in Normandy.88 He did not witness for Stephen, and only witnessed once for the empress.89 Again there are no obvious reasons why Robert of Lincoln should have joined the empress, though a possible clue to the circles he moved in is provided by an incidental reference to his wife's companionship to the earl of Gloucester's sister.90 William FitzOdo lord of Torrington was also in revolt, or at least, his activities brought him to the notice of Henry de Tracy.91 William was an assistant constable of Henry I and was mentioned in the Constitutio Domus Regis as an associate of Henry de Pomeroy.92 It was soon after this, in the sequence of events described by the Gesta Stephani, that Baldwin de Redvers landed at Wareham and seized the royal castle of Corfe, and Robert and the empress landed in Sussex, proceeding to Bristol where Miles of Gloucester joined them. A party had come into being.93 So far as the south-west was concerned, there were two principal developments after 1138, both strengthening Angevin support there. The first was the takeover of Cornwall by Reginald, another son of Henry I, and the second was the recovery by Baldwin de Redvers of his estates and influence in Devon. In 1140 Reginald married the daughter of William FitzRichard, lord of Cardinham and probably of Bodardle, the most powerful man in Cornwall, who handed the county over to him.94 Reginald is called Reginald de Dunstanville by Orderic Vitalis.95 A man named Reginald de Dunstanville occurs in the 1130 pipe roll as a landholder in Wiltshire and Surrey, and the size of the geld remission in Wiltshire (seven pounds one shilling) suggests that Reginald held Castle Combe. What is not clear is whether this was Reginald the king's son, or the successor of an earlier Reginald de Dunstanville.96 Reginald the king's son had close links with the Dunstanville 87 Orderic, vi, 520. 88 William occurs as a witness to only one document issued by Henry I, at the council of Northampton in 1131, when he would have had an opportunity to take the oath of allegiance to Matilda, Regesta, ii, no. 1715. He did not occur in the 1130 pipe roll in the south-west. There is a reference to William de Moiont in the list of danegeld pardons for Warwickshire, PR 31 Henry I, 108. 89Regesta, iii, no. 343. 90 Robert's father, Alfred of Lincoln, is presumed to have married the widow of Hugh FitzGrip whose lands he thus acquired, Sanders, English Baronies, 99. This Alfred appears to have been a different person from Alfred of Lincoln, lord of Thoresway, and Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Alfred of Wareham may have been the latter's son. Robert's wife, Bence, is mentioned in the Life of Wulfric of Haselbury, as companion of the sister of the countess of Gloucester, ed. M. Bell, Somerset Record Society, xlvii, 1933, 115. 91Gesta Stephani, 82-4. 92 Green, Government of England, 253; Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. and trans. C. Johnson with corrections by F. E. L. Carter and D. E. Greenway, Oxford 1983, 133-4. 93Gesta Stephani, 84-90. 94Gesta Stephani, 102-4. 95 Orderic, vi, 510. 96PR 31 Henry I, 22, 51; Regesta, ii, no. 1069.

< previous page

page_161

next page >


page_162

< previous page

page_162


family, as the witness lists of his charters show, but on balance it appears that Orderic confused him with the lord of Castle Combe. Reginald the king's son is mentioned as having waged war on Stephen's supporters in western Normandy in 1138 and at about the same time, as Reginald the king's son, he witnessed a charter for the empress issued at Argentan.97 In 1140 he proceeded to make his headquarters at Launceston castle until driven off by the earl appointed by Stephen, Count Alan of Richmond. Reginald fought back, re-established himself and, having been created earl of Cornwall, held the county as a virtually autonomous earldom until his death in 1175.98 He may also have had authority over Dorset, for Richard of Raddon, sheriff of Dorset in 1154-5, occurs as a witness in several of the earl's charters.99 Once again, marriages helped to extend and consolidate ties with neighbouring families. Reginald's mother was a daughter of Robert Corbet, with an estate at Alcester in Warwickshire and relations in Shropshire and Scotland.100 A sister of Reginald married Henry de Pomeroy, lord of Berry Pomeroy, and a daughter married Baldwin de Redvers' son and successor, Richard.101 Meanwhile in Devon Baldwin de Redvers, who was created earl by the empress in 1141, seems to have recovered his authority over his estates in the county, and possibly controlled Exeter. 102 After Richard FitzBaldwin died in 1136 or 1137, the succession to his lands, and to the shrievalty of Devon and custody of Exeter castle is not clear, but by 1158 the honour of Okehampton was in the hands of Robert FitzRoy, another illegitimate son of Henry I, by right of his wife Matilda d'Avranches.103 Baldwin went on the second crusade, and after his return seems not to have been so active in war and politics, appearing only once at Henry's court in 1153 and dying in June 1155.104 97 Orderic vi, 510, 514; Regesta, iii, no. 567, redated by M. Chibnall, 'The Charters of the Empress Matilda', Law and Government in the Middle Ages, ed. G. Garnett and J. Hudson, Cambridge, 1994, 295. 98The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, ed. P. L. Hull, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new series, xxx, 1987, xvi-xx and nos 12, 13; Gesta Stephani, 100-2, 116. According to the Historia Novella, writing of the year 1142, Earl Robert made his brother an earl, not the Empress, 42. Davis suggested that the creation occurred in 1140, the same year as Count Alan's appointment by Stephen, R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 3rd edn, London 1990, 136. The career of Earl Reginald, and in particular his position in Cornwall, would repay further study. The prominence of Cornwall in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain has been commented on by Arthurian scholars and discussed, for instance, by Padel, 'Geoffrey of Monmouth and Cornwall'. Padel noted (17-18) the possibility of an association with an earl of Cornwall, but mentioned William of Mortain in this context, not Earl Reginald. 99Cartulary of Launceston, nos 11-13, 115, 415, 538 and see also nos 71, 114, 116, 331, 334, 428; Charters of the Redvers Family, 187-8. It seems likely that Richard of Raddon the sheriff was the man of the same name who was refusing to perform service in 1166 to William FitzJohn of Harptree, Red Book of the Exchequer, i, 219; see also Green, 'Financing Stephen's War', 96. 100GEC, xi. Appendix D, 107-8; one of Earl Reginald's charters referred to Alice Corbet as his aunt, Cartae Antiquae, ed. L. Landon, Pipe Roll Society, new series, xvii, 1938, no. 38; for the Scottish Corbets, Barrow, AngloNorman Era, 98. 101Charters of the Redvers Family, 187-8; Robert of Torigny, Chronicles, iv, 213. 102Charters of the Redvers Family, 8-10. 103PRs 2-4 Henry II, 159 and see above n. 63. 104Regesta, iii, no. 272.

< previous page

page_162

next page >


page_163

< previous page

page_163


It is difficult to be certain through lack of evidence about allegiances in the four south-west counties after 1141. One possible source of evidence, the witness lists of the writs and charters of the empress and the king are not illuminating. Few of the empress's acts can be dated precisely and the witness lists are not long. Unsurprisingly, the names that recur are those of her half-brothers, Robert of Gloucester, Reginald of Cornwall, and Robert FitzRoy. She is known to have lost the support of William de Mohun at some point after 1141, but otherwise it seems likely that the basic political situation in the four south-western counties remained unchanged.105 It is tempting to conclude that, whilst recognising that Robert of Gloucester and Reginald of Cornwall at least were committed to the empress, other local magnates kept their heads down as far as possible. Although only the outlines of regional politics have been sketched in here, it is clear that once key men declared for the empress, it was highly likely, given the close connections between neighbouring families, that these counties would follow suit, at least when the prospects of success seemed reasonable. Those who rebelled earliest had specific aims or grievances. Securing these did not necessarily conflict either with support for the empress's claim in principle or a more generalised sense of disquiet about the new regime. They failed in 1136 essentially because they did not have the backing of Robert of Gloucester, but when he broke with Stephen his influence, combined with that of Baldwin de Redvers, and reinforced by Earl Reginald, spearheaded the creation of a wider coalition in the south-west. That coalition was rooted in interlocking factors, in which the extent and location of interests across the Channel played some part. However, should the families of the south-west be viewed as a homogeneous political society, because many came from Brittany, or the Cotentin, or Calvados? Was continental region of origin the crucial factor in moulding their political allegiance? It is hard to see that it was. There were all kinds of interconnections between the various branches of the great families, and these did not only or even primarily operate across the Channel. As suggested above, there were links between the south-west, the west, and the court of King David. There were links between the newcomers and the natives: Bernard, the scribe of Henry I, was a man of native descent settled in Cornwall, and his family was related to that of Earl Reginald.106 The foregoing case study suggests that family ties did matter, but that, first, the more remote, either geographically or in terms of kinship, may not have mattered as much as the more immediate and, secondly, that family ties were only part of the story. As Holt pointed out, lordship and neighbourhood also have to be taken into account.107 In that uncertain world men looked for friends and allies. Sometimes they made sworn pacts such as that between Baldwin de Redvers and Alfred 105 For William's earldom, Gesta Stephani, 128; his subsequent defection is discussed by Davis, King Stephen, 138. 106 The classic article on Bernard was that by J. H. Round, 'Bernard the King's Scribe', EHR, xiv, 1899, 417-30; see also Cartulary of Launceston Priory, xv-xvii. 107 Holt, 'Feudal Society and the Family III: Patronage and Politics', 23.

< previous page

page_163

next page >


page_164

< previous page

page_164


FitzJudhael mentioned in 1136.108 At other times the alliances were less formal, as lesser men moved into the orbit of the more powerful, like Earl Reginald or Baldwin de Redvers. Only by reconstructing these intermeshed networks in which family, friends and allies, tenants and followers all had a part to play, shall we understand the motives of participants in the Civil War. 108Gesta Stephani, 36.

< previous page

page_164

next page >


page_165

< previous page

page_165


9 Prosopographical Problems of English libri vitae1 John S. Moore As I have already admitted elsewhere, my own interest in libri vitae as historical evidence is of recent origin.2 When, in the late 1980s, I was investigating possible materials for the history of the Anglo-Norman family, I read Cecily Clark's seminal paper on the Thorney Abbey liber in Anglo-Norman Studies.3 This was my first introduction to what I later discovered was not only a major source for the Anglo-Norman family but in fact the earliest such source. For, in the extracts which Cecily printed from BL MS Add. 40,000, was one which clearly described a contemporary family: . . . UUillelmus de Albinico, Cecilia uxor eius, filii eius UUillelmus, Rogerius, Matildis filia eius . . .4 My ignorance shared, I am certain, with most other non-ecclesiastical historians thus revealed and my appetite duly whetted, I was inspired to investigate libri vitae as historical records of demographic value, and, in doing so, to meet Cecily herself and profit from her immense learning given so freely and with such delightfully puckish humour. It is a matter of great regret to me, and doubtless to you too, that she cannot present a paper on this subject herself, since her knowledge of both libri vitae and prosopography was greatly superior to mine, and her paper 1 My debt to the late Cecily Clark (whose studies of the unpublished Thorney Abbey liber vitae (see references cited in n. 21) are fundamental to all work on this class of document) will be apparent to all readers; I shall always remember with gratitude her extended discussions and help with the research underlying my series of articles in Nomina as well as my earlier contribution to Anglo-Norman Studies. It is good to know that her edition of the Thorney liber will be completed by Dr John H. Insley of Heidelberg University. The necessary inspection of MSS in Durham, London and Winchester was aided by two generous grants by the Twenty-Seven Foundation (now the Scoloudi Foundation). I am also grateful to Dr Michael Franklin of Wolfson College, Cambridge, to Dr Nicholas Vincent of Peterhouse, Cambridge, and to Dr Alex Rumble of the Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies, University of Manchester, for their help in answering enquiries, and especially to my friend Dr Ann Williams (London) and my friends and colleagues in Bristol, Dr Marcus Bull, Dr Brendan Smith and Mr Ian Wei, for kindly reading and commenting on drafts of my articles in Nomina from which the material for this paper has been drawn. Needless to say, I am responsible for any remaining faults. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the help and the stimulating comments of participants at the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies in 1991. 2 J. S. Moore, 'Family Entries in English Libri Vitae, c.1050-c. 1530: Part 1 ', Nomina XVI, 1994, 99. 3C. Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000, ff.1v-12r', Anglo-Norman Studies VII, 1985, 50-68. 4 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 55.

< previous page

page_165

next page >


page_166

< previous page

page_166


would have been both far more enlightening in content and indubitably far more witty in its delivery. My belated discovery of the usefulness of the libri vitae as sources for historical demography (and, still later, for prosopography) has at least demonstrated that the interests of the present-day historian were often not shared by the originators of the surviving medieval evidence. Two consequences follow. The first is that historians are often forced to use materials which were not intended to answer the questions in which they are now interested. The second is that historians must not allow their particular concerns to blind them to the utility of types of evidence -such as libri vitae which they would not normally consider to be useful because these sources were not intended to provide the sort of information they desired (as noted above, mea culpa). Here, modem historians are peculiarly likely to suffer from the inbuilt presuppositions of their own, largely Godless, age when trying to understand the Middle Ages. Whether or not 'all our ancestors were literal Christian believers, all of the time,'5 a view which I query because it is totally unverifiable the medieval Church, its institutions, beliefs and value-systems certainly permeated and largely determined medieval life. As I have tried to show elsewhere, the economic historian, and even more the social historian, who ignores apparently uninteresting records is thereby the loser, particularly when trying to investigate any historical aspect of the medieval family.6 Amongst the earliest, most important and least exploited sources for both the demographic history of the Anglo-Norman family and household and, as I hope to show, for Anglo-Norman prosopography are the records of religious confraternity.7 These records came into existence because of the medieval belief, among both clergy and laity, in the spiritual efficacy of association or confraternity, especially with members of monastic orders whose prayers would benefit the souls of living and dead alike. Following the development of the doctrine of intercession, with its increased emphasis on the 'pains of purgatory', other forms of institution arose to fulfil the same end, notably the chantries from the thirteenth century onwards,8 but in the earlier period monasteries were the chief objects of such association, both among themselves and for the laity. Consequently, among the records produced by the medieval Western Church were what were known as libri 5 P. Laslett, The Worm We have Lost further explored, London 3rd edn, 1984, 71. 6 J. S. Moore, 'The Anglo-Norman Family: size and structure', Anglo-Norman Studies xiv, 1992, 153-96. 7 Other sources in the Anglo-Norman period include cartularies and original deeds; the unique Rotuli de Dominabus of 1185; and royal judicial records at both national and county level, supplemented from the thirteenth century onwards by manorial court-rolls and inquisitions post mortem. The earlier sources are analysed in Moore, 'The Anglo-Norman Family'. The later medieval sources are listed in Moore, 'The Anglo-Norman Family', 154, n. 7. True 'listings' only start with the Coventry City enumeration of 1523 and the Lichfield Abbey confraternity register of c.1532-33 (C. Phythian-Adams, Desolation of a City: Coventry and the Urban Crisis of the Late Middle Ages, Cambridge 1979, esp. Appendix 1; A list of families in the archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3, ed. A. Kettle, Staffordshire Rec. Soc. 4th ser. viii, 1976). 8 K. L. Wood-Legh, Perpetual Chantries in Britain, Cambridge 1965; J. T. Rosenthal, The Purchase of Paradise: Gift Giving and the Aristocracy, 1307-1485, London 1972, esp. chs 1-3; A. Kreider, English Chantries: the road to dissolution, Cambridge (USA) 1979; S. Raban, Mortmain legislation and the English Church, 1279-1500, Cambridge 1982, chps 5-6.

< previous page

page_166

next page >


page_167

< previous page

page_167


vitae 'books of life'. The name originated in Biblical texts such as Exodus, XXXII, 32; Psalms, LXIX, 29; The Epistle to the Philippians, IV, 3; Book of Revelation, III, 5, XVII, 8, XX, 12 and XXII, 19. The original purpose of such books was to record the names of members of the community, but it was soon extended to include benefactors and other laity who were joined to the community by confraternity. Hence the preface to the Hyde Abbey liber vitae states, in befitting order there follow the names of brethren, monks, admitted members and benefactors alive and departed, [so that] by the temporal record of this writing they may be written in the page of the Book of Life, . . . for a daily remembrance in celebrating of the mass or the singing of the Psalter -the names to be presented daily by the subdeacon before the altar at matins or the principal mass, and recited, as far as time will permit, in the presence of the Most High; and afterwards the chief priest who celebrates may commend them most humbly to Almighty God for their advancement in glory according to their merits.9 Presumably most medieval monasteries would once have maintained such records, but nearly all English examples have vanished as a result of the Reformation, and only three are now known to survive, for Durham Priory, for Hyde Abbey and for Thorney Abbey. But other libri vitae certainly once existed: a charter of 1090 by Earl Hugh d'Avranches of Chester records the grant to Abingdon Abbey of Shippon (Berks.) on condition that I will be your brother, and my wife and my father and mother, in your prayers, and that all of us will be written in the Book of Commemoration (in Libro Commemorationum).10 The Durham liber developed at Durham out of a record begun at Lindisfarne;11 another began at New Minster, Winchester, and was continued at Hyde Abbey;12 the third was maintained at Thorney Abbey.13 Several confraternity agreements, some of which include details of families, are also included in the twelfth-century Textus Roffensis of Rochester Priory.14 Moreover, the chronological coverage of these surviving records differs. As full records of confraternity with laymen, all 9 Translated from Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. W. de G. Birch, Hampshire Rec. Soc. i, 1892, 11-12. 10J. Stevenson, ed., Chronicon de Monasterii de Abingdon, RS 2, 2 vols, 1858, II, 20, a reference for which I am indebted to Dr Emma Cownie of the University of Wales, Cardiff. The chronicle here precisely reproduces the wording of Earl Hugh's charter: G. Barraclough, ed., The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c. 10711237, Lancashire and Cheshire Re. Soc., 126, 1988, 2. 11 BL MS Cotton Domitian A vii, printed in Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. J. Stevenson, Surtees Soc. xiii, 1841, 1-134. 12 BL MS Stowe 944, printed in Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, 1-192. 13 BL MS Add. 40,000; as indicated above (n. 1) the edition started by Cecily Clark will be completed by Dr J. H. Insley. 14 H. Tsurushima, 'The Fraternity of Rochester Diocese, c.1100', Anglo-Norman Studies xiv, 1992, 313-37, has revealed the existence of several confraternity agreements between the 1080s and the 1140s in the Textus Roffensis, some of which include details of families. I hope to analyse these families in these agreements in a future joint-publication with Prof. Tsurushima.

< previous page

page_167

next page >


page_168

< previous page

page_168


start in the eleventh century, but at Thorney the liber vitae appears not to have any new entries after the 1190s; the Hyde liber went out of use rather earlier, but a few entries were added in the five decades before the Dissolution; at Durham additions were still being made to the liber vitae down to the end of the fifteenth century,15 whilst its use as a memorial at the high altar was still remembered in an account written in 1593: There did lye on the high altar an excellent fine booke verye richly couered with gold and siluer conteininge the names of all the benefactors towards St Cuthberts church from the first originall foundation thereof, . . . the layinge that booke on the high altar did show how highly they esteemed their founders and benefactors, and the dayly and quotidian remembrance they had of them in the time of masse and diuine service did argue not onely their gratitude, but also a most diuine and charitable affection to the soules of their benefactors as well dead as liuinge, which booke is as yett extant declaringe the said use in the inscription thereof.16 The Durham liber vitae also preserved a copy of the prayer said when new additions were made to its contents: We pray you, O Lord and Holy Father, through your son Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, that their names may be written in the book of Life.17 Later, as Hamilton-Thompson noted,18 the liber vitae often developed into a more specialised liber confraternitatum,19 supplemented by obituary and mortuary rolls20 and letters of confraternity,21 whilst the notes of gifts sometimes found in a liber vitae were subsequently elaborated in cartularies. These cartularies may contain agreements for confraternity as at Thorney (occasionally) and Rochester (frequently).22 The libri vitae are of considerable historical value from several non-liturgical viewpoints, including onomastics, etymology and prosopography, 15Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis: a collotype facsimile of the original manuscript, ed. A. HamiltonThompson, Surtees Soc. cxxxvi, 1923, ix. 16Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Hamilton-Thompson, xxviiii, citing J. T. Fowler, ed., The Rites of Durham, Surtees Soc. cvii, 1903, 16-7. 17 Translated from Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Stevenson, 18. 18Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Hamilton-Thompson, xiv-v, xxvi. 19 E.g. A list of families in the archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3, ed. Kettle. 20 E.g. Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, 135-52; The Obituary Roll of William Ebchester and John Burnby, priors of Durham, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Soc. xxxi, 1856; W. H. St John Hope, The Obituary Roll of John Islip, London, 1906; Liber Luciani de laude Cestrie, ed. M. V. Taylor, Lancashire and Cheshire Rec. Soc. lxiv, 1912. 21 E.g. Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Stevenson, xv-vi, 32-3, 71-2; Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, 293; The Obituary Roll of William Ebchester, 106-20; Literae Cantuarienses, ed. J. Sheppard, 3 vols, RS lxxxv, 1887-89, i, 10-13; ii, 456-7; iii, 137-8, 140-3,152, 288, 315, 368-9; Liber Ecclesiae Wigornensis, ed. J.H. Bloom, Worcestershire Hist. Soc. xxviii, 1912, 52. 22 Thorney: 'Red Book' (Cambridge University Library, MSS 3020-1); Rochester: 'Textus Roffensis' (Rochester Cathedral Library, MS A.3.5, fos 119-235, printed in Textus Roffensis, ed. T. Hearne, Oxford, 1720, 62-242, from a sixteenth-century transcript (B.L. Cotton MS Julius C ii); printed in facsimile in 'Textus Roffensis', part II, ed. P. Sawyer, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile, xi, Copenhagen (Denmark) 1962.

< previous page

page_168

next page >


page_169

< previous page

page_169


as Cecily Clark herself showed in several articles,23 but for historical demographers their interest lies in their occasional inclusion of the wives and children of lay donors (and in the eleventh and twelfth centuries of a few married clergy as well). There was no legal or customary rule which required the inclusion of kin other than children,24 and most frequently male donors are listed either alone or only with their wives, but the context suggests that when children were mentioned, usually all were included who were alive at the time.25 Even more valuable from both demographic and prosopographical viewpoints, such data, sparse though it admittedly is, comes mainly from the eleventh and earlier twelfth centuries when little other information on the size of families is available. Other sources of prosopographical value become more frequent from the mid-twelfth century onwards, with the near-continuous series of Pipe Rolls after 1155, followed in the thirteenth and later centuries by the regular Chancery enrolments of charter, patent, close, fine and liberate rolls.26 Even as liturgical documents the three surviving English libri vitae have not received overmuch attention: the original edition of the Durham liber did little more than provide a usable text, and its palaeographical element was rudimentary; a re-edition did not proceed beyond a useful, albeit rather poor quality, facsimile: the promised second volume which was to contain a new transcription of the text together with a proper study of the various handwritings and a prosopographical index never materialised.27 The edition of the Hyde Abbey liber, whilst again giving a usable text, was, despite its editor's reputation, hardly notable for its palaeographical expertise, as well as citing the wrong reference (BL ms Stowe 960) for the original MS,28 and neither the Durham nor the Hyde libri were collated with the available cartularies,29 a task which Cecily Clark in her preliminary 23 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000'; C. Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney and its ''catchment area" ', Nomina 9, 1985, 53-72; C. Clark, 'A witness to post-Conquest English cultural patterns: the liber vitae of Thorney Abbey', in A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, ed., Studies in honour of Rene Derolez, Ghent (Belgium) 1987, 73-85. 24 S.D. White, Custom, Kinship and Gifts to Saints: the Laudatio Parentum in Western France, 1050-1150, Chapel Hill (USA) 1988, 3, 53, 198-9, points out that English practice required only the consent of heirs, not of other near-kin, hence the early rise of warranty against heirs in England, and that, apart from retrait lignager in a few boroughs, the later French practices were unknown in England. I am most grateful to Dr Marjorie Chibnall for bringing Dr White's work to my notice. 25 Again, there is a contrast with France, where, although challenges to monastic donations were normally confined to the wives/widows, sons, daughters and sons-in-law of donors, the presence of other kin means that there can be 'no routine equation' of kin with the co-residential family, though there was an 'overwhelming preponderance of conjugal pairs and full or truncated conjugal kin' (White, Custom, Kinship and Gifts to Saints, 62, 96, 119, 124-6). 26 Most of the 'Pipe Rolls' from 1155 to 1221 are printed in the Pipe Roll Society series; the publications of the Public Record Office and its predecessors are conveniently listed in HMSO. List 24: British National Archives. Details of both the Pipe Roll Society series and the official publications are given in E. L. C. Mullins, Texts and Calendars, 2 vols, London 1958, 1983. 27Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Hamilton-Thompson, vii. 28Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, i. 29 The cartularies are listed in G. R. C. Davis, Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain, London 1958, 39-41 (Durham Priory), 121 (Hyde Abbey). The numerous Durham cartularies, mostly still in the Dean and Chapter muniments, are all unprinted, as are the four post-Conquest cartularies in the British Library for Winchester Cathedral, Hyde Abbey and Holy Cross Hospital; the latter, however, contain very few (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_169

next page >


page_170

< previous page

page_170


studies of the Thorney Abbey liber vitae showed was essential to the successful identification and dating of the individuals mentioned.30 The necessity for collation with the evidence of cartularies, original charters and any other external dating-material arises from the fact that the entries in libri vitae were never dated and now are not necessarily in chronological order, for reasons to be examined later. In other cases, such confraternity records did not reach the liber proper: a twelfth-century confraternity-agreement for Ansketil Fitz Gilbert survives only as the rear paste-down of the Durham liber.31 At Thorney Cecily Clark noted that No one is more amply represented by confraternity-records than the Huntingdonshire landholder Odo Revel . . . but whether he figures anywhere in the liber vitae is uncertain.'32 We must next ask how far entries in libri vitae are likely to be representative of the whole population. As we have already noted, there was no legal or moral compulsion on the laity either to enter into confraternity with a monastery or to ensure the mention of family members alongside the individual confrere, and in fact the vast majority of secular entries in all three libri vitae refer to individuals. The impulse came from the potential donor, leading one eminent Scottish historian to describe the Durham liber vitae as 'That incomparable tourist Visitors' Book'.33 The corollary is that it is difficult to regard the people entered in a liber vitae as in any sense a random sample. Geographically, as might be expected, the visitors to Durham come overwhelmingly from north-east England and southern Scotland, those to Hyde from southern England and those to Thorney from the East Midlands.34 Although a full social classification is at present impossible since not all the named individuals can be sufficiently identified, in all three places the visitors are mostly from the baronial and knightly groups, with a sprinkling of local freeholders and burgesses. Analysis has, however, shown that the families of the barons and knights do not seem to be markedly different in either size or composition from the families of the freeholders and townsmen, though admittedly the number of the latter is too small to be a satisfactory sample. Although this social analysis is based on the identified heads of families in the libri vitae, there is no reason why it should not apply to all adult males mentioned in these sources: the heads of families, so far as can be seen, are a fairly small but apparently not atypical selection of all the males in the libri, most of whom are recorded as individuals. It is also clear from the sex-ratio (i.e. the number of men per 100 women) that (Footnote continued from previous page) copy-deeds and virtually none before the thirteenth century. The Hyde Abbey chronicles (Liber Monasterii de Hyda, ed. E. Edwards, RS, 1866) contain no information on the abbey's dealings with land in the AngloNorman period. The other major source of relevant documentary evidence, the Winton DB, is edited by Frank Barlow in M. Biddle, Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, Oxford 1976. 30 See references cited in n. 22. 31Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Stevenson, 148. 32 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 65. 33 G. W. S. Barrow, The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, Oxford 1980, 158-9. 34 For Thorney, see Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney and its "catchment area" '.

< previous page

page_170

next page >


page_171

< previous page

page_171


men are considerably over-represented in the reconstructed families at all three centres. These sex-ratios are 151 (Durham), 163 (Hyde), 182 (Thorney). As I have remarked elsewhere, it is not necessary to indulge, as French historians did when confronted with the same apparent sexual imbalance in the Carolingian polyp-tyques, in fantasies about massive female infanticide: where they were observed, the feast-days of the Eleven Thousand Virgins (22 August and 21 October) were not occasions for culling surplus young girls. The truth is more prosaic: it is not that women were missing, rather that men were more likely to be represented, for the very obvious reason that men, both as heads of families and households and as individuals, did matter more in the 'feudal' age.35 (I hope this remark will not be regarded as 'sexist': the medieval past was, by our standards, regrettably sexist but to try to read back modem feminist preconceptions into earlier periods strikes me as simply unrealistic and ahistorical.) So, therefore, visits to all three religious houses may well often have followed, and been in thanksgiving for, the birth of a son and heir, which was vital to to the continuance of both the family in the next generation and of the unity of the family estate. The overrepresentation of men is thus entirely explicable in terms of the value-system and ethos of the lordly classes in 'the first century of English [and Scottish] feudalism'; it does not weaken the value of the libri vitae for historical demography or prosopography. Hence, what is available constitutes a small but useful sample of families in three widely separated regions of AngloNorman England, the North (Durham Priory), the East Midlands (Thorney Abbey) and the South (Hyde Abbey).36 But an essential preliminary to using the entries in the libri vitae for any historical purpose is close dating of these entries. Yet any attempt to date all entries as precisely as possible can only be securely achieved by identifying the individuals involved, i.e. by prosopographical methods. Close dating of entries on palaeographical grounds alone may be unsafe, a result not only of doubts about the close dating of scripts but also because the 'horizon' or 'catchment period' of the entries may be up to a century before they were recorded.37 As I have already remarked, this dating-process necessarily involves the collation of the libri vitae with cartularies and original charter-materials which may throw light on the particular event recorded and, in addition, the establishment of a chronological context by reference to other records which provide definite dates in the lives of the individuals concerned (e.g. Pipe Rolls or dated charters), or show they were among witnesses to deeds which can be approximately dated. In default, it may be necessary to apply the same dating-process to individuals in adjoining entries written in the same hand, who are not otherwise relevant to entries referring to families, in order to provide a date-bracket. Moreover, I have not attempted a full prosopographical study of any of the English libri vitae, desirable though such a 35 Cf. E. R. Coleman, 'Medieval Marriage Characteristics: a neglected factor in the history of medieval serfdom', in T K. Rabb, R. I. Rotberg, eds, The Family in History, New York (USA) 1976, 4-13, and D. Herlihy, Medieval Households, London 1985, 62-8, on the illusory surplus of men on the estates of St Germain des Prés in the ninth-century polyptyque. 36 There are also some confraternity agreements for Rochester Priory (see n. 13 above). 37 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 57-64.

< previous page

page_171

next page >


page_172

< previous page

page_172


study would be: as a student of historical demography, I have confined myself to an attempt at direct dating of the entries recording families and, in default, to dating of the surrounding entries to establish a probable time-period. Perhaps my efforts may stimulate others to take on the full prosopographical study of the Durham and Hyde libri vitae which would be an invaluable adjunct to English medieval studies alongside Cecily Clark's edition of the Thorney liber to be completed by John Insley. But I hope that the understanding I have acquired of the three surviving English libri vitae may provide some useful insights on their value for possible future prosopographical work. I shall draw mainly on the work I have already accomplished on the Hyde and Thorney libri which has been or will be printed in Nomina; work on the Durham liber, the largest of all three libri, is still in progress. Chronology is obviously the first matter to be considered. In theory, I suppose, one might expect a liber vitae to progress through time starting at the beginning and finishing at the end. But matters are not so simple. Folios or single leaves may have been inserted after the book was originally constituted, or the original order of the folios may have been subsequently disturbed. The Thorney liber, the first twelve folios of a continental gospel book later associated with Thorney Abbey which is now BL MS Add. 40,000, has been examined in detail by Cecily Clark and Elisabeth Van Houts. (It is indeed the only one of the three English libri to have been subjected to detailed palaeographical and codicological examination.) Clark concluded from the evidence of the scripts and orthographical features such as the use of Old English spellings for native names and of Old English characters such as thorn, wynn and yogh that the chronological order of those folios that contained entries was 10r-v, 9v, 3r-v, 2r-v, 11r, 12r, 1v.38 Despite the tight binding of the MS, Van Houts was able to show that fols 5r-10v formed three bifolia, together with fol. 4r-v which probably formed half of another bifolium, whilst fols 1r-3v and 11r-v were later single-sheet additions; only fol. 12r-v probably formed an additional bifolium of which the stub remains between fol. Iv and fol. 2r.39 Clark commented revealingly That the compilers had no great sense of system is, after all, evident from the existence of four folios begun but left mainly blank but also from the many cramped entries made in margins despite availability of ample blank space elsewhere. Especially revealing is the occasional duplication of entries and, even more so, a fair number of apparent omissions ... Equally, it seems wise to allow for some concurrent use of different folios.40 It is abundantly clear that logical and systematic arrangement cannot be assumed nor utilised as dating criteria, and that the only safe criteria are palaeography (within limits) and precise personal identification. More frequently, the makers of libri vitae grouped certain types of entry together, leaving gaps between such sections into which extraneous matter was 38 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 50-65. 39 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 66-8. 40 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 53, 61.

< previous page

page_172

next page >


page_173

< previous page

page_173


later incorporated. Thus the MS of the Hyde Abbey liber begins with a variety of preliminary matter ranging from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries before the preface to the liber proper. The preface was written in a hand of about 1000 or a little later, by a scribe who was responsible for the initial arrangement of the liber according to the status of the confrere, kings followed by sons of kings, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priests and monks, interspersed with a few important lay-men.41 There follow notes of monks admitted to New Minster between 993 and 1282, twelfth-century notes on peasant labour-services, a form of blessing, and a confraternity-agreement with St Albans abbey, before the main series of entries is resumed.42 This series is again interrupted by lists of 'illustrious women', of monks and nuns from other houses, a variety of historical and liturgical materials (including a copy of King Alfred's will) and later by a list of relics and a further list of monks admitted to New Minster between 1282 and c.1530.43 Part of this confused order results from the displacement of some pages, and the loss of others, during rebinding.44 Originally, as I have suggested, entries would have been made in chronological sequence on each MS. page, and usually pages were first written with wide margins and generous line-spacings, and these margins were used, sometimes decades or even centuries later, for the entry of further names, whilst more names were interlined in the main body of the text, thus breaking-up the original sequence and unity of the earlier entries.45 Thus the entry in the Hyde Abbey liber (MS p. 38) for 'Johannes laicus et Johanna coniux eius et Johanna et Katerina filiarum', is a late thirteenth-century addition to a page otherwise containing entries recorded in a hand of the first half of the twelfth century: the family is probably that of John de Anne, city clerk of Winchester, who died c.1316.46 Many pages of the Hyde liber exemplify the later obscuring of the original layout: manuscript page 47 began with the same bi-columnar arrangement of the preceding page in a late eleventh-century hand, but most of the twelfth-century entries do not conform to this pattern. Manuscript pages 98-9 were 'crowded with names, the handwriting of which ranges over the twelfth to the fifteenth century', and again an original bi-columnar arrangement has been abandoned.47 The earliest folio (10r) of the Thorney liber starts with an arrangement in five columns, of which the first three are headed by kings, archbishops, bishops and earls; thereafter the less distinguished laity predominate, together with a few priests, and fol. 10v contained only four columns. The chronology of entries in libri vitae cannot, therefore, be determined solely from palaeography, which can only supply a later limit for dating because of the 41 BL MS Stowe 944, pp. 1-29; Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, 1-30. 42 BL MS Stowe 944, pp. 30-7; Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, 31-49. 43 The names of 'confreres and benefactors' occur at BL MS Stowe 944, pp. 38-42, 45-8, 98-9, 119-26; Liber Vitae . . . of ... Hyde Abbey, 50-9, 63-74, 123-47, 176-92. 44Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, i-ii, lx, lxii, lxviii-ix. 45Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Hamilton-Thompson, xiv-v, xxvi. 46 Moore, 'Family Entries in English Libri Vitae', 115-16. 47Liber Vitae . . . of . . . Hyde Abbey, 70, n. 1, 72, n. 2; 136, n. 1.

< previous page

page_173

next page >


page_174

< previous page

page_174


possibility of entries being made retrospectively, nor from the position of an entry on a particular manuscript folio, although this may indicate an approximate dateable context in the case of obscure figures. And the position and context of entries, sometimes embedded in blocks written in the same handwriting, are themselves often of historical and prosopographical interest. This is apparent in the Thorney liber from the earliest folios: the first major block on fol. 10v is headed by Roger Bigod I, lord of Framlingham (Suffolk), and contains his brother-in-law William de Todeni, lord of Belvoir (Rutland), Robert de Grandmesnil, son of Hugh de Grandmesnil, lord of Leicester, presumably a personal friend, and Roger Bigod's associates such as Winemar the Fleming, lord of Hanslope (Bucks.), and his followers in the East Midlands and East Anglia, Atselin de Walterville, Hugh de Evermou, Roger de Burgh, Roger and Walter Olivard and Ranulf de Warenne. Roger Bigod I was present at Thorney Abbey in 1098 when the saints' relics were translated to the new church at its re-dedication, probably the occasion at which this entry was made, and clearly wished to demonstrate the strength of his following.48 Similar blocks on fol. 4r are headed by Alan de Craon, lord of Freiston (Lincs.), and by Hugh Fitz Baldric, lord of Cottingham (Yorks.), interestingly, Alan was Hugh's grandson49, on fol. 3r by Turchil of Arden, a surviving Anglo-Danish Warwickshire landholder, and on fol. 2r by Gilbert Fitz Richard, lord of Clare (Suffolk). The last block included Gilbert's wife Adeliza or Alice, the daughter of Hugh, Count of Clermont, and his wife Marguerite, who were entered, along with Adeliza's second husband Burchard de Montmorency, immediately after Gilbert's eldest son Richard Fitz Gilbert, and Hervey, Alice's son by her second marriage. On fol. 2v are two blocks, one headed by the Lincolnshire landholder Gilbert de Neville of Walcote, the other by Ralph Chenduit, a prominent baron of the honour of Mortain in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire. Such blocks emphasise that, even in ecclesiastical matters, the public display of secular power was essential to maintain the standing of a noble house, and they provide an insight into the composition of political groupings. Although my earlier demographic analysis focussed on the Anglo-Norman family, the household of which it formed the biological core is also evident in the libri vitae, to remind us of its political and military as well as administrative importance. The Thorney liber thus records 'Roger le Bygod . . . Anskitillus capellanus eius', 'Ricardus filius comitis et miles eius Willelmus et presbiter eius Willelmus',50 'Reinaldus de Huntedune . . . et Osbernus capellanus eius' (fol. 10v), 'Turkil de Ardene . . . Rodbertus capellanus eius', 'Radulfus filius Baldrici . . . et 48 C. R. Hart, 'The Ramsey Computus', EHR lxxxv, 1970, 44; Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney', 66. 49 Alan was the son of Guy de Craon, a DB tenant-in-chief in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire but also sub-tenant of Claxby and Sloothby (Lincs.) from Hugh Fitz Baltic, where Guy is described as Hugh's son-in-law (DB, fol. 355c, Lincs; 25, 19, 25). 50 Richard is probably the son of Earl Hugh d'Avranches of Chester rather than Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare I, d. c.1090 (son of Count Gilbert de Brionne), because he is not entered with the other Clares and was still alive when this entry was made 1099 × 1113. But, as Michel Bur has shown, he was a cousin of the Clares: M. Bur, 'De quelques champenois dans l'entourage français des rois d'Angleterre au XIIe siècle', p. 337 and chart pedigree.

< previous page

page_174

next page >


page_175

< previous page

page_175


Aelredus presbiter' (fol. 3r), 'Willelmus de Albenico . . . Rogerius clericus eius, Godefridus et Radulfus milites eius', 'Gilbertus filius Ricardi . . . Rodbertus capellanus . . . Rodbertus dapifer' (fol. 2r). The Hyde liber adds 'Walterius pincerna episcopi . . . Radulfus cocus episcopi', the bishop being Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester (MS p. 38), but otherwise contains no mention of household members, nor does it appear to contain the blocks of names found in the Thorney liber. Knights, clerks, domestic chaplains, stewards, butlers and cooks are of course more familiar to us from the witness lists of charters and, in the case of knights, from Domesday Book and the carte baronum: all are, again, essential components in the machinery of noble power. I now turn to consider how accurate is the information contained in the libri vitae. Since it is impossible to determine the accuracy of the libri as records of confraternity (though we have already seen that the Thorney liber omits any mention of Odo Revel, a known confrere),51 we can only approach this problem by examining the degree of precision in the recording of families in the libri: are known wives and children included or not? (At this point the demographic aspect of the history of the family actively assists the study of prosopography!) The question can, of course, only be asked about those families where the identification of the head is certain and where the children are individually named. (Many family-entries end simply 'filii et filie eius'.) Moreover, the absence of sons apart from the eldest does not necessarily indicate incomplete recording, since I have already argued that the motive for the gift initiating confraternity may well have been the birth of the eldest son. The Hyde liber includes six named sons and daughters of Ascor of Winchester, 'knight of Geoffrey Croc' (MS p. 72), the first being Walter; there is no mention of his son Ernold who held land in Winchester in 1148.52 However, it is not absolutely certain that Ernold was omitted: Ascor's youngest son was recorded as 'Leofricus vel Hugo' and Ernold may have taken the continental name Walter as an alias. But there is independent evidence for William, the one recorded son of Ansketil (MS p. 125).53 The Thorney liber provides more scope for this exercise. On fol. 2r an entry refers to 'Willelmus de Albinico, Cecilia uxor eius, filii eius Willelmus, Rodbertus, Rogerius, Matildis, Basilia filiae eius'. The father was William D'Aubigny Brito I, died 1133 × 1155, lord of the barony of Belvoir (Leics.) iure uxoris Cecily Bigod; his eldest son William II, who granted the church of Redmile (Leics.) to Belvoir Priory c. 1165 'with the assent of Cecily my mother', succeeded his father, and died in 1168; Robert was a major tenant of his brother William II in 1166. Besides William, Robert and Roger (for whom there is no other evidence), William I had a fourth son Ralph who witnessed a charter of Simon de Ropsley granting land at Long Clawson (Lincs.) to Belvoir Priory before 1168 and his mother Cecily's 51 See p. 7 above and reference cited in n. 31. 52 Biddle, Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, 114 (no. 631), 138 (nos 1050, 1053). 53 Biddle, Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, 42 (no. 46); J. H. Round, ed., Calendar of Documents preserved in France, London 1899, 401; The Chartulary of the Priory of Sele, ed. L. F. Salzman, Cambridge 1923, 3.

< previous page

page_175

next page >


page_176

< previous page

page_176


charter granting the church of Uffington (Lincs.) to Belvoir Priory, 1168 × 1177, and whose assent to the grant of Redmile church to Belvoir Priory by his elder brother William H c.1165 is also recorded. There is apparently no other evidence for the existence of William I's daughters Matilda and Basilia.54 The absence of Ralph from this entry is not necessarily an omission: this folio was written no later than 1140, and since Ralph does not appear as a witness until c. 1165 he could well have been born after the entry was written. A second entry on fol. 2r commemorates 'Gilebertus de Fulcheswurde, Erenburg uxor eius, Rodbertus, Radulfus, Henricus, filii eius.' The Crowland cartulary proves that Gilbert also had a son Guy, but the apparent omission in the liber is merely a scribal misplacement, since the entry is followed by the names 'Wido, Elias, Rohes filia eius', all written in the same hand as the entry itself: Elias, alias Elias of Whitwell (Rutland), died c.1199, was Gilbert's brother and Roesia was Elias' daughter.55 It is obvious that 'Wido' should have preceded rather than followed 'filii eius'. Finally on fol. 2r there is the entry relating to the family of Gilbert Fitz Richard: 'Gilebertus filius Ricardi, Ricardus filius eius . . . Aaliz uxor Gileberti filii Ricardi, Comes Gilebertus, Walterius, Hervicus, Hugo, Guido filii sui, . . . Rohes, Aviza, Margareta, Aaliz natae sue.' Gilbert, also known as Gilbert of Tonbridge (Kent) and Gilbert de Clare, was lord of the barony of Clare (Suffolk), c.1090-c. 1117; Gilbert's eldest son Richard Fitz Gilbert, alias Richard de Clare H, succeeded his father c.1117, and died in 1136. 'Comes Gilebertus' was Gilbert Fitz Richard's second son, Gilbert Fitz Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke from 1138, died c. 1148. Soon after 1136, probably in 1138, Gilbert joined with his mother, his surviving brothers Walter and Baldwin (who is unaccountably omitted from this entry) and his sister Roese in giving land to Thorney. Of Gilbert's daughters, the firstborn, Margaret, married William de Montfichet, lord of the barony of Stansted Mountfichet (Essex), who died 1135 × 1156; she was still alive, aged '60 and more' in 1185. The second daughter, Aviza, also known as Adeliza, married William de Percy II, lord of the barony of Topcliffe (Yorks), who died in 1174-75; the third daughter, Rohese, married Badeton of Monmouth, lord of the barony of Monmouth, who died 1170 × 1176; and the fourth daughter, Alice, married Aubrey de Vere II, who died in 1141. Thus all the filii sue and nate sue were Gilbert Fitz Richard's sons and daughters, except for Hervey who was a posthumous stepson, being Alice's son by her second husband.56 Michel Bur has demonstrated the continental 54 I. J. Sanders, English Baronies: a study of their origin and descent, 1086-1327, Oxford 1960, 12; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Rutland, iv, London 1905 [hereafter H.M.C. Rutland MSS, IV], 99-100, 130, 144; The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall, 3 vols, RS xc, 1897, I, 328. 55English Episcopal Acta, I: Lincoln, 1067-1185, ed. D. M. Smith, London, 1980, 67-8; VCH (Cambs.) V, 162. 56Facsimiles of Early Charters from Northamptonshire Collections, ed. F. M. Stenton, Northamptonshire Rec. Soc. IV, 1930 [hereafter Stenton, Early Northamptonshire Charters], 52-4; J. H. Round, 'The Family of Clare', Arch. Journ. LVI, 1899, 221-31; GEC III, 243; VI, 498-9; X, 348-9; Sanders, English Baronies, 34-5, 52, 65, 83,148; J. C. Ward, 'Royal Service and Reward: the Clare family and the Crown, 1066-1214', Anglo-Norman Studies XI, 1989, 261-78, esp. genealogical chart on p. 262 which corrects (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_176

next page >


page_177

< previous page

page_177


kin-relationships of this family which led to their Dammartin cousins also having extensive lands in East Anglia.57 Near the top of fol. 2v is a clearly incomplete record of the Stuteville family: 'Robertus pater Johannes [de Stuteuilla] et mater eius Erenburga.' Robert de Stuteville II had at least four other sons and a daughter as well as John de Stuteville, whose wife Agnes is also mentioned later in the same entry. John founded a junior line in Warwickshire c.1138 and died c. 1184.58 Also on fol. 2v is the entry relating to the somewhat mysterious family of Chenduit, written 1140 × 1160: 'Radulfus Cheneduit, Willelmus Cheneduit filius eius, Radulfus Cheneduit, Simon Cheneduit, Roger Chehneduit, . . . Matildis de Port uxor eius, Matildis et Matildis filiae eius.' The genealogy of the Chenduit family is a little difficult to unravel, but the father of the family in this entry can be identified as Ralph Chenduit II, probably the grandson of the man called 'Ralph' who was a major sub-tenant of the Count of Mortain in 1086 in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire, most of whose manors were later held by or from the Chenduit family; in particular most of the Northamptonshire manors were held by or from Simon Chenduit as part of the former Mortain honour of Berkhampstead in the 'Northamptonshire Survey' of 1124 × 1153. Charter evidence provides the name of Agnes, wife of Ralph I, and their sons Simon and Hugh. Ralph II, the father in the liber entry, was presumably Simon's son: he was granting land to local churches in the 1150s and 1160s, and died c.1179, when his eldest son William paid a fine of 200 marks to succeed him. William also occurs in 1181, together with Ralph Cheneduit II's younger son Ulian and a daughter Rose; this suggests that one of the daughters called Matilda whose names are entered above is certainly an erroneous scribal duplication instead of 'Rohesia', whilst 'Ulianus' must be added to the list of son's names. 'Radulfus . . . Simon . . . Roger . . .' are not stated to be Ralph (II)'s sons in the liber, but their names are written in the same hand as the rest of the entry, and Ralph and Simon at least both witnessed a grant by Geoffrey Fitz Peter of land in Hemel Hempstead (Hefts), 1199 × 1213. Again, there is some scribal misplacing of children's names, one fairly certain miscopying of a daughter's name, but no certain omission: Ulian was probably born after his father's grant to Thorney and the corresponding grant of fraternity by the abbey, since he was still alive after 1240.59 (Footnote continued from previous page) M. Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: the Clares, 1217-1314, Baltimore (USA) 1965, Table I following p. 332; Rotuli de Dominabus et Pueris et Puellis de XII comitatibus, ed. J. H. Round, Pipe Roll Soc. OS, xxxv, 1913 [hereafter Rotuli de Dorninabus], 85-6. 57 M. Bur, 'De quelques champenois dans l'entourage français des rois d'Angleterre au XIIe siècle', 341-3 and chart pedigree. 58Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. W. Fatter, C. T. Clay, Edinburgh, 3 vols, 1914-16; continued as Yorkshire Rec. Soc., extra set, i-x, 1935-65 [hereafter EYC], ix, 1-5, 23-6, 132. 59VCH (Herts) I, 319, n. 1; ii, 209, 240, 244, 265; VCH (Northants) i, 368-71, 373-4, 377, 380; VCH (Bucks) III, 332, 382, 404, 407-8, 430; EYC II, 132, 182; Digest of the . . . Cartulary . . . of Dunstaple, ed. G. H. Fowler, Bedfordshire Historical Rec. Soc. X, 1926, pp. 60-1; Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 61; Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney', 67; The Cartulary of Daventry Priory, ed. M. W. Franklin, Northamptonshire Rec. Soc. xxxiii, 1988, 164-5; P.R. 25 Hen. II, 56; Cartae Antiquae Rolls, 1-10, ed. L. Landon, Pipe Roll Soc. NS, XVII, 1939, 57; Stenton, Early Northamptonshire Charters, 136; Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, ed. D. M. Stenton, L. C. Loyd, Oxford 1950, 115, 215; The (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_177

next page >


page_178

< previous page

page_178


The entry on fol. 3r relating to the Longville family is clearly incomplete: 'Rainaldus de Lon[ga] villa, Rorgeis filius eius et Galterius frater eius et Emma soror eorum.' Neither Reginald's wife is mentionedshe was probably dead-nor his eldest son Henry who witnessed a grant of Huntingdonshire lands to Thorney Abbey, probably early in the twelfth century, and had succeeded his father by 1166, when he held Orton Longville (Hunts), a village named from the family.60 On fol. 9v there is an entry for the Walterville family: 'Atselinus de Walterville et uxor eius Mulier [recte Muriel] et filii eius Raulfus, Willelmus, Gosfridus, Hugo.' Atselin de Wa(l)terville of Marholm (Northants) by 1086 he held three knight's fees at Marholm and elsewhere in Northamptonshire of Peterborough Abbey; by 1129-30 he had been succeeded by Hugh, apparently the eldest son despite being placed last in the entry, who also accounted for the lands of Peterborough Abbey during the abbatial vacancy, presumably as steward of the abbey.61 There is no later record of Ralph, who presumably predeceased his father, but Atselin's other sons William and Geoffrey are independently documented. The family, who were hereditary stewards of Peterborough Abbey, should be distinguished from the Watervilles who gave their name to Orton Waterville (Hunts), held in 1086 by 'Ansgered' alias Anfred.62 In general, it would seem from all entries I have analysed that the two libri vitae so far examined in detail are very good records of identifiable families, allowing for inevitable scribal failings. In particular, where known children are omitted, it is nearly always because they were probably born after the confraternity-agreement had been made: Baldwin de Clare and Henry de Longueville are the only two known children almost certainly omitted from the two libri. Finally in considering the prosopographical significance of libri vitae I turn to instances where the libri either provide new genealogical information or have provoked a fresh long at old problems of identification. The Hyde liber records (MS p. 38) 'Hugo vicecomes et eius coniux Hadeuuisa et Simon [et] alii filii et filie', whom Round identified as Hugh sheriff of Hampshire. This identification is certainly wrong since that Hugh is duly recorded in the liber with a wife Orence (MS p. 47). I therefore proposed an identification with Hugh Fitz Grip, sheriff of Dorset, who certainly had a wife Hawise, but is not known to have had children by Hugh, or, if she did, they died before her, since her lands descended to her children by her second husband, Alfred of Lincoln.63 Dr Keats-Rohan in (Footnote continued from previous page) Cartulary of Missenden Abbey, ed. J. G. Jenkins, Buckinghamshire Arch. Soc., Records Branch, II, 1939; Buckinghamshire Rec. Soc. x, xii, 1955, 1962, II, 72-3. 60 Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 59; Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney', 69; Chronicon Abbatiae Ramesiensis, ed. W. D. Macray, RS lxxxiii, 1886, 252, 265; Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, ed. W. H. Hart, P. A. Lyons, 3 vols, RS lxxix, 1884-93, I, 141, 148; VCH (Hunts.) iii, 191. 61P.R. 31 Hen. I, 83, 86. 62Henry of Pytchley's Book of Fees, ed. W.T. Mellows, Northamptonshire Rec. Soc. II, 1927, xix, xviii, lii, 41, 435, 53-5; VCH (Hunts) i, 331; iii, 198-200; VCH (Northants) II, 499-500; iii, 136, 169; Documents illustrative of the Social and Economic History of the Danelaw, ed. F. M. Stenton, London, 1920, cviii, n. 1; King, 'The Peterborough Descriptio Militum (Henry I)', 98; PR 31 Hen. I, 83, 86; E. King, Peterborough Abbey, 1086-1310, Cambridge 1973, 24, 32-3, 38-9, 141; Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney', 72. 63 Moore, 'Family Entries in English Libri Vitae, c. 1050-c. 1530: Part 1', 116-17.

< previous page

page_178

next page >


page_179

< previous page

page_179


correspondence, stressing the lack of known children, has proposed an alternative substitution of Hugh de Beauchamp, sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, who is known to have had a son Simon and probably also a son Robert. The stumbling-block to this identification is that Hugh's wife, explicitly stated to be Simon's mother, was named Matilda, not Hawise; consequently I feel my own identification must stand, since libri vitae are most unlikely to enter wives' names incorrectly.64 The Thorney liber, as already stated, includes a large block centred on the D'Albini family (fol. 2r), which names the father of William D'Albini Brito I as 'Main'. This Main is probably not Mainou le Breton, lord of the barony of Wolverton (Bucks.) in 1086, but Main of Saint-Aubin-d'Aubigne (Ille-et-Vilaine).65 The entry also names Humphrey de Bohun I, lord of the barony of Trowbridge (Wilts), died c.1129, as William's uncle. Since Humphrey's wife is known to have been Maud, daughter of Edward of Salisbury, died in 1130, lord of the barony of Chitterne and also one of the eleventh-century lords of the barony of Trowbridge,66 this statement presumably means that Mainou married a sister of Humphrey de Bohun I, very possibly the Adeleisa who is entered in the liber between Main and Humphrey, since charter-evidence exists to prove that Main's wife was called Adeleisa.67 'Alb[e]ri[cus] et uxor eius et filii eius' (fol. 10v) were identified by Cecily Clark as almost certainly the family of Aubrey de Vere II, died 1141, lord of the barony of Hedingham (Essex), since his father Aubrey de Vere I, died c. 1112, is not known to have any connection with Thorney Abbey. Aubrey II, on the other hand, acknowledged his tenure of Twywell (Northants) from Thorney and gave tithes there to Thorney Abbey c.1112.68 Aubrey II married Alice, daughter of Gilbert Fitz Richard of Clare, and is said by the usual authorities to have had four sons and either two or four daughters.69 In fact, Aubrey II certainly had five sons and probably had four daughters. His sons were Aubrey de Vere III, Geoffrey, Robert, William, and Gilbert; his known daughters were Rohese, Alice or Adeliza and Juliana. Aubrey de Vere III succeeded his father as baron of Hedingham in 1141, but was made Earl of Oxford as early as 1139; he died in 1194. Geoffrey and Robert both became knights who were promised baronies by the Empress Matilda in 1142 and eventually received lands as a result of their support of the Angevins Robert held half a knight's fee, probably at Drayton and Islip (Northants), in 1166 whilst their younger brother William, a priest who became a canon of St Osyth's (Essex), 64 Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thurney and its ''catchment area" ', 66; E. King, 'The Foundation of Pipewell Abbey', Haskins Society Journal, 2, 1990, 175; ex inf. Dr Katharine Keats-Rohan. 65 J. A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, London, 1990, 25, 28; Sanders, English Baronies, 10; C. G. Chambers, G. H. Fowler, 'The Beauchamps, Barons of Bedford', Bedfordshire Historical Rec. Soc. i, 1913, 2-6. 66 Sanders, English Baronies, 91, 100, 112. 67 Bibliotheque de la ville d'Avranches, MS 210, fols 78r, v, a reference for which I am indebted to Dr KeatsRohan. 68Ex inf. the late Cecily Clark. 69DNB, lviii, 221; GEC, x, 199, n. 'd'.

< previous page

page_179

next page >


page_180

< previous page

page_180

next page > Page 180 Page 181

Chart 1. The De Vere Family

Chart 2. The De Trailli and Espec Families

< previous page


page_180

next page >

page_182

< previous page

page_182


was promised the post of chancellor by the Empress in 1142.70 (It will be observed that the promises of politicians were as worthless in the twelfth century as they are in the twentieth century.) William was described in his father's charter to Colne Priory as 'my most dear son' and two charters by Earl Aubrey de Vere III were witnessed by 'William de Ver my brother', one with 'Gilbert de Ver, my brother', who, though ignored by Round and other genealogists, also witnessed other charters for Colne Priory, often in the company of Geoffrey and William, and was overlord of Great Wratting (Suffolk) in the 1170s.71 Aubrey de Vere II's daughter Rohese first married Geoffrey de Mandeville II, lord of the barony of Pleshey (Essex) and from 1140 Earl of Essex, died 1144, and secondly Payn de Beauchamp, lord of the barony of Bedford. His second daughter Alice or Adeliza first married Robert of Essex, lord of the barony of Rayleigh (Essex), died 1132 × 1140, and then William de Sackville of Great Braxted (Essex), died c.1158, a marriage dissolved in 1141 × 1143 on the grounds of pre-contract between William and Albreda de Tregoz; Alice was still alive in 1185 when she was said to be aged '60' or '80' (the latter seems more likely). Aubrey II's third daughter Juliana first married Walkeline de Maminot I, lord of the barony of West Greenwich (Kent), died 1145 × 1157, and secondly Hugh Bigod I, lord of the barony of Framlingham (Suffolk) and from 1140-41 Earl of Norfolk, died 1177; she was still alive in 1185, when her age was not stated.72 Round also argued that, since the sons of Roger de Ramis were described in the Empress Matilda's charter of 1142 to Earl Aubrey de Vere III as 'lawful nephews of the same Earl Aubrey', Roger de Ramis (who succeeded his father William in 1129-30) had married a sister of Earl Aubrey and died before 1142: the name of Roger de Ramis' wife is, however, unknown, but she was presumably a fourth daughter of Aubrey de Vere II since all his other daughters were already married73 (see Chart 1). Also on fol. 10v is an entry relating to 'Gosfridus de Traili et uxor eius Albreida et filii eius et filiae.' Geoffrey de Trailly I, who took his name from Trelly south of Coutances, in 1086 held from Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, the manors of [Chellington] and Yelden (Beds.) and later acquired the manors of Turvey (Beds.) and Ludgershall (Bucks.)which the bishop himself had held in 1086, perhaps after the bishop forfeited his lands for rebelling in 1088. Geoffrey I was received into confraternity with his wife Albreda (Aubrey) before 1112 on granting land and tithes at Yelden to Thorney Abbey, probably the occasion at which this entry was made.74 He is generally thought to have become lord of half the barony of Old 70 J.H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, London 1892, 182, 389; DNB, lviii, 221; Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall, i, 335. 71Cartularium Prioratus de Colne, ed. J. L. Fisher, Essex Arch. Soc., Occasional Papers 1, 1945, 13-14, 18-23, 25, 27, 29-30; Rotuli de Dominabus, 59. 72 Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 393, n. 1; J. H. Round, 'The Essex Sackvilles', Arch. Journ. lxiv, 1907, 224-6; Sanders, English Baronies, 47, 71, 97; Rotuli de Dominabus, 29-30, 71, 76-77. 73PR 31 Hen. I, 54; Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 181, n. 4, 399, 401. 74 W. Farrer, 'The Honour of Old Wardon', Bedfordshire Historical Rec. Soc. xi, 1927, 35; Clark, 'British Library Additional MS 40,000', 58; Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney', 72.

< previous page

page_182

next page >


page_183

< previous page

next page >

page_183

Page 183 Table 1 Classification of spouses' names in the Hyde liber C Continental names (Breton, Norman-French, Old German) I Birch page

Insular names (Old Danish, Old English, Old Norse) Section 3, entry no. Date

Husband

Wife

67

c.1060

Leofred (I)

Burepyn (I)

74

c.1060

Godpine (I)

Wendelburh (I)

123

26

c.1060

Godnothus (I)

Algipa (I)

136

28

c.1060

Fithel (Irish)

Restra (Irish)

30

1

c.1070

Godpinus (I)

Erenburch (C)

67

19

c.1070

Ælfpine (I)

Gode (I)

125

27

c.1070

Ansketillus (I, C)

Eadgyfu (I)

c.1070

Eaduinus (I)

Aldgipa (I)

125 137

29

c.1070

Alfricus (I)

Godgipa (I)

30

2

c.1080

Alfuuinus (I)

Eadgypa (I)

50

10

c.1080

Hugo (C)

Hadeuuisa (C)

67

18

c.1080

Gyrebeard (C)

Serethe (C)

74

24

c.1080

Teotselinus (C)

Ealdgida (I)

30

3

c.1090

Hermannus (C)

Coleruna (C)

67

16

c.1090

Æ aduuinus (I)

Odelina (C)

c.1090

Ælfric (I)

Eadgyuu (I)

72


page_183

73

c.1090

Hugo (C)

Orence (C)

30

4

c.1100

Eaduuinus (I)

Oriald}(C)

72

20

c.1110

Gaufridus (C)

Le[____] (?I)

72

21

c.1110

Radulfus (C)

Adheles (C)

52

13

c.1130

Osmunt (I)

Mabilia (C)

c.1130

Ruthald (C)

Anhand (C)

c.1140

Rodbertus (C)

Æmma (C)

72 65

14

Wardon (Beds.) iure uxoris Albreda, sister of Walter Espec who died in 1155, and to have died himself 'before 1158', by implication after 1153 if not after 1155.75 But both these beliefs appear to be ill-founded as well as chronologically improbable. Geoffrey de Trailli I could hardly share his brother-in-law's honour before, at the earliest, Walter Espec entered Rievaulx Abbey in 1153, and in fact the formal partition of Walter's estates was not effected until 1158, three years after his death.76 The only land that Geoffrey I gave to Thorney was part of the manor of Yelden which he had held in his own right since before 1086. Moreover, a landholder who was already adult in 1086 could hardly still be alive in the later 1150s. In reality, the Geoffrey de Trailli who witnessed King Stepben's 75 Sanders, English Baronies, 52-3, 133-4. 76PR 4 Hen. II, 140, 146.

< previous page

page_183

next page >


page_184

< previous page

next page >

page_184

Page 184 Table 2. Classification of spouses' names in the Thorney liber C Continental names (Breton, Norman-French, Old German) I Insular names (Old Danish, Old English, Old Norse)

Folio

Section II, Entry no.

Date

Husband

Wife

10r

Before 1066

Eadwine (I)

Aethelswed (I)

10r

Before 1066

Osgot (I)

Aelfgifu (I)

10r

Before 1066

Atsere Hosð (I)

Ægelfted (I)

10r

Before 1066

Turi Welper (I)

Anlef (I)

10r

Before 1066

Ulfketel (I)

Leofcild (I)

10r

Before 1066

Ælfwine (1)

Ædzyth (I)

10r

Before 1066

Ulfketel (I)

Leofswy (I)

9v

60

1056 × 1070

Almer (I)

Estrild (I)

10r

63

c.1066

Sumerlede (I)

Wulfled (I)

10r

64

c.1066

Gunni (I)

Iswara (I)

9v

c.1066

Dunnig (I)

Golda (I)

9v

c.1066

Scott (?I)

Laeftreth (I)

9v

c.1066

Wulfnoth (I)

Godlef (I)

9v

c.1066

Saelide (I)

Asa (I)

9v

c.1066

Harold (I)

Aluith (I)

9v

c.1066

Lefsune (I)

Aegelgith (I)

9v

c.1066

Godwine (I)

Ringuen (I)


page_184

9v

c.1066

Siric (I)

Wulfgive (I)

9v

c.1066

Wulfwi (I)

Leofcuene (I)

9v

c.1066

Leofric (I)

Goda (I)

9v

c.1066

Aegelmer (I)

Aelfgive (I)

9v

c.1066

Leofwine (I)

Wulgive (I)

9v

c.1066

Leofwine (I)

Godgive (I)

9v

c.1066

Huchtred (I)

Aelfgive (I)

9v

c.1066

Bernard (C)

Sifted (I)

9v

c.1066

Alfsi (I)

Aelfgifu (I)

9v

c.1066

Walter (C)

Athelasc (I)

9v

c.1066

Lemmer (I)

Godgifu (I)

9v

c.1066

Lefred (I)

Eadgifu (I)

9v

c.1066

Eadward (I)

Eadgifu (I)

9v

c.1066

Alman (I)

Hersed (?I)

9v

c.1066

Ulf (I/C)

Agelgif (I)

9v

c.1066

Batswegen (I)

Wulgyth (I)

9v

c.1066

Aelfwine (I)

Godgifu (I)

9v

c.1066

Godsaule (I)

Lefgifu (I)

c.1066

Sebern (I)

Edild (I)

9v

c.1066

Swift (I)

Eadgifu (I)

9v

c.1066

Godman (I)

Godgi (I)

9v

61

(Table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_184

next page >


page_185

< previous page

next page >

page_185

Page 185 (Table continued from previous page)

Folio


Date

Husband

Wife

9v

c.1066

Aegelmer (I)

Aganild (?C)

9v

c.1066

Saeman (I)

Emma (C)

9v

c.1066

Godmaer (I)

Godgif (I)

9v

c.1066

Reinold (C)

Welliduc (?C)

9v

c.1066

Owin (I)

Mabilia (C)

9v

c.1066

Athelm (I)

Swetluf (I)

9v

c.1066

Wulwi (I)

Godgifu (I)

9v

c.1066

Kinebriht (I)

Lefquen (I)

9v

c.1066

Wulfric (I)

Estrild (I)

9v

c.1066

Ringolf (I)

Leofcwen (I)

c.1066

Arturns (I)

Godgiua (I)

10r

1066 × 1100

Walter (C)

Ranhildis (?C)

10r

1066 × 1100

Draeye (?I)

Baerta (C)

10r

1066 × 1100

Ire (C)

Ligarda (C)

10r

1066 × 1100

Lefyet (I)

Leovive (I)

10r

1066 × 1100

Ingolf (I/C)

Sweterun (I)

1066 × 1100

Roger (C)

Osmoth (I)

10r

1066 × 1100

Ringolf (I)

Syleve (?I)

10v

1066 × 1100

Rodbertus (C)

Botilda (C)

10v

1066 × 1100

Vitalis (C)

Emelina (C)

2r

10r

43

65


page_185

3v

58

1070 × 1080

Brictmer (I)

Aediue (I)

3r

52

1075 × 1110

Turstanus (I/C)

Alberetha (C)

3r

53

1075 × 1110

Laurentius (C)

Osilia (C)

10r

62

1099 × 1113

Vivianus (C)

Hilwet (I)

1099 × 1113

Ernaldus (C)

Rimild (C)

1099 × 1113

Atselinus (C)

[Muriel] (C)

10v

1099 × 1113

Hugo (C)

Agnes (C)

10v

1099 × 1113

Landbertus (C)

Wulfleda (I)

10v

1099 × 1113

Simon (C)

Mahalt (C)

10v

1099 × 1113

Malger (C)

Mahald (C)

10v

1099 × 1113

Ansertth (C)

Hodierna (C)

10v

1099 × 1113

Aelfricus (I)

Godgive (I)

10v

1099 × 1113

Rogerius (C)

Saegiven (I)

10v

1099 × 1113

Goeram (?C)

Cristina (C)

10r 10v

68

10v

76

1099 × 1113

Willelmus (C)

Godgive (I)

10v

55, 78

1099 × 1113

Gosfridus (C)

Albreida (C)

1099 × 1113

Herveus (C)

Mahald (C)

10v 10v

79

1099 × 1113

Swegen (I)

Tole (I)

10v

80

1099 × 1113

Radulfus (C)

Agnes (C)

10v

81

1099 × 1113

Rodbertus (C)

Ema (C)

10v

82

1099 × 1113

Turstanus (C)

Gunware (I)

9v

1100 × 1120

Willelmus (C)

Cuenelef (I)

9v

1100 × 1120

Hugo (C)

Heldeburch (?C)


page_185

(Table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_185

next page >


page_186

< previous page

next page >

page_186

Page 186 (Table continued from previous page)

Folio


Date

Husband

Wife

9v

1100 × 1120

Rotbert (C)

Hathewis (I)

9v

1100 × 1120

Morandus (C)

Estrild (I)

9v

1100 × 1120

Rotbert (C)

Odelina (C)

9v

1100 × 1120

Adelmus (I/C)

Emma (C)

9v

1100 × 1120

Rainulfus (C)

Ailflada (I)

2v

48

1110 × 1130

Rodbertus (C)

Erenburgh (C)

2v

49

1110 × 1130

Hugo (C)

Matilda (C)

2v

50

1110 × 1130

Roger (C)

Matildis (C)

2v

51

1110 × 1130

Wido (C)

Hodeard (C)

3r

1115 × 1140

Ingoldus (C)

Saegiue (I)

3r

1115 × 1140

Clarun (C)

Alburh (I)

3r

1115 × 1140

Turchil (I)

Cecilia (C)

3r

1115 × 1140

Reinerus (C)

Godgiue (I)

3r

1115 × 1140

Radulfus (C)

Emma (C)

3r

57

1115 × 1140

Peter (C)

Godgive (I)

3v

59

1130 × 1140

Den (I)

Stanburh (I)

2r

35, 38

1130 × 1140

Willelmus (C)

Cecilia (C)

2r

36

1130 × 1140

Guillelmus (C)

Mabilia (C)

2r

37

1130 × 1140

Tovius (I)

Agnes (C)

1130 × 1140

Willelmus (C)

Mahalt (C)

2r


page_186

2r

1130 × 1140

Iosfridus (C)

Ala (C)

2r

39

1130 × 1140

Huscarl (I)

Estrild (I)

2r

40

1130 × 1140

Asketinus (C)

Beatrix (C)

2r

41

1130 × 1140

Willelmus (C)

Matildis (C)

2r

42

1130 × 1140

Gilebertus (C)

Erenburh (?C)

2r

1130 × 1140

Gilebertus (C)

Aaliz (C)

2r

1130 × 1140

Hugo (C)

Adeliz (C)

2v

1140 × 1160

Eustachius (C)

Lece (?I)

1140 × 1160

Goce (C)

Gunnor (I/C)

2v

1140 × 1160

Iohannes (C)

Agnes (C)

2v

1140 × 1160

Waleram (C)

Margareta (C)

12r

1175 × 1190

Walter (C)

Iohanna (C)

12r

1175 × 1190

Willelmus (C)

Muriele (C)

12r

1175 × 1190

Hugh (C)

Alina (C)

1175 × 1190

Ricardus (C)

Iuliana (C)

2v

1v

46

34

< previous page

page_186

next page >


page_187

< previous page

page_187


confirmation in 1135 to Old Wardon Abbey of the lands given by Walter Espec must be Geoffrey de Trailli II since he is there explicitly described as witnessing 'with all the other nephews of Walter Espec'; Geoffrey is even more precisely described in the Rievaulx Abbey foundation-charter of 1132 by Walter Espec as one of 'my nephews Geoffrey de Trailli and William and Gilbert and Nicholas, sons of my middle sister Albreda'.77 It therefore follows that Albreda's husband, Geoffrey de Trailli I, as well as Albreda herself, must already have been dead; otherwise, being Albreda's husband, his consent as well as hers would certainly have been thought desirable to both foundation-grants. Given the reference to 'sons' in this entry, 'Rodbertus et Willelmus et Gilebertus' who immediately follow 'Gefridus' [Geoffrey II] in an earlier entry relating to this family on fol. 3r must be his brothers, since their names are written in the same hand as the rest of that entry. This deduction is confirmed by charter-evidence: the foundation-charter of Kirkham Priory c. 1122 was witnessed by, amongst others, Geoffrey de Trailli I, his wife Aubrey and their sons Geoffrey II, William, Nicholas and Gilbert, and these four sons, as we have seen, also witness Rievaulx Abbey's foundation-charter in 1132.78 Presumably Robert had died, and William had been born, in the period between his parents' gift to Thorney before 1112 and their attestation of the Kirkham foundation-charter c.1122, whilst both Geoffrey I and his wife Albreda must have died between c. 1122 and 1132 (See Chart 2). As I have already noted above, the libri vitae are also of value for other purposes. They can be used to determine the 'catchment area' of the three institutions with surviving libri, as Cecily Clark herself demonstrated for Thorney Abbey.79 They are one of the major sources for indicating the prevalence of married clergy in late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman England, as shown by several entries in both the Hyde Abbey and Thorney Abbey libri.80 They provide significant evidence for intermarriage between Norman and English (or, to be more accurate, people bearing continental and Old English or Anglo-Danish names respectively), and for the adoption of Norman forenames for their children by parents bearing English names and therefore of English descent soon after the Norman Conquest, or for the use of bilingual dublets (e.g. 'Leofricus vel Hugo' as the name of one of Ascer's sons noted above, and the 'William Leofric' who 77Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle, ed. J. C. Atkinson, Surtees Soc. lxxxiii, 1889, 21; The Cartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of Old Wardon, Bedfordshire, ed. G. H. Fowler, Manchester, 1931, 286-7. 78 Farrer, 'The Honour of Old Wardon', 6. 79 Clark, 'The Liber Vitae of Thorney and its "catchment area" '. 80 A. L. Barstow, Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy: the eleventh-century debates, New York (USA) 1982; J. Barrow, 'Hereford Bishops and Married Clergy, c. 1130-1204', Historical Research lx, 1987, 1-8. Earlier references to the continuation of clerical marriage into the thirteenth century are assembled in J. S. Moore, 'The Sudeley and Toddington area in Domesday Book', in Lord Sudeley, ed., The Sudeleys Lords of Toddington, London, 1987, 72, n. 19, and for the complete failure of the campaign against clerical marriage in Norwich diocese see C. Harper-Bill, 'The struggle for benefices in East Anglia', Anglo-Norman Studies xi, 1989, 126-8. Despite the threatened enslavement of clerical wives in the Council of 1129 (D. Whitelock, M. Brett, C. N. L. Brooke, eds, Councils and Synods with other documents relating to the English Church. I, 871-1204, Oxford, 2 pts, 1981, ii, 748), the ineffectiveness of prohibitions on clerical marriage is demonstrated by their repetition in 1138, 1156, 1175, 1195 and 1200 (ibid., 776, 833, 979, 1051, 1067, 1072).

< previous page

page_187

next page >


page_188

< previous page

page_188


was a minor tenant-in-chief in Domesday Gloucestershire), both of which again were themes developed by Cecily Clark.81 The results of a fuller study of intermarriage are set out in Tables 1-2, arranged chronologically, in which the fore-names of husbands and wives have been classified as Insular (I) and Continental (C). Finally, when more work has been done on the names of all the identifiable people in the libri vitae, not just the heads of families, expert onomastic scholars will doubtless be able to detect regional differences in name-patterns as Old English evolved into Middle English, yet again following in Cecily's footsteps.82 In his paper Christopher Lewis has already given some examples of such localization of names being established.83 To conclude, I hope I have shown how useful libri vitae can be for a variety of historical purposes despite their initially forbidding appearance: 'all those awful lists of names' as one eminent medievalist remarked to me. Though they are replete with problems, they also promise fresh fields to be exploited. As the Biblical prophet Joshua stated, 'There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed'.84 81 C. Clark, 'Willelmus Rex? vel alius Willelmus ?', Nomina XI, 1987, 7-33. For an attempt to develop the historical implications of this linguistic analysis, see J. S. Moore, 'The Norman Yoke?', Bulletin of the Manorial Society of Great Britain, NS, ii, i 1993, 5-13. 82 Cf. Clark, 'A witness to post-Conquest English cultural patterns'. 83 C. P. Lewis, 'Joining the Dots', above, 69-87. 84 Joshua, xiii, 1. [Simon D. Keynes, ed., The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, English Manuscripts in Facsimile 26, Copenhagen 1996, has been published since this paper was written Editor]

< previous page

page_188

next page >


page_189

< previous page

page_189


10 'Un vassal sans histoire'?: Count Hugh II (c.940/955-992) and the Origins of Angevin Overlordship in Maine K. S. B. Keats-Rohan The analysis of prosopographical data is perhaps at its most useful when it provides an insight into the dynamics of a society by permitting us to trace the way that relationships were formed, developed and ultimately changed. I shall attempt such an analysis here in the hope of sketching the outlines of a political history for tenth-century Maine. The attempt to rediscover the apparently lost history of the county of Maine in the tenth century has largely been abandoned by modern scholars at the point where Robert Latouche left it in his pioneering study of its second comital dynasty, published in 1910.1 The appearance, however, since 1910 of a series of studies of Carolingian politics and prosopography relating to Neustria and the March of Brittany by Chaume,2 Werner,3 Boussard,4 Le Maître,5 Guillotel6 and Brunterc'h,7 among others,8 together with studies of the origins of Normandy 1 Robert Latouche, Histoire du comté du Maine pendant le X et le XI siècle, Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes CLXXXIII, Paris 1910. Still the only reputable work to concentrate on Maine in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Latouche's book is only a sketch of its subject. 2 Maurice Chaume, Les origines du duchè de Bourgogne, 4 vols, Dijon 1925-31. 3 Karl Ferdinand Werner, 'Untersuchungen zur Frühzeit des Französischen Fürstentums (9-10 Jahrhundert)', Die Welt als Geschichte 18, 1958, 256-89; 19, 1959, 146-93; 20, 1960, 87-119; 'Bedeutende Adelsfamilien', in: Karl der Grosse Lebenswerk und Nachleben, ed. H. Beumann, 4 vols, Düsseldorf 1965, i, 3-142, and 'Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr 1000', Karl der Grosse, iv, 403-483. I am grateful to Professor Werner for his comments on this paper. 4 J. Boussard, 'Les destinies de la Neustrie du IXe au XIe siècle', Cahiers de civilisation médiévale xi, 1968, 1528; 'Les évêques en Neustrie avant la réforme grégorienne', Journal des Savants cccv, 1970, 161-96; 'L'origine des families seigneuriales dans la région de la Loire moyenne', Cahiers de civilisation médiévale v, 1962, 303-22. 5 P. Le Maître, 'L'oeuvre d'Aldric du Mans et sa signification', Francia viii, 1980, 43-64. 6 H. Guillotel, 'Les temps des rois VIIIe - Xe siècle', in A. Chédeville and H. Guillotel, La Bretagne des saints et des rois Ve Xe siècle, Ouest-France, 1984, 193-408; id, 'L'action de Charles le Chauve vis-à-vis la Bretagne de 843 à 852', Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire et d'Archéologie de Bretagne lii, 1975-6, 5-32. 7 Jean-Pierre. Brunterc'h, 'Le duché du Maine et la marche de Bretagne', in La Neustrie. Les Pays au Nord de la Loire, 650 à 850, ed. H. Atsma, 2 vols, Beihefte der Francia xvi, Sigmaringen 1989, i, 29-127. 8 Two of the most important being J. Dhondt, Etudes sur la naissance des principautés territoriales en France (IXe-Xe siècle), Bruges 1948, and J.-F. Lemarignier, Recherches sur l'hommage en marche et les frontières féodales, Lille 1945. More recent works include J. M. H. Smith, Province and Empire: (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_189

next page >


page_190

< previous page

page_190


The World of Hugh I and II of Maine.


page_190

< previous page

page_190

next page >


page_191

< previous page

page_191


by Werner,9 Musset,10 Yver,11 Bates12 and Searle,13 and a series of papers on the early Angevin counts by Bachrach,14 has provided the basis for a new history of Maine beginning nearly two centuries before the death of Berengar of Neustria, c.895, with which Latouche's work began. I have myself contributed a discussion of the relationships between Hugh II and III of Maine and their neighbours, based upon the analysis of the foundation charter of L'Abbayette.15 The work of Karl Ferdinand Werner has been of especial importance. By providing new information about Hugh I of Maine, and in drawing attention to the importance of Hugh I and his successors as men of extremely high (Carolingian) birth a fact of no small consequence entirely ignored by Latouche he has prepared the basis for a new, multi-dimensional approach to the history of tenth-century Maine beyond the reach of Latouche or his predecessors.16 For Latouche tenth-century Maine, despite its history as a central element of the former kingdom of Neustria, was a desert sparsely populated by three counts and as many bishops and viscounts. He found little to note beyond the serious quarrel between the second count Hugh and Bishop Seifrid of Le Mans. He nevertheless succeeded in establishing the family link between the counts of the twelfth century and those of the tenth. The county passed by inheritance from the Count Roger who established himself in Le Mans c.886 at the expense of Count Gauzlin. Gauzlin, who had the support of the Robertide king Odo and his brother Robert, was a member of the powerful Rorgonide family which had ruled Maine for much of the ninth century.17 Roger had been succeeded by his son Hugh I by 900. By 955 Hugh I had been succeeded by Hugh II, who was to quarrel with (Footnote continued from previous page) Brittany and the Carolingians, Cambridge 1992; Jean-Claude Meuret, Peuplement, pouvoir et paysage sur la marche Anjou-Bretagne, Laval 1993; D. Pichot, 'Le Bas-Maine: Xème-XIIIème siècles. Etude d'une société', thése de doctorat soutenu à l'université de Paris I, December 1992. 9 K.F. Werner, 'Quelques observations au sujet des débuts du ''duché" de Normandie', in Droit privé et institutions régionales: Etudes historiques offerts à Jean Yver, Paris 1976, 691-709. 10 L. Musset, Les invasions. Le second assaut contre l'Europe chrétienne (VIIe-XIe siècle), 2nd edn, Paris 1971, and 'Naissance de la Normandie (Ve-XIe sièle), in Histoire de la Normandie publié sous la direction de Michel de Bouard (Toulouse 1970). 11 J. Yver, 'Les premieres institutions du duché de Normandie', Settimane di Centro Italiano di Studi sull' Alto Medioevo 16, Spoleto 1969, 299-366. 12 D. Bates, Normandy Before 1066, Longman 1982; compare his excellent survey of the tenth century and its place in modern historiography, 'West Francia: the northern principalities', forthcoming in the New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3, ed. T. Reuter (I am grateful to Prof. Bates for allowing me to read this paper in advance of publication). 13 E. Searle, Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power 840-1066, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1989. 14 B.S. Bachrach, 'Some observations on the origins of the Angevin dynasty', Medieval Prosopography 10.2, 1989, 1-23; 'Geoffrey Greymantle, count of the Angevins, 960-987: A study in French politics', Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 17, 1985, 17-28; 'The Angevin strategy of castle building in the reign of Fulk Nerra, 987-1040', American Historical Review 88, 1983, 533-60. 15 K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, 'Two studies in North French prosopography: 1. Ivo fitz Fulcoin, the counts of Maine, the lords of Bellême and the foundation of L'Abbayette', Journal of Medieval History 20, 1994, 3-25. 16 As note 3 above; Werner produced another immensely valuable, and still under-exploited, means for advance in his discussion of the vassals of Robert the Strong, 'Untersuchungen', 1959, 146-93. 17 See Werner, 'Die Nachkommen', 442-3, 'Bedeutende Adelsfamilien', 139-41; G. Oexle, 'Bischof Ebroin von Poitiers und seine Verwamdten', Frühmittelaltliche Studien 3, 1969, 138-210.

< previous page

page_191

next page >


page_192

< previous page

page_192


Bishop Seifrid. At some point in 992 Hugh II was succeeded by his son Hugh III, who was allied with Odo II of Blois against Richard of Normandy shortly before his death in 1015 or 1016. His son and successor Herbert Wake-Dog was obliged to fight against Odo of Blois at Pontlevoy in 1016 on behalf of his then overlord Fulk IV of Anjou.18 Latouche accepted that Hugh III had also been subject to the overlordship of Anjou, but never explained the origin of Angevin overlordship in Maine. He, and several recent commentators, including Gérard Louise and Dominique Barthélemy, perceived the turbulent career of Bishop Seifrid as an important crux in the history of Maine and its relationship with Anjou, but without being able to explain why.19 In the year 900 the young count of Maine, Hugh I, was that rara auis, a close blood-relative of a Carolingian emperor. Son of Count Roger, first of what I term the Hugonide counts of Maine, his mother Rothilde was a daughter of Charles the Bald.20 It was unusual for daughters of the Carolingians to marry, so having such a mother made Hugh a man of some status. It is perhaps significant that his particular imperial connexion should have been Charles the Bald, an emperor known to have dwelt much, and to have consciously modelled himself, upon the biblical and historical figure of King David.21 Like his grandfather Charlemagne, he was referred to as David by leading intellectual figures of his day. In these circumstances we have to examine again the repeated attribution of the name David to Hugh I that occurs in a handful of admittedly difficult sources, which were contemptuously dismissed by Latouche and others after him. Latouche's critique was based upon a group of charters emanating from the ancient abbey of Saint-Pierre-de-la-Cour in Le Mans, which he showed on diplomatic grounds to be early twelfth-century forgeries. He nevertheless concluded that the forgeries were based upon a genuine act of Hugh II of Maine, given some time between 971 and 992 during the reign of Bishop Seifrid of Le Mans, whose canons were among its witnesses.22 Four of them refer to a Count Hugh as son of a Count David. One of them gives this Count Hugh as the father of Herbert Wake-Dog, count of Maine between c.1015/6 and c.1036. Latouche showed conclusively that the first Hugh was son of Roger, that his successor Hugh II was probably his son and certainly the father of his own successor Hugh III, who, in turn, was the father of Herbert Wake-Dog. He showed that the Count Hugh (son of) David in question, if a genuine figure, must have been Hugh II. The only other 18Chronica de Gestis consulum Andegavorum in Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, ed. Louis Halphen and René Poupardin, Paris 1913, 52. 19 Gérard Louise, La seigneurie de Bellême X-XII siècles, 2 vols, Le Pays Bas-Normand 83 Année, nos 3-4, 1990, i, 222-45; Dominique Barthélemy, La société dans le comté de Vendôme de l' an mil au XIVe siècle, Paris 1993, 286-7. 20 As appears from a charter of Charles III the Simple; Recueil des actes de Charles III le Simple, roi de France (893-923), ed. P. Lauer, 2 vols, Paris 1940-49, i, no. 35; Werner, 'Untersuchungen' 1959, 279-83 and 'Bedeutende Adelsfamilien', Exkurs I, 422-8. 21 R. Deshman 'The exalted servant: the ruler-theology of the prayer-book of Charles the Bald', Viator 11, 1980, 385-417, H. Steger, David rex et propheta, Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 6, Nuremberg 1961, 121-32. 22 Latouche, Maine, 105-12.

< previous page

page_192

next page >


page_193

< previous page

page_193


appearance of Count David is in the pages of the curious chronicle De majoratu et senescalcia Franciae written by Hugh of Clers, who was associated with Saint-Pierre-de-la-Cour at the time the forgeries were manufactured.23 Accepting that the legend of a Count David was current in ecclesiastical circles in Le Mans around 1150, Latouche formed the now generally accepted view that David was a fantasy of later forgers who can safely be written out of history.24 It might, however, be more circumspect to view the fantasy of Count David as a perhaps by then little understood literary reference to the Hugonide's imperial ancestor Charles the Bald. I shall argue, at any rate, that the Saint-Pierre forgeries and the De majoratu cannot be ignored if we are to learn more of the political history of late tenthcentury Maine and the origins of Angevin overlordship in the county. The point of what follows is not to establish whether Hugh I, or Hugh II, was known in his own lifetime as 'David', but to establish whether references to a count David in late and unreliable sources can be collated with more reliable contemporary sources to establish the history of the genuine tenth-century count Hughs of Maine. I shall be concerned in particular with Hugh II recently dismissed by the popular historian Georges Bordenove as 'un vassal sans histoire' whom I shall present as an energetic ruler who took decisions of pivotal importance for the future of his county.25 Our inquiry has to start with the answer to the question: What do we know about any of the tenth-century counts of Maine? The answer to this is very little, but the answer to the next question Can we make any sense of it? is probably yes. To do this we have to realize that the count of Maine's political ambitions were strictly circumscribed not by the king but by his immediate overlords, Hugh the Great or his son Hugh Capet. At no time after 900 did the count of Maine attest a royal charter, but from 914 to 967 he attested a number of important acts given by the Robertide marquis of Neustria, often known after 924 as dux Francorum. It is not the history of institutions, as Latouche thought, that holds the key to the history of tenth-century Maine, but the study of the changing relationship between the king and his most senior vassal, the head of the Robertides, and between the latter and the Hugonides. Part of the problem facing any historian of tenth-century Maine is that there are no chronicle or charter sources that directly refer to the count and his county for the bulk of the century. From about 971 onward, however, there are chronicle and charter sources which suggest that the history of the county now took a new direction. Unfortunately, the chronicle sources are late and unreliable as they stand, and much of the charter material is either forged or interpolated. The prudent prosopographer would hesitate to analyze such uneven material. Conscious that such an analysis can result at best only in a possible history, I believe that the attempt is worth making and that something of value can emerge from it. In 900, when Charles the Simple gave the charter from which we know that 23 Latouche, Maine, 110. De majoratu et senescalcia Franciae, in Halphen and Poupardin Chroniques, 23946. 24 Latouche, Maine, 110-11. 25 Georges Bordenove, Les Rois qui ont fait la France: Hugues Capet le fondateur, Paris 1986, 203.

< previous page

page_193

next page >


page_194

< previous page

page_194


Suggested relationships of the Hugonide counts of Maine Hugh I, then a minor, was son of Roger and Rothilde daughter of Charles the Bald, the king was the immediate overlord of the count of Maine. In 924 the overlordship of Maine was granted to Hugh the Great by King Ralph. In the interval, as Werner has shown, the relationship between the king and the count had changed. Hugh I's sister, who died in 925, was the first wife of Hugh the Great. Hugh the Great had been deeply offended by the grant of the abbey of Chelles to Charles the Simple's favourite, Haganon, at the expense of his mother-in-law, the mother of Hugh I. Charles now had to view both Hughs as his opponents.26 There were two lasting results of these events. One was the enduring alliance between Hugh I and Hugh the Great. The other was the subjection from then until the twelfth century of the count of Maine to a Robertide or Robertide-appointed overlord; that overlord and not the count was answerable for the county to the king. In 930 and in 931 Hugh I subscribed charters of Hugh the Great of Paris together with Fulk of Anjou and Theobald of Blois. In 938, as Jean-Pierre Brunterc'h has shown, he briefly acted as count of Poitou to serve the political ends of Hugh the Great.27 26 Werner, 'Untersuchungen' 1958, 279-83. 27 J.-P. Brunterc'h, L'Extension du ressort politique et religieux du Nantais au sud de la Loire: Essai sur les origines de la dislocation du 'pagus' d'Herbauge (IXe siècle - 987) (unpublished doctoral thesis, 1981), 152-4, discussing Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Cyprien de Poitiers, ed. Louis Redet, Poitiers 1874, no. 65, 58-61, and no. 549, 325. I am grateful to M. Brunterc'h for permission to cite his thesis. Brunterc'h's work has highlighted the strong asociations of both the counts and viscounts of Maine with northern Aquitaine and Berry in the early tenth century. Both families probably originated in that region, and their interests there continued into the eleventh century. Hugh I's grandson Fulcoin held land in (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_194

next page >


page_195

< previous page

page_195


The charters in which the counts occur are revealing. The prominent position in the witness lists of both Hugh I, described as Count Hugh son of Count Roger, and Hugh II, comes Cenomannorum, testify to their high status both as affines of the Carolingians and as counts of Maine, the largest and most important county in Neustria. The attestation by Hugh I of a charter of Robert of Neustria in 914 probably indicates, as Werner has suggested, that the marriage between Hugh's sister and Hugh the Great had taken place by then.28 We know from the Actus pontificum Cenomanensis and other charters for Saint-Martin de Tours given by Robert that he had supported Gauzlin, the Rorgonide count of Maine ousted by the Carolingians's candidate Roger, father of Hugh I, around 886, and that Gauzlin continued in Robert's circle until c.914/5.29 We might suppose that part of the rapprochement between the Robertides and the Hugonides included a marriage alliance between Hugh I and a daughter of Gauzlin. Certainly charters for Mont-Saint-Michel reveal leading Rorgonide names in the family of Hugh II, who had a nepos Rorgo son of Gauzlin and a granddaughter Bilichildis.30 In May 930 Hugh I of Maine subscribed a charter of his overlord Hugh the Great restoring the demesne of Mosnes, near Amboise (Maine-et-Loire), to Saint-Martin de Tours.31 He attested another of Hugh the Great's charters for the abbey at Tours in 931, giving an allod at a Châtillon in Berry.32 Hugh II occurs in a series of charters from 955 until some time before 992, when another charter shows him to have been succeeded by his son Hugh III. Two charters, dated 967 and 971, show him acting together with his sons Hugh (III) and Fulcoin. In June 955 Hugh the Great and Hugh II of Maine subscribed a charter recording a sale to Saint-Père de Chartres by Lambert fitz Ausbert and others of an allod at Condé-sur-Huisne (cant. Remalard, Orne).33 Hugh the Great died in 956, when his son Hugh Capet was a minor. By the time Hugh Capet gained his majority and the title dux Francorum early in 960, much of his authority had been usurped by his vassals. Theobald count of Blois and Tours had added the counties of Chartres and (Footnote continued from previous page) Poitou until his death around 989 (Chartes et documents pour servir à l'histoire de l'abbaye de Saint-Maixent, ed. Alfred Richard, Poitiers 1886, 77-9, no. 61; Guy M. Oury, 'La Reconstruction Monastique dans l'Ouest: L'Abbé Gauzbert de Saint-Julien de Tours (v. 990-1007)', Revue Mabillon 1964, 69-124, here 97 note 128). 28 Werner, 'Untersuchungen' 1958, 281-3, with text and discussion of Robert's charter of 31 March 914 on pages 286-9. 29Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium, ed. abbés Busson and Ledru, Archives Historiques du Maine i, Le Mans 1902, 341-7. For Gauzlin's attestation of two charters of Robert as abbot of Saint-Martin de Tours see Recueil des actes de Robert I et de Raoul rois de France 922-936, ed. J. Dufour, Paris 1978, nos 47-8. 30 Keats-Rohan, 'Ivo fitz Fulcoin', 19-21. 31 Unpublished charter, no. 14 (3 May 930) in a list in Werner, 'Untersuchungen' 1958, 284-5, giving references to manuscript copies. He and his vicomte Ralph probably attested another of Hugh's charters, given at Orleans in May 930, Recueil de chartes et documents de Saint-Martin-des-Champs, ed. J. Depoin, 5 vols, Archives de la France monastique 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, Paris 1912-21, i, 6-8. 32 Werner, 'Untersuchungen' 1958, no. 15 (26 March 931), 284-6. The precise location of Châtillon is uncertain. 33Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Père de Chartres, ed. Bernard Guérard, 2 vols, Paris 1840, i, no. 73, 25 June 955.

< previous page

page_195

next page >


page_196

< previous page

page_196


Châteaudun to his domains.34 He was also the overlord of the count of Brittany, and from 960 to c. 965 he was at war with Normandy. All these matters brought him into conflict with his overlord Hugh Capet. All of them brought him and later his successor into increasingly close alliance with the count of Maine, apparently at the expense of the latter's relationship with Hugh Capet. In September 960, at Rivarennes (cant Azay-le-Rideau, Indre-et-Loire), Hugh II subscribed the gift of an allod at Varennes by a certain Eremburg to Saint-Florent de Saumur.35 His attestation followed those of Theobald of Blois and Geoffrey of Anjou, who at that time were allies. In 967 Hugh Capet and Hugh II subscribed a sale by Gerald de Buzençais to the monks of Saint-Julien de Tours of an allod at Tais (cant. Chemillé, Indre-et-Loire).36 This was apparently the second and last time that Hugh II attested an act together with his overlord the dux Francorum. In September 976 he attested the sale of an Angevin allod to Saint-Aubin by one Erquenoul together with Geoffrey of Anjou.37 The appearance late in his life of Hugh II's youngest son Herbert, clearly much younger than his brothers Hugh and Fulcoin, strongly indicates that Hugh II married into the house of Vermandois, close allies of the counts of Blois and frequent rivals of Hugh Capet, himself the great-grandson of Herbert I of Vermandois.38 It seems likely that, for whatever reason, the counts of Maine were drawn to the counts of Blois in the period 960 to 978 so closely that they adopted Blésois politics as their own. As a result a breach between Hugh Capet and Hugh II occurred c.978; this led to the attempt by the count to develop a policy calculated in the interests of Maine and not of Hugh Capet, and this in turn entailed increasing hostility towards Hugh Capet's protégés, notably the bishop of Le Mans. In February 971 Hugh and his sons subscribed a gift by Bishop Seifrid of Le Mans to Saint-Julien de Tours of his cathedral's demesne at Vauboin in the vicaria of Vaas (cant. Beaumont-la-Chartre, Sarthe).39 The 971 charter is something of a landmark. Apart from the fact that it indicates that at this early stage in the 34 K. F. Werner, 'L'acquisition des comtés de Chartres et Châteaudun par la maison de Blois', Mélanges J. Lafaurie, Paris 1980, 265-72. 35 Printed in Latouche, Maine, 161-2. 36Fragments de chartes du Xe siècle provenant de Saint-Julien de Tours, ed. L. de Grandmaison, Paris 1886, no. 21. 37Cartulaire de Saint-Aubin d'Angers, ed. comte Bertrand de Broussillon, 2 vols, Angers 1903, i, no. 24. 38 Herbert (Bacon) first occurs in a charter partially printed in Latouche, Maine, 162, where the date should be corrected to 989-992. The fact that Herbert Bacon could act as regent for his great-nephew Hugh IV c.1036-45, indicates that he was very much younger than his brothers. It is possible that if he were 15-25 years younger than Hugh III and Fulcoin they might all have had the same mother. Whether Hugh II had one or two wives, the likelihood is that both came from the same family, since Hugh III's son and successor was Herbert, surnamed Wake-Dog. If Hugh's sons were born to the same wife between c.940 and 960, she was probably a younger sister of Liutgarde countess of Blois (whose niece Adela was the mother of Fulk Nerra of Anjou). Herbert Wake-Dog's daughter Gersendis was the first wife of Theobald III of Blois. Subsequent political developments concerning the counts of Anjou meant that in 1049 Theobald was obliged to divorce Gersendis on the grounds of consanguinity. This would be explicable in terms of a common descent from Herbert of Vermandois (d. 900/907), grandfather of Theobald's great-grandmother Liutgarde. The marriage of their respective siblings, Bertha of Blois and Hugh IV of Maine, survived. 39Fragments Saint-Julien, no. 23, 62-5: 'seniori nostro domno scilicet Hugoni et filiis eius, necnon principibus fidelium ipsorum, sub signo sanctae crucis corroborate precati sumus.'.

< previous page

page_196

next page >


page_197

< previous page

page_197


episcopacy relations between bishop and count were harmonious Seifred's charter was extremely deferential to the count it is the first surviving act of the recently appointed Bishop Seifrid of Le Mans. It is also the first tenth-century act explicitly to associate the count of Maine and the bishop of Le Mans, and it is the first of a limited series of tenthcentury acts to associate the count of Maine with matters relating to lands within the boundaries of his own county. The charter-attestations we have looked at comprise the bulk of our evidence for the activities of the count of Maine between 900 and c.970. The only native chronicle of the region was the Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium. The historian for the portion of the history of the bishops of Le Mans covering the tenth century was a canon of Le Mans in the mid-eleventh century.40 The quality of his information was not high. Nothing in the history, however, suggests that there was any strain between the count and the bishop who shared his capital at Le Mans before the end of the century. Some difficulty over the choice of a new bishop some time before 940 had been favourably resolved with the appointment of Mainard, brother of the vicomte of Le Mans, whose family were faithful vassals of the Hugonide counts of Maine for as long as the latter dynasty lasted.41 The appointment of Seifrid, after 9 June 969 and before February 971, was probably agreed by King Lothar, Hugh Capet, and Hugh II, though the Actus pontificum makes the unlikely allegation that the appointment was made at the instigation of the count of Anjou.42 For some years thereafter the appointment apparently continued to suit Hugh II. But, at some point something went very wrong, and the bishop was forced into exile by the count.43 Clearly, Hugh I and Hugh II were men of high status associated with two other senior vassals of the Robertides, the counts of Anjou and Blois, in the running of the Robertide domains in Neustria. Hugh I may be reckoned a friend and ally of Hugh the Great. The last known attestation by Hugh II for the dux Francorum Hugh Capet occurred in 967, though Hugh continued to work with Geoffrey of Anjou and Theobald of Blois until c.976, after which the relationship between Anjou and Blois broke down irretrievably. It was probably around the same time that Hugh II's relationship with Hugh Capet suffered a similar fate, though the evidence for this breakdown and the reasons for it is not of the quality historians usually hope for.44 40 Latouche, Maine, 1-2. 41Actus, 350-2. 42Actus, 353, and notes 1-2. Bishop Mainard died on an 8 June, according to Actus, 352, or a 6 June (8 of the ides of June) according to Martyrologia capituli Cenom.. He last appears in a charter he granted in the fifteenth year of King Lothar (12 November 968-12 November 969); Liber albus Cenomannis, no. 108, 59-60. 43Actus, 353-4. See Appendix. 44Frag. Saint-Julien no. 27, dated 978-85 by Grandmaison, was a grant in the fief of Grand-Cottereau-Villers, near Amboise, in the Touraine, by one Giroie and his wife Gyrvis. It has a long witness list, evidently divided into discrete lists of connected persons. The first attestations were those of Hugh dux francorum, Count Odo, Count Geoffrey (of Anjou) and Count Walter (of Amiens). These attestations were followed by those of the donors, their family, and a group of bishops. A fourth group is formed by Arvei (i.e. Hervé) comitis, Vgonis comitis, Fulconis, Burchardi comitis. One is struck by the occurrence of an unqualified Fulco after a Count Hugh and before Count Burchard (of Vendôme). Could it be that (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_197

next page >


page_198

< previous page

page_198


We have the Actus pontificum's curious and contradictory history of Hugh II's stormy relationship with his bishop Seifrid of Le Mans, to set beside the De majoratu's corrupt account of a revolt by the count of Maine against the new kings shortly after Hugh Capet appointed his son Robert co-sovereign in December 987.45 In addition, we have a series of immensely important charters for Mont-Saint-Michel, beginning in the 990s, that indicate a close alliance between Maine and Brittany, brought together by a common concern about the rising power of Normandy. I have analyzed these charters in detail elsewhere, but a few brief points need to be made here.46 From the 960s onwards Hugh Capet was often in close alliance with the Norman ruler and both were frequently at odds with Hugh's over-mighty vassal Theobald I count of Blois. Theobald was the acknowledged overlord and ally of the count of Brittany. His possession of Chartres and Châteaudun brought him into proximity, and close alliance, with the count of Maine.47 It was probably this relationship that formed the springboard for the later alliance between Maine and Brittany. The Breton question also permitted an alliance between Blois and Anjou during the 960s, but in the time of Odo I of Blois, after 976, this alliance gave way to increasing hostility over Angevin interests in the Touraine. Geoffrey Grisegonelle of Anjou was a vassal of both the duke of Aquitaine and Hugh Capet. During the 970s he enjoyed some influence with King Lothar and in 981 he had persuaded him to marry his fifteen-year-old heir Louis V to Geoffrey's much older sister Adelaide. Louis was created king of Aquitaine upon his marriage, but within a year the marriage had foundered, partly because Geoffrey's ambitions in Aquitaine had reduced the new king of Aquitaine to a state of impotence.48 The result of Geoffrey's consequent breach with Lothar was that he now needed the active friendship of Hugh Capet, whom he began assiduously to court. In 960 and 978 Geoffrey had fought with Lothar against the king's enemies (and, in the case of the 978 campaign, Hugh Capet's). By 980 it was Hugh Capet's army he fought in, and again in 987, on each occasion against forces to which Odo of Blois was sympathetic.49 At this date the authority of the Robertide-Capetians in what had been Neustria was much diminished. Most of their power there had been usurped either by Anjou or, predominantly, by the count of Blois, Tours, Chartres and Châteaudun. In 985 all that Hugh could do was to hold the balance (Footnote continued from previous page) these were Hugh II of Maine and his son, who was known indifferently as Fulco or Fulcuin? If so, this charter is continuing evidence for the association between Hugh II and his overlord Hugh Capet; this time, however, he does not sign in the position, after Hugh Capet, to which his rank and title had heretofore entitled him, but in a lesser position that associates him more closely with Count Hervé (of Mortagne) and Burchard of Vendôme. Although there were count Hughs in Burgundy at this date, it is difficult to see why any of them should have attested this charter. Hervé of Mortagne appears to be the only possible candidate for Arvei comitis. 45De majoratu, 241. 46 Keats-Rohan, 'Ivo fitz Fulcoin', 13-25. 47 Werner, 'L'acquisition des comtés', 265-72. 48 See Christian Lauranson-Rosaz, L'Auvergne et ses marges (Velay, Gevaudan) du VIII au XI siècle. La fin du monde antique?, Le-Puy-en-Velay 1987, 88-96. 49 See Olivier Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage au XI siècle, 2 vols, Paris 1972, i, 12-15.

< previous page

page_198

next page >


page_199

< previous page

page_199


of power between Anjou and Blois, his own rivals and each other's. The power of Blois was increasing so rapidly that it suited Hugh warmly to respond to Geoffrey's overtures. When Geoffrey met his death on 21 July 987 it was as a consequence of a wound received at the siege of Marçon, a castle belonging to Odo of Blois which controlled the route between Dissay-sous-Courcillon and Vendôme. The siege was conducted by Hugh Capet and Geoffrey against Odo Rufinus, vassal and relative of Odo of Blois.50 Geoffrey did not live to learn of Hugh's election to the kingship which occurred very soon after his death. His son Fulk Nerra now became the heir not only to his father's possessions, but to whatever reward the new king might have felt his father had earned. Burchard of Vendôme was a close ally of Hugh Capet and therefore became interesting to Geoffrey of Anjou around 980. Called Burchard I because he was the first to be specifically called count of Vendôme, he came from a line of Count Burchards in the retinue of the Robertides going back to 888.51 They probably derived from the BurchardAubrey clan, descendants of Burchard the Constable (d. post 811). According to Chaume, Boussard and Mme Bedos, this kindred included Aubrey the Burgundian, count of Fézensac (d.801), the Aubreys vicomtes of Orleans and GeoffreyAubreys counts of the Gâtinais (relatives of the counts of Anjou), and the Burchards of Montmorency and Bray.52 Burchard the Venerable had acquired the county of Corbeil by marriage with a relative of Hugh Capet, who had given him in addition the counties of Melun and Paris. In essence this was a move designed to check the growing power of Blois in the Capetian heartlands around Paris, including the region of Laon and Meaux, where Odo I had acquired land as the result of his marriage to Liutgarde of Vermandois. Burchard's only son Renaud was a clerk destined for high ecclesiastical office, so his eventual heiress was his daughter Elisabeth.53 By the spring of 985 Geoffrey of Anjou had already gained a foothold in the Vendômois by granting a benefice to an important landholder Fulcrad of Vendôme. During August 985 he spent a great deal of time in the company of Burchard, who was his guest at his castle of Nouâtre in the Touraine.54 With Hugh Capet's blessing, Geoffrey arranged the marriage of his son and heir Fulk Nerra to Bouchard's heiress Elisabeth, thereby setting the seal on his alliance with both Burchard and Hugh Capet. According to the Actus pontificum Cenomannis, Bishop Seifrid's relations with Hugh II of Maine became sufficiently stormy for Seifrid eventually to flee his capital and take refuge with Count Burchard at Vendôme.55 He allegedly obtained Burchard's support with an enormous bribe of lands from the church of Le Mans, 50 Guillot, Le comte, 15-16. 51 An account of Burchard's background and career is given in Barthélemy, Vendôme, 278-90. 52 Jacques Boussard, 'Les origines du comté de Vendôme', La Mayenne. Revue de la société d'archéologie et d'histoire de la Mayenne iii, 1981, 239-54; Brigitte Bedos, 'Les origines de la famille de Montmorency', Comptes rendus et Mémoires de la Société d'histoire et d'archéologie de Senlis, 1976, 3-19. 53 On Renaud see Barthélemy, Vendôme, 290-5. 54 Burchard and Geoffrey consented to the grant of a collibert by their fidelis Fulcrad of Vendôme at Nouâtre in July or August 985; Le Livre des Serfs de Marmoutiers, ed. André Salmon, Tours 1864, no. 1. Cf. Bachtach, 'Geoffrey Greymantle', 27-8. 55Actus, 353.

< previous page

page_199

next page >


page_200

< previous page

page_200


which, had they ever been made, would have given the whole of the Lower Vendèmois to Burchard. In fact the bribe seems to have been very much smaller, though real enough. The various commentators on this episode, including most recently Gérard Louise and Dominique Barthélemy, have been unable to explain it.56 We might express surprise at Seifrid's choice of refuge. Why Vendôme? Why did he not go to Anjou, whose count was allegedly his supporter in c.970? The answer lies in the unfortunate figure of Count David, whom Latouche contemptuously dismissed as a legend without pausing to consider his credentials as a figurative but nonethless real Hugh II, and in the twelfth-century Angevin chronicle De majoratu to which historians customarily accord the same treatment. Most of Hugh of Clers's De majoratu et senescalcia Franciae concerns his contemporary Fulk V of Anjou king of Jerusalem. Part of it, however, claims to have been dictated by Fulk Nerra to his clerk Tescelin and concerns the tenthcentury count Geoffrey Grisegonelle. An important Angevin chronicle of the late eleventh century is the fragment composed by Fulk IV le Réchin, which is a sober and straightforward account of the count's ancestors. It alleges that it was Fulk Nerra, son of Geoffrey Grisegonelle, to whom Hugh Capet gave the overlordship of Maine.57 Unfortunately, it gives no clues as to the background to the grant. The apparently wholly unacceptable account found in De majoratu perhaps provides some clues. There is no doubt that the author of De majoratu was deeply confused. I précis his account as follows: Under King Robert Geoffrey Grisegonelle fought against Otto king of Germany and a troop of Saxons and Danes who had besieged Montmorency and attacked Paris. Geoffrey defeated the enemy as leader of the first cohort, whereupon Robert and his father granted him what rights King Lothar had held in the sees of Angers and Le Mans. A challenge to the king by Herbert of Troyes (Vermandois) led to the siege of Melun, at which Geoffrey fought. For this Geoffrey was granted the offices of seneschal and mayor of the palace. David count of Maine and Geoffrey count of the Corbonnais refused homage to the king, Robert, saying that they would never submit to the race of the Burgundians. The king consulted Geoffrey and ordered a siege of Mortagne. Geoffrey left Vendôme to assault Mortagne and took it for the king. Count David refused to parley with the king and refused him entry to Le Mans. Enraged by the count's truculence, Robert awarded the county to Geoffrey and his successors, as a royal gift, in perpetuity.58 Most of the elements of this hotch-potch of confusion relate to real events, only some of which involved Geoffrey rather than his son Fulk Nerra. The attack on Paris by Danes occurred in 998. In 978 Geoffrey supported Lothar against Otto III of Germany. Melun, property of Burchard of Vendôme that had been seized by Odo of Blois, was besieged by Hugh Capet and an army comprising Angevins and 56 Louise, Bellême, 222-45. Barthélemy, Vendôme, 286-7, is more interested in the passage that indicates Seifrid wanted to make Burchard and his heirs vassals of the bishop of Le Mans for the lands he allegedly granted; the point still needs further investigation. 57Fragmentum Historiae Andegavensis, in Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, ed. Louis Halphen and René Poupardin, Paris 1913, 233. 58De majoratu, 239-41: see Appendix, no. 2.

< previous page

page_200

next page >


page_201

< previous page

page_201


Normans in 991. Shortly afterwards Fulk Nerra took advantage of Odos's setback to ravage his lands at Blois, and also attacked Landric of Dun in Berry in a campaign that has been confused with an attack on Châteaudun.59 De majoratu's description of Geoffrey leaving from Vendôme to chastise the count of Maine brings its story back into line with known facts. It was very probably from Vendôme that Geoffrey of Anjou departed for the siege of Marçon against Odo of Blois in 987. Vendôme was then the refuge of the exiled bishop of Le Mans, whose host, Burchard, was a close friend of Hugh Capet and an ally of Geoffrey of Anjou. There can have been no love lost between Hugh II of Maine and the new king following the defection of Bishop Seifrid, the breakdown in Angevin-B1ésois relations, and the rapprochement between Capet-Anjou-Vendôme at the expense of Blois. It is eminently possibly that the heir of Count David, still displaying his family's Carolingian colours, was unwilling to accept the new king. His alleged refusal to submit 'to the race of the Burgundians' probably means that he refused to acknowledge a non-Carolingian Robertide king; the last nonCarolingian king had been Ralph of Burgundy, brother-in-law of Hugh the Great.60 It was Ralph who had granted the overlordship of Maine to the Robertides. De majoratu's probable intrusion of a count of Corbon into the story of Hugh of Maine's revolt requires examination. Olivier Guillot has emphasized that the seigneurie of Bellême, formed partly out of lands in the Carolingian county of the Corbonnais, was subject to a dual overlordship by the count of Anjou and the king during the eleventh century.61 Gérard Louise has recently suggested that De majoratu may indicate the reason for this, but it probably had more to do with the fact that another part of the seigneurie comprised lands belonging to the count of Maine.62 Bishop Seifrid was the brother of Ivo, first seigneur of Bellême, and uncle of his successor Ivo's son Bishop Avesgaud. There had been counts in the Corbonnais since the mid-ninth century, when the first of a line of Count Hervés, from the Aquitainian Hervé-Renaud clan, occurs.63 The Hervé-Renauds were related to the Rorgonides, who re-appeared in Maine and Châteaudun during the tenth century. A Hervé, called count of Mortagne, occurred in 955, and a Count Hervé c.979/80.64 Thereafter we only know of a late-tenth or early-eleventh-century Count Fulk by inference from a charter of his descendant Count Rotroc I of Mortagne, who also had a collateral ancestor called Burchard.65 By the year 1000, the Burchard-Aubry clan included Fulk Nerra of Anjou and Burchard of Vendôme, as well as the vicomtes of Le Mans, following the marriage of Geoffrey 59 Pointed out by Bachrach, 'Geoffrey Greymantle', 31 and note 123 (p. 64). 60 The Capetians were not the direct male heirs of a Carolingian king, although they were related by marriage to the Carolingians. On the question of the perception of the Robertide-Capetians as non-Carolingian see K. F. Werner, 'Il y a mille ans, les Carolingiens: Fin d'une dynastie, début d'un mythe', Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de France, Années 1991-1992, 17-89. 61 Guillot, Le comte, i, 82-6. 62 Louise, Bellême, 273. 63 Dhondt, Etudes, 323, Werner, 'Untersuchungen' 1959, 180. 64Fragments ... Saint-Julien, no. 27. 65 On Count Fulk see note 71 below. Burchard was brother of Milisend, wife of Geoffrey II of Châteaudun (Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Denis de Nogent, ed. abbé Métais, Vannes 1895, no. v).

< previous page

page_201

next page >


page_202

< previous page

page_202


of Sablé and a daughter of the Angevin count's important vassal Aubrey de Vihiers, brother of Burchard de Montmorency.66 Count Fulk of Mortagne's name links him to the ninth-century Fulk who founded the abbey of Bonneval, near Châteaudun, a family that Michel Sot has shown were related to the counts of Anjou.67 This Fulk was probably the father of the vicomte of Châateaudun in 882, one Rampo, whose name indicates a relationship with the Hervé-Renaud counts in the Corbonnais.68 It is clear, however, that when he spoke of 'Geoffrey count of the Corbonnais' the Angevin Hugh of Clers actually had in mind one of Odo of Blois's most senior vassals, Geoffrey vicomte of Châteaudun. Geoffrey and his family were well known to the Angevins. Indeed, M. Settipani has demonstrated that by the mid-eleventh century they were related to the Plantagenet counts of Anjou.69 Undoubtedly descended from the ninth-century Rorgonides, they were therefore distantly related to the counts of Maine. The occurrence of the name Hugh in their lineage may indicate that by the late tenth century the vicomtes had renewed their blood-ties with the counts of Maine, and possibly also the vicomtes of Le Mans.70 Like many of the vassals of Blois, the vicomtes of Châteaudun had strong interests in the Touraine, a region which after 976 was increasingly a battleground between the count of Anjou and the count of Blois. Geoffrey I's wife Hildegarde was apparently a member of the much-discussed family of Adelard of Loches.71 So close to their masters were the vicomtes of Châteaudun that Geoffrey's son Hugh was appointed to the (royal) archbishopric of Tours in 1003. At that time Hugh was succeeded as vicomte of Châteaudun by his brother Geoffrey II, a shadowy figured replaced c. 1020 by his son Geoffrey III.72 Geoffrey III was apparently the heir of both the Carolingian counts of Mortagne and of Rotroc of Nogent-le-Rotrou, a vassal of the counts of Blois through his mother Melisende.73 Geoffrey 66 This marriage is conjectural, but best explains the fact that Geoffrey suggested the second husband of Aremburg de Vihiers to Fulk Nerra (Cart. Saint-Aubin, and Chronique de Parcé); by his wife Adelaide he was the father of Drogo, Burchard, Lisiard and Geoffrey. 67 Michel Sot, Un historien et son Eglise: Flodoard de Reims, Paris Fayard 1993, 125-7. 68 Cf. Brunterc'h, 'L'extension', 73ff, Werner, 'Bedeutende Adelsfamilien', Exkurs II, 142, id., 'Untersuchungen' 1959, 180; Dhondt, Etudes, appendix V, 322-4. 69 C. Settipani, below pp. 259-61. I am grateful to M. Settipani for a very helpful exhange of views on this important family. 70 A Hugh was among those whose subscriptions followed those of Ralph of Le Mans and his sons in Seifrid's charter of 971; he was possibly Hugh of Lavardin, who married Ralph's daughter Odelina (Gesta Ambaziensium Dominorum, ed. Halphen and Poupardin, 75-6). Accepting the views of Barthelémy, Vendôme, 287, note 71, Hugh of Lavardin was a godson of Hugh II of Maine. 71 Hildegarde's sister Gerberga was twice married to Loire-based men, Berengar of Doué and Gilduin of Saumur (Livre noir de Saint-Florent de Saumur, BN MS lat. nov. acq. 1930, fols xiiv-xiiir). Of Hildegarde's three sons, two had careers spent almost wholly in the Touraine, Hugh archbishop of Tours and Adelard/Alo of Chinon. For the Adelards ancestors of the counts of Anjou, see Werner, 'Untersuchungen' 1958, 264-79. 72 Archbishop Hugh was succeeded by Geoffrey II who occurs in 1004 (Cart. Dunois, no. 2). His mother Hildegarde gave a charter for Saint-Père de Chartres c. 1020 (Cart., i, 118) attested by his nephew Geoffrey III; Geoffrey II was perhaps already dead. His son Geoffrey III's foundation charter for Saint-Denis de Nogent-leRotrou (Cart., no. v, 13ff, 1031) refers to lands he gave after his mother Milisende's death, suggesting that she outlived his father. 73 Rotroc I named his auus as comes Fulcuich in a charter for Saint-Vincent au Mans (Cartulaire de (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_202

next page >


page_203

< previous page

page_203


apparently never used the title count perhaps because he did not long outlive his grandfather though it was used by his son Rotroc I of Mortagne. Striking in view of the De majoratu is the fact that this third Geoffrey, vicomte of Châteaudun, pursued a turbulent career as an enemy of both Fulbert bishop of Chartres and King Robert, by whom he was defeated in 1029.74 Gérard Louise has recently made the suggestion that Seifrid's election was a successful attempt by King Lothar to curb the power of the Manceaux counts.75 It is much more likely that the appointment, which must have had Lothar's consent, was the one agreed and jointly desired by Hugh Capet and Hugh II. The subsequent expulsion of Seifrid by Hugh II resulted from the count's determination to curb the power of the bishop, which had doubtless been enhanced in the first half of the century by the prolonged absences from Le Mans of Hugh I. The count of Maine's relations with the two previous bishops, Hubert (possibly his relative) and Mai-nard, brother of his ally the vicomte of Le Marts, were apparently harmonious. Seifrid's appointment was surely meant to fit into this familial and comfortable pattern.76 The simplest way of explaining several tenth-century developments is to suppose that an alliance, probably a marriage alliance, occurred between the comital houses of Mortagne and Maine. Ivo of Bellême, of whom Seifrid may have been the uterine brother, was probably a junior member of the comital house of the Corbonnais.77 The origin of part of Ivo's holdings in the county of Maine perhaps lay in the tenth century. A subsequent quarrel between Bellême and Maine, concerning the bishops of Le Mans, meant that later, eleventh-century, expansions of the seigneurie occurred in the count's despite. The Maine-Corbon alliance must have occurred early in the time of Hugh II, and was probably based on existing family ties.78 One indication is the 955 charter for Saint-Père de Chartres signed by both Hugh II and Hervé of Mortagne; it is the first tenth-century charter to associate the counts of Maine with a region north of Le Mans, although the charter (Footnote continued from previous page) l'abbaye de Saint-Vincent du Mans, ed. R. Charles and Menjot d'Elbenne, Mamers-Le Mans, 1886-1913, no. 609,350-1, c. 1065); probably the word proauus would have been more appropriate for the documentation on this family, see C. Settipani, 'Les comtes d'Anjou', below 259-64. Since our papers were written M. Settipani and I have agreed that Melisende (b. c.965) was probably the daughter of Fulcuich of Montagne and the heiress of Rotroc, and mother of Geoffrey III vicomte of Châteaudun and Hugh of Perche. M. Settipani will complete the argument in Onomastique et parenté I (see below, 246, n. 161). I am grateful to Edouard de Saint-Phalle for his correspondence on this family. 74The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres, ed. and trans. F. Behrends, Oxford 1976, nos 98-101. 75 Louise, Bellême, i, 226-9. 76 The point occurred to Louise, note 75 above. I suggest that Mainard was the maternal uncle of his successor Seifrid in 'Politique et parentèle: les comtes, vicomtes et évêques du Maine c. 950-1050', Francia 23.1, 1996, 1331. The view that the name Hubert belongs to the family of the vicomtes of Le Mans pace, among others, S. Fanning, A Bishop and his Worm before the Gregorian Reform: Hubert of Angers, 1006-1047, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 78.1, Philadelphia 1988, 27-34 - is erroneous. 77 Contrary to my previous argument (Keats-Rohan, 'Ivo fitz Fulcoin') I would prefer to see Seifrid as the uterine brother of Ivo, son of their mother's first marriage, by which she was also the mother of a William and of Rothais, wife of Fulcoin of Maine. This avoids the difficulties posed by the Villarenton charter of seeing in Seifrid a full brother of Ivo. 78 Hugh I's wife, the daughter of Count Gauzlin, may have had a sister married to a Hervé of the Corbonnais. Such a link is one possible explanation for the later occurrence of the name Fulcoin/Fulk in both families, and in that of Bellême.

< previous page

page_203

next page >


page_204

< previous page

page_204


given by Charles III in 900 recorded grants of land in Maine made by Hugh I and his mother to the abbey of SaintEvroul in the Hièmois.79 At its inception the alliance was friendly towards both Blois and Hugh the Great or Hugh Capet. In 971, when Seifrid had certainly become bishop, the relationship between Hugh II and Hugh Capet was apparently still good. But the relationship between Hugh Capet and the count of Blois was rapidly deteriorating. In these circumstances Hugh II apparently took the side of Odo of Blois, who was probably his wife's nephew.80 Shortly before 985 the counts of Anjou and Vendôme were allies of Hugh Capet, with Odo of Blois as their common enemy. Bishop Seifrid was of their party and he was at war with Hugh II, who, perforce, was therefore an enemy of Hugh Capet and an ally of Odo of Blois. Although the Actus does not specify the grounds for the bitter quarrel between Seifrid and Hugh II or the precise circumstances of Seifrid's expulsion from Le Mans, it provides a revealing indication of the growing breach between Capet and Hugh II in telling us that Seifrid reported to Burchard everything that Hugh of Maine had said or done in relation to Burchard.81 Obviously, Burchard, a close friend of Hugh Capet, was looking for such information. Seifrid fled to Vendôme because he could expect to be well-received there by a fellow adversary of Hugh II of Maine. The flight of Bishop Seifrid and the origin of Angevin overlordship in Maine were doubtless directly connected, though the two events were probably separated by a period of about ten years. Seifrid was probably with Burchard and Geoffrey in 985 at Nouâtre, where his son Hugh of Gennes held land he later gave to a man of the Burgundian Guy of Nevers, a descendant of both Geoffrey Grisegonelle and Burchard of Vendôme.82 The grant of Maine was made later, some years after the return of Seifrid to Le Mans. It could have been made before the revolt of Odo of Blois, whom Fulk Nerra helped to defeat, in 991, and was certainly made before the Angevin loss of influence at court late in 996 in the wake of Robert's liason with and subsequent marriage to Odo of Blois's widow Bertha of Burgundy. De majoratu's insistence that the whole episode was dominated by King Robert dates it after 30 December 987, when Robert was formally associated with his father as co-ruler. This date is fatal to its thesis that Geoffrey Grisegonelle was involved in the events it records since he died on 21 July of that year. We need to distinguish between background events, which straddled the period of Geoffrey's death and the succession of his son, and the grant of overlordship of Maine to Fulk Nerra, sometime after 30 December 987. Such a view makes sense of Actus pontificum's assertion that before his election c.968-70 Seifrid had sought the support of Fulk count of Anjou and bribed him to use his influence with the king on Seifrid's behalf.83 Precise though the author's statement is, it is chronologically untenable. Fulk le Bon died long before Bishop Mainard, and Fulk Nerra did not 79 See note 20 above. 80 See note 37. 81Actus, 353. 82Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Noyers, ed. C. Chevallier, Mémoires de la Société archéolgique de Touraine XXII, Tours 1872, no. cdlxxix, c.1050. 83Actus, 353.

< previous page

page_204

next page >


page_205

< previous page

page_205


succeed until 987. Geoffrey Grisegonelle was in no position to influence the choice of a bishop of Le Mans c.969/70. There is no indication of strained relations between Hugh II and his bishop early in the latter's episcopacy. The whole episode has to be attached to the later conflict between Hugh II and Seifrid and seen in the context of the new relationship between Hugh Capet and the counts of Anjou and Vendôme in the 980s, when there are indications that a breach had occurred between Hugh II and Hugh Capet, and that Hugh II was at least sympathetic to the count of Blois, enemy of the king, Hugh Capet and the count of Anjou. A strong pointer to this conclusion was given by the Actus pontificum itself, since it alleged that Seifrid bought the count of Anjou's help with grants in the episcopal demesnes at Coulaines and Dissé or Dissay.84 Coulaines was among the possessions of the see of Le Mans, and continued to be so. The question of Dissé is more delicate since it cannot be certainly identified. What we can say is that no where else in the Actus pontificum was a Dissé ever claimed as an estate of the church of Le Mans. Dissé-sous-Le-Lude and Dissaysous Courcillon were both Angevin lands, the former associated with Le Lude which had been usurped from SaintMartin de Tours, by the Angevin counts. Both lie on the Loir west of Vendôme, and both were within easy distance of Marçon, the Blésois castle besieged by Geoffrey and Hugh Capet in 987. If Seifrid did have land to give at either of these places, then he did so with regard to the events of 985-7. One way and another, it seems clear that whatever the precise reasons for the growing coolness between Hugh II and Hugh Capet after 967, their ultimate breach concerned Bishop Seifrid. Before 985 the count had expelled Seifrid from Le Mans. Seifrid was a royal bishop and his expulsion was an affront to the king and to his vassal, Maine's overlord, Hugh Capet. The count's triumph over his bishop was limited, because he was to trade an unsatisfactory pair of overlords -the Carolingian kings Lothar or Louis V and Hugh Capet for an even more unsatisfactory pair King Hugh Capet and Fulk of Anjou. Probably Hugh contemptuously refused to reinstate Seifrid after Hugh Capet became king. Subsequently, after 30 December 987, Fulk Nerra used his influence with the kings (Hugh Capet and Robert) to mediate a peace between Hugh II and Seifrid that permitted the bishop's return to Le Mans. His services were rewarded by the grant of the overlordship of the county. On this view, Hugh II's triumph was to expell a troublesome bishop and to refuse to reinstate him; the circumstances of the bishop's eventual return undermined the count's victory by intruding Anjou into his affairs. Such a scenario is undoubtedly false. It does not acknowledge the fact that Seifrid's return was seen as a comital victory by the author of the Actus, who says that the bishop eventually realized that the war was going against him and so made peace with the count.85 It may well be the case that Fulk Nerra had tried to use his influence with Hugh Capet to have Seifrid restored, but the Actus leaves no doubt that Seifrid's eventual return was on the count's terms. All Seifrid's subsequent appearances saw him attesting acts of Hugh II or Hugh III, who dominated the 84Actus, 353. 85Actus, 354.

< previous page

page_205

next page >


page_206

< previous page

page_206


bishop until the end of his life, c.1004.86 We should know far more about the relationship between Seifrid and Hugh II if we could date with certainly the charter (corrupt in its present form) by which Hugh either refounded or attempted to regenerate the abbey of La Couture at Le Mans.87 It was attested by his son Fulcoin (who was dead in 989) and Bishop Seifrid. The abbey had originally been founded in the sixth century by a bishop of Le Mans and had always belonged to the cathedral. Henceforth, however, it was under comital control. It was subsequently 're-refounded', c.1002-4, at the invitation of Hugh III, by Abbot Gauzbert (d.1007). Gauzbert was a consanguineus of Odo I of Blois, abbot of SaintJulien-de-Tours and of the houses founded by Odo or his sister Emma at Bourgueil, and at Maillezais, the Poitevin abbey to which Hugh III made the gift of the relics of St Rigomer.88 We cannot tell whether the first refoundation occurred early in Seifrid's episcopacy with his assent, later regretted, or whether it was forced upon him after his return to Le Mans, which must then be dated c.988-89. The coda to this episode, also difficult to interpret, is that Seifrid choose to become a monk of La Couture in the hours before his death. Did this mark his final reconciliation with the counts, or was it a last attempt to mark the historic claims of his see to the abbey?89 It is important to remember that the Actus the sole narrative source for the history of Maine in this period is a history of the bishops of Le Mans, not of the counts of Maine. Apart from an account of his scandalous marriage and death, the Actus account of Seifrid's career closes with his humiliation and submission to Hugh II.90 In referring, however obliquely, to the failure of Count Fulk and the king to have Seifrid restored to his see, it may well support De majoratu's view of an act of comital defiance occurring some time between 30 December 987 and the accession of Hugh III in 992. The defiance perhaps amounted to little more than the exploitation of the weakness of a king beset by problems. It was, nevertheless, a bid for comital independence that did not go unpunished. At a more favourable moment, some years later, the king would retaliate by granting over-lordship of Maine to Anjou. Angevin secular histories, all of them written well after the events they describe, agree that Anjou was granted the overlordship of Maine in the time of Hugh Capet (987-96). One of them hints at the event being preceded by a Hugonide defiance of royal authority. None provides an idea of the interval between the two events. None mentions Bishop Seifrid. None provides any hint as to the circumstances either of the king or of the count of Anjou at the time overlordship was granted. 86 Four acts of Hugh II or III attested by Seifrid are signalled in the Catalogue d'actes in Latouche's Maine; nos 8, 10-12, of which no. 8 was printed on pp. 162-4; the text of no. 10 is appended to Keats-Rohan, 'Two studies'. 87 Latouche, Maine, pièce just. no. 3, 162-4, cf. 138 and note 7. For this paragraph in general see Oury, 'La Reconstruction Monastique', 96-100. 88 For Gauzbert's relationship to Odo of Blois see Oury, 'La reconstruction', 72-3; for Maillezais see Latouche, Maine, 19-20. 89 Oury, 'La reconstruction', 99-100. 90 The text implies that the count with whom Seifrid quarrelled was the same as the one to whom he eventually submitted.

< previous page

page_206

next page >


page_207

< previous page

page_207


To resolve these problems we must turn to another twelfth-century Angevin chronicle, the extremely reliable Gesta Ambaziensium dominorum. Here we read that after he became king, Hugh Capet, on a circuit of his kingdom, visited his godson Hugh at Tours and gave him the lordship of Lavardin; on the same occasion he gave a new ruler (consul) to the people of Maine. This new ruler was surely Fulk Nerra of Anjou, subsequently a considerable patron of Hugh of Lavardin's son by his second wife, a daughter of Ralph of Le Mans.91 This passage has been relatively neglected on account of apparent difficulties of interpretation, combined with suspicion of twelfth-century rewriting of tenth-century history. It fits well, however, into a context provided by the tenth-century historian Richer, who informs us of the one occasion in his short reign when Hugh Capet was in the vicinity of Tours. In 995 the war between Fulk of Anjou and Odo of Blois for control of the Touraine entered another critical phase. Fulk had built a castle at Langeais, on the river Loire close to Tours and to Amboise, to which Odo laid a determined siege. According to Richer, Fulk eventually negotiated a retreat, fearing that promised aid from the king would not arrive. The king's army did arrive at Amboise shortly afterwards, in February 996, relieving Fulk and forcing Odo to agree to a truce. The king returned to Paris, and Odo sent his army to Meaux, though he himself apparently went straight to Châteaudun, where he soon afterwards died, on 12 March 996.92 Although Richer's account does not actually put the king in Tours, it puts him very close. We have good reason to suppose that although the king arrived too late for Fulk to achieve his goal of dominion over the Touraine, he softened the blow by making Fulk then still an important ally against Odo of Blois nominal overlord of Maine, as he himself had been before his election. Dating the origins of Angevin overlordship in Maine to early March 996, on the eve of the Angevin eclipse related to King Robert's marriage to Odo's widow Bertha, helps to explain why the event had little impact at the time. Hugh Capet died on 24 October 996, having quarrelled with his son Robert, whose alliance with Bertha had made an enemy of Fulk of Anjou. The situation was reversed at the end of 1003, when Robert repudiated Bertha and married Fulk's cousin Constance of Aries. Soon after this new period of Angevin influence with the king began, we begin at last to see clear signs both of the reality of Angevin overlordship in Maine, and of an alliance between the counts of Maine and Blois. At the battle of Pontlevoy in 1016 Herbert I fought for Fulk of Anjou against Odo II of Blois.93 Only about three years before, Herbert's father Hugh III had been allied with Odo II in his war with Normandy.94 This alliance is the only time (c.1013) that we can 91Gesta Ambaziensium, ed. Halphen and Poupardin, 75-6 (see Appendix). Hugh's son was Lisoius of Amboise. 92Richer, Histoire de France, ed. and trs. R. Latouche, 2 vols, Paris, 1937, rpt. Paris 1964, ii, 292-302. Richer refers throughout to a single rex, doubtless Hugh Capet. As Latouche notes, 298-9 note 5, the best interpretation of Richer's chronology was worked out by L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou au XIe siècle, Paris 1906, 28 note 2. 93Chronica de gestis consulum Andegavorum, ed. Halphen and Poupardin, 52; id., Fragmentum, 234. 94The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges . . ., ed. E. M.C. van Houts, 2 vols, Oxford 1992-95, ii, 22-4.

< previous page

page_207

next page >


page_208

< previous page

page_208


certainly associate the counts of Maine and Blois in friendship. Although the circumstances for such friendship, notably mutual problems with Hugh Capet, existed in the late tenth century, there is no documentary evidence of an active military alliance between them. There probably was direct contact between Hugh II and Geoffrey of Châteaudun (d.987), who was a senior member of Odo of Blois's entourage and head of an important, independent, family. De majoratu, written in Plantagent Anjou, doubtless provides an important clue of the family relationship we have posited between the counts of Maine and vicomtes of Châteaudun. On its own chronology, though, we must identify the ally of Count David (Hugh II) as Hugh vicomte of Châteaudun, who succeeded his father Geoffrey I in 987. On 12 February 996 he was at the siege of Langeais with Odo I.95 None of the disparate texts we have examined here tells a complete or comprehensible story on its own. Most easily lend themselves to the charge of falsification. Yet fantastical chronicles, like forged charters, are never complete fabrications. There is not, and never was, any point in the complete fabrication of documents. Although they cannot be used in the same way as 'genuine' texts, we ignore their evidence at our peril. A document of any sort once produced and subsequently preserved is a document which bears some element of testimony to actual fact. The texts we have looked at here bear this out in a remarkable way. The details we have isolated from these texts do not make much sense in their original contexts; once assembled and pieced together, they yield a cogent story within a fairly clear chronological framework. Whereas some of the texts are internally disordered or muddled with regard to chronology or detail, the various elements of the individual accounts are never in conflict with each other. Whether the basis of later Angevin writings like Fragmentum, De majoratu and Gesta Ambaziensium was now lost texts produced in Anjou or the Touraine, or oral testimony, one thing is now clear. Fortunately for the often ungrateful historian, the survival of these texts has preserved, in however unsatisfactory a fashion, an account of an episode in tenth-century history that would otherwise have been lost. In fact, at the end of our journey we have established the broad sweep of history in tenth-century Maine. We have shown that Hugh I, friend and frequent companion of Hugh the Great, was a largely absentee count. The relationship between their sons and successors Hugh II and Hugh Capet was one subject to increasing tension that eventually broke down altogether. The problem was at least partly connected with the (royal) bishopric of Le Mans, and specifically with Bishop Seifrid. The rupture paved the way for an alliance between Maine on the one hand and Blois and Brittany on the other. We can glimpse the beginnings of these alliances late in Hugh II's reign, but they only become prominent during that of Hugh III. Early in Hugh III's reign, in March 996, overlordship of Maine was granted to the count of Anjou. This sudden intrusion of Anjou into Manceaux affairs could not have been any less shadowy than the Capetians own presence in 95 When Odo gave a charter for Bourgueil at the request of his kinsman Abbot Gauzbert of Bourgueil, printed in F. Lot, Etudes sur le règne de Hugues Capet, Paris 1903, 423-7. Cf. Lot's criticisms of Gesta Ambaz. and De maj., 197-8 and notes.

< previous page

page_208

next page >


page_209

< previous page

page_209


Maine had been before their accession. Making Angevin overlordship in Maine a reality needed time and careful planning. The Angevin counts went about it via a determined assault of Blois in the Touraine: they were not finally successful until 1044. Angevin overlordship made its first mark in 1016, when Herbert Wake-Dog fought with Fulk of Anjou at Pontlevoy. Until his death c. 1014-15, however, Hugh III continued unhindered the vigorous 'Maine for the Manceaux' policy initiated by his father. Hugh II was clearly very much more than 'un vassal sans histoire'. He had a rather interesting history even though we cannot be perfectly certain what that history was. Appendix 1. Gesta Domni Segenfridi episcopi (Actus, 352-4) Defuncto autem Mainardo episcopo, domnus Segenfridus, vir infelicis vitae, et per omnia vituperabilis, vacans episcopium et ipse suscepit. Qui, quamvis parentibus nobilibus ortus, tamen opera mala gessit in episcopio; et quicquid Mainardus, antecessor suus, aedificavit, hic e contrario per omnia destruxit. Nam antequam esset ordinatus episcopus, coepit et ipse destructor esse ecclesiae. Nam curiam antecessorum episcoporum, quam Colonias vocant, fiscalinorum admodum plenam, mille libris denariorum et plus valentem, et villam quam Disiacum nominant, ultra fluvium Ledam, dedit Fulconi, Andegavorum comiti, ut se apud Francorum regem de episcopatu fideliter adiuvaret. Impetrato autem quod esset episcopus, et in sede iam posito, oritur contentio inter eum et Hugonem, Cenomanensium comitem; quibus litigantibus, exivit praesul sine consilio a civitate, ira plenus; qui exiens causa vindictae, venit ad Burgardum, Vindocinensium comitem, et quicquid comes Hugo vel ipse in eum dixerit aut fecerit, illi refert. Domnus veto Segenfridus, apud eum diu commorans, dedit ei sexaginta quatuor altariorum relevationes, synodos et circuitiones, insuper casamenta ecclesiae magna, scilicet: Cledeis et Alneteis, Pontiacum et Artineis, atque Ruilliacum vicum, et multa alia, quae propter prolixitatem praetermisimus, quae omnia, tempore praedicationis novae, beato Juliano sunt tradita: tali videlicet firmitate ei tribuit, ut nulli deinceps episcoporum in dominium habere liceret; sed ipse comes et heredes sui de episcopis tenerent, si guerram Hugo, Cenomanensium comes, proter eum arriperet. Qui eius querimoniam vel promissionem audiens, promisit ei adiutorium se facturum. Inito autem certamine, vidit episcopus sibi nihil proficere, sed magis, guerra contra se convalescente ad detrimentum sui, non ad honorem, ut prius posset, fecit pacem cum comite; et quidem satis iuste, ut qui ad arma divina recurrere noluit, ab armis saecularibus non potuerit adiuvari.

< previous page

page_209

next page >


page_210

< previous page

page_210


2. De Majoratu (P. 241) Hec verba dixit Fulco comes Tescelino capellano suo: 'Audi, presbiter, cuiusmodi obsequium prestitit comes Gaufridus Grisa Gonella domino regi Rotberto. David comes Cenomannicus et Gaufridus comes Corbonensis dedignabantur recipere feodum suum a predicto rege, asserentes nullo modo se posse subici generi Burgundionum. Audiens autem rex eorum superbiam et videns regni sui non parvam diminutionem, habito consilio cum Gaufrido comite et cum primatibus regni, tempore constituto et die denominato, decrevit obsidere castrum Moritonie. Comes vero Gaufridus prenoscens adventum exercitus regis, movens castra de Vindocino, dans assultum predicto casto virtute consueta et probitate gentis sue, Gaufridum comitem et oppidanos suos minus timentes cepit et domino suo regi tradidit vel reddidit. David vero comes, dedignans ad colloquium regis venire, mandavit quod nullo modo se ei subiceret et quod nullo tempore rex Rotbertus Cenomannicam suam videre presumeret. Audiens autem rex arrogantiam et indignationem predicti comitis, ipsum David et Cenomannicam suam Gaufrido Grisa Gonella et suis successoribus ex dono regio tribuit iure possidendam'. Huc usque sunt scripta Fulconis Jerosolimitani.

< previous page

page_210

next page >


page_211

< previous page

page_211


11 Les comtes d'Anjou et leurs alliances aux Xe et XIe siècles1 Christian Settipani Ce travail se propose de faire le point sur certains problèmes posés par les alliances des comtes d'Anjou de la première race et sur les origines de leurs successeurs, connus ultérieurement sous le nom de Plantegenêts2 dont on salt le rôle déterminant dans l'histoire de la Normandie et de l'Angleterre. Il n'est toutefois pas question de prétendre résoudre toutes les difficultés mais seulement d'attirer l'attention sur les points difficiles et de proposer des pistes de recherche. Nous ne cachons donc pas ce que les propositions que nous pourtons faire ont encore d'incertain et c'est pourquoi nous ne prétendons pas offrir avec nos hypothèses autre chose qu'une base de travail entièrement perfectible. Dans ce type d'études, la frontière est mince entre le terrain solide et l'incertain. Tel rapprochement séduisant peut n'être en fait qu'une illusion masquant des situations plus complexes et il faut donc se garder d'avoir une attitude trop affirmative. 1 Nous remercions les différents participants du colloque pour leur remarques qui auront pennis de rendre cet article moins imparfait, notamment M. Bur, H. Guillotel, K. Keats-Rohan el K. F. Werner, ainsi que M. Brunterc'h pour son aide particulière et E. de Saint-Phalle pour les corrections et la documentation qu'il nous a apporté. Bien entendu, les erreurs ou imperfections qui demeurent sont de notre fait propre. Concernant la transcription des noms propres, nous nous sommes décidé pour une attitude quelque peu extrêmiste en restant aussi proche que possible de la forme latine. C'était la seule façon de bien rendre la transmission des noms propres (Wal. oncle de Gauz = Waltbar oncle de Gausfred est moins évident avec les formes françaises Gauthier et Geoffroy; de même le rapport entre A(l)ba et Alberic se voit moins si l'on parle d'Eve et d'Aubry, etc.). Fallait-il au moins laisser aux personnages connus leur forme usuelle, garder Foulque pour les comtes d'Anjou et l'évêque de Reims? II nous a semblé que, le choix étant fixé, il convenait de l'appliquer partout (excepté pour les souverains) car notre chapitre sur les origines des Burchard par exemple eût été assez obscur si nous avions appliqué notre système aux personnages moins célèbres mais continué, à parlet de Foulque, Gauthier et Geoffroy pour les comtes d'Anjou. Rappelons une bonne lois pour toutes que Fulco=Foulque; Walthar=Gauthier; Gausfred=Geoffroy; Alberic=Aubry; Burchard=Bouchard; Adelais=Adélaïde, Odo=Eudes, etc. Voit p. 266 pour les abréviations que nous utilisons. 2 Nous suivons la recommandation de Jean-Marc Bienvenu, 'Henri II Plantegenêt et Fontevraud', Cahiers de Civilisation médiévale, xxxvii, 1994, 25-32, sp. 25, n. 1, quant à la forme correcte du nom: Plantegenêt et non Plantagenêt. Pour l'origine de ce surnom, voit J. Bradbury, 'Fulk le Réchin and the origin of the Plantagenets', Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, éd. C. Harper-Bill, C. Holdsworth, J. Nelson, Woodbridge 1989, 27-41, sp. 38-9.

< previous page

page_211

next page >


page_212

< previous page

page_212


I. Les Origines (A) La LéGende: Torquatius, Tertullus et Ingelger Les origines lointaines de la Maison d'Anjou ne sont connues que par un texte du douzième siècle, les Gesta consulum Andegavorum qui donnent en substance le récit suivant:3 Torquatius, appelé vulgairement Tortulf, paysan de la région de Rennes, fut remarqué par le roi Charles le Chauve qui en fit un forestier à Limelle en Anjou.4 Il eut pour fils Tertullus, désigné comme le premier auteur des comtes d'Anjou dans d'anciennes généalogies. Il était pourvu de grandes qualités guerrières et s'engagea au service du roi Charles II5 dont il reçut des bénéfices en Gâtinais6 et mourut en Francia vers 877.7 Son fils Ingelger, né de Petronilla, cousine (ou fille) du duc de Bourgogne, Hugo,8 lui succéda. Il se fit le défenseur de sa marraine, accusée d'adultère et en fut récompensé par son héritage. Il épousa ensuite Adelais (Aelendis), niece des évêques Adalard (Adalaud) de Tours et Regino (Raino) d'Angers.9 Il devint ensuite 3 Voir le résumé, et la critique de ce récit chez G. d'Espinay, 'La légende des comtes d'Anjou', Mémoires de la société d'agriculture, sciences et arts d'Angers, 1883, 86-112, sp. 87-90. 4Gesta, 26-7: 'Fuit vir quidam de Armorica Gallia, nomine Torquatius, genus cujus olim ab Armorica jussu Maximi imperatoris a Britonibus expulsum est . . .Iste . . . corrupto vocabulo Tortulfus dictus fuit. Quem Karolus Calvus eo anno quo ab Andegavis et a toto suo regno Normannos expulit, illius forestis que Nidus Meruli nuncupatur forestarium constituit . . . Is vero in pago Redonico oriundus habitator rusticanus fuit'. Cela se serait donc passé lots des opérations militaires de Charles en Bretagne, soit à la fin 843 ou éventuellement en 845: cf. B. Bachrach, 'Some observations on the origins of the angevin dynasty', Medieval prosopography, x, 1, 1989, 1-24, sp. 6-7, 9. 5Gesta, 27: 'Ipse autem genuit Tertullum, qui primus ex progenie Andegavensium comitum per antiquos genealogie illorum relatores computatus est'. II le fit au moment où Charles parachevait sa victoire sur les Bretons de Nominoé (donc autour de 851, sans doute en août 850, lors du séjour de Charles it Angers (B. Bachrach, 'The origins of the Angevin Dynasty', 16). 6Gesta, 27-8. 7Gesta, 29. 8Gesta, 29: 'Namque Tertullus nobilem duxerat uxorem, ducis Burgundie consanguineam, nomine Petronillam, que hunc puerum peperit'. L'identification du duc des Burgondes avec Hugo l'abbé est certaine puisqu'un peu plus loin (31), les Gesta précisent que durant la minorité du jeune roi Charles (le Simple), c'est son cousin maternel Hugo, duc de Bourgogne qui assuma le pouvoir: 'Hugo dux Burgundie, qui orphani illius [scil. Carolus] ex parte matris consanguineus erat'. En réalité, c'est la mère de Charles le Chauve qui cousinait avec Hugo l'Abbé. J. Depoin, 'Etudes préparatoires à l'histoire des familles palatines. III. Thibaud le Tricheur fut-il bâtard et mourut-il presque centenaire?', Revue des études historiques, lxxiv, 1908, 553-602, sp. 589-93 a tenté de bâtir toute une construction généalogique sur ces données en mêlant Ingelger et Fulco, Hugo l'Abbé, Hugo du Mans et d'autres encore. Sa théorie ne saurait être retenue. 9Gesta, 30: 'Turonensium nobiles atque pontifices Adalaudus et Raino, ambo germani fratres et ex Aurelianensi urbe nobiliter nati cives, neptim suam Aalendim nomine ei (i.e. Ingelgerio) in coniugium copularunt . . . que eis in Aureliasensis pago et Turonico hereditate legitima perveniebant. Nam alodium agnationis eorum erat Ambazium . . .'. Cf. J. Boussard, 'Les évêques en Neustrie avant la réforme grégorienne (950-1050 environ)', Journal des Savants, 1970, 161-96, sp. 164, 170, n. 33; O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage au XIe siècle, 2 vols, Paris 1972, i, 197. Adalard, 'Adalaudus', est évêque de Tours du 27 mars 875 au 19 mai 891 (FEG, ii2, 312) et Regino, 'Raino', évêque d'Angers de 881 à après 905 (FEG, ii2, 360; K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen zur Frühzeit des französischen Fürstentums, 9. bis 10. Jahrhundert: II-III', Die Welt als Geschichte, xviii, 1958, 256-89, xix, 1959, 146-93 et xx, 1960, 87-119, sp. 272-74). On notera que le successeur d'Adalard à Tours, l'évêque (Footnote continued on next page)


page_212

< previous page

page_212

next page >


page_213

< previous page

page_213


successivement vicomte d'Orléans, prefet de Tours et comte d'une moitié de l'Anjou.10 Son fils Fulco le Roux lui succéda. L'étude moderne de ces légendes a été menée par K. F. Werner en 1958.11 Cet auteur montre que Fulco le Roux s'identifie à un homonyme qui commence sa carrière comme simple vassal en 886 et apparaît ensuite sans titre dans différents documents.12 Ce n'est qu'en 898 qu'il prend le titre vicomtal, dans le testament d'Hardrad, vicomte d'Angers auquel il succède apparemment. Peu après, entre 905 et 914, il succède également au frère d'Hardrad, Atto II, comme vicomte de Tours. En 909, il a perdu la vicomté de Tours, acquise par Theobald, mais il se prétend comte d'Angers dans un unique document, quoique cette prétention ne semble pas suivie d'effet. Ce qui est plus certain, c'est qu' à cette date, et probablement depuis la mort d'Alain le Grand (907), il était comte de Nantes, comté qu'il perdra avant 919. En 914, il apparaît comme vicomte d'Angers, ce qu'il est toujours en 924, avant d'apparaître comme (vi)comte en 929,13 puis définitivement comme comte en 941. On doit donc rejeter fermement le récit des Gesta qui l'identifient comme comte d'Angers dès le départ, succédant à son père, lui-même comte de Gâtinais. Comme K. E Werner l'a établi, ces promotions successives semblent en réalité devoir beaucoup à la famille des Widonides, qui dominait depuis la fin du huitième siècle au moins la marche de Bretagne14 et auxquels se rattachait Roscilla, épouse de Fulco. (Footnote continued from previous page) Erbernus a également un frère nommé Adalard (Adalaldus), lui aussi évêque en 897: GC, XIV, col. 95: 'Nos in Dei nomine sanctae Turonicae sedi Erbernus, humilis archiepiscopus, necnon et germanus noster Adalaldus, et idem episcopus'. Quoique l'on ignore de quel siège était pourvu cet Adalard (on peut exclure chronologiquement tant l'évêque de Tours que celui de Nantes ou Rouen, peut-être celui de Clermont: voir plus loin), l'homonymie suggère une proche parenté avec notre groupe. 10 Si !'on s'en tient aux Gesta, 29-31, il naquit sous le règne de Charles le Chauve et succéda à son père peu pros au moment de la mort de ce sourerain ('Circa id tempestatis, mortuo Tertullo in Francia, filius ejus nomine Ingelgerius hereditatis ipsius possidens remansit', 29). Il agrandit considérablement l'héritage de son père en faisant preuve d'une vaillance supérieure et en se distinguant ainsi aux yeux des rois Louis II (877-879) et Louis III (879-882). II aurait rebut en récompense la moitié du comté d'Anjou, à l'est de la Mayenne ('Datus est etiam ei . . . et dimidius comitatus Andegavis civitatis, quia ultra Meduanam in Andegavo alter comes habebatur', 30). II est exact que l'Anjou fut partagé en deux de 852 à 907 et séparé par la Mayenne (Cf. L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou au XIe siècle, Paris 1906, 2 n. 2; B. Bachraeh, 'The Origins of the Angevin Dynasty', 11). 11 K.F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 266-9. Voir également G. d'Espinay, 'La légende' (non connu de K. F. Werner) et O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, i, 9-11,131 sqq. 12 Pour la carrière de Fulco, on peut consulter G. d'Espinay, 'La légende', 99-100 et surtout la mise au point de K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 265-9 et 283-4. 13 J.-P. Brunterc'h a attiré notre attention sur la formulation particulière du titre comtal dans cet acte, conservé en deux versions, oh l'on lit 'Fulco Andecavorum comes iuvenis' ou 'Fulco comes Andecavornm iuvenis', ce qui laisse entendre un titre non parfaitement établi, ou du tooins, de second rang, très proche alors de celui de vicomte. 14 En fait, depuis le fameux Roland en 778, on trouve ensuite Wido, marquis de Bretagne (. . . 799-802 . . .), Landbert I (. . . 818-834) et Landbert II (. . . 846-849. . .), comtes d'Anjou et de Nantes, marquis de Bretagne. Voit en dernier lieu E. Hlawitschka, 'Waren die Kaiser Wido und Lambert Nachkommen Karls des Grossen?', Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, xlix, 1969, 366-86; O. Guillot, i, 1972,131-2 et K. F. Werner, 'Les premiers Robertiens et les premiers Anjou', Le rôle de L ' ouest dans la destinée des Robertiens et des premiers Capétiens (852-1060), éd. O. Gulllot, Mémoires des Antiquaires de l'Ouest, à paraître. La famille descendait de Warin, comte de Paris en 654, dont les ancêtres étalent implantés en Poitou et en Bourgogne.

< previous page

page_213

next page >


page_214

< previous page

page_214


Ce raisonnement a été admis depuis de façon générale, mais nous devions nous y arrêter un instant parce que B. Bachrach a tenté récemment de sauver la véracité du récit traditionnel. Il se fonde essentiellement sur trois points: L'indication d'une source écrite des Gesta pour cette partie de leur récit. L'incohérence méthodologique qu'il à aurait à leur refuser une confiance qu'on leur accorde pourtant pour la suite des données, dont toutes ne sont pourtant pas confirmées par ailleurs. La parfaite cohérence chronologique du récit, qui semble bien renseigné (connaissance de la division du comté d'Anjou) et ne commet que des confusions mineures.15 En dépit de l'autorité dont jouit justement M. Bachrach sur les études angevines, ces arguments nous semblent malgré tout insuffisants: l'indication d'une source écrite est on ne peut plus vague16 et peut ne concerner que le point précis pour laquelle elle est citée: ici, le nom de Tertullus comme père d'Ingelger. La cohérence chronologique est réelle en ce sens que M. Bachrach a montré qu'il est possible de trouver un canevas correspondant aux indications du récit. Mais ce qui est possible n'est pas pour autant exact, et même dans ce cas l'extrême tiraillement des hypothèses rend ce canevas assez peu probable (il nécessite par exemple des générations masculines fort courtes, de 15 ans au plus17 ou l'utilisation du nom Tortulf de préférence à celui de Torquatius aux références légendaires évidentes mais qui est pourtant donné comme le nora véritable du personnage). Cependant le principal n'est pas là. On est en droit d'accepter un récit, même non confirmS, qui offre une succession d'événements probables pour une époque et de rejeter le début du récit, pour une période antérieure, plus proche du mythe. Et cela d'autant plus légitimement lorsque cette premiere partie présente des données soit improbables soit nettement contraires aux faits. C'est inconstestablement le cas ici puisque on ne peut contester le fait essentiel mis en évidence par K. F. Werner: Fulco le Roux commence sa cartiere comme simple fidèle, puis vicomte et n'accède que tardivement au comté d'Angers. Cela exclut, quoiqu'en dise sans justification B. Bachtach, qu'il soit le fils et le successeur d'un précédent comte d'Angers. Quant à cette 'Petronilla', fille (ou même cousine) du premier 15 Ainsi, l'identification d'Hugo l'Abté comme duc de Bourgogne, alors que cette charge n'apparaît qu'avec son neveu Richard le Justicier. Mais Hugo l'Abbé est alors réellement la figure dominante en Bourgogne (Voir B. Bachtach, 'The origins of the angevin dynasty', 20). II nous scmhie inutile d'envisager la possibilité que Hugo aurait réellement eu le titre ducal et l'anachronisme dans la titulature est compréhensible. On expliquerait de même facilement que certains textes donnent comme premier membre de la famille Tertullus et d'autres Ingelger. Dans le premier cas, il s'agirait du premier male de consequence, dans le second, du premier comte. 16Gesta, 27: 'Tertullus qui primus ex progenie Andegavensium comitum per antiquos genealogie illorum relatores computatus est'. 17 Pour ne lien dire de la difficulté relevée par G. d'Espinay, 'La légende', 94, qu'il y aurait ê prendre en compte la donnée de la rédaction C selon laquelle Ingelger avait 16 ans en 879, mais dont le fils est déj à actif en 886.

< previous page

page_214

next page >


page_215

< previous page

page_215


personnage du royaume après le roi, qu'un simple parvenu aurait pu épouser, son existence est tellement absurde qu'il est n'est pas besoin d'insister. Ce point étant éclairci, nous commencerons donc la généalogie de la famille avec Ingelger,18 fermement attesté par une charte de Saint-Aubin d'Angers de 929 qui nous fournit les premiers éléments certains sur les origines des comtes d'Anjou: Fulco le Roux est fils d'Ingelger et ila épousv Roscilla, fille de Gamier et de Tescenda dont ila trois ills, Ingelger, alors décédé, Fulco et Wido.19 Ces données s' accordent paffaitement avec l'indication des Gesta selon laquelle Fulco avait épousé Roscilla, fille de Garnier, seigneur de Loches, et fils d'Adalard, parrain de l'évêque homonyme de Tours.20 On voit donc, qu' à défaut de sa cartière telle qu'elle nous est présentée, l'existence au moins d'Ingelger est authentique. On peut se demander alors d'où vient l'origine des traditions fantaisistes rapportées à son sujet. La vicomté d'Orléans ou le comté de Gâtinais en effet sont des éléments précis qui ne se justifient ni par une broderie sur un thème légendaire ni parce que ces charges furent occupées par ses descendants immédiats. Sont-ils purement inventés? En réalité on n'a pas assez remarqué que les Gesta dans une autre rescension mettent en scène un deuxième couple Ingelger Adela, différent des parents de Fulco. Il est dit dans cette version qu'un certain Gausfred, comte de Gâtinais avait marié sa fille unique Adela sous Louis le Bègue (877-879) à un noble de la cour royale nommé Ingelger, lequel lui succéda dans son comté. Mais après la mort prématurée de cet Ingelger, depuis longtemps malade, Adela fut faussement accusée d'adultère par Gontramn, parent de son époux. Elle ne dût son salut qu' à l'intervention héroïque de son jeune filleul, notre Ingelger qui vainquit Gontramn en combat singulier et, quoiqu'il ne soit pas son parent, rebut d'elle pour récompense son comté en héritage.21 18 On pourrait concéder, à la limite, que le père d'Ingelger a bien pu s'appeler Tertullus si vraiment cette donnée provient d'anciennes généalogies. Mais cela ne resterait alors qu'un nom, et quand bien même la possibilité nous parait réellement bien mince. II est bien plus vraisemblable d'y reconnaître une invention. Le nom de Tertullus est trop étranger à l'onomastique noble de ce temps. 19Cart. S. Aubin, nos 177, 203: 'Ego Fulco Andecavorum comes iuvenis . . . et uxor mea Roscilla, et filii mei Widdo ac Fulco . . . pro remedio meae animae val animae Ingelgerio genitore meo atque Ingelgerio filio meo, necnon pro anima Warnerio socro meo, et uxore sua Tescenda'. 20Gesta, 33: 'Fulco uxorem nobilem de pago Turonico duxit, riomine Roscillam, Warnerii filiam, cujus erant tunc tria castella in Turonico, illud quod dicimus Lochas atque Villentrasti et Haia, quorum duo postea Fulco duxit, filius Adelaudi fuit, illius scilicet cui Karolus Calvus Lochas dedit. Qui Ambazium, sibi similiter a rege datum, Adalaudo episcopo, filio suo ex baptismo, et fratri suo, cum adhuc villa esset, reddiderat'. 21Gesta, 135-9: 'Erat quidam Landonensis castri sive Gastinensis pagi consul nomine Gaufredus, qui diu absque herede masculo vixit, solam unicam filiam habens nomine Adelam, quam regi predicto Ludovico cum omni consulatu in tutelam reliquit. Habebat autem tunc temporis rex paranimphum sive camberlanum nomine Ingelgerium. . . qui tamen filius vavassoris patris supradicte filie fuerat. Quem rex valde diligens et probitates remunerate cupiens, predictam puellam . . . cum Landonensi castro et cum omni consulatu Gastinensi ei copulare cupiebat . . . Sed fere decem annis simul habitantes, absque herede vixerunt. Ingelgerio veto consul . . . non diu supervixit, sed subito et insperate nocte in lecto suo inventus est suffocatus ad infirmitate . . . Quod multi audientes et graviter ferentes, dominam Adelam comitissam multatione viri sui et falso adulterio impetebant, maxime quidam prefectus eorum, nomine Guntrandus, patens Ingelgerii . . . Ingelgerius autem juvenis filius Tertulphi, videns matrein suam ex baptismo undique desolatam et ab inimicis circumvallatam . . . repondisse fertur 'Doleo dominam et matrem (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_215

next page >


page_216

< previous page

page_216


Malheureusement, ce récit n'apparaît que dans une rédaction plus tardive des Gesta22 ce qui avait conduit E. Mabille,23 suivi depuis, à considérer que l'ensemble de ces péripéties ne constitue qu'une amplification légendaire au texte original. La chose est évidemment possible, c'est la position aristarchéenne par excellence, mais nous croyons que l'on ne peut pour autant écarter sans appel l'opinion inverse, à savoir, que la légende était déj à connue du rédacteur original. Celuici fait en effet une allusion aux exploits d'Ingelger, en précisant qu'il vint en aide à sa marraine, noble femme du Gâtinais,24 qui nous paraît obligatoirement supposer une version déj à plus élaborée que ce qu'il nous apprend, pas nécessairement celle rédigée ensuite évidemment, mais dans laquelle aurait figuré néanmoins plus de détails que son allusion ne nous en livre. Si l'on exclut l'épisode romanesque, c'est- à -dire l'ensemble des faits euxmêmes, qui doit évidemment plus au roman courtois qu' à la réalité carolingienne, ne peut-on conserver pour autant, et seulement, les noms des principaux protagonistes? Celui d'Adela n'est pas ciré dans la rédaction la plus ancienne, mais son personnage, anonyme, y figure déj à. En outre, l'édition récente de lettres inédites par B. Bischoff, a fait apparaître une Adela, veuve de l'abbé laïc de Saint-Symphorien d'Orléans25 qui se plaint auprès de l'évêque Walthar de Sens de ce que le roi Eudes, leur cousin (consanguineus) à tous deux, l'a injustement dépossédée des principaux biens de l'abbaye, en dépit de ses promesses. E Muller26 a suggéré que l'abbatiat laïc de Saint-Symphorien d'Orléans faisait partie des attributions du vicomte d'Orléans. Cette Adela, qui n'a apparemment pas d'héritier actif en 887/8,27 ne semble pas pouvoir s'identifier à Adelais, mère de Fulco le Roux, connu dès 886. D'ailleurs, si tel avait été le cas, on comprend mal pourquoi la légende aurait avec tant d'insistance nié le moindre lien entre elle et les Ingelgeriens. (Footnote continued from previous page) spiritualem sic ab inimicis circumvallatam et ab omnibus parentibus suis desolatam et viduatam. Sed unam petitionem peto ate, dominc mi rex, ut concedas mihi contra domine mee inimicum monomacho certamine dimicare, et ecce vadimonium meum' . . . Rex veto locutus cum consilio ait 'Prentes Adele comitisse Gastinensis adjudicamus exsortes hereditatis ejus, quia fuerunt pericull inexpertes. Ingelgerium autem, qui pro ea pugnavit et periculum subivit, licet non sit carnalis propinquus sed spiritualis filius, heredem illius terre judicamus sicut filium matris' . . . Tunc rex eum saisivit de castro Landonensi et de consulatu Gastinensi'. 22 Nous ne dirons rien bien entendu des développements identiques dans la Translatio beati Martini, prétendument rédigée en 942 par Orlon de Cluny, mais qui n'est jugé par la critique que comme 'un tissu d'inventions et de fables' (G. d'Espinay, 1883, 90). 23 E. Mabille, Introduction aux chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, Paris 1870, LVI. II est suivi, par exemple, par L. Halphen et R. Poupardin dans leur édition des Gesta. 24Gesta, 29: 'Namque ipsc admodum juvenis quartdam nobilem matronam sibique matrein spiritualem ex baptismo, Guastinensis pagi incolam, adulterio falso impetitam . . ., iste monomacho certamine contra accusatorem dimicans, illam dominam defendit ac liberavit. Quo facto, a tota illius progenie et fete ab omnibus nobilibus de crimine tam nobilis domine dolentibus nimis dilectus, apud Landonenses castrum parris casamentum ei valde augmentatum est'. 25 Lettre d'Adela, 'Sperabam itaque quod Odo comes et consanguineus noster ne suis, ut nobiliter decuerat, per omnia juvaret ac fulciretur auxiliis' (B. Bischoff, Anedocta novissima. Texte des Vierten bis sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart 1984, c. XV, no 5, 131-2). 26 F. Muller, Les formes dupouvoir en Orléanais (814-923), mémoire de maîtrise, Paris 1985, 223 sqq. 27 F. Muller, Les formes du pouvoir, 228, n. 1, souligne qu'Adela ne mentionne aucun recours, aucun héfitier autre que des consanguinei sans qu'il soit question du moindre fils.

< previous page

page_216

next page >


page_217

< previous page

page_217


Le nom de Gausfred, lui, nous le verrons tout- à -l'heure, est fréquent, tant dans la parenté des Walthat, que dans la famille des comtes de Gâtinais et dans celle des vicomtes d'Orléans, et donc il serait bienvenu comme nom du père d'Adela.28 La question reste de savoir bien entendu si cette coincidence suffit à le faire admettre comme authentique, ou si le rédacteur du récit légendaire, pour les mêmes raisons, ne pouvait que nommer Gausfred, Alberic ou Fulco un comte de Gâtinais et aura choisi arbitrairement le premier de ces noms, de loin le plus répandu. A moins que le père d'Adela ne se soit réellement appelé Gausfred mais que sa qualité de comte de Gâtinais seule soit fictive.29 Nous ne saurions trancher. Quant au premier Ingelger, il reste sans attestation, mais on ne peut s'empêcher de faire le rapprochement avec un Ingelramn, comte de Gâtinais sous un roi Charles que L. d'Achery suppose être Charles le Simple (896-929).30 La chronologie s'y oppose à premiere vue, puisqu'Adela est déj à veuve en 887/8,31 mais Ingelramn n'étant connu que par une chronique du milieu du douzième siècle, il n'y a pas de certitude quant à sa datation et il pourrait done être le prototype de notre 'Ingelger' (voit le nom de Gunth-ramn, parent de celui-ci). A moins que, le nom de l'époux d'Adela n'ait été purement et simplement inventé par les Gesta, éventuellement à la suite d'une méprise et qu'Ingelramn ne soit pas cet époux mais son successeur. Nous verrons au chapitre suivant que le second abbé de Bonneval est appelé Ingel(g) er en 863, mais Ingelramn en 865.32 Dans tousles cas, il aura été effectivement confondu avec Ingelger, père de Fulco le Roux et époux d'une Adela. Finalement, et quoiqu'il en soit de 'Gausfred comte de Gâtinais', il ne nous paraît pas inenvisageable que l'on doive admettre Adela, cousine de Waltbar de Sens et du roi Eudes, qui aurait épousé Ingelramn, abbé laïc de SaintSymphorien d'Orléans, sans doute vicomte d'Orléans, et comte de Gâtinais. Les Gesta auront confondu de façon inextricable eet Ingelramn et Adela avec Ingelger et Adelais. Et l'identité de radical, nous incite alors à voir dans le premier Ingelramn un parent de notre Ingelger qui aurait ainsi contribué à sa fortune. Nous aurions l à une nouvelle voie dans la recherche des origines des premiers Anjou. M. Werner,33 28 Peut-on le reconnaître dans un comte Gausfred cité en 864 avec un vicomte Adalard à Angers (Cart. noir d'Angers, no 34, 77: 'Signum Dodonis episcopi, Frotberti archidiaconi, Gaufredi comitis, Adelardi vicecomitis')? Cf. K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 275, n. 91, qui suggère que la mention 'Gaufredi comitis' serait une interpolation tardive. Mais le comte en question n'est pas nécessairement comte d'Angers. J.-P. Brunterc'h penche, avec plus de vraisemblance, pour l'identification de ce comte avec le Rorigonide Gausfred qui occupe une place prédominante vets 865 dans la lutte contre les Normands. 29 On songe au Gausfred du Maine cité à la note précédente. 30 Hermann de Tournay, De restauratione abbatiae S. Martini Tornaciensi (c. 1137) c. 42, 'Respondit Caroli regis Francorum privilegium esse . . . quod, petente Ingelranno, comite de Castellaudum, rex Carolus dederit sancto Martino Tornacensi villain quae vocatur Supas in pago Parisiensi' (PL, CLXXX, col. 39-130, sp. col. 70. Cf. G. d'Espinay, 'Les comtes du Gâtinais', Mémoires de la socißté d'agriculture, sciences et arts d'Angers, 1898, 25-42, sp. 28, n. 1). 31 La lettre d'Adela est adressée à Walthat de Sens (887-924) et parle de Eudes comme simple comte encore (886888). 32Chron. Bonneval, 30: 'Ingelarius subrogatur ejus regimini ab omni congregatione' (c.863) et 31: 'tempore Ingelranni abbatis' (c.865). On peut penser bien stir qu'Ingelger ne régna que 2 ans et qu'Ingelramn lui succéda, mais il est surprenant que la chronique ne le précise pas alors qu'elle a fait état de l'accession d'Ingelger. 33 K. F. Werner, 'Les premiers Robertiens'.

< previous page

page_217

next page >


page_218

< previous page

page_218


dans un récent article en a offert une autre en mettant en rapport le nom de Fulco (Foulque) avec celui de Fulcrad que l'on trouve dans l'entourage des vicomtes de Tours et d'Angers de la famille des Atto et des Hardrad auxquels on peut présumer du fait du rapprochement onomastique (Fulc-rad, Hard-rad) qu'il était apparenté. (B) Les Fulco De Champagne Nous avons vu que le nom de Fulco fit son apparition dans la famille des comtes d'Anjou par le mariage d'Ingelger, auteur de leur race, avec Adelais, niece maternelle des évêques Adalard et Raino. Le père d'Adelais fut certainement un Fulco lui-même. Le nom, sans être fréquent, se retrouve à diverses reprises au neuvième siècle, mais sans connection généalogique précise.34 Le candidat le plus probable est, comme l'a proposé K. F. Werner, un comte Fulco figurant dans l'entourage de Charles le Chauve en 863.35 Et l'on doit pouvoir retrouver d'autres alliances de ce Fulco. On connaît en 842 ou 85736 un miles Fulco, fiddle du roi Charles, qui construisit l'abbaye de Bonneval, entre Chartres et Châteaudun.37 Ce Fulco de Bonneval est par ailleurs très certainement le proche parent de Rampo 34 Voir G. Schneider, Erzbischof Fulco yon Reims (883-900) und das Frankenreich, Munich 1973, 2-4. On connaît ainsi un archichapelain de Louis I (830-834), un abbé de Saint-Wandrille (838-845), de Jumièges (833-838), de Saint-Waast (838-842) ou de Saint-Hilaire de Poitiers, peut-être un seul et unique personnage en fait. Voit P. Grierson, 'Abbot Fulco and the date of the ''Gesta abbatum Fontanellensium" ', EHR, lv, 1940, 275-84; R. Aubert, s.v. Foulque, Dict. d'Hist. et de Géogr. Eccles., xvii, 1971, col. 1307-1309. 35 K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 276-7. En vérité, le comte du Palais Fulco est connu par divers documents pour les années 859, 861, 863 et 864: voit F. Lot, 'Les jugements d'Aix et de Quicrzy (28 avril et 6 septembre 838)', Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, xxii, 1921, 281-315, sp. 291. Cet auteur l'identifie aussi au comte homonyme cité en 838, mais le hiatus entre cette date et les autres attestations de Fulco rendent l'équation incertaine. Voir depuis G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 4. n. 12; 6, n. 18 et 19. II faut distinguer en fait un Fulco missus (865, 870, 899, 908), un Fulco comes (863, 868) et un Fulco comes palatinus (859, 861, 863, 864). 36 La question de la date est épineuse du fait de l'incertitude de la tradition manuscrite de la petite chronique de Bonneval qui rapporte l'évènement. Le texte édité par R. Merlet, 'Petite chronique de l'abbaye de Bonneval de 857 à 1050 environ', Mémoires de la société archéologique d'Eure et Loire, x, 1890, 14-38, d'après deux vidimus du XVe siècle, porte la date de 857, sous l'empereur Charles, fils de Lothaire et frère de Louis, cependant que l'édition de Mabillon, porte l'an 841, sous l'empereur Charles, frère de Lothaire et fils de Louis. R. Louis, De l'histoire à la légende. Girart comte de Vienne (. . . 819877) et ses fondations monastiques, 3 vols, Auxerre 1946, i, 201-4, suit le texte de R. Merlet et souligne que la dédicace de l'abbaye de Bonneval a été faite par l'évêque de Chartres Gislebert qui commence à siéger en 858. Ce que conteste absolument F. Lot, Etudes sur les légendes épiques françaises, Paris 1958, 147-9: Charles de Provence n'avait aucun intérêt en Chartrain et ne fur jamais empereur. Bien entendu, R. Metlet et R. Louis avaient vu la difficulté et supposent que Charles de Provence avait en Chartrain des intérêts remontant à son grand-père Hugo de Tours, cependant que l'erreur de titre dans un texte du XIe siècle est vénielle. La question reste incertaine. Voir G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 14 sqq. qui ne se prononce pas formellement mais semble pencher pour 841. Nous aurions, sans certitude non plus, la préférence inverse. Comme l'indique R. Metlet, 'petite chronique', 18-19, les trois premieres copies de la chronique, par (ou, plutôt, pour) Mabillon, Duchesne et Ducange, qui accréditent toutes la date de 841 (ou 842) et l'identification du souverain comme Charles le Chauve, dérivent pourtant des vidimus de 1483, l'original ayant disparu en 1568. La conclusion qui s'impose est donc que l'original portait 857. La dédicace par Gislebert en 858 (au plus tôt) se conçoit d'ailleurs bien plus facilement avec une fondation en 857 qu'en 841. 37 Cf. M. Sot, Un historien et son église. Flodoard de Reims, Paris 1993, 125.

< previous page

page_218

next page >


page_219

< previous page

page_219


(Ragimbald38), vicomte de Châteaudun qui dote, vers 880, après le comte Landbert, cette même abbaye de Bonneval. Comme l'a noté G. Schneider, suivi par M. Sot, il s'identifie en toute probabilité à Rampo, frère de l'évêque Fulco de Reims, d'une noble famille de Francia,39 qui ordonne dans son testament de restaurer une abbaye dans le diocese de Sens40 et dont un parent (consanguineus) est Landbert de Spolète, fils du futur empereur Wido, de la famille des comtes de Nantes.41 Ce qui conforte ces rapprochements, c'est que Fulco Ier d'Anjou fut aussi un moment comte de Nantes et que l'un de ses fils s'appela Wido et devint évêque de Soissons, non loin de Reims.42 Ne peut-on envisager alors de regarder Fulco de Châteaudun, fondateur de Bonneval en 841 ou, plutôt, 857, comme le père de Rampo, vicomte de Châteaudun vets 880 et de son frère Fulco, évêque de Reims en 883? Cela nous semble une proposition raisonnable. Il reste difficile malgré tout de préciser la parenté exacte de ce groupe avec les Widonides. La correspondance de Fulco désigne Wido comme son affinis et le fils de celui-ci, Landbert, comme son consanguineus, tous deux ayant comme parent commun un comte (de Bologne et de Bar-sur-Aube?) Rampo.43 G. Schneider44 a bien vu qu'en attribuant aux termes latins leur sens exact, on devrait déduire que Wido a épousé une consanguine de Fulco de Reims et du comte Rampo. Mais, souligne avec raison le même auteur, cette solution ne peut se soutenir dans la mesure où la femme de Wido, mère de Landbert, Ageltrudis, est bien connue et qu'elle appartenait à la famille ducale de Bénevent, sans lien apparent avec nos Fulco.45 II faut convenir que Fulco n'emploie donc pas le terme affinis dans son sens technique mais comme un terme vague pour indiquer une parenté par les femmes.46 Doit-on alors supposer une Widonide épousant un Fulco ou à l'inverse une Fulco épousant un Widonide? Si M. Chaume a raison de 38 Pour Rampo comme hypocoristique de Ragimbald, voit M. Chaume, Les origines du duchd de Bourgogne, 4 vols Dijon, 1925, i, 534, suivi par K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 278. Au XVIIIe siècle, l'ablé Bordas supposait déj à qu'il s'agissait d'une autre forme de Renaud, qui dérive effectivement du même anthroponyme que Ragimbald. 39 Flod., HR, IV, 1: 'Fulco. . . valde nobiles'; IV, 10: 'Germine nobilium quem Francia protulit ortum'. Si l'on peut, avec M. Chaume, corriger en Fulco le nom de Fucio, abbé de Saint-Remi, qui fur chorévêque de Reims de 835 à 843 (FEG, iii, 88), il faudrait également compter celui-ci au nombre des parents de l'évêque. 40 Flod., HR, IV, 1,555: 'Item pro quodam monasterio, quod frater ipsius (Fulco) nomine Rampo ab eo construi testamento delegaverat ex rebus suae proprietatis, quas postea Erminfridus quidam pervaserat, qui uxorem ipsius Ramponis viduam sibi copulaverat'. 41 Sur les faits en question et les rapprochements entre les bienfaiteurs de Bonneval et la famille de Fulco de Reims, voit G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 7 sqq. dont les conclusions ont été adoptées en dernier lieu par M. SOT, Un historien, 125. 42 L'idée d'une parenté entre les Fulco d'Angers et l'évêque de Reims remonte au début du siècle. Voit la bibliographie chez G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 13, n. 54. 43 Pour l'identification du comté de Rampo, voit M. Chaume, 'Les listes comtales du pays de Langres (Langogne, Bassigny, Bolenois, Barrois) du VIIIe au XIIe siècle. Essai de restitution', Recherches d'histoire chrétienne et médiévale, Dijon 1947, 260-77, sp. 270. G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 10 juge les indices insuffisants. 44 G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 11-12. 45 Pour la famille d'Ageltrudis et les ducs de Bénévent, voit en dernier lieu H. Taviani-Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne IXe-XIe siècle, 2 vols, Rome 1992, i, 40, 340-3. 46 Dans le même sens, les termes employés à une autre occasion par Flodoard, De Christ. triump., XII, 4 'Quae consanguineo magnati impendler audit Widoni' (PL, CXXXV, col. 828).

< previous page

page_219

next page >


page_220

< previous page

page_220


reconnaître Rampo comme le successeur de Landbert et de son fils Widbert en Bolénois, il est plus tentant d'accepter que Rampo a pu être un fils (ou un frère) de Widbert, un Widonide également, et en conséquence on doit admettre que l'évêque Fulco de Reims, cousinant avec deux branches widonides, était issu d'une femme de cette famille, à laquelle appartiendrait directement le comte Landbert de Châteaudun:47

II. Fulco le Roux et Roscilla Nous avons argué ci-dessus de la parenté de Fulco de Reims avec Wido de Spolète pour le rapprocher de Wido de Soissons, fils de Fulco d'Anjou. On admet cependant en général depuis K. F. Werner que le nom de Wido vient certainement chez l'évêque de Soissons de la famille de sa mère, lille de Warnar de Loches et ne concerne donc pas la famille de son père Fulco d'Anjou et de son (éventuel) parent Fulco de Reims.48 Mais qu'il y ait eu en réalité alliances multiples entre les familles des Widonides et les Fulco, comme l'a bien noté R. Le Jan,49 c'est ce qui ressort clairemerit du fait que l'on trouve déj à en 924 et jusqu'en 966 un Wido parmi les fiddles du comte d'Anjou et dès 914 un diacre et grangier de Saint-Martin 47 La parenté de Rampo et de l'évêque Fulco avec les Widonides, et plus particulièrement avec la branche de Widbert transparaît encore dans trois litanies du Liber Memorialis de Remiremont: 'Karolus rex iuvenis, Lanbertus imperator, Rodolfus rex, Rampo, Vuitbertus, Rotrudis, Adeltrudis, . . ., Eldigarius ep., Folco ep.', 'Ildeburc, Uualterius, Uuidus, Lanbertus, Berta, Lanbertus, Uco, Rampo, Fulco, Cocelmo, Safilo, Adelacdis, Ermenturdis, Leutardus, Odilindis', 'Hildeburc, Uualterius, Uuidus, Lan-bertus, Uco, Rampo, Fulco, Gocelmus, Leutardus, . . ., Uuido, Sarilus, Girbertus, Uuidus, Sarilus, Ermentrudis, Adelacdis, Iduardus, Angeltrudis, Rotrudis, Odelindis, . . ., Berta, Lanbertus' (Liber Mememorialis yon Remiremont, éd. K. Schmid E. Hlawitschka G. Tellenbach, Zurich 1970, 11v 2 21; 56r 8 127; 57r 4 129). 48 Ainsi, encore M. Sot, Un historien, 126, pour qui c'est le mariage de Fulco d'Anjou avec la fille de Warner de Loches qui forge le lien entre les deux families. 49 R. Le Jan, Structures de parenté et pouvoirs dans l'aristocratie d'entre Loire et Rhin (VIIe-XIIe siècles), Paris 1995, 216, n. 206 et tableau gén. no 65.

< previous page

page_220

next page >


page_221

< previous page

page_221


de Tours nommé Wido, oncle d'un Fulco.50 On ajoutera encore le nom de l'abbé de Bonneval, Ingel(g)er ou Ingelramn, ainsi que cet autre Ingelger, père d'un Gausfred cité à Angers au début du dixième siècle.51 Ces simples constatations suffisent à montrer que la parenté entre les deux groupes est plus complexe qu'il n'apparaît au premier abord. Pour en savoir un peu plus, il faudrait approfondir les liens unissant les ancêtres des comtes d'Anjou avec la région de Soissons. K. E Werner52 en effet a fort justement mis en évidence l'existence de tels liens: Le 19 juin 966, le comte Waldric de Soissons signe un acte de Gausfred Ier d'Anjou. En sa compagnie, testent également Wido, évêque de Soissons, oncle de Gausfred, mais également les vassi dominici Rainald, Gualter, Widdo et Baldric. On trouve trace de la plupart de ces témoins dans des chartes angevines depuis le premier quart du dixiême siêcle: 13 août 924 Widdo et Reinold, 929 (Widdo), 941 (Rainaid, Guido), c.966/970 (Rainald, Warin, Widdo). Or, Rainald, Ragenald est, nous l'avons vu, le nom déj à porté par l'évêque d'Angers (Raino) proche des comtes d'Anjou.53 Warin et Wido sont des noms typiques de la famille des Widonides, auxquels se rattachait le beau-père de Fulco le Roux, Warnar (= Warin-har). Enfin, Waldric ou Baldric, est à l'origine un nom bavarois, porté par l'évêque de Freising et de Passau, dont la parentèle, les Alberic et les Burchard, s'installa à Langres et de l à essaima dans les régions de la Loire.54 Tous ces noms ou presque se retrouvent dans la famille des comtes de Soissons.55 A une date imprécise du dixième siècle (assez longtemps avant 1010/1030), 50Panc. noire de St-Martin, no CVI, 121-2. Cf. G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 13; R. Le Jan, Structures de parenté, tabl. généal. no 65. 51Coil. Tour.-Anj., no 279. Cf. R. Le Jan, Structures de parenté, 216, n. 205 et tab. 65. 52 K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 100-01, n. 54. 53 Sur les Rainald d'Anjou, voir l'étude de Richard M. Hogan, 'The Rainaldi of Angers: "New men" or descendants of Carolingian Nobiles?', Medieval Prosopography, ii, 1, 1981, 35-62. Ajoutons que selon la chronique de Vézelay d'Hugues de Poitiers, Landerie de Metz en Nivernais avait épousé une femme de lignage angevin et leur fils Bodo a pour cognatus un nommé Rainald (voir en dernier lieu C. Bouchard, Sword, miter and cloister. Nobility and the Church in Burgundy 980-1198, Ithaca/Londres 1987, 341 et W. Scott Jessee, 'The family of Robert the Burgundian and the creation of the Angevin March of Sable and Craon', Medieval Prosopography, xvi, 2, 1995, 31-67, sp. 3845). Le nom pourrait provenir de façson ultime des comtes d'Herbauge de la famille de Vivien. On peut signaler que le nora de Rainald, l'origine Ragenoald ou Ragenwald est identique à celui de Ragembald, porté, sous la forme hypocoristique de Rampo, par des membres de la famille des Fulco de Reims. 54 Voir plus loin le chapitre sur les origines de Gerberga. 55 Sur ces comtes, voit E. de Barthélémy, Les comtes et le comté de Soissons, Paris 1877, 9-19; M. Chaume, 'Les listes comtales', 275, et la raise au point récente de M. Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne. Vers 950 - vers 1150, Lille 1977, 138-9, avec tableau généalogique (ces deux derniers auteurs distinguant cependant la famille des Notchar de celle des Rainald). Nous devons à l'extrême amabilité de J.-N. Mathieu d'avoir pu consulter avant publication son travail 'L'origine de l'archevêque de Reims Guy (1033-1055) et les comtes de Soissons du XIe siècle', Mémoires de la Société d'Agriculture, commerce, sciences et arts du département de la Marne, 1996, 1522. Dans ce travail qui reprend de façon critique l'ensemble de la question, l'auteur fixe de façon assurée la f'lliation de Manasses, évêque de Cambrai, puis de Soissons. Nous nous séparons simplement de lui concernant la f'lliation des comtes du Xe siècle. Pour J.-N. Mathieu, Adelais (d'Auxois) aurait contracté deux mariages, avec Achard d'abord, puis avec Rainald de Soissons, fils de Waldric et demi-frère de Rainaid de Roucy. De la premiere union serait venus Betaid archidiacre de Langres et Notchar I comte de Bar, et de la seconde Fulco évêque de Reims et Wido comte de Soissons. II justifie ainsi que les noms de Notchar et de Berald, (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_221

next page >


page_222

< previous page

page_222


un comte de Soissons Reinold usurpa des biens de Saint-Bavon de Gand. En 953-967, on trouve un Ragenold, comte de Reims (ancêtre des Roucy)56 et en 966, un Waldric, comte de Soissons souscrit un acte solennel de Gausfred d'Anjou concernant la réforme du monastère familial des comtes d'Anjou, Saint-Aubin. Pour M. Bur,57 il est très vraisemblable que le premier Rainald est le père du second et de Waldric, et ce dernier à son tour un parent de Gausfred afin d'expliquer sa souscription à l'acte de réforme de Saint-Aubin d'Angers. Pour J.-N. Mathieu,58 Waldric aurait épousé une soeur de Wido, évêque de Soissons dont serait né Rainald de Soissons, cependant que Rainald de Reims serait issu d'un autre marlage du même Waldric. Mais, outre le fait surprenant de deux frères homonymes et vivants au même moment à cette époque, nous croyons que le nom de Rainald dans cette famille venait précisément de sa parenté avec les Angevins. Aussi, nous paraît-il plus probable de tenir Rainald de Reims pour un cousin germain de Wido de Soissons et de Fulco. Waldric serait son frère, ou son beau-frère, et le père effectivement de Wido, comte de Soissons. Le comte Rainald de Soissons, dont la chronologie nous échappe à l'intérieur du Xe siècle peut aussi bien être le père et le prédécesseur de Waldric, que son fils et successeur (auquel, après un règne très bref aurait à son tour succédé son frère Wido). Le nom de Waldric est certes inconnu chez les comtes d'Anjou, mais il figure dans la famille des évêques bavarois, ensuite passés à Langres, dont nous vettons qu'ils s'allièrent par la suite au groupe familial des Angevins. Cette parenté peut s'étayer par l'examen de la suite des comtes de Soissons. Après Waldric, le prochain comte de Soissons s'appelle Wido (. . . 974-989. . .), comme l'évêque homonyme, oncle de Gausfred Grisegonelle. A Wido succède Notchar de Bar-sur-Aube, parent semble-il du précédent,59 puis un autre Rainald (1047-1057). La généalogie de ces personnages n'avait pas été reconstituée de façon totalement satisfaisante par les érudits, gênés (Footnote continued from previous page) soient étrangers à la famille de Soissons, mais il est obligé du même coup d'admettre que Notchar ne fut comte de Soissons que comme tuteur des héritiers de son frère utérin, et qu'un Berald n'appartenant pas au lignage de Soissons devint pourtant évêque de cette cité. Obligé également de contredire la Généalogie de saint-Simon, qui spécifie que Wido de Reims était le frère de Notchar II, alors qu'ils ne sont que cousins germains dans son système. Nous préférons admettre la présence des noms 'insolites' Notchar et Betaid chez les Soissons, évidemment hérités d'une alliance qui nous demeurent inconnue et conserver intact le témoignage de la Généalogie de Saint-Simon, ce qui justifie plus facilement la succession d'un Berald à l'épiscopat de Soissons et d'un Notchar dans son comté. 56 Clarius, Chronique de Saint-Pierre le Vif, éd. R. H. Bautier, Paris 1979, 76 et 106: 'comes Remorum'. Voir cependant F. Vercauteren, 'Note sur les comtes de Reims aux Xe et XIe siècles', Le Moyen Age, xl, 1930, 83-9, qui conteste l'existence de comtes de Reims laïcs après 940 et ne reconnaît à Rainald que la qualité de comte de Roucy. Mais quoiqu'il en soit, cela ne change rien à la validité de nos rapprochement vtant donné la proximité immédiate de Roucy avec Reims. La qualité de comte de Reims pour Rainaid est d'ailleurs confirmée par un acte de Cluny (no 730, i, 687) de 948/954, qui est souscrit par 'Rainaldus, Remensis comitis', accompagné, notons-le, de Vuido, évêque de Soissons et d'un autre Wido. 57 M. Bur, Le comté de Champagne, 139. 58 J.-N. Mathieu, 'L'origine de l'archevêque de Reims Guy', p. 15, n. 4. 59 C'est que l'on doit pouvoir déduire des souscriptions d'une charte de Flavigny de 1011 notée par M. Chaume, 'Les liste corntales. . .', 274: 'Bruno Lingonis presul, Fulco episcopus Sessionis ciuitatis. S. Beraldi nepotis ejus. S. Notcherii comitis, S. Notcherii filii ejus, S. Adelise comitisse . . . . Raynaldi prepositi,. . ., Gausfredi, Vualterii, Guidonis' (Cart. Flavigny, no 42, 106-8). Cette parenté est discutée en dernier lieu par J.-N. Mathieu, 'L'origine de l'archevêque de Reims Guy', 16-17.

< previous page

page_222

next page >


page_223

< previous page

page_223


par deux a priori erronés: d'une part l'identification de Wido de Soissons et de Wido de Vermandois et d'autre part l'acceptation d'une généalogie tardive faisant des Notchar de Bar des descendants d'un certain Achard et de son épouse Achardia, deux Normands.60 En réalité, il faut renoncer à voir en Wido de Soissons un Vermandois,61 cependant que, pas plus que pour les Roucy,62 l'ascendance normande prétendue des comtes de Bar n'apparaît crédible.63 Il est intéressant de mettre en rapport ces liens entre les comtes d'Anjou, portant le nom de Fulco, et les comtes de Soissons, se transmettant le nom de Wido, et l'alliance signalée plus haut entre les évêques de Reims nommés Fulco et les Widonides. On devrait avoir:

La généalogie de Wido de Spolète est connue. Pour Adelais, on sait du moins qu'elle était la niece des évêques Raino et Adalard. Or ceux-ci sont évidemment les proches parents d'Adalard de Loches, qui, au témoignage des Gesta,64 donna son nom au second et recueillit une partie de leur héritage paternel à Amboise en raison de leur jeune âge à la mort de leur père. On devrait pouvoir affirmer 60AASS, Sept. VIII, 720: 'Achardus et uxor ejus Achardia: fueruntque Normanni. Ex his Nocherius comes Suessionum egressus traditur: de quo alius Nocherius, Wido quoque clericus frater ejus sunt orti'. 61 M. Bur, Le comté de Champagne, 137. Voir C. Settipani, La préhistoire des Capétiens, avec la collaboration de P. Van Kerrebrouck, Villeneuve d'Ascq 1993, 236, n. 333. 62 H. Moranville, 'Origine de la maison de Roucy', Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, lxxxiii, 1922, 11-42, considère que Rainaid, comte de Reims est identique au Normand Ragenold qui dévasta la Bourgogne vers 924925. Cette identification est hautement improbable, ne serait-ce que parce qu'elle n'est explicitement donnée par aucune source et parce qu'il y a un hiatus net entre la dernière mention du barbare Ragenold et la première mention du comte Rainald. Pour ces raisons sans doute, elle est rejetée par M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 400, n. 3 et 'Les listes comtales', 275, qui préfère voir en Rainaid de Reims le fils du Normand Ragenold, hypothèse tout aussi gratuite. 63 Il s'agit d'un topos répandu des généalogies du XIIe siècle. On remarquera l'improbable rencontre des noms Achard et Achardia pour ce couple de Normands, noms qui n'apparaissent d'ailleurs jamais dans leur prétendue postérité. Notons malgré tout, comme l'a justement remarqué J.-N. Mathieu, 'L'origine de l'archevêque de Reims Guy', 18, l'existence d'un Achard, évêque de Langres (948-970), prédécesseur et parent probable de Bruno de Roucy et des différents Berald de cette église, membres du lignage de Soissons. 64Gesta, 33, cité plus haut.


page_223

< previous page

page_223

next page >


page_224

< previous page

page_224


qu'Adalard de Loches était le cousin ou l'oncle de l'évêque Adalard, et plutôt son oncle, compte tenu de leur différence d'âge.65 Comme Adalard de Loches donna lui-même un nom widonide à son ills, on doit donc croire que c'est par lui que passe l'alliance d'Adelais avec les Widonides:

Parvenu à ce point, nous n'avons plus qu'une alternative. Considérer que les Widonides ont conclu diverses unions avec les familles des Fulco de Reims et des Adalard de Touraine, ou admettre que les Fulco de Reims se sont unis au fruit d'une unique union entre les Widonides et les Adalard. La seconde solution a l'avantage de la simplicité et pennet d'assembler toutes les données disparates en un schéma coherent, mais elle est tout juste possible sur le plan chronologique.66 Quoiqu'en matiêre généalogique, on se gardera de confondre l'improbable et l'impossible, nous ne donnons le tableau ci-dessous qu' à titre indicatif:67 65 Selon les Gesta done, Arialard de Loches est le parrain d'Adalard de Tours et c'est apparemment pour cette raison qu'il lui transmis son nom. II s'agit d'une conception propre au temps du rédacteur des Gesta. A l'époque d'Adalard, le nom est transmis par un ancêtre par le sang, qui peut, ou pas, être le parrain de l'enfant. Qu'Adalard de Loches ait été ou non le parrain d'Adalard de Tours, il était nécessairement son proche parent pour lui avoir transmis son nom. Voit dans le même sens, J.-P. Brunterc'h, L 'extension du ressort politique et religieux du Nantais au sud de la Loire. Essai sur les origines de la dislocation du 'pagus' d'Herbauge (IXe siècle-987), thèse doct. IIIe cycle, Paris IV 1981, 83 qui considère Arialard de Loches comme le 'consanguin' de l'évêque. 66 L'évêque Adalard et son frère ont du naître vers 835 (cf. K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 274). L'évêque Fulco de Reims, élu en 883 peut donc tout juste être leur neveu s'il avait lors de son élection l'âge minimum de 30 ans et sa soeur être la mère d'un Fulco d'Anjou, né apparemment vers 870. On ignore de fait l'âge de Fulco lots de son accession à l'épiscopat. Sa première attestation certaine date de 875 comme abbé (G. Schneider, 'Erzbischof', 22), ce qui ne contredit pas une naissance peu après 850. Sa mort, en 900, setair done prématurée, ce qui est raisonnable en effet puisqu'il fut assassiné. 67 Notre tableau considère doric que le mariage de Fulco et de Roscilla est incestueux, ce qui ne nous paraît pas dirimant. Par ailleurs, on considère généralement, après les travaux de K. F. Werner, qu'Adalard de Loches pourrait s'identifier au fameux sénéchal Arialard, qui fut certainement comte de Tours vers 843, et que c'est de l'union de cet Adalard avec une Widonide qu'est né Warnar de Loches. Concernant l'identité d'Adalard de Loches avec le fameux sénéchal, elle nous paraît assez improbable étant donné l'apparente différence de statut entre les deux hommes, le premier étant simplement cité comme seigneur de quelques lieux, le second étant l'un des tous premiers, si ce n'est le premier, personnage du royaume. Chronologiquement aussi, le sénéchal, né peu après 800 (il est cité comme tel dès 831 et son frère Gerhard est déj à marié en 818), n'est guère probablement le grand-père de Roscilla, née vets 885. Pour ces raisons, sans doute, B. Bachtach, 'Some observations on the origins of countess Gerberga of the Angevins: an essay in the application of the Tellenbach-Werner prosopographical method', Medieval prosopography, viii, 1987, 1-23, sp. 22, n. 43, a distingué les deux hommes et identifié plutôt Adalard de Loches au fils homonyme du sénéchal. Toutefois, ce fils semble avoir eu une carrière exclusivement lotharagienne, comme comte de Metz et abbé laïc d'Echternach (E. Hlawitschka, Die Anfänge des (Footnote continued on next page)


page_224

< previous page

page_224

next page >


page_225

< previous page

page_225


(Footnote continued from previous page)


page_225

Hauses Habsburg-Lothringen, Saarbrücken, 1969, 163-4). Nous croyons donc qu'Adalard de Loches était un neveu du sénéchal. Comme on ne connaît pas à ce dernier d'autre frère que le célèbre Gerard 'de Roussillon', mort sans héritiers, il faut songer à une sur, qui aurait épousé alors un Widonide. Le candidat le plus probable, chronologiquement et onomastiquement, est ce comte Warnar, frère de Landbert de Nantes, qui fut exécuté en 852 (A. Chedeville - H. Guillotel, La Bretagne des saints et des rois Ve-Xe siècle, Paris 1984, 2856; JeanChristophe Cassard, 'La résistible ascension des Lambert de Nantes', Mémoires de la société historique et archéologique de Bretagne, lxiii, 1986, 299-321, sp. 319-20).

< previous page

page_225

next page >


page_226

< previous page

page_226


III. Fulco le Bon et Gerberga (a) Famille de Gerberge On salt que l'épouse de Fulco s'appelait Gerberga, se maria c.930 et mourut avant 952,68 mais sa famille n'est malheureusement pas citée dans nos sources. Trois hypothèses ont été émises à son sujet. E. Mabille la rattachait sans preuves aux Bosonides.69 Au début de ce siècle, J. Depoin, reprenant des suggestions faites au dix-septième siècle par A. Duchesne, a proposé d'y voir la lille de Gausfred, comte de Gâtinais.70 M. Chaume lui a emboîté le pas et lui-même a été largement suivi depuis.71 Plus récemment, B. Bachrach72 ignorant, semble-t-il, la thèse de Chaume suggère plutôt d'y voir une fille de Ratburn, vicomte de Vienne. L'argumentation de cet historien peut se résumer ainsi. La théorie de B. Bachrach L'ignorance oú nous sommes de la famille de Gerberga pourrait indiquer que celle-ci venait d'une région non limitrophe à l'Anjou et ne s'apparentait pas directement aux dynasties carolingiennes et capétiennes. En revanche on constate dans les années 956/975 un nouvel intérêt des comtes d'Anjou vers la Bourgogne et l'Auvergne (mariage d'Adelais d'Anjou à Stephanus de Gévaudan, élection de Wido d'Anjou comme évêque du Puy). On pourrait l à aussi expliquer cet intérêt, ou conforter cet intérêt, par un mariage de Fulco le Bon dans cette région. On s'aperçoit alors que l'on trouve le nom de Gerberga dans une famille burgonde de rang comparable aux comtes d'Anjou, les vicomtes de Vienne dont l'un, Ratburn I (. . . 912-945. . .) épouse précisément une Gerberga, fille d'un certain Hector. 68 Gausfred Grisegonelle est adulte lorsqu'il succède à son père en 960. En outre, sa propre fille, Ermengardis se marie en 970 (Rod. Glab., II, 4), et ses fils sont encore jeunes apparemment en 974, Fulco Nerra étant né vets 970, ce qui laisse entendre pour Ermengardis une naissance vers 955, et pour Gausfred vets 930 ou 935. On ne saurait trop reculer cette date en effet dans la mesure où son propre grand-père est né au plus tard en 870 (actif en 886) et donc son père, vets 900 ou 905. Le frère cadet de Gausfred Grisegonelle, Wido, est déj à abbé en 954, donc né en 935 ou environ (Guy Oury, 'La situation juridique des monastères de Cormery et de Villeloin sous l'abbatiat de Guy d'Anjou (vv. 954-75)', Bulletin de la société archéologique de Touraine, xxxvii, 1975, 551-63). Gerberga elle-même a done dti voir le jour vets 915. 69 E. Mabille, Introduction, LXIV-LXV qui suggère que Gerberga pourfait être la sur du comte de Provence Boson II. 70 J. Depoin, 'La légende des premiers Bouthard de Montmorency', Commission des antiquités et des arts de Seineet-Oise, 1907, 133-54, tiré- à -part, Pontoise 1908, 21, n. 1, 26 d'après A. Duchesne, Histoire généalogique de la maison de Montmorency et de Laval, Paris 1624, preuves, 12. 71 M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 532. Voit depuis par exemple B. Bedos, 'Les origines de la famille de Montmorency', Comptes-Reodus et Mémoires de la Société d'histoire et d'archéologie de Senlis, 1976, 3-19, sp. 7, 13-14, repris dans La châtellenie de Montmorency des origines à 1368. Aspects féodaux, sociaux et économiques, Pontoise 1981, 37-9; S. de Vajay, 'De la valeur scientifique de l'hypothèse en recherche généalogique', Héraldique et Généalogie, xciv, 1985, 23-4, sp. 24; G. Louise, La seigneurie de Bellême Xe-Xlle siècles, Le pays BasNormand, cxcixcc, 1990, 265, n. 522; ES, xiv, 1991, taf. 116; Marie-Bernadette Bruguière, 'Canon Law and royal weddings, theory and practice: the French example, 987-1215 ', Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Cité du Vatican 1992, 473-96, sp. 483. 72 B. Bachrach, 'Gerberga'.

< previous page

page_226

next page >


page_227

< previous page

page_227


Cette dernière pourrait bien être identique d'ailleurs à Gerberga, niece du comte d'Autun Ecchard, fils de Childebrand. Or le testament de ce dernier fut souscrit, fait exceptionnel, par Adalard, évêque du Puy, avec lequel il avait donc des relations de proche parenté. Ce qui peut conforter le rapprochement en question c'est que le fils de Ratburn et de Gerberga, lui aussi nommé Hector, est évêque du Puy avant Wido d'Anjou. Egalement, le nom de la fille de Gausfred Grisegonelle d'Anjou, Ermengardis, que l'on ne rencontre pas auparavant dans la famille des comtes d'Anjou, s'expliquerait par le nom de la mère de Ratburn I, qui s'appelait Ermengardis. C'est d'ailleurs par elle que passerait l'ascendance royale probable d'Adelais d'Anjou. En effet, le nom d'Ermengardis permettrait d'y reconnaître une fille du maitre de Vienne, Boson de Provence, dont la femme Ermengardis était fille de l'empereur Louis II:73

Nouvelle théOrie74 Il ne paraît pas que l'on puisse retenir telle quelle cette argumentation. D'abord parce que son principal fondement demeure la transmission du nom de Gerberga, nom qui est tout, sauf rare, dans les grandes familles de l'époque. En effet, pour ce qui est des autres indices assemblés par l'auteur, leur force n'est point suffisante pour être déterminante. Le nom d'Ermengardis pour la fille de Gausfred lui vient 73 On notera que le tableau généalogique donné par l'auteur (1987, 5, reproduit dans Id., Fulk Nerra, the NeoRoman Consul 987-1040, Berkeley 1993, 274) reflète inexactement ses théories quant au lien avec les Adalard. 74 Nous remercions ici J.-P. Brunterc'h qui nous a libéralement communiqué le dosslet inédit qu'il a élaboré sur le même sujet. Quoique nous soyions parvenus indépendemment à des conclusions fort similaires, ce qui est certes rassurant, nous lui devons plusieurs arguments supplémentaires, notamment dans la question Nevers/Gâtinais. Nous tendons grâce également à E. de Saint-Phalle qui nous a communiqué, in extremis, de nombreuses indications ou articles qui nous étalent restés inaccessibles. Nous n'avons malheureusement pas pu tenir compte ici de toutes leurs remarques ou corrections.

< previous page

page_227

next page >


page_228

< previous page

page_228


bien plus simplement de l'épouse homonyme de Giselbert de Bourgogne qui était la grand-mère maternelle d'Adela, femme de Gausfred et mère d'Ermengardis. Ajoutons que Gerberga, niece d'Ecchard est née certainement avant 850 (ses oncles sont nés vers 805/815) alors que Gerberga de Vienne n'a pas dti voit le jour avant 885 si l'on peut s'en tenir au stemma de R. Poupardin.75 Leur identification est des plus improbables. De même, la chronologie s'oppose-t-elle à ce que la mère de Ratburn, né vers 880, soit la fille de Boso et d'Ermengardis, mariés après 870. Quant à faire de l'épouse de Fulco le Bon une Bourguignonne pour la seule raison que dans la deuxième moitié du dixième siécle l'Anjou s'est allié à des familles de l'Auvergne ou du Forez il faut reconnaître que cela manque de consistance. Mais la principale faiblesse de la thèse de S. Bachrach réside justement l à où il croit trouver son principal fondement: dans l'onomastique. A la génération des enfants de Fulco le Bon, un nouveau nom fait son apparition dans la famille des comtes d'Anjou, Gausfred, et ce nom est attribué à l'héritier de la famille ce qui confirme son importance. Il est difficile de croire que tel n'était pas le nom du père de Gerberga car on ne voit aucune autre explication à son introduction à cette place. Inversement, si Gerberga avait été fille de Ratburn, c'est bien ce dernier nom, ou celui de Berillo, caractéristique des vicomtes de Vienne que l'on se serait attendu à rencontrer désormais.76 Il nous semble que toute recherche sur la famille de Gerberga doit partir du postulat que son père devait être un Gausfred, mais il convient également, avant 75 R. Poupardin, Le royaume de Provence sous les Carolingiens, (855-933), Paris 1901, 351-6. Il peut sembler étonnant qu'Hector, mort évêque du Puy entre 924 et 935, soit le frère d'un Ratburn (II) connu par des chartes allant de 976 à 987. R. Poupardin (354, n. 12) lui-même convient qu'il y a l à une difficulté incontournable. La place de l'évêque Hector dans la famille est d'ailleurs mal définie puisque Mabillon et Vaissette en faisaient le fils d'Engelbert, frère de Ratburn I. La difficulté se répercute aux autres générations puisque le vicomte Ratburn I et Engelbert, père et oncle probables de Ratburn II, sont actifs de 912 è 945 environ, alors qu' à l'inverse, Berillo, le fils de Ratburn II, attesté dès 976 déj à apparaît comme marié en 994 mais ses fils ne sont cités qu'après 1030. Tout cela ne s'accorde guère à premiere vue avec cet Hector mort évêque autour de 930. A l'examen toutefois, nous n'avons pas cru devoir remettre en cause le stemma de R. Poupardin. Le document essentiel pour cette part de la généalogie, la charte no 1429 de Cluny (II, 485-6) datée de l'an VI de Conrad par Baluze, figure avec la date de l'an XL tant dans le résumé du cartulaire que dans la copie de l'acte, encore confirmée par la datation identique d'un acte du même couple (no 1437, II, 4934). La date étant ainsi assurée, notre charte est faite par un Ratburn, époux de Willa et père de Berillo, pour son âme et celle de ses parents défunts, son grand-père Hector, sa mère Gerberga et son frère Hector, évêque. Nous ne voyons pas d'autre évêque Hector que l'évêque du Puy pouvant convenir. La dernière attestation de son prédécesseur étant de 924, et la première de son successeur de 936, on peut lui supposer un épiscopat très court après 930 et s'achevant vets 935. II a pu naître vers 900/5 et son frère Ratburn, que l'on doit supposer plus jeune bien qu'il porte le nora de leur père et lui succéda (un aîné a pu s'appeler Berillo comme leur aïeul et disparaître assez tôt) aurait vule jour vets 910. Leur père, Ratburn I apparemment, serait donc né vers 880 et leur mère, Gerberga, vers 885. Sur le tard, Ratburn I se setair remarié avec une femme nommée Walda en compagnie de quiil est cité en 945. A défaut d'être totalement satisfaisante, cette reconstruction s'accorde du moins avec la documentation actuellement disponible. Il serait d'ailleurs possible de la rendre encore plus acceptable si l'on supposait qu'Hector n'était que le demi-frère de Ratburn, issu d'un premier mariage de Gerberga. On connaît une autre famille, arverne, dont l'un des membres s'appelle Hector, diacre à Brioude de 925/7 à après 937 (Cart. St-Julien, no 104, 58, etc.). 76 La thèse de B. Bachtach n'a d'ailleurs pas rencontré beaucoup d'adhésion, hormis chez T. Stasser, 'La descendance féminine du comte de Namur Albert I', Annales de la société d'archéologie de Namur, lxvii, 1991, 524, 23, qui réfute l'origine gâtinaise habituellement prêtée à Gerberga, apparemment sur la base de l'article de B. Bachrach.

< previous page

page_228

next page >


page_229

< previous page

page_229


de bâtir une quelconque théorie, de prendre en compte toute les données à notre disposition. Les indices que nous pouvons rassembler sont les suivants: 1. En octobre 989, à Angers, Foulque Nerra, petit-fils de Gerberga, rendit une pécherie à Marmoutier à la demande de son consanguineus, le moine Theobald.77 2. Parenté probable entre Adelais, fille de Gerberga, et le roi Louis V de façon à justifier leur divorce. 3. Possessions de Gausfred et de son fils Fulco Nerra en Gâtinais (et abbatiat de Wido, frère de Fulco à Ferrières en Gâtinais78). 4. Parenté entre Gausfred, fils de Gerberga, et son vassal Alberic de Vihiers. 5. Mariage d'Adelais avec Stephanus de Gevaudan et accession de Wido, son frère, au siège épiscopal du Puy. 6. Origine royale de cette Adelais,79 qui ne semble pas pouvoir provenir de sa famille paternelle. Il s'en faut que tous ces indices, les seuls que nous ayons pu trouver, aient la même force et présentent le même intérêt pour notre propos. Ainsi, le premier point reste inexpoitable tant que la personnalité et la famille de ce Theodbald nous restent inconnus.80 Il en va de même finalement du second point. On sait qu'Adelais, fille de Fulco et de Gerberga épousa en troisièmes noces le roi Louis V. Peu après cependant, le roi se sépara de cette femme qui avait près du double de son âge. Or, cette séparation ne put évidemment se faire qu'en invoquant un motif légitime qui ne pouvait être alors que l'absence d'enfant, l'adultère ou la consanguinité. Adelais ayant déjà eu des enfants de ses deux précédents mariages, sa fertilité ne pouvait être mise en doute. L'accusation d'adultère aurait certainement laissé des traces dans nos sources.81 Reste la consanguinité. A cette époque, l'interdiction se situait en-deça du septième degré, ce qui signifie qu'il faudrait admettre que Louis Vet Adelais avaient un de leurs arrière-grand-parents en commun. S. de Vajay a étudié cette piste en détail et dressé la liste des quartiers connus du roi et de son épouse et des possibilités de parenté en résultant entre eux.82 Il apparaît immédiatement 77Cart. angevin de Marmoutier, BN. nouv. acq. franç. 5021 fol. 65r = GC, xiv, Instrum., col. 62 (cf. L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, catalogue, no 7, 245). 78 G. Oury, 'La situation juridique', 552. 79 Cette parenté royale d'Adelais a été déduite par B. Bachrach, 'Gerberga', 8 et n. 35, du fait de l'union d'Adelais avec le roi Louis V puis de celle de sa fille Constantia avec le roi Robert II. On peut sans doute en trouver une attestation formelle. L'obituaire de Saint-Pierre de Mâcon nous informe qu'Adelais, seconde femme du comte de Mâcon Otto-Wilhelm, était 'regali progenie orta' (C. Bouchard, Sword, 270). Or, cette Adelais pourrait bien s'identifier à la fille homonyme de Gerberga d'Anjou: voir ci-après. 80 Du moins peut-on supposer qu'il ne pouvait être parent de Fulco Nerra par sa mère, la troyenne Adela et que la parenté remonte effectivement à la grand-mère de Fulco, Gerberga. 81 Richer, qui parle effectivement d'adultère pour la reine et son quatrième marl, Wilhelm (III, 95) prècise bien cependant que le divorce avait précédé l'union avec Wilhelm. Nous corrigeons donc ici notre argumentation précédente à ce propos (C. Settipani, La préhistoire, 326, n. 921). 82 S. de Vajay, 'De la valeur scientifique', 24.

< previous page

page_229

next page >


page_230

< previous page

page_230


que la recherche doit se focaliser sur les seuls quartiers inconnus des deux personnages, à savoir les quatre grandparents de Gerberga, mère d'Adelais, tous les autres étant répertoriés. L'un d'entre eux devrait être identique à l'un des quadrisaïeux de Louis V. S. de Vajay a suggéré de considérer Gerberga comme la fille d'Adelais, fille de Charles III et grand-tante de Louis V, à la destinée inconnue. On aurait ainsi une parenté au degré recherché et qui aurait l'avantage en outre de justifier le nom d'Adelais porté par la fille de Gerberga. Nous ne croyons pas devoir retenir malgré tout cette hypothèse. La principale raison est d'ordre chronologique: Adelais est la troisième fille de Charles III et de Frederuna, dont le mariage se situe autour de 907.83 En conséquence, la naissance d'Adelais date de 910 environ, c'est-à-dire qu'elle est la parfaite contemporaine de Gerberga, dont la naissance se situe approximativement à la même époque ou très peu aprés. Le nom d'Adelais se justifie suffisamment par celui de la mère homonyme de Fulco le Roux. Nous avons vainement cherché à résoudre d'une façon assurée la parenté de Gerberga à partir de l'hypothèse de la consanguinité d'Adelais et de Louis V. Mais nous devons avouer n'avoir pu parvenir à aucun résultat concluant. Nous préférons donc pour lors ne pas utiliser davantage l'argument.84 Les premiers comtes de GâTinais Le troisième point en revanche, les propriétés gâtinaises des comtes d'Anjou, a un impact immédiat. A l'époque où dût vivre le père de Gerberga, que l'on peut supposer être née vers 915, nous ne connaissons pas encore énormément de personnages de haut rang portant le nom de Gausfred, qui deviendra au siècle l'un des noms les plus fréquemment rencontrés dans l'aristocratie de ces régions. Ici, on ne peut guère citer que Gausfred, comte de Nevers (. . . 926-935 . . .) et Gausfred, comte de Gâtinais (. . . 935-941 . . .).85 Au rang inférieur, nous trouvons des vicomtes de Chartres (. . . 942 . . .), de Bourges (. . . 910-959? . . .) ou d'Orléans (. . . 942. . .).86 Mais la politique ambitieuse des comtes d'Anjou, la reprise même du nom de Gausfred par eux, nous paraît un argument suffisant pour supposer au père de Gerberga le titre comtal. Nous sommes done amenés 83 C. Settipani, La préhistoire, 324. 84 Par rapport à la généalogie que nous allons proposer ultérieurement pour Gerberga, le seul de ses quartiers inconnu serait celui de sa grand-mère paternelle. Celle-ci devrait donc être identique à l'une des quatre arrièregrand-mères de Louis V. Cela n'est possible que pour une seule d'entre elles, la noble franque Alda, première épouse d'Hugo d'Arles, futur roi d'Italie (C. Bouchard, 'The Bosonids or rising to power in the late carolingian age', French Historical Studies, 1988, 407-31, sp. 420) et qui aurait donc été également la mère, par un autre mariage, de Gausfred, lère de Gerberga. Mais il évident que cette reconstitution dépendant de nos hypothèses ne saurait être envisagée que sous toute réserve. On peut done aussi envisager que l'on a, dès ce moment, fait valoir une consanguinité calculée sur le cornput romain des degrés de parenté et supposant donc un aïeul commun à la septième génération seulement (voir C. Bouchard, 'Consanguinity and Noble marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries', Speculum, lvi, 1981, 268-87, sp. pp. 269-71). Il y a alors toute une game de possibilités pour justifier une telle parenté. 85 Pour ces comtes, voir ci-après. 86 Pour les vicomtes de Chartres et d'Orléans, voir plus loin. Pour Gausfred de Bourges, premier ancêtre connu de la dynastie vicomtale, voir G. Devailly, Le Berry du Xe siècle au milieu du XIIIe siècle, Paris 1973, 134, 154, 181.

< previous page

page_230

next page >


page_231

< previous page

page_231


naturellement à y reconnaître le comte de Gâtinais. La famille de ces comtes n'ayant pas reçu de traitement depuis le dixneuvième siècle,87 il n'est pas inutile de s'y attarder quelque peu. Le premier auteur à leur avoir consacré une étude particulière, E. Mabille,88 avait cru jadis pouvoir faire le rapprochement entre ces comtes de Gâtinais (dit aussi de Château-Landon, d'après le chef-lieu de leur comté89), aux confins de l'Orléannais avec la dynastie des vicomtes d'Orléans et présumait que les comtes de Gâtinais étaient directement issus de ces vicomtes. En effet, on voir que les comtes de Gâtinais s'appellent au onzième siècle, Gausfred, Alberic et Gausfred et on trouve au dixième siècle la succession Gausfred (. . . 942. . .), Alberic (. . . 957-966. . .) à la tête de la vicomté d'Orléans. E. Mabille concluait donc que ce dernier Alberic devait être l'aeul de Gausfred de Gâtinais, le gendre de Fulco d'Anjou, la génération intermédiaire lui étant fournie un auteur du dix-septième siècle, G. Menage, qui affirmait que Gausfred de Gâtinais êtait le fils d'un autre Gausfred, comte de Gâtinais et de Beatrix, fille d'Alberic II de Mâcon.90 Cette donnée, acceptée avec raison par E. Mabille91 en dépit de l'absence de provenance,92 se trouve en fait vérifiée par une généalogie angevine93 et une charte de Renaud,94 évêque de Paris. Ce qu'a souligné M. Chaume qui a pu compléter, à l'aide également des travaux de J. Depoin,95 l'esquisse d'E. Mabille et propose le stemma suivant:96 87 Il s'agit des travaux de J. Devaux, 'Etude chronologique sur les comtes de Gâtinais', Annales de la société archéologique du Gâtinais, 1885, 55-83 et 'Origines gâtinaises', Annales de la société archéolo-gique du Gâtinais, 1892, 241-60 et 1896, 292-310; C. Ballu, 'De la suzeraineté des comtes d'Anjou sur le Gâtinais', Annales de la société archéologique du Gâtinais, 1890, 157-82; G. d'Espinay, 'Les comtes de Gâtinais'. 88 E. Mabille, Introduction, LXXXIV-LXXXVI. 89 C. Ballu, 'De la suzeraineté', 172-82 a prétendu, dans un article au demeurant peu critique, qu'il fallait distinguer la fonction de comte de Gâtinais de celle de seigneur de Château-Landon, mais J. Devaux, 'Les origines gâtinaises', lui a victorieusement répondu sur ce point. 90 G. Ménage, Histoire de Sablé, 2 vols, Paris 1683, i, cité par E. Mabille, Introduction, LXXXVI. 91 Voir E. Mabille, op. cit. 92 Absence de provenance qui résulte en réalité d'une inattention de Mabille, comme l'a relevé C. Ballu, 'De la suzeraineté', 173. 93Geneal. corn. Andeg., V (citée plus loin). 94Cart. ND de Paris, I, 326-7 (citée plus loin). Voir aussi M. Chaume, 'Le sentiment national bourguignon de Gondebaud à Charles le Téméraire', Méraoires de l'Académie de Dijon, 1922, 195-308, sp. 290-1. 95 J. Depoin, 'La légende', 27. 96 M. Chaume introduit notamment dans la généalogie deux générations intermédiaires entre Alberic, vicomte d'Orléans (qu'il appelle comte de Gâtinais) et Gausfred époux de Beatrix, un Gausfred, comte (de Gâtinais) en 979/985, que E. Mabille identifiait à l'époux de Beatrix mais dont M. Chaume fait son aïeul et un Alberic, frère d'un Wal(thar?) cité vets 990.

< previous page

page_231

next page >


page_232

< previous page

page_232


Sans parler pour lors de son sommet sur lequel nous reviendrons ultérieurement, disons immédiatement que cette généalogie comporte un certain nombre d'inexactitudes, notamment dans la titulature des personnages. Ainsi, Alberic cité en 886 n'est pas attesté comme vicomte, pas plus que Gausfred et Alberic, vicomtes de 942 à 966 n'étaient comtes ou qu'Alberic, frére de Wal., n'a d'attestation réelle. Mais également dans l'assimilation non prouvée des vicomtes d'Orléans et des comtes de Gâtinais. Dés 1885, J. Devaux, suivi par G. d'Espinay, avait souligné la difficulté qu'il y avait à agir ainsi sur le seul indice de la communauté de nom entre les deux families, Gausfred et Alberic.97 Ces deux noms étant parmi les plus fréquemment rencontrés dans ces régions à cette époque, un tel rapprochement était audacieux pour le moins. Ajoutons que le nom d'Alberic paraît venir au comte du Gâtinais de sa mère Beatrix, fille d'un Alberic, et non de sa famille paternelle. En outre, insiste G. d'Espinay, on peut objecter la distinction très ferme sur le plan juridique et territorial entre l'Orléanais et le Gâtinais, lequel se rattachait en fait à Sens. 97 J. Devaux, 'Etude chronologique', 73; G. d'Espinay, 'Les comtes de Gâtinais', 37-9.

< previous page

page_232

next page >


page_233

< previous page

page_233


Quoiqu'il en soit de la validité de ces observations, sur laquelle nous reviendrons, il convient au moins, à la suite de ces auteurs, de reprendre l'étude des comtes de Gâtinais en s'en tenant d'abord aux données absolument certaines: Eventuellement: Ingelramn, comte sous un roi Charles.98 Nous avons déjà parlé de lui et de son beau-père douteux Gausfred99 plus haut à propos d'Ingelger. Gausfred (I), comte de Gâtinais, cité en 935 et 941.100 Gausfred (II), comte de Gâtinais, cité en 979,101 984102 et 991.103 Wal(thar),104 comte de Gâtinais vers 997, pressé par Abbo de Fleury d'intervenir pour faire cesser les exactions de son neveu Gaus(fred).105 Alberic, comte de Gâtinais en 1026, fils de feu le comte Gausfred, opère une restitution à l'évêque Renaud de Paris, du consentement de ses frères Gausfred et Leotald.106 Le comte Alberic puis la comtesse Beatrix de Château-Landon, figurent d'ailleurs dans la Vita Gauzlini comme bienfaiteurs de Fleury vets 1025/1030.107 98 Hermann de Tournay, cité plus haut. 99 Etant donné la nature légendaire de la source nous livrant le nom du premier Gausfred, nous n'en avons pas tenu compte dans la numérotation des comtes de Gâtinais. 100RHF, ix, 579 no 18: 'Gausfredus, comes . . . ex Wastinensi comitatu' et Cart. St-Benoît, no 47, i, 122: 'in Guastinensi pago . . . Signum Gauzfredi comitis'. Voir sur ces textes H. Stein, 'Note sur un diplôme du roi Raoul', Le Moyen Age, xv, 1902, 326-32, sp. 328-9. 101RHF, x, 435-6. 102C. St-Père, i, 89-90. 103 La charte de Pails qui nous fait connaître Gausfred (Cart. ND de Paris, i, 326, citée plus bas) précise qu'il joua un rôle dans la lutte entre Burchard I de Vendôme et Odo de Blois, laquelle eut lieu comme on le sait désormais non en 999 (H. d'Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne, 6 vols, Pails, 1859-1866, i, 196 sv.) mais en 991 (cf. L. Lex, Eudes, comte de Blois, de Tours, de Chartres, de Troyes et de Meaux (995-1037) et Thibaud son frère (995-1004), Troyes 1892, app. IV, 64-72; D. Barthélémy, La société dans le comté de Vendôme de l'an rail au XIVe siècle, Pails 1993, 282, n. 39, est inutilement indécis). Nous remercions E. de SaintPhalle d'avoir attiré notre attention sur cette chronologie et de nous avoir ainsi permis de corriger notre opinion premiere, qui suivant J. Devaux, 'Etude chronologique', 75 et 'Origines gâtinaises', 256, distinguait un Gausfred cité en 979 et 984 d'un Gausfred cité en 999 entre lesquels s'intercalaient Walthar (997), oncle du second et frère probable du premier. 104 Pour la résolution évidente du nom de Wal. en Walthar, voir J. Devaux, 'Les origines gâtinaises', 255; G. d'Espinay, 'Les comtes de Gâtinais', 30 n. 1; O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, 3; B. Bachrach, 1983, 540, n. 20; pour celle de Quauz en Gauz(fred), voir K. F. Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 272; O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, 3. Nous ne suivons pas K. E Werner, 'Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls des Grossen', Karlder Grosse, 4 vols, Düsseldorf, 1965-1967, i, 83-142 (traduction anglaise des pages 84-133 par T. Reuter, The medieval nobility: Studies on the ruling classes of France and Germanie from the sixth to the twelth century, Amsterdam 1978), 189, n. 33, Iorsqu'il identifie les formes Wal et Gauz et considère qu'il s'agit de deux variantes du même radical, ici usées à dessein pour distinguer deux personnages homonymes. 105 Abbo Flor., Epist., 1: 'Est quidam Quauz. nepos Wal. comitis de castro Nantonis qui devastat possessiones nostri monasteii . . .' (PL, CXXXIX, col. 421 = RHF, x, 435-6). Voir K. E Werner, 'Untersuchungen', 272. 106Cart. ND de Paris, i, 326 (voir plus loin). Par un curieux contre-sens sur une allusion de la charte au père de l'évêque Renaud, le comte de Vendôme Burchard, on trouve dans les ES, xv, 1993, taf. 92, que Gausfred de Gâtinais était fils d'un Burchard! 107Vita Gauzlini, c. 31: 'Albericus, comes Nandonensium, suis juris alodum, in Altissioderensi territorio situm . . .'; c. 35 = 'Beatrix Nandonensium comitissa, non minima terrarum hisdem diebus donavit


page_233

(Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_233

next page >


page_234

< previous page

page_234


Gausfred (III), fils de Beatrix, époux d'Ermengardis d'Anjou, père de Gausfred (IV) et de Fulco, vivait en 1043 (naissance de son fils cadet) et mort avant 1046.108 Gausfred (IV) le Barbu, fils de Gausfred (III), comte de Gâtinais avant d'être comte d'Anjou en 1060. Le comte Gausfred de 979 et 984 pose un problème quelque peu hardu, puisqu'on pourrait aussi bien y reconnaître un membre de cette famille particulière des comtes de Gâtinais, et alors très probablement le frère du comte Walthar, qu'y voir le comte d'Anjou Gausfred Grisegonelle dont les Gesta nous disent qu'il était maitre du Gâtinais. En dépit du soutien actuel pour cette seconde proposition,109 les arguments invoqués par G. d'Espinay110 en faveur de la premiere ne nous paraissent pas négligeables: il serait surprenant que Gausfred Grisegonelle ne fasse pas mention de son titre bien supérieur de comte d'Anjou, même pour une affaire concernant le Gâtinais. L'existence d'un comte Gausfred en 935 et celle d'un comte Gausfred en 991, évidemment étrangers à la maison d'Anjou, prouvent l'existence d'une dynastic distincte en Gâtinais se transmettant le nom de Gausfred. Enfin, il n'y a pas de raison de refuser l'identité entre le Gausfred de 984 et celui de 991,111 qui ne saurait être le même alors que Gausfred Grisegonelle, décédé en 987. Et qu'en est-il de l'origine de Walthar et de son frère? L'idée la plus naturelle, bien sûr, c'est d'en faire les descendants directs (fils?) du comte Gausfred de 933. Mais O. Guillot112 a proposé récemment une autre solution. S'avisant que lots d'une donation à Orléans en 975, Hugues Capet demande le consentement de certains de ses comtes, notamment Gausfred Grisegonelle et son fils Fulco et le comte Walthar et ses fils Walthar et Rodolf, il identifie ce derner, ou plutôt son fils homonyme, au comte de Gâtinais de 997, justifiant ainsi ses biens en Orléannais. Or, ce Walthar n'est autre, comme on peut le reconnaître du nom de ses fils, que le comte Walthar d'Amiens, qui avait encore comme autre fils notamment un Gausfred, ce qui achève le rapprochement avec Walthar de Gâtinais, oncle d'un Gausfred. On aurait ainsi tout à la lois la justification des intérêts de Walthar de Vexin en Gâtinais et du nom de Walthar dans la dynastic de Gâtinais, ce qui donnerait: (Footnote continued from previous page) nobis predia'. Ces donations eurent lieu durant l'abbatiat de Gauzlin (1004-1030) et encadrent une donation d'Ademar de Limoges postérieure à 1025. 108 Pour Gausfred de Gâtinais, père de Fulco Réchin, voir plus loin le chapitre VI. 109 Voir O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, 3-4. 110 G. d'Espinay, 'Les comtes de Gâtinais', 29-32. 111 Ce que fait précisément C. Ballu, 'De la suzeraineté', 174. 112 O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, 3. Sa thèse a été acceptée et élaborée tacitement par B. Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, stemma 264.

< previous page

page_234

next page >


page_235

< previous page

page_235


On remarque toutefois que rien dans la carrière connu de Walthar II de Vexin ne permet de supposer qu'il ait jamais eu le moindre lien avec le Gâtinais. Peut-être pour cette raison, B. Bachtach113 a introduit une génération supplémentaire en supposant que Walthar de Gâtinais était non pas Walthar II de Vexin, mais un neveu homonyme, fils de son frère Gausfred:114

113B. Bachtach, Fulk Nerra, 264. 114Quoique B. Bachrach, dont ce n'est pas le propos, ne cite pas Alberic, on peut supposer qu'il l'identifie au fils de Gausfred I et au frère de Gausfred II, suivant l'opinion de L. Halphen.


page_235

< previous page

page_235

next page >


page_236

< previous page

page_236


Malheureusement, on se trouve là face à une flagrante impossibilité chronologique. Walthar I étant né au plus tard vets 925, et peut-être un peu avant,115 le petit-fils de son quatrième fils ne peut-être né avant 985 et ne saurait par conséquent être le pillard de 997, neveu de Walthar de Gâtinais. Quant à la proposition d'O. Guillot, elle n'est pas sans soulever elle aussi une difficulté chronologique, moins dirimante il est vrai. En tant que petit-fils de Walthar I du Vexin, Gausfred, neveu de Walthar serait né vers 970, c'est-à-dire plus jeune apparemment de 5 à 10 ans que son épouse.116 Il faudrait alors corriger cette thèse en identifiant directement Gausfred père d'Alberic, à Gausfred, fils de Walthar I. Ce n'est évidemment pas totalement à exclure, mais la principale objection finalement, est que cette identification n'est pas la meilleure possible. Si Walthar d'Amiens et ses fils témoignent à Orléans aux côtés de Fulco d'Anjou, c'est tout simplement parce que Walthar était le beau-frère de Fulco, ayant épousé, comme nous le vettons, sa sur Adela. Quant au nom de Walthar chez les comtes de Gâtinais, nous verrons également qu'on peut lui trouver une explication bien plus naturelle:

115 Voir P. Grierson, 'L'origine des comtes d'Amiens, Valois et Vexin', Le Moyen Age, xlix, 1939, 81-125. 116 Il y a là en effet une petite difficulté chronologique. Beatrix de Mâcon, compte tenu de la chronologie de la vie de ses patents, est certainement née entre 960 et 965. Or, elle est probablement la mère (par son mariage avec Gausfred?), d'une fille qui épousa Wido de Macon et qui rut mèe du comte Odo, né vets 997 (voir p. 263, note 259). Cette lille était donc née vers 980. Dans ces conditions, même issu d'un second mariage, son demi-frère, Gausfred, ne peut être né beaucoup plus tard, d'autant que leur mère se remaria ensuite et eut encore au moins un fils. Une date de naissance vets 995 pour Gausfred est donc à envisager. De la sorte toutefois, on doit admettre que Gausfred n'engendra Fulco Rechin qu'assez tardivement puisque ce dernier naquit seulement en 1043.

< previous page

page_236

next page >


page_237

< previous page

page_237


Les Alberic et les Burchard Passons au quatrième point. On ne connaît pas positivement la famille d'Alberic de Vihiers, mais on peut raisonnablement l'identifier.117 En effet, on sait qu'Alberic, lorsqu'il reçut Vihiers en 960/987, vivait à Paris. Il est certainement identique à un Alberic qui souscrit à Paris en 975, en premiere position après les donateurs et le comte, la charte d'Adalhelm et de son cousin (consobrinus) Burchard.118 Il était nécessairement proche parent de Burchard, son frère sans doute, comme l'ont indiqué J. Depoin et B. Bedos.119 En effet, Burchard n'est autre apparemment que Burchard, exilé de Paris et installé à Montmorency et premier ancêtre de la famille du même nom. Ce Burchard laissa deux fils, Burchard, son successeur et Alberic, connétable.120 Quant à Alberic de Vihiers, on lui connaît avec certitude un fils, également nommé Alberic, mais on peut lui en supposer un autre, ce Burchard le Velu de Vihiers connu à la génération suivante.121 Burchard de Montmorency à son tour est rattaché avec assez de vraisemblance à un homonyme, Burchard, seigneur de Bray, près de Sens, en 958, dont la veuve fut chassée peu après.122 Surtout, comme J. Depoin l'a mis le premier en évidence, 117 Sur les Alberic, voir le rapide survol des différents personnages de ce nom et de leurs attaches, par G. Louise, La seigneurie de Bellême, 264-5. 118Cart. Saint-Benoît, 149-53. 119 J. Depoin, 'La légende', 19-20; B. Bedos, 'Les origines', 14. Le rapprochement est du à A. Duchesne en 1624. 120 B. Bedos, 'Les origines', 17. 121 J. Depoin, 'La légende', 21, n. 1: 'Burchardus cognomento Pilosus de Vierio castro'. 122 Voir par exemple Clarius de Sens, Chron. S. Petri, 80: 'In illo tempore erat quidem miles Burchardus et uxor illius, Ildegardis, qui habebant quamdam municiunculam in pago Senonico, super Sequanam fluvium, in Ioco qui vulgo dicitur Braiacus' et les autres textes cités par J. Depoin, 'La légende', 6-7. Il est raisonnable d'identifier à Burchard de Bray le 'Burchardus miles' qui apparaît aux côtés de Ragimfred évêque de Chartres et de Hugues le Grand en 954 (B. Bedos, 'Les origines', 13). Un acte faux, rédigé au XVIIe siècle (entre 1624 et 1680) précise que Burchard de Bray était le frère de Theotbald de 'Centumli(li)is' et le fils d'un Alberic. Le roi Lothaire confirme la fondation d'un monastère à Bray-sur-Seine par le chevalier Burchard, fils du duc Alberic, du consentement de la femme et du frère de celui-ci, Hildegardis et Theodbald: 'Burchardus miles, filius Alverici ducis . . . de consensu Hildegardis, uxoris ejus, et de consilio Theobaldi, domini de Centum Liliis, fratris ejus . . . ex Anglia . . . avunculus ejus, rex Aedredus . . .' (L. Halphen-F Lot, Recueil des actes de Lothaire et de Louis V, Paris 1908, no LVIII, 135-37). Ce monastère, que Burchard a doté de divers biens, notamment à Montmorency, devant recevoir les reliques des saints Paternus et Pavacius, transferrés en Angleterre mais remis à Burchard par son oncle maternel, le roi Eadred. La valeur de ce texte, d'abord accepté par Mabillon et Dom Estiennot, mais reconnu depuis longtemps comme un faux notoire (F. Lot, Les derniers Carolingiens. Lothaire, Louis V, Charles de Lorraine (954-991), Paris 1891, 59, n. 2; L. Halphen-F. Lot, Recueil, 136-7) peut sembler négligeable si l'on note qu'il donne aux Montmorency une origine royale anglaise, érideminent fantaisiste. J. Depoin, 'La légende', 14-17, a cherché le réabiliter quant au fond, mais sa démonstration n'est pas convaincante, loin s'en faut et nous renonçons à en faire usage. Il est indubitable que le diplôme n'a été fabriqué qu'après 1624, puisqu'il est inconnu d'A. Duchesne qui à cette date avait recherché tous les documents ayant trait aux Montmorency. Pourtant, certains détails nous font croire qu'il a usé de bonnes sources, qui ne se limitent pas aux seules données encore en notre possession. Ainsi, ce lien de Burchard avec les souverains anglais, aussi saugrenu soit-il, peut-il être un garant d'emprunt à un document plus ancien. On voir mal en effet pourquoi on aurait imaginé une généalogie aussi exotique, alors que tout s'expliquerait s'il s'agit d'une confusion facile à partir d'un texte authentique. De fait, J. Depoin a noté que l'on salt de source sûre que les restes de Saint Paternus avaient été transferrés en Angleterre et s'y trouvaient sous le règne du prédécesseur d'Eadred. La présence des reliques du même saint au monastère de Bray étant (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_237

next page >


page_238

< previous page

page_238


Burchard de Bray paraît être l'héritier des évêques Walthar d'Orléans et de Sens dans la mesure où il figure sur un sacramentaire ayant appartenu successivement à ces évêques, dont l'un, Walthar I de Sens, avait précisément un frère nommé Burchard.123 Ce Walthar avait comme neveu (nepos) son successeur Walthar II124 et avait pour oncle paternel (patruus) son homonyme, Walthar d'Orléans.125 Tout cela donnerait ce stemma:126

(Footnote continued from previous page) attestées par la chronique de Sens, il est donc possible et même vraisemblable que leur transfert au bénéfice du monastère de Burchard ait fait l'objet d'un échange entre Lothaire et son (grand-)oncle maternel (avunculus) Eadred. Le faussaire a pu, à la suite d'un contre-sens sur le texte relatant cet échange, penser que le roi anglais était l'oncle de Burchard alors que sa source entendait qu'il était celui de Lothaire, dont la mère était effectivement la nièce d'Eadred. Le faussaire aurait donc eu à sa disposition une source plus complete que celles dont nous disposons aujourd'hui sur la fondation de Bray, la même source commune aux chroniques senonaises sans doute. Finalement, le père de Burchard de Bray a bien pu s'appeler Aliaeric, mais on ne saurait faire fond sur le diplôme de Lothaire pour le prouver. 123Gest. Pont. Autis., c. 42, 371: 'de Bocardo fratre Gauterii archipresulis'. 124 Clarius de Sens, Chron., s.a. 877, 481: 'defunctus est Walterius, archiepiscopus . . . Cui successit Walterius, nepos ejus' 125GC, vii, col. 1426.


page_238

126 II semble évident qu'il faut intégrer dans ce stemma les comtes Burchard connus au Xe siècle dont sont issus les comtes de Vendôme. J. Boussard, 'Les origines du comté de Vendôme', La Mayenne, iii, 1981, 239-54, sp. 2501 et 'L'origine des families seigneuriales dans la région de la Loire moyenne', Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, v, 1962, 303-22, sp. 319-20, énumère: Burchard, souscripteur en 849 d'une charte d'Odo de Châteaudun; Burchard, évêque de Chartres (853), consanguineus d'Audrad et de Wenilo; Burchard, fidèle du marquis de Neustrie en 889; le comte Burchard, cité en 891, 902 et 906; un comte Burchard, fidèle d'Hugues le Grand en 930; un autre comte Burchard en 943 et un autre encore en 967; Burchard, le Vénérable, comte de Vendôme (976-1016). De ceux-ci ou de Burchard de Bray procèdent aussi, selon route évidence, les Burchard seigneurs de L'Île-Bouchard qui émergent à la fin du Xe siècle.

< previous page

page_238

next page >


page_239

< previous page

page_239


A ce stade, on ne voir encore aucun rapprochement évident avec les comtes d'Anjou. Mais en fait, un tel rapprochement est tout-à-fait possible. Le nom d'Alberic se retrouve en effet en 957 et 966 chez un vicomte d'Orléans, successeur et fils probable d'un Gausfred.127 Peu après, un autre Alberic est connu à Orléans, non qualifié de vicomte, avec lequel Alberic de Vihiers procéda à un échange en 975/987 sous l'égide du comte d'Anjou. Le nom de Walthar, nous l'avons vu, se rencontre, lui, en 997 chez un comte de Gâtinais, frère et oncle d'un Gausfred, et petit-fils probable d'un premier Gausfred. Cette fois, le lien apparaît entre ce groupe d'Alberic/Walthar et les Gausfred de Gâtinais auxquels, sur une base purement onomastique, nous avons proposé de rattacher Gerberga. Il suffit d'admettre que les vicomtes d'Orléans, les comtes de Gâtinais et les évêques de Sens procédaient de la même origine. D'ailleurs, il n'est finalement pas à exclure, en dépit des remarques de J. Devaux et G. d'Espinay, que la théorie d'E. Mabille quant à l'identité des vicomtes d'Orléans et des comtes de Gâtinais, soit correcte. En effet, la distinction entre le Gâtinais et l'Orléannais est bien réelle, mais n'empêche en rien le même personnage d'avoir cumulé des fonctions dans l'une et l'autre région sans qu'il y ait eu confusion juridique des deux domaines. La proximité géographique immédiate de l'Orléannais et du Gâtinais rend cette hypothèse assez tentante. Les deux régions firent d'ailleurs l'objet d'une politique identique et simultanée de la part des comtes d'Anjou sous Gausfred Grisegonelle.128 Or, nous avons, sur d'autres bases prôné l'existence d'un comte de Gâtinais qui était en même temps vicomte d'Orléans en la personne d'Ingelramn (Ingelger?). L'existence de ce cumul suffit à regarder comme possible la confusion de deux personnages homonymes exerçant ces deux charges une quarantaine d'années plus tard,129 d'autant que le comte Gausfred de Gâtinais est cité en 979 dans une charte de l'église d'Orléans. A cette souche, il conviendrait également de rattacher, selon J. Depoin,130 l'évêque d'Auxerre Betto, de race burgonde, fils d'un Alberic de Sens.131 Et en vérité, cela était certainement le cas comme le prouve d'une part la consanguinité révélée récemment entre Adela, fille supposée d'un Gausfred, et Walthar I de Sens, et d'autre part les noms des deux fils du vicomte Maiolus de Narbonne en 911: Walthar et Alberic (ensuite comte de Macon).132 Ces rapprochements montrent que les noms d'Alberic et de Gausfred se transmettaient au sein d'un même groupe 127 E. Mabille, Introduction, LXXXIV-LXXXV. 128 Voir B. Bachtach, Fulk Nerra, 34. 129 Nous sommes redevables pour cette proposition d'identification à une remarque de K. F. Werner 1 'issue de notre communication qui nous a incité à réexaminer la question. C. Ballu, 'De la suzeraineté', 178-9, use égalemerit de la vicomté d'Orléans tenue par Ingelger en même temps que le Gâtinais pour rapprocher les vicomtes d'Orléans et les possesseurs de Château-Landon postérieurs, mais le reste de son argumentation, comme ses conclusions, sont sans valeur. 130 J. Depoin, 'La légertale', 26. Stemma repris par M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 532 et B. Bedos, 'Les origines', 7. 131Gest. Pont. Antis., c. 43, 371-2: 'Betto ... natione Burgundio, senonicae urbis indigena, patre Alberico atque Burgundione editus, matte veto vocabula Angela francigena'. 132HGL, V, no 38, col. 130-1, 15 juin 911: 'in Narbonense pago . . . de infantes Majolo vicecomite et uxori suae Raymundae, riomine Walchario, et nec non et fratri suo Albericho vicecomite' et Cart. St-Vincent Mâc., no 7, 6: 'Hec sunt nomina comitum Matisconensium. Primus Albericus Narbonensis, (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_239

next page >


page_240

< previous page

page_240


familial. Que la liaison avec les Narbonne n'est pas fortuite se vérifie du fait que le fils d'Alberic, Leotald, est apparemment un parent du comte de Nevers Gausfred,133 cependant que la petite-fille de celui-ci, Beatrix, épousera Gausfred comte de Gâtinais, montrant la persistance des relations familiales à l'intérieur du clan.134 Le comte de Nevers Gausfred se rattacherait donc également à notre groupe. On peut même préciser de quelle façon. Un comte Gausfred, évidemment celui de Nevers, souscrit en 935 à Auxerre deux diplômes du roi Raoul. Or, le premier d'entre eux concerne notamment des biens sis en Gâtinais, ce qui permet, comme l'a bien noté H. Stein135 d'y reconnaître le comte agissant en Gâtinais en 941. Mais, contrairement à ce que croyait H. Stein,136 qui en déduisait qu'il fallait supprimer de la liste des comtes 'héréditaires' de Gâtinais ce Gausfred, la conclusion naturelle est, comme l'ont admis récemment C. Lauranson-Rosaz137 et J.-P. Brunterc'h,138 que Gausfred de Nevers ne fait qu'un avec Gausfred de Gâtinais. Nous savons que Gausfred de Nevers a eu une vie assez agitée et fut chassé à deux reprises de son comté, ce qui justifierait dans une certaine mesure cette multiplicité de comtés. Mais nous pouvons ajouter encore d'autres indices allant dans le même sens. La chronique de Sens de Clarius nous parle de l'abbé Notram, abbé de Saint-Pierre de Sens et de trois autres abbayes senonnaises dont Ferrières en Gâtinais. Précisément, ce même Notramn devint par la suite évêque de Nevers. Qui plus est, sa notice dans la chronique précéde immédiatement celle consacrée à Burchard de Bray dont nous avons montré plus haut le rattachement à notre groupe familial. On connaît un peu la famille de Gausfred de Nevers. Il avait pour frère un Gausbert139 et pour épouse une Aba.140 Or, le nom d'Aba se retrouve à diverses (Footnote continued from previous page) qui accipiens filiam Raculfi vicecomitis . . ., comitem se fecit; post hunc, Leotaldus filius ejus; atque post illum, Albericus, filius Leotaldi comitis'. Voir C. Bouchard, Sword, 262. 133C. Cl., no 432, i, 420-1: le comte Gausfred souscrit en premier, après le donateur et son épouse, une charte familiale du comte de Mâcon Leotald. On notera parmi les autres souscripteurs un Gozfred suivit d'un Gozbert. Voir M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 413, n. 134 M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 533, explique cette parenté par une lointaine ascendance commune passant par les comtes puis les vicomtes de Narbonne remontant au VIIIe siècle. Mais quoiqu'il en soit de ces hypothèses, les parentis ainsi reconstituées sont trop lointaines pour justifier les concordances onomastiques et les rapports familiaux attestés ici. 135 H. Stein, 'Note sur deux diplômes', 331-2. 136 Ce n'est d'ailleurs pas la seule confusion de H. Stein à cet endroit, qui sur une mauvaise interprétation de deux chartes de Cluny (nos 446 et 449) considére que Gausfred descend d'un comte Wilhelm (en fait, il s'agit du duc d'Aquitaine qualifié non d'ancêtre, mais de senior de Gausfred) et l'identifie en outre au vicomte de Bourges homonyme, ce que rien ne justifie. 137 C. Lauranson-Rosaz, L 'Auvergne et ses marges (Velay, Gévaudan), du VIIIe au XIe siècle. La fin du monde antique?, Le Puy-en-Velay 1987, 60 et 'Autour de la prise du pouvoir par Hugues Capet: les manuvres angevines au service des premiers Capétiens dans le Midi (956-1020)', La Catalogne et la France méridionale amour de l'an mil, éd. X. Barral i Altet, etc., Barcelone 1991, 102-10,104, n. 17. 138 J.-P. Brunterc'h, dossier inédit cité plus haut. 139 II n'est pas sans intérêt de rappeler ici, comme nous le signale J.-P. Brunterc'h, qu'à partir de 948 siège sur le trône épiscopal de Nevers un nommé Gausbert (Gaubert), dont l'un des actes porte en 955 les souscriptions suivantes, très suggestives: 'Gaubertus sanctae Nevernensis ecclesiae episcopus, Atto archidiaconus, Tedelgrinus, Umbertus, Dodo archidiaconus. Signurn Randuini, S. Widonis, S. Gausfredi, S. Erberti, S. Eldeberti . . .' (Cart. StCyr, no 21, 44-5). 140C. Cl., no 446, i, 434-6 (cf. no 449, 438-4): 'Ego, in Dei nomine, Gauzfredus, disponente Deo comes, et uxor mea Ava . . . Actum Nivernis civitate publice'; 511, I, 496-8: 'Gauzfredus comes et conjux mea Ava . . . et fratris mei Gauzberti'.

< previous page

page_240

next page >


page_241

< previous page

page_241


reprises dans l'aristocratie carolingienne rapproché de celui de Gerberga,141 ce qui conforte notre reconstruction:142

L'origine des Walthar/Alberic Un tel schéma reste encore imprécis, et il est à craindre que dans l'état de notre documentation, nous ne puissions aller beaucoup plus loin. Toutefois, nous nous risquerons ici à évoquer quelques connections complémentaires, sans méconnaître la grande part d'incertitude qui s'y mêle. La base en est le cousinage entre Adela d'Orléans, Walthar de Sens et le roi Eudes. Nous avons déjà exploité la premiere partie de la parenté, mais n'avons pas encore parlé du roi Eudes. Les travaux réents sur la famille de Robert le Fort s'accordent à y voir un proche parent du comte Odo (Eudes) d'Orléans, beau-frère du puissant sénéchal Adalard. Il paraît raisonnable d'admettre que la parenté entre le roi Eudes, Walthar de Sens, neveu de Walthar d'Orléans et Adela, vicomtesse (?) d'Orléans, passe par Odo d'Orléans.143 Quoiqu'il en soit du lien exact entre le comte d'Orléans et le roi homonyme,144 il faut admettre que Walthar de Sens et 141 Voir plus loin dans ce chapitre. 142 Nous ne savons où placer dans ce stemma le Gausfred qui souscrit en dernière position un diplôme du comte de Tours Eudes (futur roi), après Atto, Alberic, Guarnegaud, Atto, Guandalbert, Guanilo, et Fulco, tous proches de la dynastic ingelgérienne. 143 Pour L. Levillain, ce dernier serait l'oncle de Robert le Fort et le grand-oncle du roi Eudes, cependant que K. E Werner suggère plutît qu'il soit le beau-père de Robert et le grand-père du roi Eudes. Quoique les raisons de L. Levillain nous paraissent mauvaises pour la plupart, nous aurions tendance à souscrire néanmoins à sa thèse. 144 Certains historiens ont signalé que l'on savait déjà que le roi Eudes était cousin d'un autre Walthar, (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_241

next page >


page_242

< previous page

page_242


Adela se rattachaient à la famille d'Odo d'Orléans. Nous savons que ce dernier était originaire de Francia, le pays autour de Mayence, frère de Wilhelm, comte de Blois, cité comme Francigenus.145 Il avait épousé Engeltrudis, sur d'Adalard, et fut le père d'Ermentrudis, première femme de Charles le Chauve. Il est alors intéressant de noter, avec J. Depoin,146 que l'évêque Betto d'Auxerre avait pour parents un Alberic de Sens et une Engela (= Engeltrudis), elle aussi qualifiée de Francigena. Quoique l'on ne puisse rien affirmer, ce que nous reconnaissons volontiers et que donc, d'autres possibilités soient envisageables,147 une solution serait de considérer Engela comme une fille ou une petite-fille d'Odo d'Orléans et une proche parente de Walthar d'Orléans. D'une façon indéterminée, elle cousinerait ainsi avec Herifrid, évêque d'Auxerre, originaire de Chartres, issu d'une noble famille de la marche armoricaine, qui appartenait en outre à la même souche que Walthar d'Orléans.148 De ce fait, il ne semble pas possible de faire de Walthar d'Orléans un fils d'Odo puisque nice dernier, ni son épouse Engeltrudis ne peuvent appartenir à la souche d'Herifrid. Il est difficile également d'y voir un petit-fils pour des raisons chronologiques, puisqu'il faudrait admettre que le comte Odo, dont on place l'arrivée à l'ouest entre 824 et 826149 ait pu avoir un petit-fils évêque d'Orléans en 868.150 Le mieux, étant donné sa qualification de Francigena est donc de voir en Engela une fille d'Odo et d'Engeltrudis. Si l'on veut en outre voir dans son mari, la source (Footnote continued from previous page) comte de Laon, qu'il fit exécuter en 892, et ont fait le rapprochement avec le lien unissant Eudes et Walthar de Sens. 145 Gozbert, Carm.: 'Francigenum primo', MGH, Pt. lat., iv, 620. Cf. R. Hennebicque-Le Jan, 'Structures familiales et politiques au IXe s.', Revue historique, cclxv, 1981, 289-333, sp. 313. 146 J Depoin, 'La légende', 33. 147 Ainsi, on doit signaler avec M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 326 n., le fait que Walthar d'Orléans souscrit le testament d'Ecchard d'Autun, indice d'une parenté avec ce très noble personnage (cf. L. Levillain, 'Les Nibelungen historiques et leurs alliances de famille', Annales du Midi, xlix, 1937, 337-408, sp. 389-90), lié à de nombreuses autres grandes families de l'empire carolingien et qui a notamment un neveu nommé Robert et, selon un acte faux, une nièce nommée Engeltrudis (M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 326, mais voir C. Settipani, La préhistoire, 277-8). 148Gest. Pont. Autis., c. 41,360-1: 'Herifridus, natione Carnotensis . . . vir nobilissimus . . . ex nobilissima Armoricani tractus prosapia derivatus, Herifridus nomine . . . Hujus pater Herifridus nominatus est, mater vero Isemberga est nuncupata, nobiles genere . . . domno Gauterio, sancte Aurelianensis ecclesiae episcopo id procurante, ex cujus processerat progenie'. Pour la signification à l'époque carolingienne et postérieure des formules sur l'indication de l'origine ethnique du type ex genere, voir K. F. Werner, 'Bedeutende', 196-7, n. 77 et 'Hludowicus Augustus: gouverner l'empire chrétienIdées et réalités', Charlemagne's heir. New perspectives on the reign of Louis the Pious (814-840), éd. P. GodmanR. Collins, Oxford 1990, 1-123, sp. 26, n. 85; J.-P. Poly-E. Bournazel, La mutation féodale (Xe-XIIe siècles), 2e éd., Paris 1991, 315-20. 149 L. Levillain, 'Les Nibelungen historiques et leurs alliances de famille (suite)', Annales du Midi, 1,1938, 1-66, sp. 36-42. Ceci est toutefois contesté par P. Depreux, Prosopographie de l'entourage de Louis le Pieux (781-841), Sigmaringen 1997, 190-1, qui s'en tient à la premiere attestation formelle d'Odo, mais qui nous semble en l'occurence faire preuve d'une excessive prudence. 150 On notera tout de même que dans cette hypothèse, la venue d'Odo à l'ouest a pu avoir lieu dès 824 et son mariage à la même époque. Mais il est également possible que le mariage avec Adalard, dont la famille venait elle aussi de l'est, air eu lieu avant 824, quand Odo vivait encore en Francia. Dans cette éventualité, qui nous paraît plus vraisemblable que la précédente, c'est le mariage qui serait cause du 'passage à l'ouest' et non l'inverse. Un mariage vets 820, rendrait mieux compte de l'âge probable des époux, et permettrait d'applanir davantage les difficultés chronologiques que nous évoquons.

< previous page

page_242

next page >


page_243

< previous page

page_243


de la diffusion du nom d'Alberic aux côtés de celui de Walthar dans les familles postérieures, force est d'admettre que Walthar de Sens (887-924) en descendait et donc, chronologiquement, qu'il était leur fils, le frère de Betto d'Auxerre (914-919). Partant, Walthar de Sens, son oncle paternel, dont nous avons dit qu'il ne semble pouvoir être un descendant d'Odo et d'Engeltrudis, serait un frère d'Alberic.151 Alberic, père de Betto était burgonde,152 ce qui signifie qu'il devait descendre du clan familial des évêques de Freising, de Passau, puis de Langres, Betto et son parent Alberic.153 Betto de Langres avait en 815 pour avoué un certain Burchard154 qui pourrait bien constituer le lien avec notre groupe. Après lui, un autre chaînon possible est le noble Burchard, cité dès 840, sans doute le même, membre du clan d'Adalard le sénéchal, beau-frère d'Odo d'Orléans, qui devint évêque de Chartres en 853. Il avait sans doute pour allié Wenilo, évêque de Sens, parent évidemment des Wenilo/ Walthar, trésoriers de Saint-Martin de Tours au siècle suivant.155 Un autre consanguineus est Audrad, chorévêque de Sens (849864),156 peut-être un 151 Cette solution a néanmoins le désavantage de faire disparaître tout lien direct (apparent) entre le comte Odo d'Orléans et l'évîque Walhar de la même cité, ce qui a pour conséqence, croyons-nous, de refuser à Walthar le titre de parent du roi Eudes. La parenté de ce dernier avec Walthar de Sens ne devrait pas être mise en rapport alors avec la parenté l'unissant à Walthar de Laon. 152 J. Depoin, 'La légende', 27 et M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 532 ont mis au nombre des ascendants de ce Burgonde Alberic le légendaire Alberic Burgundio des chansons de Gestes, identifié en la circonstance à un personnage nommé par l'Astronome (VH, c. 13), Burgundio, comte de Fézensac mort en 801 (auquel succéda d'ailleurs Leuthard, le père d'Adalard et d'Engeltrudis, femme d'Odo d'Orléans). Mais nous nous refusons à user d'une telle source. 153 Pour l'association AlbericBettoWaldricHeribal au VIIIe siècle, voir M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 122-3; R. Hennebicque-Le Jan, 'Structures', 298-9 qui relive les différentes associations de personnages ainsi nommés dans les cartulaires germaniques. Pour l'identification des évêques de Passau, Freising et Langres et leur parentéle, voir en dernier lieu A. Stoclet, Autour de Fulrad de Saint-Denis (v. 710-784), Genève 1993, 316-38. On pourrait multiplier les rapprochements: les Alberic de Bavière sont liés étroitement aux Heribald, ce qui indique évidemment une parenté entre les évêque de Langres et Heribald d'Auxerre. Ce dernier était parent, entre autre, de Lupus, abbé de Ferrières, en Gâtinais, frère d'un Regimb. qui pourrait être un Regimbald, donc un Rampo. Le nom d'Heribald d'Auxerre invite aussi à le rapprocher d'Herifrid, éVêque d'Auxerre, parent des Walthar d'Orléans. 154Chron. Bèze, éd. Garnier-Bougaud, Dijon 1875, 250: 'Betto episcopus et advocatus suus Burgoardus'. Cf. M. Chaume, 'Les listes comtales', 262. 155 Parenté de Burchard et Wenilo: déduite du soutient décisif de Wenilo lots de la nomination de Burchard l'épiscopat (cf. M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 208, n. 5 qui affirme, à tort, que la parenté est prouvée par un texte, qui ne dit rien de tel: voir note suivante). Famille des Wenilo/Walthar: voir K. F. Werner, 1959,174; J. Boussard, 'Le trésorier de Saint-Martin de Tours ', Revue d'Histoire de l'Eglise de France, xlvii, 1961, 67-88, sp. 77-9; F. Muller, Lesformes du pouvoir, 280-1. Nous croyons que le premier d'entre eux, le trésorier, Walthar (. . . 884-av.886) pourrait bien s'identifier au premier éVêque de Sens de ce nom, élu en 887. On notera ê cet effet que le second successeur de Walthar comme trésorier, Berno, fut sans doute élu évêque d'Orléans peu après (J. Boussard, op. cit., 77). Wenilo de Sens est en outre le proche parent (propinquus, proximus) d'une Ermentrudis, abbesse de Jouarre (. . . 836-847 . . .), dont le nom rappelle la reine homonyme, fille d'Odo d'Orléans, laquelle était d'ailleurs très certainement sa parente (voir J. Guèrout, 'Le monastère à l'époque carolingienne', L'abbaye de Jouarre, Jouarre 1961, 70-81). Un de ses frères s'appelle Harduin, comme le père d'un autre comte Odo. Un autre parent est évialeminent Wenilo de Rouen, fils d'un Reginhar, dont le nom rappelle la dynastie comtale de Sens au début du IXe siècle, allièe au duc Hardrad (voir note suivante). Enfin, il est l'allié politique des Nibelungen Theoderic et Ecchard, lequel énumère parmi ses héritiers, et donc parents Walthar d'Orléans et Wala de Sens (L. Levillain, 'Les Nibelungen', 389-90). 156 Audrad de Sens, Liber revelationis, c. 15: 'Burchardus . . . est enim mihi consanguineus' (PL, CXV, col. 28).

< previous page

page_243

next page >


page_244

< previous page

page_244


< previous page

page_244


next page >

page_245

< previous page

page_245


Hardrad en fait, et un parent à la fois d'Hardrad, père des évêques Wala d'Auxerre (869-876) et Ansegisel de Sens (871883),157 et des Hardrad postérieurs, vicomtes de Tours et Angers. Le nom pourrait bien venir comme l'a déclaré M. Chaume158 du duc d'Austrasie homonyme, révolté contre Charlemagne et dont la fille avait épousé Maginhar, comte de Sens. Herifrid d'Auxerre appartenait á la même souche que Walthar d'Orléans avons-nous signalé. En outre, il était le cousin d'Eberhard, évêque de Sens (884-887),159 qui porte un nom caractéristique du groupe familial d'Adalard le Sénéchal. Et les Gausfred dans tout cela? Ce qui les relie à ce groupe, c'est la relation entre Gausfred de Nevers et Leotald de Mâcon, le cousinage entre Gausfred d'Anjou et Alberic de Vihiers, enfin l'apparition du nom Alberic chez les vicomtes d'Orléans. D'un autre côté, les noms de Gausfred de Nevers et de son frère Gausbert sont caractéristiques des Roriconides. La présence du nom Alberic chez les vicomtes d'Orléans nous invite à y voir malgré tout également des descendants d'Alberic le Burgonde, tout comme le souci de ne pas trop reculer la parenté entre Gausfred d'Anjou et Alberic de Vihiers puisqu'elle leur était encore perceptible. Le comte de Nevers et son frère doivent être issus du mariage entre un enfant d'Alberic et d'Engeltrudis et un membre du clan des Roriconides.160 L'origine maternelle de Gerberga Pour finir, nous allons revenir sur Aba, épouse de Gausfred de Nevers, dont le nom va peut-être nous fournit une nouvelle piste en rapport avec notre quatrième et dernier point. Il ne s'agit pas en effet d'une forme du nom Eve, inconnu dans l'aristocratie à cette époque, mais bien d'une contraction d'Abba ou Alba, hypocoristique d'un nom comme Albegundis ou Alberada, d'un nom féminin contenant la racine 'Alb', que l'on retrouve dans Alberic aussi. Or, ce nom fut porté (Abba) par une sur de saint Wilhelm de Gellonne, de la famille des comtes carolingiens d'Autun Theoderic et Bernhard. Cela invite immédiatement à deux rapprochements: Saint Wilhelm fut le père d'une Gerberga, abbesse à Chalon, et de Bernhard, grand-père de Wilhelm II, duc d'Aquitaine, frère d'une Aba et protecteur du comte Gausfred de Nevers. Dunna, épouse de Childebrand comte d'Autun, et mère des comtes d'Autun Ecchard, Theoderic et Bernhard, grand-mère d'une Gerberga, était certainement la nièce de S. Wilhelm, frère de Theoderic comte d'Autun et père d'un Bernhard 157Gest. Pont. Autis., c. 39, 357: 'Wala episcopus, genere Francus, patre Ardrado, matte Witelai, fratre optime recordationis Anseiso, Senonum archiepiscopo'. 158 M. Chaume, 'Les comtes de Sens au IXe siécle', Bulletin de la Société archéologique de Sens, xxxvii, 19291930, 26-53, sp. 47-9. 159Gest. Pont. Autis., c. 43, 372: 'Betto . . ., tempore Euvrardi, cujus erat consanguineus'. 160 On notera que cette supposition ne favorise pas l'historicité de Gausfred de Gâtinais, supposé père d'Adela, puisqu'il devrait se situer à la génération des enfants d'Odo et d'Engeltrudis, dont aucun n'a le moindre lien avec les Roriconides (ou d'autres porteurs du nom de Gausfred). A moins d'admettre que Gausfred ne soit un gendre d'Odo et Engeltrudis, et lui-même un Roriconide.

< previous page

page_245

next page >


page_246

< previous page

page_246


et d'une Gerberga.161 De la sorte, Dunna, nièce d'Aba (Abba), sur de Wilhelm, pourrait être la sur d'Aba (Alba), épouse du widonide Warin, comte de Mâcon et Chalon, père de Bernhard, comte d'Auvergne et d'Isembard, comte d'Autun.162 Et Warin, sans doute petit-neveu du comte Warinhar et de son frère Adalard, fondateurs de Hornbach en 741, succéda à Chalon à un comte nommé également Adalard.163 N'y a-t-il pas là l'origine des évêques du Puy Wido I (ap.866-875/6) et Adalard (ap.903-924 . . .), le prédécesseur immédiat d'Hector (ap.924-av.935)?164 Nous rejoignons à ce stade les remarques de B. Bachtach et le lien qu'il a effectué entre Adalard du Puy et son successeur Hector, fils d'une Gerberga et prédécesseur de Wido II, encore fils d'une Gerberga. Pour faire concorder toutes ces données, on peut supposer qu'Aba, épouse de Gausfred, mère de Gerberga et grand-mère de Wido II évêque du Puy était la proche parente d'Adalard, évêque du Puy, en même temps que celle d'Hector, évêque du Puy, fils de Gerberga, vicomtesse de Vienne. Cette parenté pourrait bien passer par un lien avec le duc Wilhelm d'Aquitaine dont la sur Aba devint après veuvage abbesse de Sauxillanges et dont Gausfred de Nevers se déclare le fidèle.165 C. Lauranson166 suggère même d'identifier l'abbesse de Sauxillanges Aba à l'épouse de Gausfred, ce qui est impossible chronologiquement. Mais un lien étroit entre les deux femmes reste probable.167 L'évêque Adalard à son tour serait le fils du comte Bernhard d'Auvergne, le neveu de Wido, évêque du Puy et le petit-fils du comte Warin de Chalon, successeur et parent du comte Adalard, de la famille des Widonides:168 161 C. Settipani, La préhistoire, 351, que l'on corrigera par Id, 'Deux grandes families de la parentèle carolingienne: Les Bosonides et les Nibelung', Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident médieval. Actes de la table ronde de Saint-Jean d'Angely, 22-24 mars 1996, éd. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan et C. Settipani, Oxford 1997, à paraître. 162 Sur les parentés d'Alba, Voir M. Chaume, 'Les comtes d'Autun des VIIIe et IXe siécles', Mémoires de la Société éduenne, xlviii, 1939, 331-60 (= Recherches, no XII, 174-94), 181 qui la rapproche de la sur homonyme de S. Wilhelm, sans doute sa niece, fille selon lui de son frère Theodn (Id, 1922, 218) et C. Settipani, La préhistoire, 221 et 346 (avec les corrections indiquées à la note précédente). 163 Sur cet Adalard de Chalon, voir M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 542-3. Selon cet auteur, il faudrait l'identifier à un comte de Bertolsbaar homonyme (. . . 762-775 . . .) sur lequel voir M. Borgolte, Die Grafen Alemanniens in merowingischer und karolingischer Zeit. Eine Prosopographie, Sigmarigen 1986, s.v. Adalhart, 36-7. 164 Pour la chronologie des évêques du Puy, voir A. Fayard, 'De Ruessium à Saint-Paulien', Cahiers de la Haute Loire, 1978, 27-78, sp. 78. On peut raisonnablement rapprocher cet Adalard, évêque du Puy, de son homonyme et voisin, Adalard, évêque de Clermont, et ce dernier à son tour à l'évêque Adalard de siège inconnu frère de l'évêque Ebernus de Tours. 165C. Cl., no 446, i, 435 (cf. 449, I, 439): 'pro anima quoque senioris mei Wilelmi ac filii ejus Bosonis'. 166 C. Lauranson-Rosaz, L'Auvergne et ses rnarges, 60 et Id., 'Autour de la prise du pouvoir par Hugues Capet: les manuvres angevines au service des premiers Capétiens dans le Midi (956-1020)', La Catalogne et la France méridionale autour de l'an mil, éd. X. Barral i Altet, etc., Barcelone 1991, 102-10, 104, n. 17. 167 Une solution serait d'identifier l'abbesse Aba, sur du duc Wilhelm, à la mère de la vicomtesse Gerberga de Vienne, la veuve donc d'un certain Hector. Certes, P. Ponsich,, 'A propos des attaches familiales de Girart de Roussillon en Catalogne', Mélanges René Louis, 2 vols, Paris 1982, ii, 767-78, sp. 772 et 777, n. 8, suppose qu'Aba avait épousé d'abord Raculf, comte de Mâcon, mais il n'en donne aucune preuve, et l'on doit penser qu'il se fonde sur les intérêts des descendants de Raculf à Cluny. Cela est insuffisant, mais quoiqu'il en soit, Aba a pu être mariée deux lois. 168 Il est probable que Warin, comte de Chalon (cité de 806 à 853), père d'Isembard (853-858), était fils (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_246

next page >


page_247

< previous page

page_247


(b) Filiation d'Adela d'Amiens P. Grierson169 a parfaitement signalé que l'épouse de Walthar I, comte d'Amiens et de Valois, une certaine Adela, devait étre issue de la famille comtale d'Anjou. En effet, trois de ses cinq fils portent des noms caractéristiques de cette maison, Wido, Gausfred et Fulco, et l'un d'eux, Wido, succéda à son homonyme, fils de Fulco I d'Anjou, sur le siège épiscopal de Soissons. P. Grierson suppose qu'Adela, qu'il nomme Adéla'ide, trop vieille pour étre une fille de Gausfred Grisegonelle, était done une fille de Fulco Ier et une sur de Wido Ier de Soissons, ce en quoi (Footnote continued from previous page)


page_247

d'Isembard comte de Thurgau (. . . 770-779 . . .), fils et successeur du comte Warin (754-770). Sur les comtes de Chalon, voir M. Chaume, Les origines, 167-91 (& 'Les comtes d'Autun', 181, n. 3) et sur les comtes de Thurgau, voir M. Borgolte, Die Grafen Alemanniens, s.v. Isanbard 150-1 et Warin, 282-7. 169 P. Grierson, 'Les comtes d'Amiens', 107-8.

< previous page

page_247

next page >


page_248

< previous page

page_248


il a été suivi depuis.170 Mais en fait, cette filiation pose un problème chronologique. Fulco Ier et son épouse sont nés autour de 870/875 et leurs enfants entre 900 et 905. Adela, même née un peu plus tard est peu probablement l'épouse de Walthar I, né vets 925. Ce qui empèche P. Grierson de considérer, bien plus naturellement, que l'épouse de Walthar était une fille de Fulco le Bon, une niece de Wido Ier, c'est que Fulco le Bona déjà une fille nommée Adélaïde (Adelais), la fameuse épouse de Louis V, la mère de la reine Constance. Mais en réalité, la femme de Walthar s'appelle Adela, non Adelais, et quoique les deux noms soient devenus ensuite interchangeables, ils sont bien distincts à l'origine. Ce sont deux hypocoristiques, pas forcément identiques de noms contenant la racine 'Adel', comme Adeltrudis, Adelgundis, etc. Ainsi, le roi Pippin d'Italie a-t-il deux filles nommées l'une Adela (Adula) et l'autre Adelais. Rien ne nous empéche donc de reconnaître en Adela, femme de Walthar d'Amiens, une sur d'Adelais Blanca et une fille de Fulco le Bon. (c) Les mariages d'Adelais Blanca La figure d'Adelais est l'une des plus marquantes de cette époque. On connait assez bien sa vie maritale grace é de nombreux témoignages. Du moins croyait-on bien la connaître jusqu'à il y a peu, lorsque l'examen renouvellé des sources a mis en lumiére quelques faits nouveaux.171 On connaissait en effet son union avec Stephanus, comte de Gévaudan,172 celle avec Louis V en 980, et enfin celle avec Wilhelm II, comte d'Arles qui la laissera à nouveau veuve en 993.173 Pourant, on savait depuis le siécle dernier que Richer attribuait à Adelais un autre mariage encore avec 'Raimond, prince des Goth'.174 Mais, assez rapidement, F. Lot175 avait écarté ce témoignage en précisant que Raimond de Rouergue, duc de Gothie, était mort en 961 en laissant comme veuve Berthe d'Italie, cousine de Louis V, et non une Adelais. Il en concluait que Richer 170 Ainsi par B. Bachtach, Fulk Nerra, 261 et 264. 171 Caractéristique de l'ancienne école est encore H. Debax, 'Aux origines de la révolution féodale en Auvergne', Annales du Midi, ci, 1989, 321-3, sp. 323. On trouvera en revanche un résumé récent de la carriére d'Adelais chez C. Lauranson-Rosaz, L'Auvergne et ses marges, 89-90 et 'Autour de la prise du pouvoir', 104-6. La question sera reprise de façon exhaustive dans un article très documenté de T. Stasser, qui a eu la gentillesse de nous le faire life avant publication: 'Adé1aïde d'Anjou. Sa famille, ses mariages, sa descendance', Le Moyen Age, à paraître. Cela nous dispense d'entrer ici dans les détails. 172Chron. St-Pierre du Puy, HGL, V, col. 14-27, sp. col. 16-17: 'vir quidam ex nobili Francorum progenie ortus, Guido nomine, . . ., cui erat frater germanus nobilissimus comes Gaufridus cognomento Grisagonella . . . necnon Stephani sui cognati, Adelaidae sororis, eorumque filiorum Pontii et Bertrandi'. L'identité de cette Adelais, femme du comte Stephanus avec la reine Adelais se déduit, selon F. Lot, du mariage de cette dernière à Brioude, centre des possessions de Stephanus et du rôle de Gausfred d'Anjou dans le mariage royal d'Adelais. 173 Pour le mariage d'Adelais avec Louis V, puis aussitôt après son divorce, avec Wilhelm d'Arles, voir Richer III, 92-5: 'Regina, sese viduatam dolens . . ., Wilelmum Arelatensem adiit, eique nupsit'. Adelais est connue comme comtesse de Provence par des actes s'échelonnant de 986 à 993 (G. de Manteyer, La Provence du Ier au XIIe siècle, 2 vols, Paris-Gap 1908-1926, i, 255-7). 174 Richer, Ill, 92: 'Qui suscepti a regina id sibi videri optimum dixerunt Ludovico regi assciscendam conjugem Adelaidem, Ragemundi nuper defuncti ducis Gothorum olim uxorem'. 175 F. Lot, Les derniers Carolingiens, 127, 367.

< previous page

page_248

next page >


page_249

< previous page

page_249


avait confondu Stephanus de Gévaudan, véritable mari d'Adelais et Raimond de Gothie, position qui fut ensuite unanimement suivie. Depuis, J.-P. Poly et C. Lauranson-Rosaz ont montré qu'il fallait rendre au témoignage de Richer toute sa valeur.176 Dans un acte de 1021 la comtesse de Provence Adelade, autrefois brièvement reine de France, signale l'existence de son fils, Guillem de Toulouse et de son épouse la comtesse Emma.177 Et de même dans diverses autres chartes, Adelais apparaît avec ses fils, Guillem de Toulouse, Guillem de Provence et Pons de Gévaudan, témoignant de ses mariages successifs avec les comtes de Gévaudan, Toulouse et Provence. Au début du onzième siècle, une bulle d'un pape Benoît, sans doute Benoît VIII (1012-1024), qui a beaucoup embarrassé les éditeurs, est adressée au comte de Toulouse Wilhelm et à sa mère Adelais.178 Pour quelle raison alors a-t-on d'abord refusé cette évidence? En premier lieu tout simplement parce que la généalogie des comtes de Toulouse telle qu'elle a été dressée par les Bénédictins au dixhuitième siècle ne connaît pas à cette période de Raimond qui puisse convenir et que cette généalogie a depuis fait autorité. Or, une étude récente de M. de Framond vient de montrer qu'elle est erronée et que de nombreux documents attestent bien que Wilhelm III Taillefer de Toulouse n'était pas le fils de Raimond Pons, mais celui d'un Raimond plus récent, fils de Raimond Pons.179 Il est donc assuré désormais qu'Adelais d'Anjou, veuve de Stephanus de Gévaudan se remaria d'abord avec le comte de Toulouse Raimond dont elle eut Wilhelm III. Vient ensuite l'épisode de Louis V, suivi assez rapidement par le quatriéme mariage avec Wilhelm II de Provence, dont naquit Constance, future épouse de Robert II de France. Mais là ne s'arréte pas la carrière matrimoniale d'Adelais. On salt, grâce à plusieurs textes tardifs, notamment généalogiques, qu'Adelais était surnommée Blanca. Or, plusieurs chartes bourguignonnes donnent à Otto Wilhelm une seconde épouse nommée Adelais.180 Et une lettre du pape Benoit VIII permet de savoir qu'elle avait le double nom Adelais Blanca.181 Cette seconde épouse n'est pas autrement qualifiée. Pourtant, il nous paraît que si l'on 176j.-p. Poly, La Provence et la société féodale 879-1166, Paris 1976, 97. 177'Ego Adalax . . . et filius meus Wilelmus Tolosanus et uxor ejus, nurus mea Emma comitissa' (J.-P. Poly, La Provence, 97, n. 138). 178Sur tout ceci, voir M. de Framond, 'La succession des comtes de Toulouse autour de l'an mil (940-1030): reconsidérations', Annales du Midi, cv, 1993, 461-88, sp. 472-4. 179 Voir M. de Framond, 'La succession'. En fait, cet auteur bâtit toute une théorie compliquée pour essayer de rattacher Raimond, père de Guillaume III à une autre branche de la maison de Toulouse, partant du principe que Raimond Pons et sa femme Garsindis n'ont pas eu de fils. C'est une opinion que nous pensons mal fondée comme nous essaierons de le montrer dans un prochain travail. La véritable filiation de Wilhelm III est d'ailleurs livrée dans un texte contemporain, rédigé vets 992, le Codex de Roda, écarté trop rapidement par M. de Framond. 180C. Cl., no 2694, iv, 721-2; Cart. St-Vincent Mâc., no 471, 271 et no 490, 284-5. 181 Benoit VIII, Epist., no 16: 'domno Willelmo comiti . . . et domno Hugoni comiti, domnoque Rainaldo comito filio . . . Willelmi . . . et . . . dignissimae domnae Adeleidi comitissae, cognomento Blanchae, nuruque ejus domnae Gerberge comitissae' (PL, CXXXIX, col. 1603): le pape précise que la comtesse Adelais Blanca a pour belle-rifle Gerberga, fille d'Otto-Wilhelm et de sa premiere épouse Ermentrudis de Mâcon, ce qui ne permet pas de douter qu'il s'agisse ici d'Adelais d'Anjou. Nous croyons que son association avec Wilhelm dans cette lettre permet de l'identifier également à Adelais, épouse de Wilhelm. Contra: T. Stasser, 'Adélaïde d'Anjou'.

< previous page

page_249

next page >


page_250

< previous page

page_250


prend la peine de préciser que cette Adelais s'appelait aussi Blanca, c'est dans le but de lever l'ambiguité sur l'identité de cette personne et non d'augmenter les risques de confusion avec une homonyme. En conséquence, nous croyons avec C. Bouchard182 que la seule interprétation admissible de ce texte consiste à admette qu'Adelais contracta sur le tard une dernière union avec Otte-Guillaume. Bien entendu, il s'agit là d'une alliance purement politique, les deux époux étant quinquagénaires et ayant chacun plusieurs petitenfants. IV. Gausfred Grisegonelle (a) Les filles de Gausfred Nous sommes malheureusement assez mal informés sur la proche famille du comte Gausfred Grisegonelle: ses mariages, nous allons le voir, mais également ses enfants, notamment ses filles. Raoul Glaber nous informe que Conan de Bretagne, ayant épousé une fille de Gausfred, acquis une superbe telle qu'il s'intitula prince des Breton.183 Mais la date de ce mariage, traditionnellement mis en 970184 est en réalité imprécise,185 et doit être placée simplement entre 970 et 980, et sans doute plus pros de cette dernière date.186 Quant au nom de l'épouse de Conan, il nous est fourni par l'une des généalogies angevines qui l'appelle Ermengardis.187 Par ailleurs, le chroniqueur contemporain Adémar de Chabanes nous informe qu'une sur de Fulco Nerra, donc une fille de Gausfred, avait épousé le comte Wilhelm IV d'Angoulême.188 B. Bacrach en a conclu que Gerberga était identique à Ermengardis.189 Il se fonde sur le fait que les sources du nord ne connaissent qu'une seule fille à Gausfred, nommée Ermengardis, et que plusieurs autres filles de 182 C. Bouchard, Sword, 270. 183 Rod. Glab., Hist., II, 4. 184 Depuis E. Mabille, 'Introduction', LXX et Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne, I, 83. 185 Cf. par exemple N. Y. Tonnerre, Naissance de la Bretagne. Géographie historique et structures sociales de la Bretagne méridionnale (Nantais et Vannetais) de la fin du VIIIe siècle à la fin du XIIe siècle, Angers 1994, 28990. Selon B. Bachrach, 'Henry II and the Angevin Tradition of Family Hostility', Albion, 16, 2, 1984, 111-30, sp. 117, n. 35, un acte du cartulaire d'Angers (Cart. S. Aubin, no 906, ii, 381) ferait allusion aux démarches couronnées de succés de Gausfred dans l'obtention d'une alliance avec le comte breton. Mais en réalité, cet acte prouve simplement l'existence de relations entre la cour d'Angers et celle de Rennes et peut précéder ou suivre de quelque temps le mariage de Conan et de la fille de Gausfred. 186 Comme le fils de Conan ne devint majeur qu'après la mort de son lère en 992, et ne se marie qu'après l'avènement de Richard II de Normandie en 996, sans doute vets 1000, sa naissance doit être placée vers 980, ce qui donne pour le mariage de ses parents la fourchette 970/980 environ. Quand bien même l'union aurait-elle été célébrée dès 970, rien ne prouve que la mariée était nubile à ce moment et on peut en douter dans la mesure où il faudrait alors admettre, comme l'a noté B. Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, 11-12, que près de quinze ans sépareraient alors la naissance de l'épouse de Conan et celle du second enfant de Gausfred, Fulco. 187Gen. com. Andeg., no IV, 249. 188 Ademar Chab., III, 41. Voir sur ce témoignage, A. Debord, La société laïque dans la Charente, Paris 1984, 109 et n. 47. 189 B. Bachrach, 'Henry II', 117, n. 34.

< previous page

page_250

next page >


page_251

< previous page

page_251


comtes d'Anjou ont effectivement porté un deuxième nom. C'est possible, mais ni prouvé, ni même probable. Les sources du nord ne mentionnant qu'une seule fille à Gausfred se résument à une seule et unique: une des généalogies angevines, toutes les autres ne citant simplement aucune fille de Gausfred. Cette unique généalogie, qui retrace la descendance d'Ermengardis avait évidemment un intérêt particulier la concernant, elle et la Bretagne, mais nul besoin de citer sa sur, mariée à Angoulême. Quant au double nom porté par des femmes de la famille du comte d'Anjou, on n'en a que deux exemples, et dans les deux cas, il ne s'agit pas à proprement parlet d'un double nom, mais d'un surnom, en l'occurence à chaque fois, celui de Blanche (Blanca), ce qui est tout autre chose. L'épouse de Wilhelm d'Angoulême est également citée dans une charte qui ne connaît que son nom de Gerberga.190 Tout en reconnaissant que la thèse de B. Bachrach est possible, et ne soulêve en tout cas aucune objection dirimante, nous considérons qu'en l'état actuel de la documentation elle est inutile et ne s'impose pas. Nous y renonçons donc. (b) Les mariages de Gausfred Ayant abordé récemment la question des mariages de Gausfred Grisegonelle dans un autre travail,191 nous ne ferons ici que résumer l'état de la question. La seule chose absolument certaine à ce propos nous vient d'une charte de Saint-Aubin datée du é mars 974 dans laquelle Adela, à la dernière extrémité, du consentement de son mari le comte Gausfred et de ses fils Fulco et Gausfred, donne à l'abbaye de Saint-Aubin d'Angers l'ensemble de ses biens, notamment en Beauvaisis, le comte Heribert de Vermandois souscrivant.192 A partir de cette souscription, E. Mabille avait supposé qu'Adela était la fille d'Heribert. Mais en réalité, la filiation de cette Adela est fournie différemment par un document, unique et tardif il est vrai, une généalogie angevine du douzième siècle qui en fait la fille de Robert, comte de Troyes et d'Adelais, fille de Giselbert de Bourgogne.193 Faut-il donner suite h cette source? F. Lot, et plus récemment M. Bur,194 ont argué que non en se fondant sur la succession des comtés champenois. Vets 1020, la mort du comte Stephanus de Meaux et de Troyes, petit-fils de Robert, ses honores allèrent h Odo II, comte de Blois, petit-fils de Liedgardis, sur de Robert de Troyes. Si Adela, mère du puissant Fulco Nerra avait été fille et non sur de Robert, on ne comprend pas que le comte d'Anjou, mieux placé pour la succession de Stephanus n'ait pas fait valoir ses droits. Une telle oportunité ne 190 Un acte de Wilhelm IV confirme que son épouse s'appelait Gerberga et qu'un de leurs fils avait reçu le nom de Gausfred (cité par J. Depoin, 'Les comtes héréditaires d'Angoulême de Vougrin I à Audoin II (8691032)', Bulletin de la société historique de la Charente, 1904, tiré-à-part, Angoulême, 1905, 22-3, n. 50. 191 C. Settipani, 'Otte-Guillaume', 43-4. Pace H. de Origelle, 'Notes complementaires concernant Aélis (Adelais), comtesse de Chalon', Ann. Bourg. 68 (1996), 79-83. 192C. St-Aubin, no 2, 7-10. Cf. O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, ii, 22-3. 193Geneal. Ang., no II, 248 et no VI, 249 (du XIIe siécle): Herbert (de Troyes) est père de Robert père d'Adéle mère de Fulco. 194 M. Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne, 117. Nous remercions M. Bur, qui maintient sa position, d'avoir bien voulu discuter de ce point avec nous lors de la conférence.

< previous page

page_251

next page >


page_252

< previous page

page_252


pouvait que correspondre à ses vues expansionnistes et l'occasion était trop belle pour qu'il la manque.195 Le débat ne peut trouver de réponse assurée.196 Nous avons donc d'un côté une généalogie angevine qui fait d'Adela une petite-fille d'Heribert et d'un autre côté le fait que cet Heribert a déjà une fille nommée Adela, épouse d'Arnulf de Flandre.197 Face à cela, la succession des comtés de Meaux et de Troyes peut-elle suffire à contredire la premiere donnée et à faire de notre Adela une seconde fille d'Heribert, homonyme de la première? Nous ne le croyons pas, cela dans la mesure où cette succession reste obscure même en admettant la thèse d'une Adela fille d'Heribert et sur de Rodbert. Dans cette hypothèse Fulco reste toujours plus proche parent du défunt Stephanus que ne l'était Odo de Blois, pour ne rien dire des autres prétendants possibles, les parents agnatiques de Stephanus, les comtes de Vermandois, issus de son grand-oncle Adalbert ou les comtes de Flandre descendants d'Adela, sur d'Adalbert et de Robert. Or, M. Bur doit bien reconnaître que l'on ne sait rien des éventuelles prétentions de ces héritiers potentiels.198 Et en vérité, Odo peut bien avoir eu, par les femmes un lien bien plus étroit avec Stephanus que celui que nous connaissons.199 Nous en restons donc pour lors à Adela fille de Robert. Par ailleurs, nous savons que Gausfred avait contracté une autre union (entre 974 et 987 donc), puisque son fils Maurice, qui rut ensuite régent du comté pour son frère aîné,200 n'apparaît pas dans la charte d'Adela. Il ne semble pas que l'on doive hésiter, ainsi que l'ont admis la plupart des auteurs, à reconnaître cette seconde épouse en Adelais de Chalon qui épousa entre 978 et 984 un comte Gausfred dont elle eut un fils nommé Maurice. 195 Un autre élément confirme l'appartenance d'Adelais à la famille de Vermandois mais sans permettre de trancher dans le débat actuel: la parenté existant entre Gausfred Martel, fils de Fulco Nerra et petit-fils d'Adelais et son consobrinus Wilhelm V d'Aquitaine dont la grand-mère maternelle, Liedgardis, était la fille d'Herbert de Vermandois (L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 56-7). Cette parenté, dont résulte le caractère incestueux du mariage entre Gausfred et la veuve de Wilhelm, est du troisième degré dans l'hypothèse de F. Lot et du quatrième dans la nôtre. 196 On ne peut faire intervenir ici Ermengardis ou Gerberga, épouse de Conan dés 970 (?), dans la mesure où l'on ignore en fait ses origines maternelles. B. Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, 11-12, s'etonne à juste titre de l'absence de toute naissance entre Ermengardis et le second enfant de Gausfred, Fulco, près de 15 ans, alors que juste après Fulco, un autre fils arrive au comte d'Anjou. La seule date assurée est 966 où la signature d'un Vermandois en Anjou laisse entendre que le mariage a déjà eu lieu. 197 Voir M. Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne, 508. Cet auteur (513) justifie l'existence de deux surs nommées Adela en citant des exemples du XIIe siècle et postérieurs. Mais au Xe siècle, la chose apparaît bien plus exceptionnelle. Lorsque nous avons évoqué le cas d'Adela d'Amiens par exemple nous ne croyons pas à deux filles homonymes mais à une Adela dont le nom doit être pris comme distinct de celui d'Adelais, tout comme en français les noms Adéle et Adélaïde sont aujourd'hui différents. 198 M. Bur, 'A propos du nom d'Etienne: le mariage aquitain de Louis Vet la dévolution des comtés champenois', Annales du Midi, c, 1990, 339-47, sp. 340. 199 C'est l'hypothèse développée par M. Bur dans l'article cité note précédente. 200 Sur Maurice, voir B. Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, 14, 30-1, 77-8, 81-5, 112-13, 120-8, 210, 221, 250, 253 qui le signale comme toujours vivant en 1031 (210). On salt qu'il fut marié à la fille du vicomte de Mussidan, sur des évêques Islo de Saintes et Grimoard d'Angoulême (85) et qu'il eut au moins un fils, Gausfred, tué par le chevalier Walthar peu avant 1040 (O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, ii, 97, C 126).

< previous page

page_252

next page >


page_253

< previous page

page_253


V. Fulco Nerra La famille d'Hildegardis Fulco Nerra, fils aîné et successeur de Gausfred Grisegonelle se maria en premières noces avec Elisabeth, fille du comte Burchard de Vendôme, dont il eut une fille nommée Adela. Après la mort d'Elisabeth, en l'an 1000, il se remaria avec Hildegardis, dont naquit Gausfred, le 14 octobre 1006, et Ermengardis surnommée Blanche.201 On ignore malheureusement l'appartenance familiale de la comtesse Hildegardis, seconde femme de Fulco Nerra. Notre seule donnée concrète concernant son origine provient d'une charte du Ronceray qui précise qu'elle était originaire de Lotharingie et de race royale.202 Cette indication a conduit L. de Grandmaison203 a supposer qu'elle était issue de la maison des comtes de Nordgau, hypothèse négligée par L. Halphen,204 faute d'élément probant. Cette indication a néanmoins été relevée par B. Bachrach,205 qui la juge intéressante et rapproche Hildegardis de la sur homonyme de Bruno de Nordgau ou d'Eguisheim, le futur pape Léon IX.206 Mais, comme le note B. Bachrach lui-même, cette Hildegardis a été reconnue précédemment par F. Vollmer comme l'épouse du comte de Montbeliard. En outre, le pape Léon IX est né en 1002, c'est-à-dire h l'époque du mariage d'Hildegardis avec Fulco. Or, celle-ci était encore jeune à ce moment, ce qui ne permet pas de la reconnaître comme la sur du pape. Néanmoins, si l'on cherche en Lorraine les familles de race suffisamment illustre pour s'allier à la puissante maison d'Anjou, alors en pleine ascension, être de sang royal, et se transmettre le nom d'Hildegardis, on doit convenir que l'on ne voir d'autre famille que les comtes 201 Sur tout ceci, voir L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 10-11. 202Cart. Ronceray, no 173, 115: 'religiosa atque piissima comitissarum domna Hildegardis, quam scilicet, ut credimus et in rebus manifestum est, omnium conditor Deus a Lothariensium partibus, de regali progenie ortam'. 203 L. Loizeau de Grandmaison, Geoffroy II dit Martel, comte d'Anjou (14 octobre 1006?-15 novembre 1060), Position des thèses de l'Ecole des chartes, 1887, 49-57, sp. 49. 204 L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 11, n. 1. Cet auteur écarte également, de façon inconstestable, la double erreur de C. Port qui confond la comtesse Hildegardis et la vicomtesse Hildegardis (de Châteaudun), et fait de cette dernière la sur de Gilduin de Doué au lieu de sa belle-sur, étant la sur de Gerberge, femme de Gilduin. 205 B. Bachrach, 'Gerberga', 14, n. 11. 206 En réalité, Hildegardis n'est pas attestée comme sur de Bruno/Léon IX. L'hypothèse, que nous jugeons, comme E. Hlawitschka, Die Anfänge des Hauses Habsburg-Lothringen. Genealogische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Lothringens und des Reiches im 9., 10. und 11. Jahrhundert, Saarbrücken 1969, 104, n. 110 et B. Bachrach, des plus vraisemblables, remonte à F. Vollmer, 'Die Etichonen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Kontinuitäit früher Adelsfamilien', Festschrift G. Tellenbach, Fribourg i. Br. 1957, 137-84, sp. 181-2. La comtesse Hildegardis est citée avec son fils Louis en Alsace en 1090. Ce dernier est très certainement identique à Louis, comte de Montbeliard, dont la descendance conservera des intérêts en Alsace jusqu'au XIIe siècle. Par ailleurs, la mère de Bruno de Nordgau, la femme du comte Alsacien Hugo est Heidwig, la fille du comte de Dabsburg au nom exceptionnel de Louis. La transmission de ce prénom rend la filiation entre Louis, fils d'Hildegardis et Louis, lère d'Heilwig quasi-inévitable. Et la transmission du nom d'Hildegardis permet de penser que cette filiation passait par les Nordgau, et chronologiquement alors, Hildegardis ne peut être que la sur de Bruno.

< previous page

page_253

next page >


page_254

< previous page

page_254


de Nordgau. Le nom d'Hildegardis appartient à leur patrimoine onomastique depuis la mère d'Eberhard, comte de Nordgau cité en 959 et 967. Le sang royal y coule depuis l'union de ce même Eberhard avec Liutgardis, fille de Wigeric et de Cunegundis, tous deux d'extraction carolingienne. Leur illustration est considérable: cousins des comtes de Strasbourg, les ancêtres des Habsbourg, alliés aux comtes de Metz et au comte de Dabo, ils culminent avec l'élévation de Brunon sur le trône pontifical en 1049. Si Hildegardis, sur du pontife est exclue, on peut envisager qu'Hildegardis d'Anjou est néanmoins une proche parente du prélat. Née vers 985 peut-on supposer, il ne semble pas qu'elle puisse être une tante de Léon et n'est certainement pas sa nièce. Il reste qu'il peut s'agir d'une cousine germaine. On sait que Léon avait des cousins germains paternels (patrueles), nommés Gerhard, Matfrid et Adalbero, les fils de son oncle Eberhard. Hildegardis pourfait être leur sur par exemple. Les indices sont minces nous en convenons et cela ne peut être pour lors qu'une hypothèse de travail. Du moins toutes les données seraient-elles respectées. VI. Changement de dynastie Les traditions historiques sur les comtes d'Anjou on été rédigées sous l'impulsion des comtes d'Anjou eux-mêmes, et en particulier, le comte Fulco le Réchin, premier comte de la seconde dynastie d'Anjou est-il l'auteur d'une chronique oà il expose la geste de ses a'ïeux et prédécesseurs, telle que la lui aurait rapportée son oncle Gausfred Martel.207 Ce qu'il y a de curieux finalement, c'est que Fulco, qui cite bien en passant son père Gausfred, le fait de façon si discrète qu'on a longtemps hésité, avant que l'authenticité de la chronique ne soit établie, sur le véritable auteur de la seconde dynastie. Il est clair que l'un des buts de la chronique du Réchin est de souligner la continuité avec la première famille des Fulco, but parfaitement atteint puisqu'au dix-neuvième siècle E. Mabille ou G. d'Espinay se sentaient obliger de bien rappeler que les Plantegenêts n'étaient pas les descendants directs des Ingelgeriens.208 Il n'est pas exclu que cette volonté délibérée ait cherché à dissimuler, ou du moins à ne pas insister sur une origine moins illustre des Plantegenêts. Que savons-nous en fait de celle-ci. Il est assuré par nombre de documents que ceux-ci étaient issus du mariage contracté entre une fille de Fulco Nerra et un comte de Gâtinais.209 Le décès sans héritier male de Gausfred Martel, fils de Fulco, 207 Voir sur ce point J. Bradbury, 'Fulk le Réchin', 28-9. 208 E. Mabille, Introduction, LXXXIV. 209 Par exemple: Cart. Ronceray, no 8, 10-11: 'Ego Goffridus comes . . . predecessor meus et avunculus comes Gaufridus . . . Exibuerunt enim nobis veredicos testes et clericalis ordinis et laice conditionis, asseverantes quod avia mea bone memoria Hildegardis comitissa vineas ipsas, legitime pridem comparatas atque diutius in dominicatu suo detentas, tandem Jerusalem proficiscens ubi et defuncta est . . . ut clusum illum filie sue, matri mee, dimitterent Ermengardi jam tunc vidue'. Voir aussi les généalogies angevines publiées no I-IV, VII, 247-50.

< previous page

page_254

next page >


page_255

< previous page

page_255


permis au fils aîné de sa sur, Gausfred le Barbu, déjà comte de Gâtinais, de succéder à son oncle en 1060, jusqu'à ce qu'il soit supplanté et emprisonné par son frère cadet, Fulco le Réchin en 1067, puis dèfinitivement en 1068.210 (a) Les derniers comtes de Gâtinais Reprenons maintenant de façon plus précise l'ascendance de Gausfred le Barbu et de Fulco Réchin. Leur filiation est donnée de façon contradictoire dans les sources. Un premier groupe, largement suivi jusqu'au dix-neuvième siècle, et encore quelquefois à présent,211 les désigne comme fils d'Alberic de Gâtinais et d'Adela d'Anjou.212 Un second groupe en fait les fils de Gausfred de Gâtinais et d'Ermengardis d'Anjou.213 C'est ce dernier groupe qui a la faveur des historiens depuis la mise au point définitive de L. Halphen.214 Et il ne semble pas qu'il puisse y avoir d'hésitation, puisque le premier groupe n'est constitué que de chroniqueurs dont aucun n'est contemporain,215 cependant que le second comprend notamment une chronique rédigée par Fulco le Réchin lui-même et deux chartes, l'une de Gausfred le Barbu, l'autre de son frère cadet. Comme on ne peut croire que les deux frères aient ignoré le nom de leurs parents, alors qu'à l'inverse on peut admettre une confusion chez les historiens postérieurs, la cause est entendue.216 Reste à identifier les a'ïeux de ce Gausfred. Nous savons par une généalogie 210 Sur les circonstances et les luttes qui présidèrent au partage de la succession de Gausfred, voir en dernier lieu O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, i, 102-16. 211 G. d'Espinay, 1898, 34, n. 2; R. H. Bautier-G. Labory, Vita Gauzlini, Paris 1969, 72-3, n. 5. 212 Thomas de Loches, Gesta com. Andeg., 333 (éd. P. Marchegay): 'Gausfridus Martellus, cum filios non haberet, nepotibus suis, Gausfrido Barbato et Fulconis Rechin, filiis scilicet Adhelae sororis suae et Alberici comitis de Gastineis, bona sua dereliquit'; Ord. Vit., III, ii, 92 'Goisfredus Martellus . . . obiit . . . Goisfredo nepoti suo Alberici Wastinensium comitis filio . . . quem Fulco frater eius cognomento Richinus' et 253: 'Defuncto Goisfredo Martello . . . successerunt ex sorore duo nepotes eius filii Alberici comitis Wastinensium e quibus Goisfredus . . .'; Chron. S. Maixent., s.a. 1060: 'Goffredus quoque comes . . . Huic successerunt nepotes ejus, filii Alberici Contracti, comitis de Gastina, Goffredus et Fulcho Rechin' (134, éd. J. Verdon, Paris 1979); Hugues de Fleury, MGH, SS, ix, 390. 213GC, IV, col. 822: En 1060/1068, le comte d'Anjou Gausfred (le Barbu) donne une pêcherie à Saint-Serge d'Angers pour le repos de l'âme de son oncle et prédécesseur Gausfred (Martel) et celle de son père Gausfred 'pro . . . patris mei Gaufridi' (dont l'obiit se trouve effectivement dans l'obituaire de Saint-Serge, cité par L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 131, n.); Charte inéd. de Cunault, 1074/6: Don de Fulco le Réchin aux moines de Cunault, pour l'âme de son père Gausfred et de sa mèe Ermengardis ('pro remedio anime mee seu patris mei Gauffridi atque matris mee Ermengardis'; Chron. com. Andeg. de Fulco le Réchin, 375: 'Ego Fulco comes Andegavensis, qui fuit filius Gosfridi de Castro Landono et Ermengardis, filiae Fulconis comitis Andegavensis, et nepos Gosfridi Martelli'; Geneal. com. Andeg., no V, 249: 'Ex Beatrice Gosfrido de Castello Landonensi; ex Gaufrido Gaufridus et Fulco presens'. Une autre généalogie ajoute le com d'une sur de Fulco le Réchin: 'De Ermengarde, Gaufridus Barbatus, Fulco, Hildegardis'. 214 L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 133-4, n. 2. 215 Toutes ces sources datent du second tiers du XIIe siècle environ. 216 Les partisans d'Alberic faisaient fond sur la charte de 1026, montrant l'authenticité de celui-ci comme comte de Gâtinais. C'est oublier que la vie de Gauzlin montre qu'Alberic mourut avant 1030 et ne pouvait donc êre le père de Fulco le Réchin, né en 1043. Nous ne raisons pas intervenir dans ce débat non plus le comte Gausfred Ferreol, beau-père de Joscelin de Courtenay selon Oderan de Sens et le continuateur d'Aimoin (RHF, xi, 276: 'Joscelinus desponsavit filiam comitis Gaufridi Frolem'), que d'aucuns identifient, avec quelque vraisemblance d'ailleurs, au comte de Gâtinais. Voir en dernier lieu E. de Saint-Phalle, 'La première dynastie des comtes de Joigny (1055-1338)', Cahiers généalogiques de l'Yonne, vii, 1991, 60-91, sp. 61-2.

< previous page

page_255

next page >


page_256

< previous page

page_256


angevine déjà citée que ce Gausfred était le fils de Beatrix de Mâcon.217 Cette Beatrix est connue également par la Vie de Gauzlin comme comtesse de Gâtinais vers 1025/1030, juste après Alberic dont elle est nécessairement la mére ou la femme. A priori les deux solutions sont envisageables. En fait cependant, nous savons par une charte de l'évêque Renaud de Paris qu'en 1026, le comte de Gâtinais Alberic, fils de feu le comte Gausfred avait deux frères, ses héritiers apparemment, Gausfred et Leotald.218 Il semblera évident à chacun qu'Alberic et son frère Leotald, dont le nom ne se retrouve pas auparavant chez les comtes de Gâtinais sont les fils de Beatrix, sur d'un Alberic et d'un Leotald, qui reprenaient les noms de leur père et grand-père respectivement. On concluera justement avec L. Halphen219 que Gausfred avait donc succédé comme comte de Gâtinais à son frère Alberic, qui n'a effectivement pas d'autre héritier que ses frères en 1026,220 et que les historiens faisant de Fulco le fils d'Alberic avaient confondu en l'occurence le père et l'oncle. C'est la conclusion qui s'impose et l'on construit donc depuis L. Halphen le stemma suivant:221

Une telle reconstruction est pourtant visiblement erronée puisqu'elle contredit les termes de la charte d'Alberic. Cette charte est formelle en donnant Gausfred et Leotald, frères d'Alberic, comme les fils d'un certain Hugo du Perche.222 A la 217Geneal. com. Andeg., no V, 249: 'Ex Alberico Beatfix, ex Beatrice Gosfrido de Castello Landonensi; ex Gaufrido Gaufridus et Fulco presens'. 218Cart. ND de Paris, i, no XIX, 326-7 (26 mai 1026): 'in comitatu Vuastinensi, Gosfredo, comiti Landonensi castri . . . Albericum, illius supradicti Gosfredi filium et heredem, et insuper, faventibus fratribus ipsius Alberici, filiis Hugonis Pertice, scilicet Gosfredo et Letoldo' (meilleure édition chez J. Devaux, 'Etude chronologique', 81-2 qui le premier a aperçu l'importance de cette charte pour notre propos). Leotald est vraisemblablement l'ancêtre des vicomtes de Gâtinais et de diverses families de la région: J. Devaux, 'Origines gâtinaises', 296 sqq. à corriger et compléter par G. Estournet, 'Les origines historiques', 127 sqq. 219 L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 134, n.; M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 533. 220 Voir J. Devaux, 'Etude chronologique', 76. 221 Voir par exemple C. Bouchard, 'The origins of the french nobility: a reassessment', The American Historical Review, lxxxvi, 1981, 501-32, sp. 518 et n. 51: Beatfix de Mâon a épousé un seigneur de Château-Landon dont elle a deux fils, successivement comtes de Gâtinais, Alberic et Gausfred, ce dernier père de Fulco le Réchin. Ce qui est surprenant, c'est que la charte de Paris de 1026 est, comme chez L. Halphen, donnée en référence. 222 Dans un premier temps, M. Chaume, 'Le sentiment national', 292, acceptant textuellement les données (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_256

next page >


page_257

< previous page

page_257


lecture de ce document, il est clair que Gausfred, père de Fulco le Réchin, et fils de Beatrix, était le fils d'un seigneur du Perche et non d'un comte de Gâtinais.223 Le nom de Gausfred est fréquent dans la noblesse de ces régions en ces temps, et il n'y a donc pas lieu de supposer sur ce seul nom, comme on l'a fait apparemment jusqu'ici sans autre examen que cette coïncidence suffit pour rattacher le gendre de Fulco d'Anjou à la première dynastie du Gâtinais.224 On doit admettre plutôt avec G. Estournet225 que le comte Alberic est mort sans héritier peu après 1026 et que le comté fut alors tenu par sa mère, la comtesse douairière Beatrix, qui apparaît effectivement seule peu avant 1030. A sa mort, devant la disparition de la première dynastie, le roi transmit alors le Gâitinais au second fils de Beatrix, Gausfred, issu de son second mariage:226

(Footnote continued from previous page) de la charte de 1026, mais soucieux de rattacher le gendre de Fulco aux comtes de Gâtinais, le distingue de Gausfred, frère utérin d'Alberic et en fait le fils d'Alberic. Mais, peu après (Id., Les origines, i, 533), il se ravise et considère que Gausfred, gendre de Fulco, est bien le frère d'Alberic, mais son frère consanguin. C'est en contradiction avec le texte de la charte de Renaud. 223 On ne peut songer à deux Gausfred fils de Beatfix, l'un fils de Gausfred, l'autre fils d'Hugo, car en ce cas les deux eussent été cités par Alberic en 1026. 224 C'est semble-t-il le raisonnement de M. Chaume, Les origines, i, 533 qui fait de Gausfred le fils du premier mariage de Beatfix alors même que peu avant il avait souligné le double mariage de Beatrix et correctement donné les pères de ses enfants. II faisait alors il est vrai de Gausfred le fils d'Alberic, ce qui est manifestement faux en regard de la généalogie angevine et l'a sans doute poussé à rectifier son point de rue. 225 G. Estournet, 'Les origines historiques', 110-11, 121-2. 226 B. Bachrach, Fulk Nerra, 264 identifie plutôt le Gaus(fred) de 997 à Gausfred père de Fulco. Mais, le Gausfred de 997 devait être né vets 980 au plus tard, et sans doute bien avant, cependant que Fulco naquit en 1043. Cette différence d'âge importante entre les deux hommes ne nous paraît pas de nature à faire accepter cette opinion.

< previous page

page_257

next page >


page_258

< previous page

page_258


Y a-t-il dans cette substitution de lignée l'origine de la confusion, peut-être volontaire finalement, concernant la paternité de Fulco Rechin, avec la volonté de le rattacher directement aux comtes de Gâtinais, dont on peut croire qu'ils étaient d'une meilleure extraction que celle de son père véritable? Ainsi que l'a reconnu J. Devaux, cet Hugo du Perche est de fait parfaitement inconnu.227 On peut admettre au moins, puisqu'il épousa la comtesse de Gâtinais, fille du comte de Mâcon, qu'il appartenait à une famille conséquente. Etant donné le nom de son fils aîné, on supposera également que cette famille se transmettait le nom de Gausfred. Il n'est toutefois pas qualifié comte et on peut croire qu'il ne le fut point compte-tenu de notre remarque précédente. Il n'y a d'ailleurs pas de comte du Perche encore à cette époque. Ceux-ci n'apparaissent qu'au siècle suivant, étant issus des vicomtes de Châteaudun.228 On constate cependant en observant la généalogie de ces vicomtes que leur prénom traditionnel est Gausfred, avec, après le mariage de l'un d'entre eux avec une noble femme, que le Gallia Christiana prétend originaire du Perche, celui de Hugo. La concidence est troublante. Il faut convenir que nous avons là tousles ingrédients que nous souhaitions pour identifier la race du père de Gausfred de Gâtinais: une race illustre (issue apparemment des Rorigonides du Maine) pouvant prétendre à la main de la comtesse Beatfix, mais de rang inférieur à elle (de rang seulement vicomtal), possessionée dans le Perche (ils sont même ancêtres des comtes de cette région) et ayant comme noms principaux Gausfred et Hugo. La remarque en a été faite depuis longtemps et une ancienne généalogie de Saint-Denis de Nogent identifie déjà Hugo, frère du vicomte Gausfred de Châteaudun comme Hugo du Perche,229 le même évidem-ment, comme l'a admis depuis G. Estounet,230 que le second mari de Beatfix, père de Gausfred de Gâtinais. Nous croyons en effet qu'il ne saurait avoir de doute sérieux quant à cette appartenance familiale. Chronologiquement, si l'on se rapporte à la filiation des vicomtes de Châteaudun, Hugo, époux de Beatrix, se situe à la génération de l'archevéque Hugo de Tours (1003-1023) ou à celle de ses neveux. La candidature de l'archevêque lui-même peut être éliminée, non pas tant parce qu'il rut évêque puisque nous savons qu'il eut d'abord une carrière laïque, fut marié et engendra au moins un fils, et sans doute deux,231 mais parce qu'il est inconcevable que trois ans après sa mort Alberic de Gâtinais ait simplement désigné son beau-père comme 'Hugo du Perche' s'il se fut agit du puissant 227 J. Devaux, 'Etude chronologique', 76. Cet auteur écarte alors fort justement toute idée d'identification entre Hugo du Perche et Hugo de Mortagne, cité en 1043, avant d'y revenir bien malencontreusement ensuite: 'Origines Gâtinaises', 296, n. 2. En fait, comme nous allons le voir, le second doit être un descendant collatéral du premier. 228 Voir en dernier lieu sur cette question, en attendant la parution des travaux en cours de K. Thompson, l'article de P. Siguret, 'Recherches sur la formation du comté du Perche. Deuxième partie', Bulletin de la société historique et archéologique de l'Orne, lxxx, 1962, 3-42, sp. 18 sqq. 229 BN, ms. lat. 17049, fo 211: 'comes genuit alterum Goffridum, qui nepos Hugonis archiepiscopi dicitur anno 1008, et Hugonem Perticae'. 230 G. Estournet, 'Les origines historiques de Nemours et sa charte de franchises (1170)', Annales de la société historique et archéologique du Gâtinais, xxxix, 1929, 105-58, sp. 120. 231 Voir plus loin la généalogie des vicomtes de Châteaudun.

< previous page

page_258

next page >


page_259

< previous page

page_259


archevêque de Tours. On croira donc plutôt à un neveu homonyme du prélat, autrement inconnu. (b) Les vicomtes de Châteaudun La famille des vicomtes de Châteaudun n'a pas reçu récemment d'étude spécial-isée,232 mais nous pouvons semble-t-il retracer de façon assez assurée. Nous donnons brièvement ci-après les principaux éléments permettant de retracer cette généalogie: 1. En 942, on trouve dans l'entourage d'Hugo le Grand un Gausfred, vicomte de Chartres qui signe après Fulco comte d'Anjou, Thibald vicomte de Tours, Gausfred vicomte d'Orléans et Burchard, comte.233 2. De 967 à 986 est cité un Gausfred, vicomte de Châteaudun.234 3. La petite chronique de Bonneval signale vers 970 un vicomte de Châteaudun nommé Gausfred, son épouse Hermengardis et son fils Hugo.235 4. En 980, la femme de Gelduin de Saumur, Gerberge, fait une donation h Saumur de biens qui lui furent concédés par son précedant mari Berengar, avec l'accord de sa sur, la vicomtesse Hildegardis.236 5. En 989, Hugo est vicomte de Châteaudun, cité avec son frère Alo et (son beau-frère) Albert.237 232 Il existe en revanche de nombreux travaux anciens relatifs à sa généalogie. Citons, R. Courtin, Histoire du Perche, mss. c. 1600, éd. O. de Romanet et H. Tournoüer, Mortagne 1893, 56-87; G. Bry de la Clergerie, Histoire des pays et comté du Perche, Paris 1620, (rééd. par P. Siguret, Paris 1970), 135-230; abbé Bordas, Histoire sommaire du Dunois, de ses comtes et de sa capitale, Châteaudun 1762 (rééd. 1884), 99-115; . des Murs, Histoire des comtes du Perche de la famille des Rotrou de 943 à 1231, Nogent-le-Rotrou, 1856 (rééd., Genève 1976), 63-88, 95 sqq.; O. de Romanet, Géographie du Perche et chronologie de ses comtes, Mortagne 1890, 30-44, et, plus proches de nous, G. Estournet, 'Les origines historiques', 110-20; J. Boussard, 'L'origine des families seigneuriales dans la région de la Loire moyenne', Cahiers de Civilisation médiévale, 5, 1962, 303-22, sp. 312 et P. Siguret, 'La formation', 17-30. 233Coll. Tour.-Anj., i, no 171 = RHF, ix, 723: 'Gauzfridus Carnotensium vicecomes'. Sur ce Gausfred, voir les remarques de J. Boussard, 'Les families seigneuriales', 312; A. Chedeville, Chartres et ses campagnes (Xle-XIIIe s.), Paris 1973, 258-59 et surtout K. F. Werner, 'L'origine des comtés', 270. Pour la date, au lieu de celle de 939, que !'on trouve quelquefois, voir J.-P. Brunterc'h, 'Le duché du Maine et la marche de Bretagne', La Neustrie. Les pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850, éd. H. Atsma, 2 vols, Sigmaringen 1989, i, 29-127, sp. 109. Il n'est pas exclu, quoique rien ne le prouve, que ce personnage, attesté avec certitude uniquement comme vicomte de Chartres, ait tenu également la vicomté de Châteaudun. Ce qui permet de le supposer, c'est que le sort de Châteaudun est de route évidence lié à celui de Chartres à cette époque, dans la mouvance directe des Thibaudiens. 234 Voir les références données par J. Boussard, 'families seigneuriales', 312. 235Petite chron. Bonneval, c. 7: 'quidam vicecomes Castrodunensis Gaufridus nomine, qui pro redemptione anime sue et uxoris, Hermengardis nomine dedit, ad locum sanctum Martyrum suum alodum . . . Similiter filius suus nomine Hugo dedit aliam villam juxta situam' (33 éd. Merlet = AASS Ben. Ord., IV, 2, 506). 236Cart. St-Florent, fol. XII, v°, no 13: 'Ego Girberga . . . voluntate senioris mei Gelduini . . . in hereditate senioris mei Berengerii quam michi in dotalicium ipse donavit . . . in villa Doado in pago Pictavo . . . Signum Girbergane . . ., S. Gelduini senioris eius, S. Hyldrici, S. Hildegardis vicecomitissae sororis eius . . . Data mense aprili, anno XXV regnante Hlothario rege' (cité partiellement par L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 11, n. 1. Nous remercions K. Keats-Rohan d'avoir bien voulu collationer ce texte pour nous). 237 L. Lex, Eudes, no 3, 131 sqq.: 'S. Hugoni vicecomitis, S. Alonis fratris eius, S. Alberti'.

< previous page

page_259

next page >


page_260

< previous page

page_260


6. En 996/1001, Hugo est àh la fois vicomte et doyen de Saint-Maurice de Tours, toujours cité en compagnie de son frère, ici nommé Adalaud.238 7. Autour de 1000, on trouve le vicomte Hugo, fils du vicomte Gausfred.239 8. Entre 1003 et 1028, vets 1020 selon l'éditeur, une charte de la vicomtesse Hildegarde de Châteaudun pour Saint-Père de Chartres mentionne son fils l'archevêque Hugo et comporte parmi les signataires Helgaud, fils de l'archevêque et Gausfred, son neveu.240 9. En 1003, Hugo est toujours vicomte de Châteaudun, mais la même année, il devient archevêque de Tours.241 10. Helgaud, sans doute le fils du vicomte Hugo, reçoit des biens en Dunois en 1003 avec son frère Hugo.242 11. En 1004, le nouveau vicomte de Châteaudun s'appelle Gausfred.243 12. En 1015/1028, le vicomte Gausfred est cité avec son fils Gausfred.244 13. En 1007/1029, le vicomte Gausfred est cité avec son épouse Helvidis et leur fils Hugo.245 14. En 1031, le vicomte Gausfred de Châteaudun, fils de Melisendis, neveu de Burchard, époux d'Eleusia, père de Hugo et de Rotrocus, fonde le monastère Saint-Denis de Nogent.246 238 L. Lex, Eudes, no 7, 133: 'S. Hugoni decani, S. Adelaudi fratris eius'. 239Coll. Tour.-Anj., no 308: 'Hugohis vicecomitis qui in honorem patri sui Gausfredi scilicet vicecomitis'. 240Cart. St-Père, i, 117: 'Ego Hildegardis vicecomitissa castriduni do sanctissimo Petro Carnotensis caenobii allodium meum de Bellomonte . . . annuente filio meo Hugone archipraesul, Gaufridus nepos eius . . .'. Voir aussi le nécrologe de Chartres: 'XVIII kal. maii obiit Hildegardis vicecomitissa de Castro-Dunis; pro cujus anima dedit Sancte-Marie filius ejus Hugo Turonensis archiepiscopus alodum suum qui dicitur Viverus' (Cart. de N.-D. de Chartres, ii, 88-9). Les doutes, non justifies d'O. de Romanet, Géographie du Perche, 38 quant à la date du premier acte ne nous semblent pas devoir être retenus. Pour Helgaud, on le retrouve cité en 1038/1040 avec son fils Hugo dans un acte des vicomtes de Châteaudun Gausfred et Hugo, ses proches parents (Cart. Marmoutier Dun., no 1, 2: 'Hilgaldus, filius archiepiscopi' et 3: 'Hilgaldus filius episcopi, Hugo filius Hilgaldi'. Cette dernière mention où Helgaud est donné comme fils de 1' 'évêque' et non de 1' 'archevêque' suffit à prouver qu'il s'agit là d'une fonction et non d'un nom de famille comme on l'a prétendu (abbé Bordas, Histoire sommaire, 100, n. e). Quant au nom du fils d'Helgaud, il lève toute ambigüité sur l'identité de l'archevêque père d'Helgaud. L'homonymie rend probable qu'Helgaud, ou son frère Hugo, soit la tige des prévôts de Vendôme connus jusqu'à la fin du XIIe siècle (voir L. Halphen, 'prévots et voyers du XIe siècle. Région angevine', Le Moyen Age, xv, 1902, 297-325, sp. 319-21 et D. Barthélémy, La société, 775-6). 241Cart. St-Père, ii, 399--400. Voir note suivante. 242Cart. St-Père, ii, 399--400: 'quidam homines, his nominibus vocitati, Helgaudus et frater suus Hugo . . . in comitatu Dunensi . . . S. Theobaldi comitis. S. Hugonis vicecomitis . . .'. La parenté avec le vicomte n'est pas explicitée, mais sa présence et celle du comte comme premiers témoins de l'acte ajoute de la vraisemblance à la filiation proposée. L'existence d'un Hugo, fils de l'archevêque est admise également dans les E.S., iii, 4, 1989, taf. 689. 243Cart. Marmoutier Dun., no 3. 244Coil. Tour.-Anj., no 367 = F. Lex, Eudes, no XIII, 145: 'S. Guasfredi vicecomitis. Item Guasfredi filii ejus'. 245Cart. St-Père, ii, 400-1: 'Ego Gaufridus vicecomes Dunensis . . . S. Gaufridi vicecomitis, . . ., S. Hugonis filius ipsius comitis, S. Heluidis uxoris eius'.


page_260

246Cart. St-Denis de Nogent, no 5, 13-19: 'Ego Gaufridus castridunensium vicecomes . . . tam nobilitate superbi sanguinis, quam viribus mundanarum opum famosissimus . . . cum consensu filiorum meorum, Hugonis videlicet et Rotroci . . . et terrain Burcardi avunculi mei . . . post mortem matris meae Milisendis . . . Signature domini Gaufridi vicecomitis . . . S. Hugonis filii domini Gaufridi vicecomitis, S. Rotroci fratris eius, S. Eleusiae matris eorum'.

< previous page

page_260

next page >


page_261

< previous page

page_261


15. En 1032, un Gausfred, neveu de l'archevêque Hugo, souscrit une charte de l'archevêque Arnulf247 (neveu et successeur d'Hugo.248) 16. Avant 1041, probablement en 1038/9, le vicomte Gausfred est assassiné à Chartres.249 17. En 1039/1040, le vicomte de Châteaudun est Hugo, époux d'Adela. 18. En 1051/1060, Rotrocus, comte de Mortagne, fils du vicomte Gausfred, et sa femme Adelais, fait une donation pour l'âme de son père, le vicomte Gausfred, de son aïeul le comte Fulcoin et de son oncle Hugo.250 Tous ces documents peuvent s'ordonner de la façon suivante:251 Gausfred I, vicomte de Châteaudun de 967 à 986 (2, 3), peut-être fils de Gausfred, vicomte de Chartres (et de Châteaudun?) en 939 (1), époux d'Hildegardis (3: 'Hermengardis' (sic), 5, 8), 252 est le père (7) de Hugo I qui lui succède de 989 à 247Coll. Tour. Anj., ii 1, no 419: 'Sign.Arnulfi archiepiscopi, Guanelonis archiclavis, Jonas archidiaconis, Bosonis, Gauffredi nepotis Hugonis archiepiscopi'. C'est par erreur que J. Boussard, 'families seigneuriales', 312 n. 88 fait référence ici à un 'vicomte Geoffroy, neveu de l'archevêque Arnulf' (et d'ailleurs, il manque également dans le texte les mots 'père d'Arnulf' avant le renvoi à la note). 248 La parenté d'Hugo et d'Arnulf est bien connue. Voir par exemple la succession des évêques de Tours: 'Anno 1023. Obiit Hugo Turonesis archiepiscopus, cui successit Arnulphus nepos eius' (Bry de la Clergerie, Histoire du Perche, 137). Le Gallia Christiana, xiv, col. 58, hésite quant à savoir si c'est par son père Albert ou par sa mère qu'Arnulf se rattachait à Hugo. En fait, comme l'a bien souligné J. Boussard, 'La seigneurie de Bellême aux Xe et XIe siècles', Mélanges Louis Halphen, Paris 1951, 43-54, sp. 46, n. 4 (qui corrige implicitement ce qu'il écrivait précédemment, 1962, 312), il ne saurait y avoir de doute à ce propos. Il suffit de se référer à un extrait du cartulaire de Jumièges cité par J. Depoin, 'Les vicomtes du Mans et les premiers anneaux de la maison de Bellême', Bulletin de Philologie et d'Histoire de la commission des travaux historiques, 1909, 37: 'Anna abbas dicitur patruus Alberti . . . confirmans eidem donationem Gemeticensi monasterio factam ''pro redemptione animae suae, inquit, et patris sui Azermi, et matris suae Hildeburgis" '. La famille d'Albert de Micy a été étudiée par le même auteur qui mêle toutefois sans discernement comme appartenant à une même famille tousles personages qualifiés de 'Le Riche' dans nos sources. Il faut en outre corriger la suite de l'exposé de J. Depoin qui affirme, en contradiction avec la source qu'il cite, qu'Albert était le fils d'un autre Albert et que sa mêre Hildeburgis est identique à la fille d'Ives de Bellême qui épousa ensuite Haimo de Château-du-Loir et fut en 1002 la mère de Gervasius, futur évêque du Mans. C'est chronologiquement impossible comme l'a bien signalé G. Louise, La seigneurie de Bellême, 261. La mère d'Albert doit plutôt être une sur d'Ives. Le nom de la sur de Hugo mère d'Arnulf n'est pas rapportée par les sources contemporaines. E. Jarossay, Histoire de l'abbaye de Micy-SaintMesmin lez-Orléans, Orléans 1902, 139 la nomme Hildegardis, comme sa mère, ce qui reste invérifiable. 249 Voir par exemple O. de Romanet, Géographie du Perche, 41 d'après un acre de Rotrocus, cité par G. Bry de la Clergerie, Histoire du Perche, 146. 250Cart. St-Vincent Manc., no 609: 'Ego Rotrochus comes de Mauritania et mea uxor Adeliz et filii nostri Rotrochus et ceteri nostri infantes . . . pro redemptione animae . . . avi mei Fulchuich comitis et avunculi mei Hugonis et patris mei vicecomitis Gaufridi'. Pour la famille de Rotfocus, voir aussi Cart. St-Denis de Nogent, CXXVIII: 'Ego Rotfocus comes Mauritaniae castri atque castridunensium vicecomes . . . pater meus videlicet comes Gaufridus, atque vicecomes, tam nobilitate superbi sanguinis . . . cum consensus filiorum meorum videlicet Gauffridi, Hugonis, Rotroci, Fulcoisi, ac filiae meae Helvisae . . .' 251 Nous n'avons pas trouvé trace de la vicomtesse Elisabeth que mentionne J. Boussard, 'families seigneuriales', 312 comme épouse d'un vicomte Gausfred de Châteaudun.


page_261

252 De nombreux auteurs ont prétendu distinguer le vicomte Hugo (I), fils de Gausfred et d'Hermengardis du vicomte Hugo, depuis archevêque, fils d'Hildegardis, faisant du second Hugo le fils du premier (c'est l'opinion notamment du GC, xiv, col. 56, de l'abbé Bordas, Histoire sommaire, 99-100 ou du vicomte O. de Romanet, Géographie du Perche, 37 suivi par G. Estournet, 'Les origines historiques', 116-17 et P. Siguret, 'La formation', 18, n. 59). Cette vue a été combattue par J. Boussard, 'Families seigneuriales', 312, n. 84, à juste titre croyonsnous. Gausfred, père de Hugo est connu de 967 à 986 (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_261

next page >


page_262

< previous page

page_262


1003 (5-9) avant de devenir archevêque de Tours. En 1004, ce dernier a pour successeur un comte Gausfred II (11), lequel est cité en 1015/1028 avec son fils Gausfred (12). C'est ce dernier probablement, et non le précédant, que l'on doit reconnaître dans Gausfred III, neveu de l'archevêque Hugo (8, 15),253 frère lui-même d'un Hugo (18) et qui fut vicomte de Châteaudun de 1029 à 1039 (13-16), fils de Melisendis (14), époux d'Helvidis (13, 14: 'Eleusia') et père de Hugo II, son successeur (14, 17) et de Rotrocus, qui succéda à son frère (14, 18):254

(Footnote continued from previous page) et il n'y a aucune raison de distinguer le vicomte Hugo qui lui succède en 989 du vicomte Hugo, futur archevêque, cité dès 996/1001. Il est bien plus vraisemblable que le texte de la chronique de Bonneval est corrompu et que Hermengardis est une mauvaise leçon pour Hildegardis. N'oublions pas que ce texte ne nous est parvenu qu'à travers deux vidimus du XVe siècle et que les fautes y sont hombreuses. Ce qui achève de le montrer croyons-nous, c'est qu'un autre texte montre que dès 980, la vicomtesse (de Châteaudun) avait bien pour nom Hildegardis et qu'eIle était la sur de Gerberga, femme de Gilduin de Doué (document no 4). 253 G. Bry de la Clergerie, Histoire du Perche, 136-7, suppose qu'Hildegardis n'avait pas d'autre fils que Hugo en se fondant sur le fait que seul celui-ci est cité par elle. Mais l'argument n'est pas probant. On sait que Hugo avait au moins un frère, Adalaud, seigneur de Chinon. Tousles documents d'Hildegardis mentionnant seulement Hugo peuvent raisonnablement être daté des environs de 1020 (malgré O. de Romanet, Géographie du Perche, 38), alors que les autres fils d'Hildegardis devaient déjà être morts. Nous ne pouvons suivre O. de Romanet, op. cit., 38-9, n. 6 dans ses développements. Pas plus que lorsqu'il déclare qu'Hildegardis avait épousé en premières noces Arnaud de la Ferté. Le renseignement est emprunté à l'abbé Bordas, Histoire sommaire, 99--100 et dérive probablement du fait qu'on a considèré Albert de la Ferté, pêre d'Arnulf, le neveu d'Hugo, comme le demi-frère d'Hugo alors qu'il s'agit en réalité de son beau-frère. 254 Dans ce stemma, nous faisons figurer hypothétiquement Rotrocus, premier seigneur de Nogent comme le grand-père maternel de Gausfred de Châteaudun. Il est évident que ce Rotrocus était l'ascendant du fils de Gausfred, qui porte lui aussi le nom très rare de Rotfocus et était le maitre de Nogent. Mais on peut également penser qu'il appartenait à la parenté de Fulcuin, beau-père de Gausfred et comte de Mortagne. La chose nous paraît moins vraisemblable. L'abbé Bordas, Histoire sommaire, 100-1, encore suivi par . des Murs, Histoires des comtes, 72 et 120, et surtout par G. Estounet, 'Les origines historiques', 111 sqq., considère Melisendis comme une fille du vicomte de Châteaudun Hugo et une sur de l'archevêque Hugo. Seul ce dernier auteur tente de justifier son opinion en arguant principalement de l'absence de consentement explicite de Melisindis, héritière supposée de Nogent dans notre thèse, à la donation concernant cette localité réalisée par son fils. Mais Melisindis souscrivant l'acte, (Footnote continued on next page) file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_262.html (1 of 2)29.06.2009 22:58:11

page_262

< previous page

page_262

next page >


page_263

< previous page

page_263


Qu'en est-il alors de notre Hugo du Perche? Ne pourrait-on par exemple l'identifier à l'un des deux Hugo de la génération suivant l'archevêque, son fils et son neveu? L'un des deux, et sans doute le fils,255 est certainement ecclésiastique et identique h Hugo, archidiacre de Tours sous l'épiscopat de son homonyme. Hugo du Perche ne pourraitil être alors Hugo neveu de l'archevêque Hugo et frêre de Gausfred III de Châteaudun? Ce serait certes la solution la plus simple, et celle qu'a justement adoptée G. Estounet.256 On peut néanmoins lui objecter trois difficultés: Aurait-on appelé 'Hugo du Perche', le fils d'un vicomte de Châteaudun? Pourquoi pas en fait s'il avait été possessionné dans le Perche d'où provenait sa mère, Melisendis.257 Plus difficile, est-il concevable de supposer une si proche parenté, jamais mentionnée par les sources, entre les comtes d'Anjou et les vicomtes de Châteaudun? Ce n'est pas impossible malgré tout et l'argumentum a silentio est toujours d'un usage délicat. Enfin, la chronologie peut-elle s'accomoder de cette filiation? Fulco le Réchin est né en 1043,258 ce qui pourrait done s'accorder pour son père avec une naissance autour de 1015, et pour son aïeul, Hugo, vets 990, c'est-à-dire à une date tout-à-fait convenable pour le neveu d'un Hugo, vicomte en 989 et archevêque de 1003 à 1023. Mais cette succession est erronée. La femme de Hugo du Perche, en tant que fille d'Alberic de Macon est née avant 982. Et même assez longtemps avant si l'on accepte la thèse de M. Chaume qui en fait la grand-mère maternelle d'Otton II de Bourgogne, né vers 997,259 plutôt vers 965 done. Son second marine saurait done être né vets 990 mais une vingtaine d'années auparavant. Or, sans que cela soit complètement impossible, il est assez invraisemblable qu'un neveu en ligne masculine d'Hugo de Tours ait pu naître en 970 ou peu avant.260 Force est alors de nous rabattre sur un neveu maternel. Nous savons qu'une sur de Hugo avait épousé Albert, depuis abbé de Micy et en avait eu au moins Arnulf, qui succéda à son oncle sur le siège épiscopal de Tours. Les éléments chronologiques précis font ici défaut mais du moins ils n'excluent pas qu'Arnulf ait pu naïtre dès 975 et avoir (Footnote continued from previous page) on doit bien admettre que son consentement était effectif. Pour le reste, l'erreur de ces auteurs vient d'une construction fautive de la généalogie des vicomtes de Châteaudun, distinguant deux vicomtes Hugo et identifiant Gausfred, vicomte en 1004 au neveu homonyme de l'archevêque de Tours. 255 Dans la mesure où Rotrocus ne dit pas que son oncle Hugo a été archidiacre. 256 G. Estournet, 'Les origines historiques', 120. 257 Pour ne rien dire du fait que selon le GC, xiv, col. 56, la mère d'Hugo, Hildegardis, venait elle aussi d'une noble famille du Perche. N'ayant pu trouver l'origine de cette information et le GC ne semblant pas disposer sur ce point d'autre source que celles à notre disposition aujourd 'hui, il ne paraït pas avoir lieu de s'y tenir. 258 Voir L. Halphen, Le comté d'Anjou, 134: Fulco le Réchin rapporte qu'il fut armé chevalier, à 17 ans, par son oncle en 1060. Son frère devait être sensiblement plus âgé car à cette date, il était déjê marié (L. Halphen, op. cit., 135 n. 1). 259 Voir à ce propos notre article C. Settipani, 'Otte-Guillaume', 8-9, que l'on corrigera en fonction de remarques faites depuis par E. Hlawitschka. Selon cet auteur, le comte Otton II, qualifié d'adolescens en 1003/4 était dès lors majeur. Nous ne croyons pas que cela soit obligatoire, mais néanmoins, nous convenons à tout le moins qu'Otton II devait être sortit de la pueritia à ce moment et être âgé d'au moins sept ans, ce qui place au mieux sa naissance vets 997. Son aïeul paternel érant né autour de 962, on ne peut reculer cette date davantage. 260 Cette raison exclut également le fils homonyme de l'archevêque.

< previous page

page_263

next page >


page_264

< previous page

page_264


eu un frère un peu plus âgé.261 Albert, père d'Arnulf était possessionné é Bellême, dans le Perche, du fait de sa mère Hildeburgis262 de sorte que son fils a bien pu être également à son tour possessionné à cet endroit, tout en ayant, peutêtre, lui aussi des droits sur le Gâtitinais.263

261 On sait qu'Albert mourut à un âge très avancé et 1036 et qu'il avait rendu dans sa jeunesse des visites h son oncle Annon, abbé de Micy mort en 973. Il a donc pu naître vets 950 et avoir eu des fils dès 970/975. La famille d'Albert de Micy a été étudiée par J. Depoin qui l'appelle improprement les 'Le Riche', rattachant à une seule famille tousles individus portant le qualificatif banal de 'Le Riche' (voir à ce propos les remarques à paraître de K.F. Werner dans le Journal des Savants). Il faut en outre corriger la suite de l'exposé de J. Depoin. 262 Sur la famille d'Albert, voir notamment J. Depoin, Recueil des chartes et documents de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, 4 vols, Paris 1901, iii, app. II, 370-405 et en dernier lieu, G. Louise, La seigneurie de Bellême, 259-62. J. Boussard, 'Les évêques en Neustrie', 189-90 est confus et contradictoire. D'après le GC, viii, col. 1531, Albert serait apparenté h la famille royale, ce qui peut s'expliquer, en accord sur cela avec J. Boussard, par une descendance depuis les Vermandois, branche des Carolingiens qui ont porté ce nom d'A(da)lbert. 263 Il est certain en effet que la substitution du comté du Gâtinais de la première famille aux descendants d'Hugo du Perche pose un problème. Nous avons proposé de le résoudre en faisant de Beatrix la seule héritière des droits de son premier époux après la mort de son fils. On pourrait croire cependant que Hugo du Perche lui-même avait des doits sur le Gâtinais, ce qui serait une meilleure justification. La grand-mère d'Hugo du Perche était une noble Hildegardis. Nous avons dit que c'est sans justification qu'elle est donnée comme originaire du Perche dans la Gallia Christiana. Comme c'est elle qui apporte, semble-t-il, le com de Hugo à sa descendance, K. S. B. KeatsRohan, 'Politique et parentèle: les comtes, vicomtes et évêques du Maine c.940-1050', Francia, 23, 1996, fig. 3, suppose qu'elle était une petite-fille du comte Hugo du Maine. Mais on peut croire également, ce qui n'est pas contradictoire, comme nous le suggère amicalement J.-N. Mathieu, que cette Hildegardis, dont la sur Gerberga avait épousé Gilduin de Saumur, était issue elle-même de la maison de Gâtinais, la nièce de la comtesse Gerberga d'Anjou, sur donc des comtes de Gâtinais Gausfred (premier marl de Beatfix) et Walthar. Cette hypothèse, souligne J.-N. Mathieu, outre les droits d'Hugo du Perche sur le Gâtinais, permettrait, avec E. de Saint-Phalle, 'La première dynastic', 60, d'identifier Gausfred de Joigny, père de l'archevêque Gilduin de Sens (1032-1049), avec Gaus(fred), neveu de Wal(thar) de Gâtinais, en faisant de Gausfred de Joigny un fils de Gilduin de Saumur et de Gerberga. Elle a pour inconvénient que Beatfix de Macon aurait épousé en secondes notes le petit-neveu de son premier marl, et également de resserrer encore la chronologie puisqu'il faudrait alors admettre pour Hildegardis une naissance plutôt autour de 945.


page_264

< previous page

page_264

next page >


page_265

< previous page

page_265


VII Conclusion Au terme de cette recherche, nous proposons donc pour les Plantegenêts une origine passablement différente de celle habituellement admise par les historiens antérieurs. La dynastie dériverait en fait, non des comtes de Gâtinais (leurs parents par les femmes), mais de la famille des abbés de Micy et, par alliance, des vicomtes de Châteaudun. On notera avec intérêt à ce propos que cette famille, en héritant, par suite des hasards biologiques successifs qui virent l'extinction de leurs lignées, des comtés de Gâtinais, puis d'Anjou, se fondit totalement dans les obligations de


page_265

< previous page

page_265

next page >


page_266

< previous page

page_266


ses nouvelles fonctions. Selon un procédé dont l'Histoire donne maints exemples, ils adoptèrent totalement l'onomastique de leurs prédécesseurs et, surtout, sa politique, s'opposant désormais, comme comtes d'Anjou, à ceux qui avaient fait jadis la fortune de l'archevêque de Tours et des Châteaudun. Ecartant résolument les alliances dont ils n'avaient désormais plus intérêt à se prévaloir, ils poursuivirent les traces de l'ancienne dynastie ingelgérienne. Plus encore, ils cherchèrent à effacer la trace de leurs origines, et l'un des objets des généalogies ou chroniques angevines du XIe siècle est assurément de marquer subtilement la continuité des comtes d'alors avec les Ingelgériens dont les propres débuts sont auréolés de légendes. Abréviations AASS

Acta Sanctorum quotquot orbe coluntur vel a catholicis scriptoribus celebrantur ex latinis et graecis aliarumque gentium antiquis monumentis collecta, digesta, illustrata, éd. J. Bolland et alii, 62 vols, Anvers 1643 sqq.

AASS Ord.Ben.

Acta Sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti, éd. J. Mabillon.

C. Cl.

Recueil des chartes de l' abbaye de Cluny, éd. A. Bernard et A. Bruel, 6 vols, Paris 1876 sqq.

Cart. Flavigny

The Cartulary of Flavigny 717-1113, éd. C. B. Bouchard, Cambridge, 1991.

Cart. Marmoutier Dun. Cartulaire de marmoutier pour le Dunois, éd. E. Mabille, Châteaudun, 1874. Cart. ND de Paris

Cartulaire de l'église Notre-Dame de Paris, éd. B. Guerard, Paris, 2 vols 1850.

Cart. noir Angers

Cartulaire noir de la cathédrale d'Angers, éd. C. Urseau, Angers 1908.

Cart. Ronceray

Cartulaire de l'abbaye du Ronceray d'Angers, éd. P. Marchegay, Angers 1854.

Cart. St-Denys

Cartulaire de Saint-Denys de Nogent, éd. C. Metais, Saint-Denis de Nogent-le-Rotrou (1031-1789), Vannes 1895.

Cart. St-Florent

Livre Noir de Saint-Florent de Saumur, BN mss., nouv. acq. lat., 1930.

Cart. St-Julien

Cartulaire de Saint-Julien de Brioude, éd. H. Doniol (1856) et M. et A. Baudot (1935).

Cart. St-Père

Cartulaire de Saint-Père de Chartres, éd. B. Guerard, 2 vols, Paris 1840.

Cart. St-Vincent Mac.

Cartulaire de Saint-Vincent de Mâicon connu sous le com de Livre enchaîné, éd. M.-C. Ragut, Mâcon, 1864.

Coll. Tour.-Anj.

Collection Touraine-Anjou de Dom Housseau, BN, mss lat.

ES

Europäische Stammtafeln. Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der europäischen Staaten. NeueFolge, éd. D. Schwennicke, 15 vols, Marbourg.

< previous page

page_266


next page >

page_267

< previous page

page_267


FEG

Mgr L. Duchesne, Les Fastes épiscopaux de la Gaule, 3 vols, Paris 1907-1915.

GC

Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distribuata, éd. D. de Sainte-Marthe et alii, 16 vols, Paris, 1715-1865.

Geneal. com. And. cf. Gesta. Gesta

Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise, éd. L. Halphen-R. Poupardin, Paris 1913.

HGL

C. Devic - J. Vaissette, Histoire Générale de Languedoc, Toulouse (3e éd., 1872 sqq.).

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Hannovre, etc.

PL

abbé P. Migne, Patrologiae latinae cursus completus. Series Latina, 221 vols, Paris, 1839-1864.

RHF

Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, éd. Dom Bouquet.

< previous page

page_267


next page >

page_269

< previous page

page_269


12 Combour: proto-histoire d'une seigneurie et mis en uvre de la reforme gregorienne Hubert Guillotel Les érudits soucieux d'évoquer les premiers temps de la seigneurie de Combour1 ont toujours accordé une grande valeur au témoignage commun de vingt-quatre clercs dolois, enregistré dans l'enquête par tourbe qu'avait diligentée en 1181 Renaud Boterel, sénéchal de Rennes, pour déterminer la consistance du domaine des archevêques de Dol. Les chanoines Guillaume de Dinan et Gervais, dix-neuf prêtres ainsi que trois diacres s'accordent pour déclarer sous serment que l'archevêque Junguenée avait donné à son frère Rivallon tout ce qu'Ascoul Asculfus de Soligné possède avec son épouse dans le territoire de Dol, soit les fiefs de douze chevaliers, les habitations qu'il possède dans le bourg Notre-Dame et un crédit de mille sous à Dol, sous la condition que tant qu'il serait débiteur de cette somme aucun autre crédit ne pouvait lui être consenti; ces témoins précisent en outre que Junguenée avait élevé le chateau de Combour et l'avait donné à ce même Rivallon.2 Si le bien fondé du plus clair de cette déclaration peut être vèrifié, sa partie finale paraît en revanche bien elliptique et mérite d'être contrôlée. Les droits détenus à Dol par Ascoul de Soligné s'expliquent en effet par l'exercice des fonctions d'avoué de l'Église de Dol que l'archevêque Junguenée avait confiée à son cadet, ancêtre de l'épouse d'Ascoul;3 mais à quel titre l'archevêque de Dol aurait-il pu construire ô Combour, paroisse de l'évêché d'Alet, un château qu'il aurait ensuite confié à son frère? Pour identifer Rivallon Ier, ses contemporains le caractérisaient habituellement comme de Dol ou seigneur de Dol,4 mais lui même dans deux chartes en faveur de l'abbaye de Marmoutier, instrumentées par les soins 1 Cette orthographe qui respecte l'étymologie celtique de toponyme doit être préférée à celle de nos jours! 2Histoire féodale des Marais, Territoires et Eglise de Dol. Enquête par tourbe ordonnée par Henri II, roi d'Angleterre. Texte latin publié avec bibliographie, traduction et notes par Jean Allenou, Introduction par F. Duine, Paris 1917 (La Bretagne et les Pays Celtiques XIII), 39-41. 3 Hubert Guillotel, 'Des vicomtes d'Alet aux vicomtes de Poudouvre', Annales de la Société d'histoire et d'archéologie de l'Arrondissement de Saint-Malo, année 1988, 205-6. 4 Hubert Guillotel, 'Les acres des ducs de Bretagne (944-1148)'. Thèse pour le doctorat en droit présentée et soutenue publiquement le 4 juillet 1973 devant l'Université de droit, d'économie et de sciences sociales de Paris, 129-32, no 35, 182-3, no 49; Arthur de la Borderie, Fondation du prieuré de Saint-Pern. Chartes inédites des XI et XII siècles, Nantes 1887 (extrait de la Revue historique de l'Ouest, t. iii, 1887), 11-12, no II; Marie Fauroux, Recueil des acres des ducs de Normandie de 911 à 1066, Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie t. 36, Caen 1961, 344-8, no 159.

< previous page

page_269

next page >


page_270

< previous page

page_270


La région de Dol-Combour

< previous page

page_270


next page >

page_271

< previous page

page_271


de ce sanctuaire et qui sont à l'origine du prieuré de la Sainte-Trinité de Combour est qualifié homo militaris ex Britannia de castello Combornio, ce qui n'éclaire guère sur l'origine des droits qu'il pouvait exercer à Combour.5 Rivallon Ier ne détenait que la moitié de l'église paroissiale, placée sous l'invocation de Notre-Dame qu'il allait concéder à Marmoutier et ce n'est que bien laborieusement qu' à la période suivante les moines de ce sanctuaire purent obtenir l'autre partie de ses différents possesseurs, dont certaines étaient apparentés. D'un autre côté il est surprennant de constater que le fils aîné de Rivallon Ier, premier véritable châtelain de Combour, ait été appelé Guillaume alors que ce nom disparaît ensuite de l'anthroponymie familiale. Non moins étonnant, alors que son père avait favorisé l'abbaye de Marmoutier, Guillaume choisit de faire profession monastique à Saint-Florent de Saumur dont il devient très rapidement abbé, dès le 2 juin 1070 pour mourir le 30 mai 1118, soit un abbatiat de quarente-huit années.6 Plus singulier, un autre Guillaume, également originaire de Combour, est promu abbé de Marmoutier en 1104 et va assurer cette reponsabilité jusqu'en 1124. Enfin un troisième Guillaume surnommé l'Ismaélite, qui sera châtelain de Tinténiac, sis à onze kilomètres au sud-ouest de Combour à vol d'oiseau, des années 1066 à l'aube du XIIe siècle, tentera par deux fois au moins d'enlever la seigneurie de Combour au petit-fils de Rivallon Ier, Gelduin Ier.7 Cette remarquable homonymie pose le problème des relations qui pouvaient exister entre ces trois hommes. Les régles qui président au choix et à la transmission des noms dans les familles au haut Moyen Age interdisent de penser que cela résulte du hasard voire de la simple imitation. Cette interrogation serait toutefois restée sans réponse si n'avait subsisté une information abondante pour l'histoire de la région de Combour à partir du milieu du XIe siècle, bien que jusqu'ici les auteurs se soient trop souvent contentés des copies effectuées par dom Denys Briant ou dom Gui Alexis Lobineau, voire des publications partielles proposées par le même dom Lobineau puis par dom Hyacinthe Morice dans leurs Histoire de Bretagne.8 Certes les originaux des actes sur lesquels repose cette enquête ont depuis largement disparu, mais des copies sûres demeurent, qu'il s'agisse des transcriptions insérées dans les cartulaires de Saint-Florent de Saumur livre noir et livre blanc ou de l'admirable cartulaire factice du prieuré de la Saint-Trinité 5 Guillotel, 'Les actes des ducs de Bretagne', 203-6, no 57, 228-35, no 66. 6 Cf. infra les références de la note 17. 7 H. Guillotel, 'Du rôle des cimetières en Bretagne dans la renouveau du XIe et de la premiere moitié du XIIe siècle', Mémoires de la Société d'histoire et d'archéolgie de Bretagne 52 (1972-74), pièces annexes, no II, 22-4; Guillotel, 'Les actes', 145-9, no 40, et spécialement la justifications de la date de l'acte. 8 Au tome II, Contenant les Preuves, et piéces justificatives de l'Histoire de Bretagne composée . . . par Dom Gui Alexis Lobineau, Paris 1907, 2 vols in fol., dans les Mémoires pour servir de preuves à l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Bretagne . . . par Dom Hyacinthe Morice, Paris t. I 1742, 1 vol. in fol. (=Preuves).

< previous page

page_271

next page >


page_272

< previous page

page_272


I Seigneurs de Dol-Combour issus des vicomtes d'Alet

< previous page

page_272


next page >

page_273

< previous page

page_273


de Combour, compilé en 1780, donc à la veille de la Révolution qui entraînera la disparition du fonds d'archive de cette obédience.9 L'examen de ces textes révèle l'existence d'une large parentèle, que le partage de droits héréditaires sur l'Eglise paroissiale Notre-Dame de Combour permet d'identifier. Cette déduction doit d'abord être justifiée, ce qui offre ensuite la possibilité d'analyser les ambitions, les luttes stratégiques commes les soucis religieux qui sous-tendent cet exceptionnel dossier. I L'étude de la parentèle de Combour montre que les lignages des trois Guillaumes évoqués dans l'introduction partageaient avec des tiges cléricales des droits héréditaires sur l'Église Notre-Dame de Combour. Les lignées de ces Guillaumes n'ont jusqu'ici pas encore été identifiées avec le même bonheur: si celle de l'abbé de SaintFlorent est assez bien connu, en revanche celle de l'abbé de Marmoutier échappait aux investigastions méthodiques, quant à celle des seigneurs de Tinténiac elle intrigue par l'étrangeté du surnom d'Ismaélite. Socialement l'abbé de Saint-Florent appartenait aux milieux dirigeants de la France de l'Ouest, issus de la moyenne noblesse des derniers temps carolingiens. Par son père RivalIon Ier de Dol-Combour Guillaume descend des vicomtes d'Alet;10 par sa mére, Aremburge du Puiset, il se rattache à la puissante famille des vicomtes de Chartres.11 De telles origines impliquaient normalement le respect des pratiques présidant à l'attribution des noms dans ce monde; les aînés se voyaient conférer des dénominations propres à la ligne paternelle alors que les derniers-nés recevaient des noms portés dans la ligne maternelle. II fallait donc des raisons bien particulières pour se départir de ces usages, ce que fait Rivallon Ier de Dol-Combour. Son troisième fils s'appelle Gelduin, dénomination souvent porté chez les descendants des vicomtes de Chartres; son quatrième fils a reçu le nom de Geoffroy, très largement répandu dans les lignages de la noblesse d'alors et qui se retrouve chez les seigneurs de Dinan ou ceux de Châteaubriant issus pour les premiers d'un frère de Rivallon Ier, Gauzlin ou Josselin12 et pour les seconds de leur sur Innoguent.13 En revanche les aînés ont été respectivement appelés Guillaume et Jean comme d'autres membres de la parentèle de Combour. Gelduin 9 Bibliothéque de l'Institut de France, ms 2383. Le recueil rédigé en faveur de M. de la Sépouze, vicaire général des dioceses d'Arras, de Rennes et de Tours, commendataire du prieuré de la Sainte-Trinité de Combourg O.S.B. diocese de Saint-Malo, dépendant de l'abbaye de Marmoutier, fur déposé aux archives de l'Institut le 23 novembre 1821. 10 Guillotel, 'Des vicomtes d'Alet', 203-6. 11 André Chédeville, Chartres et ses campagnes (XIe-XIIIe siécles), Publications de l'Université de HauteBretagne I, Paris 1973, 258-9. 12 Michael Jones, The Family of Dinan in England in the Middle Ages, dans Le Pays de Dinan, Dinan 1987, 1217; Guillotel, 'Des vicomtes d'Alet', 207. 13 H. Guillotel, 'La place de Châteaubriant dans l'essor des châtellenies bretonnes (XIe-XIIe siècles)', Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire et d'Archéologie de Bretagne 66, 1989, 9-11.

< previous page

page_273

next page >


page_274

< previous page

page_274


II Famille du Chat

< previous page

page_274


next page >

page_275

< previous page

page_275


Ier de Dol-Combour, puîné de Jean Ier et titulaire de la seigneurie des années 1100-1110 à 1137, donnera à son fils et successeur, Jean II, le nom de son père. Guillaume de Dol-Combour vivra certes longtemps sous l'habit monastique, mais il n'était pas destiné à cet état. La preuve en est que neuf jours après le décès de son père, survenu entre le 20 mai 1064 et le 11 décembre 1066 il restitue du consentement de sa mère et de ses frères Jean et Gelduin au Mont-Saint-Michel une terre appelée Lande-de-Qui sise en Meillac que son père avait jusqu'alors détenu par don de l'abbé Suppo, donc depuis les années 10331050.14 Quelque temps après, dans l'exposé d'une charte de donation en faveur de Saint-Florent de Saumur, des années 1064/1066-1070, Jean Ier de Dol-Combour ainsi que son frère Gelduin rappellent que leur frère germain Guillaume, premier successeur à l'héritage après le décès de leur père, avait, sous l'inspiration de la grâce divine, décidé de renoncer au monde, de se consacrer sous l'habit monastique à la vie religieuse et que Dieu aidant il avait accomplice choix dans l'abbaye de SaintFlorent.15 Cette décision peut surprendre: une place ne lui aurait-elle point été naturellement réservé à Marmoutier que son père avait par deux fois généreuse-ment gratifié, veillant chaque fois à ce que les siens, et donc son aîné, soient associés aux mérites ainsi obtenus.16 Guillaume devait franchir à Saint-Florent dans une délai maximum de cinq années les étapes qui le conduiront du noviciat à l'abbatiat qu'il détiendra du 28 juin 1070 au 30 mai 1118.17 Pareille promotion était-elle concevable à Marmoutier où le nouvel abbé Barthélemy sera en charge de juillet 1064 au plus tard à 1084,18 et ou l'un de ses contemporains, l'autre Guillaume de Combour devait déjà être moine? Les origines exactes de ce personnage sont demeurées jusqu'ici problématiques du fait des confusions de dom Edmond Martène, qui avait écrit: 'Guillaume sortit d'une noble famille de Combour au diocese de Saint-Malo, dont il retint le nom, mais il n'en était point seigneur. Son père se nommait Arengrin et sa mère Aremburge, dont ou faisait autrefois l'anniversaire en l'abbaye de Marmoutier, le 3 février. Il avait une sur nommée Adelésis, . . .'; il pensait également que ce Guillaume avait été l'archidiacre portant le même nom en poste dans l'évêché de Nantes à la fin du XIe siècle.19 Il est en réalité parfaitement possible d'identifier la famille à laquelle sa sur s'est alliée comme l'estoc dont il provenait. 14 Guillotel, 'Les actes des ducs', 236-7, no 67. Sur les dates de l'abbatiat de Suppo au Mont cf. dom Jean Laporte, 'Les série abbatiale et priorale du Mont-Saint-Michel', dans Millénaire monastique du Mont-SaintMichel, t. I, Histoire et vie monastique de l'abbaye, publié sous la direction de dom Jean Laporte, 273. 15 Livre noir de Saint-Florent de Saumur, Bibliothèque nationale, nouv. acq. lat. 193-9, fols 69v-70. 16 Cf. les références de la note 5, encore qu'un fragment de l'original du no 57 ait été retrouvé il y a peu par M. Michel Marechal, Conservateur en chef des Archives départementales d'Ille-et-Vilaine et M. Eric Joret, Archiviste intercommunal et nous préparons en complément de cette découverte une érude à paraître dans la Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes. 17Annales sancti Florentii Salmurensis, dans Recueil d'Annals angevines et vendômois, publié par Louis Halphen, Paris 1903, 119, 120. 18 Olivier Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage au XIe siécle, 2 tomes, Paris 1972, t. ii, 163, no C248, discussion de la date du texte, 215-17, no C346, discussion de la date du texte. 19Histoire de l' abbaye de Marmoutier, publié pour la première fois et annotée par M. l'abbé C. Chevalier, dans Mémoires de la Société archéologique de Touraine t. XXV (1875), - t. II, 1104-1792 de l'histoire de dom Martène -, pp. 1-2.

< previous page

page_275

next page >


page_276

< previous page

page_276


III Seigneurs de Langan, Lanrigan, Cuguen

< previous page

page_276


next page >

page_277

< previous page

page_277


Les noms portés par la fille d'Adelise, sur du futur abbé de Marmoutier, Juedeta,20 par son beau-frère, Silvestre, tué de mort violente, par son beau-père, Hervé,21 prouve en effet que son époux Gautier était né du marriage d'Hervé de Langan or de Lanrigan avec Oram, fille de Gautier évêque de Rennes. Un mémoire généalogique publié par le père Du Paz d'après une transcription contenue dans un bréviare manuscrit de l'Eglise cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Rennes permet d'établir un tableau généalogique de la famille qui occupe héréditairement le siège épiscopal de Rennes dans la premiere moitié du XIe siècle et d'où procèdent les seigneurs de la Guerche, dont Silvestre qui réussira à récupérer l'évêché en 1076.22 Ce mémoire relate que Gautier, né de l'union de Thibaud évêque de Rennes avec Oirelan, fille d'Alveus archidiacre de Nantes, une fois devenu évêque de Rennes se maria avec une certaine Oidelina dont il cut un fils, Garin, futur évêque de Rennes, et deux filles, appelées l'une Ora, mariée à Hervé de une lacune dans le texte l'autre Yveta mariée à Hervé de Cogles de la famille des voyers de Cogles.23 La rencontre des noms d'Yveta et de Silvestre, alors rarement portés dans les familles nobles de Rennais permet d'identifier le lignage de l'époux d'Ora: il était fils de Trihan ou Théoginète, avait un frère nommé Main, connu pour être fixé à Cugnen;24 les membres de ces deux branches apparaissent régulièrement dans les actes concernant la région de Combour. Il faut enfin noter que le seul des deux fils de Gautier de Lanrigan et d'Adelise à s'être marié, Tudual de Lanrigan, meurt sans laisser d'héritier en ligne masculine vers le milieu du XIIe siècle25 et dans le même temps un cadet de la famille combourine du Chat revendique cette dênomination.26 Adelise de Lanrigan et son frére, l'abbé Guillaume de Marmoutier, avaient-ils des rapports avec ce lignage? Une longue charte de Donoal évêque d'Alet, lui même fils de Guillaume l'Ismaélite, réglant en 1134 le régime qui serait appliqué à l'église Notre-Dame de Combour révèle que l'abbé Guillaume était parent par le sang de l'une des families cléricales du lieu, celle de Guimond fils de Gauzbert. Celui-ci, outre une fille, avait eu deux fils, l'un appelé Boutier, l'autre Guillaume; après avoir été admis à la prêtrise, ce dernier était devenu le desservant de l'église Notre-Dame et il avait été convenu qu'il y percevrait sa vie durant ce que son père pouvait 20 Bibl. de l'Institut, ms 2383, pp. 54-5, no xxv, d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier: Notice relatant la donation de la terre de la Bigotière à l'abbaye de Marmoutier. 21 Copie de mars 1713 par Etienne Baluze, Paris BN Collection Baluze, t. LXXVII, fol. 134, d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier: notice relatant la donation de l'èglise de Langan à l'abbaye de Marmoutier. 22 H. Guillotel, 'Bretagne et papauté au XIe siècle', dans L'Eglise de France et la Papauté (Xe-XIIIe siècle). Actes de XXVIe Colloque historique franco-allemand organisé en cooperation avec l'Ecole nationale des chartes par l'Institut historique allemand de Paris (Paris, 17-19 octobre 1990), publiés par Rolf Grosse, Bonn 1993, 275, 284. 23 Augustin Du Paz, Histoire généalogique de plusieurs maisons illustres de Bretagne, Paris 1619, deuxième partie, p. 47; dom Morice, Preuves, t. I, col. 353. 24 Allenou, Histoire féodale des Marais . . . de Dol, p. 58 note 121. 25 Notice relatant que Tudual de Lanrigan a donné au moment de décéder à Dieu, à Saint Martin et aux moines de Combour route la clime de Tragonoux aujourd'hui au sud de l'étang de Combour du consentement de son épouse Aélise et de son neveu Gautier l'Oie, Bib. de l'Institut ms 2383, pp. 54-5 no LX. 26 Morice, Preuves t. I, col. 642

< previous page

page_277

next page >


page_278

< previous page

page_278


IV Seigneurs de Tinténiac recueillir, mais qu'ensuite aucun membre de sa lignée ne pourrait y revendiquer quoi que ce soit à titre héréditaire.27 Or en 1131, après le décès de Guillaume, qui avait sollicité des moines de Marmoutier installés à Combour d'être reçu parmi eux pour mourir sous leur habit, son frère s'était emparé du corps et l'avait même 27 Bib. de l'Inst. ms 2383, 50-3, no lvii; il existait une autre expédition de ce texte, datée elle de 1133, qui a été publiée par dom Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne, t. II, col. 226-7, et dom Morice, Preuves, t. I, col. 567-8.


page_278

< previous page

page_278

next page >


page_279

< previous page

page_279


dépouillé de son vêtement sacré,28 ce qui avait valu à Boutier d'être excommunié. La charte de l'évêque Donoal de 1134 pour mettre fin aux revendications de Boutier prévoyait que le tiers des revenus de l'autel de l'église Notre-Dame reviendrait à titre viager au deuxième de ses fils, Simon, qui était clerc. C'était reconnaître l'ancienneté des droits que réclamait Boutier et avouer implicitement que son cousinage avec l'abbé de Marmoutier Guillaume lui offrait d'indéniables moyens de pression. Une notice des années 1104-1124, relatant de quelle façon Nicolas, clerc de Combour fils de Raoul, lui même fils d'Hervé, avait finalement renoncé à sa revendication du sixième de l'église Notre-Dame, donné par son père Raoul fils d'Hervé lors de sa profession monastique dans la communauté de Marmoutier, précise que l'abbé Guillaume était l'oncle du clerc Nicolas.29 Fort à propos une notice, des années 1095-1108/1111 et détaillant les étapes qui allaient permettre à Guimond, fils de Gauzbert, de persuader son épouse de renoncer au devoir conjugal pour lui laisser la possibilité de revêtir l'habit monastique, révèle que Raoul fils d'Hervé était l'oncle des fils de Rivallon le Chat.30 Ceci emporte que Guillaume, abbé de Marmoutier, étant l'oncle de Nicolas fils d'Hervé était soit le frère soit le beau-frère de Raoul. Or l'examen des noms portés à cette génération dans la famille du Chat montre que les frères de Rivallon le Chat s'appelaient Robert, Guillaume et Geoffroy. Une charte à l'intitulé de Guillaume, abbé de Saint-Florent, des années 1093-1100, énonce que Robert le Chat et son frère Guillaume ont donné à Dieu, à Saint-Florent et à ses moines l'église de Saint-Léger [-des Prés], la dîme, la moitié de son verger ainsi qu'un emplacement pros de l'église pour bâtir une maison destinée à l'usage des moines, le tout pour le salut de l'âme de leur frère Geoffroy qui à l'article de la mort avait reçu des moines de Saint-Florent l'habit monastique et avait ensuite été enseveli par eux.31 Les caractéristiques formelles de cet acte sont surprenantes: plus proche de la notice quant à son contenu, il se présente toutefois comme une charte rédigée au nom de l'abbé de SaintFlorent qui est bénéficiare de la concession alors que les deux donateurs Robert et Guillaume le Chat ne figurent même pas dans la liste des témoins qui énumère pourtant d'importants personnages: l'archevêque de Dol Roland, un archidiacre, un chanoine, l'abbé de Saint-Florent, Geoffroy de Langan, beau-frère de la sur du futur abbé de Marmoutier, devenu depuis quelque temps moine de Saint-Florent, et parmi les laïcs Raoul Ier, seigneur de Fougères, le tout accompli à Tremblay dans le porche de l'église, or Tremblay était le siège d'un prieuré de Saint-Florent de Saumur. Peu après, un certain Haimon s'emparait des biens ainsi donnés grâce à l'appui 28 Bib. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, 47-8, no liv. 29 Bib. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, 28, no xxix. 30 Cf. pièce annexe. 31 Copie du XIIe siècle dans le livre blanc de Saint-Florent de Saumur, Arch. dépt. de Maine-et-Loire, H 3713, fol. 61r-v. La date retenue est celle qu'avait proposé Marc Saché, lnventaire sommaire des archives départementales antérieures à 1790. Maine-et-Loire. Archives ecclésiastqiues Série H. t. II Abbaye de SaintFlorent de Saumur, Angers 1926, 1 vol. in 4°, 259.

< previous page

page_279

next page >


page_280

< previous page

page_280


V Families cléricales de Combour (i) de Guillaume l'Ismaélite, puis acceptait de les restituer à l'exception des deux tiers de la dîme que l'abbé Guillaume et ses moines consentaient à laisser à Haimon tant que Robert le Chat n'aura pu récupérer ses biens, accord conclu en presence de Guillaume l'Ismaélite qui intervenait comme garant vis-à-vis de l'abbé Guillaume; cette fois l'arrangement avait été conclu à Combour, au chevet de l'église

< previous page

page_280

next page >


page_281

< previous page

page_281


V Families cléricales de Combour (ii) Notre-Dame.32 La situation est ici encore plus étonnante qu'à Tremblay: la présence de Guillaume l'Ismaélite à Combour tenderait à prouver que l'accord doit dater d'après 1095 lorsque le seigneur de Tinténiac avait réussi à évincer de Combour Gelduin Ier de Dol-Combour, second des fils de Jean Ier et qui avait remplacé son aîné Rivallon II, disparu dans des circonstances restées mystérieuses.33 L'abbé de Saint-Florent qui était l'oncle de Gelduin Ier accepte cependant de s'entendre avec l'ennemi de son neveu, et une fois de plus Robert le Chat ainsi que son frère Guillaume sont absents. A la génération suivante Tudual de Lanrigan, le seul des deux fils d'Adelise, sur de l'abbé Guillaume de Marmoutier, à s'être marié disparait sans laisser d'héritier en ligne directe et le nom de Lanrigan est porté par le second des fils de Rivallon le Chat.34 Enfin l'influence que pourait alors exercer ce lignage dans la région de Combour est de nos jours encore perpétuée par un écart de l'ancienne paroisse de Dingé, le Plessix-au-Chat. La configuration de ces témoignages, issus de milieux monastiques autonomes, permet d'affirmer que Guillaume le Chat ne faisait qu'un avec le futur abbé de Marmoutier, encore faut-il comprendre le pourquoi des réticences qui entourent l'évocation de son nom. La première explication est d'ordre juridique: quand l'église de Saint-Léger-des-Prés est donnée à Saint-Florent de Saumur, Guillaume est déjà moine depuis un certain temps; en 1096 il est même prieur de l'obédience de Marmoutier sise à Fougères, la Sainte-Trinité;35 lors de sa profession 32 Copie du XIIe siècle dans le livre blanc de Saint-Florent de Saumur, fol. 61v. 33 La façn dont les sources évoquent ces événements paraît aujourd'hui bien cryptique, mais il n'en allait pas de même pour les contemporains qui avaient été témoins des violences de Guillaume l'Ismaélite, Bib. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, pp. 16-18, no xvi; 20-3, no xxi, 36, no xliii; 63-4, no lxxii. 34 Cf. supra et les références des notes 33 et 25. 35 Ceci ressort de la notice relatant de quelle façn en 1096, le jour de l'Ascension 22 mai Marbode évêque de Rennes consentait à la donation de l'église Notre-Dame de Fougères à Marmoutier sur la demande de Guillaume le Chauve, alors prieur de la cella de Fougères, de dom Garin Garin de Lanrigan son neveu, et de dom Main surnommé Gallus: Arthur de la Borderie et Paul Delabigne-V'illeneuve, (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_281

next page >


page_282

< previous page

page_282


monastique Guillaume avait fait voeu du pauvreté et il ne pouvait donc plus prétendre exercer ô titre personnel un droit patrimonial. D'autre part la présenta-tion de sa parenté révèle un milieu englué dans le nicolaïsme et le simonie: sa sur avait épousé un rejeton de la famille épiscopal de Rennes; son cousinage à Combour comprend des clercs et des prîtres détenteurs à titre héréditaire de droits sur l'église paroissiale Notre-Dame. Quel contraste avec le rôle majeur joué par Marmoutier dans la réforme religieuse des XIe et XIIe siècles; face à d'aussi compromettantes ramifications, l'extrème discrétion des moines de Marmoutier, appelés à instrumenter des arrangements épineux, se comprend. Preuve en est le lien qui unissait Geoffroy de Langan, beau-frère d'Adelise sur du futur abbé de Marmoutier, à Guillaume l'Ismaélite; suivant la notice du 5 mai 1085 relatant la donation de Landhuan à Saint-Florent de Saumur ce dernier aurait été son consanguineus.36 Le fait que Guillaume l'Ismaélite ait eu pour père Donoal, premier seigneur de Tinténiac37 alors que Geoffroy de Langan était fils d'Hervé de Langan interdit de donner au terme son sens étroit de frère consanguin pour ne retenir que celui beaucoup plus large de parent. Ainsi se trouve posée la question de la place occupée par l'Ismaélite dans cette parentèle combourine. Guillaume l'Ismaélite, châtelain de Tinténiac, a pu exciper de droits indéniables pour revendiquer la seigneurie de Combour; il reussisa par deux fois à dépouiller de son héritage Gelduin Ier petit-fils de Rivallon Ier,38 de même qu'il avait pu déposséder son frère aîné Rivallon II de la forêt de Tanouarn sise aux confins des seigneuries de Combour et de Tinténiac; Gelduin Ier ne devait en récupérer que la moitié grâce à son mariage avec la fille de l'Ismaélite, Noga, qui l'avait revue en dot.39 Mais comment le seigneur de Tinténiac pouvait-il justifer ses prétentions? L'étrange qualificatif qui lui est réservé fournait la résponse probable. En effet il ne s'agissait pas d'un surnom ramené de la premiere croisade, puisque Guillaume le portait déjà aux années 1067-1076.40 Cette dénomination semble bien avoir été reprise de l'Ancien Testament. Le chapitre XVI de la Genèse rapporte que Sara, épouse d'Abraham, demeuré stérile donna sa servante, l'égyptienne Agar, à son mari pour être sa femme et Agar conçu de cette union, mais pour avoir regardé sa maîtresse avec mépris elle fut chassée par celle-ci et se sauva dans le désert, où l'ange de Yahweh lui déclare en particulier: 'Voici que tu es enceinte, et tu enfanteras un fils, et tu lui donnera le nom d'Ismaël, parce que Yahweh a entendu (Footnote continued from previous page) 'Documents inédits sur l'histoire de Bretagne. Chartes du prieuré de la Sainte-Trinité de Fougères', dans Bulletin archéologique de l'Association bretonne, 1851, pp. 193-4, no viii (bis). 36 A. de la Borderie, Recueil d' actes inédits des ducs et princes de Bretagne (XIe, XIIe, XIIIe siècles), extrait de Bulletin et mémoires de la Société archéologique d'Ille-et-Vilaine, Rennes 1888, 46-7, no xx. 37 Une étude approfondie des origines de cette seigneurie reste à faire. Le lien de filiation est attestée aux années 1064-1066 lorsque Guillaume fils de Donoal apparaît dans l'entourage de Conan II, Guillotel, 'Les actes', 228-35, no 66. 38 Cf. les références de la note 7. 39 H. Guillotel, 'Les évêques d'Alet du IXe au milieu du XIIe siècle', dans Annales de la Sociétée d'histoire et d'archéolgie de l'Arrondissement de Saint-Malo, Année 1979, p. 264; Guillotel, 'Les actes', 146-7, justification de la date proposée pour le no 40. 40 Sous la dénomination de Willelmus Esmales il figure parmi les témoins d'une notice des années 1067-1076 rapportant une sentence rendue en faveur de Saint-Florent de Saumur par le cour de Geoffroy Grenonat, comte de Rennes, publication partielle par dom Morice, Preuves, t. I, col. 477.

< previous page

page_282

next page >


page_283

< previous page

page_283


ton afflication. Ce sera un âne sauvage que cet homme; sa main sera contre tous, et la main de tous sera contre lui, et il habitera en face de tous ses frères.' Cette présentation correspond étrangement à l'image laissée par Guillaume l'Ismaélite. A la différence de ses pairs, il ne paraît avoir jamais fait personnellement de donation à un établissement religieux; il était réputé pour ses recours à la violence et parmi les châtelains bretons du moment c'est l'un de ceux qui vivaient le plus en marge du pouvoir ducal! Porteur d'un nom honoré de la parentèle de Combour, ce troisième Guillaume pouvait y revendiquer un rôle. La longue notice, des années 1095-1108/1111 répertoriant les confirmations successives liées à la donation en faveur de Marmoutier par Guimond fils de Gauzbert de sa part de l'église Notre-Dame à Combour, précise que l'un des engagements intervint en présence de Guillaume l'Ismaélite, ipso principe concedente, cuius dominio isdem locus pertinebat, ita ut eiusdem beneficii meretur particeps fieri.41 Son surnom ne s'expliquerait-il point par une naissance hors marriage; il serait le fruit d'un liaison qu'aurai eu son père avec l'une des héritières de cette parentèle de Combour, ce qui lui aurait valu d'être appelé Guillaume et de pouvoir revendiquer un dominium sur les lieux. Cette présentation des trois lignées marquantes de Combour souligne des rivalités et la commune revendication de certains noms Guillaume et Rivallon indices qui suggèrent l'existence d'une parenté. Deux éléments viennent renforcer cette déduction: c'est en premier que la vicomtesse Roiantelina, mère de Rivallon Ier de Dol-Combour, ait eu pour père un certain Riuuall;42 c'est ensuite qu'elle et son époux, Hamon Ier vicomte d'Alet, aient choisi d'appeler leur quatrième fils quasiment comme son aïeul, ce qui s'inscrit dans des perspectives cohérentes. Comme benjamin, Rivallon avait reçu une dénomination reprise du stock anthroponymique des ascendants de sa mère; en outre le fait de porter un diminutif du nom de son grand-père maternel le prédisposait à exercer des responsabilités à Combour. La même logique devait le conduire à donner à son aîné, Guillaume, l'un des noms recurrents de cette vaste parentèle de Combour, dont certains membres sont identifiés par leur abandon de droits patrimoniaux sur l'èglise Notre-Dame de Combour. L'ètude des quantièmes respectivement possédés par les rejetons de ce groupe familial ne permet malheureusement pas de restituer les degrés de parenté. Il est toutefois possible d'identifier en marge des tiges cléricales. Les différentes concessions accordées par les rejetons de ces branches prouvent qu'au titre des parts que celles-ci avaient jusqu'alors détenues leurs héritiers bénéficiaient de portions des revenus de l'église Notre-Dame. La pudique expression de clerc, utilisée pour qualifier certains d'entre eux, laisse croire qu'ils 41 Cf. piece annexe. 42 Nous la reconaissons dans la Roiantelina filia Riuuall qui souscrit avec son fils Hugues, qu'elle avait eu d'un premier mariage et le fils de ce dernier, Geoffroy, l'important privilege du 5 avril 1030 d'Alain III, duc de Bretagne, en faveur du Mont-Saint-Michel, Guillotel, 'Les actes', 66-73, no 18; dom Morice, Preuves, t. I, col. 37981. Le Willelmus Hugonides, qui figure dans l'entourage de Guillaume comte de Mortain lorsque celui-ci vets 1092 confirme la notice relatant la concession à Marmoutier de la collégiale Notre-Dame de Fougères par Raoul de Fougères, ne serait-il point un héritier de ce lignage, la Borderie et Delabigne-Villeneuve, '. . . Chartes du prieuré de la Sainte-Trinité de Fougères', 191-2, no vii.

< previous page

page_283

next page >


page_284

< previous page

page_284


devaient être directement associés à la perception des rentrèes financières, preuve d'une insertion dans un contexte d'alors associant simonie et nicolaïsme. Les préambules des donations les plus solennelles montrent que les moines de Marmoutier s'attachaient à montrer ce qu'avait de particulièrement grave pour le salut des ânes une telle situation.43 Non content d'obtenir des renonciations à ces parts de l'église Notre-Dame, ils engageaient certains donateurs à entrer en religion, ce qui n'a pas été sans entraîner parfois de violentes réactions. Ce schéma se rencontre avec plus ou moins d'ambiguité pour trois rameaux, ceux de Raoul fils d'Hervé, de Guimond fils de Gauzbert et du prêtre Hamon. Raoul, fils d'Hervé, avait épousé une certaine Orguéna ou Orvéna qui appartenait à la famille du Chat et c'est au titre de cette alliance que Raoul possédait avec ses neveux, les fils de Rivallon le Chat une part de l'église Notre-Dame, à laquelle tous renoncèrent.44 Après le décès de Raoul, qui avait été reçu parmi les moines de Marmoutier, cette donation rut remise en cause aussi bien par deux des fils de Rivallon le Chat, Guimond et Hamon, que par Nicolas, second fils de Raoul. La notice de 1120, relatant comment justice fut rendu par Donoal, évêque d'Alet, après que Guimond le Chat et Hamon son frère eurent fourni réparation pour avoir usurpé un tiers de l'église Notre-Dame, précise que Poher a concédé tout ce à quoi il pouvait prétendre dans cette même église.45 Une autre notice, cette fois-ci non datée, rapporte que les moines après avoir tenu en paix le sixième de l'église du chateau de Combour, que Raoul fils d'Hervé leur avait donné quand il avait été reçu dans leur communauté, furent inquiétés par son fils Nicolas, qualifié clericus de Comburnio, qui finalement sur la pression de son oncle l'abbé Guillaume, devait renoncer à sa plainte.46 Une troisième notice relate que Nicolas avec son fils Poher confirma la donation par son père, Raoul fils d'Hervé, de sa part dans l'église Notre-Dame ainsi que de tout ce qu'il avait pu remettre.47 La situation de Guimond fils de Gauzbert, lui aussi clerc de l'église de Combour, a déjà plusieurs fois été évoquée: marié à une certaine Roscendis et père de trois enfants, deux fils, Guillaume et Boutier, une fille Junargande, il possédait à titre héréditaire une part de l'église de Combour. Son nom, porté par le fils aîné de Rivallon le Chat, confirma qu'il était apparenté à cette tige, peut-être par les femmes. Son aîné, Guillaume, fut élevé à la prêtrise après 1095, puisque Guimond donnait lui même sa part de l'église Notre-dame, puis obtenait de son épouse l'autorisation d'embrasser la vie monastique quand il le souhaiterait, promettant désormais de vivre chastement.48 Un peu plus tard son fils Guillaume deviendra le desservant de l'église paroissiale, et lots de sa mort son cadet Boutier se livrera à d'incroyables violences sur son corps.49 Celui-ci eut quatre-fils; si l'aîné Thomas fut adoubé chevalier, deux autres Simon et Gelduin furent destinés à l'état de clerc, 43 Cf. la notice publiée en appendice et Bib. de l'Instit. ms. 2383, 50-3, no lvii. 44 Cf. la notice publiée en annexe. 45 Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, 30, no xxxiv. 46 Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, 28, no xxix. 47 Bib. de l'Inst., ms. 30, no xxxiii. 48 Cf. la notice publiée en annexe. 49 Cf. supra et les références des notes 48, 27 et 28.

< previous page

page_284

next page >


page_285

< previous page

page_285


ce qui impliquait chez Boutier la volonté de les faire vivre des revenus de l'église Notre-Dame. Le rameau d'Hamon apparait pleinement sacerdotal; bien que prêtre, il avait épousé une noble femme, appelée Orvenna or Organt, qui lui donna trois fils Jean, Jaganeus ou Hingand et Orri ainsiqu'une fille Flandrina. Hamon semble bien avoir été le titulaire de l'église paroissiale avant Guillaume le fils de Guimond. La noble Orvenna porte le même nom que l'épouse de Raoul fils d'Hervé, issue de la famille du Chat. N'aurait-elle point appartenu à la parentèle de Combour et donc transmis à son mari la faculté d'exercer des responsabilités sacerdotales dans l'église Notre-Dame? Leur fils aîné, appelé Jean, comme le deuxième fils de Rivallon Ier de Dol-Combour, quand il prit l'habit monastique à Marmoutier en 1107 devait donner tout ce que son père avait détenu dans l'église Notre-Dame et lui avait transmis avec les dimes qui en relevaient ainsi que le charge de chapelain du seigneur du château capellaturam domini eiusdem castri.50 Un deuxième fils, Orri, semble s'être marié et eut des enfants. Quant au troisième, Jaganeus ou Ingand, il devint lui aussi moine de Marmoutier, comme l'attestent deux notices évoquant l'une les derniers moments de sa sur Flandrine, l'autre sa sépulture dans la cimetière des moines à Combour. La première relate que Flandrine, au moment de mourir, donna en Combour une pièce de terre joignant la cultura des moines en présence de sa mère et de ses frères, à l'exception de Jaganeus que le prieur Garin devait rencontrer plus tard à Tours et dont il obtint alors un accord de confirmation dans le cellier de Marmoutier.51 La seconde rapporte que de son côté la noble Orvenna, épouse d'Hamon prêtre de Combour, concéda pour l'âme de sa fille à la Saint-Trinité de Combour une autre pièce de terre jouxtant également la cultura des moines, du conseil et du consentement de ses fils, le moine Jean, Hingand ainsi que des enfants d'Orri et avec le consentement du prêtre Guillaume qui dètenait ce bien comme minister et custos, mais que toutefois ce don rut à nouveau concédé par Hingand, frère de Flandrine, dans le cellier de Marmoutier.52 Un peu plus tard, après 1122 et avant 1131, le moine Jean allait devenir prieur de la Sainte-Trinité de Combour.53 En acceptant au deuxième quart du XIIe siècle de contier l'obédience de Combour au fils du prêtre Hamon, dont la vie avait constitué pour les fidèles une cause de scandale, l'abbé de Marmoutier se dépar-tissait des règles habituelles de prudence qui voulaient qu'un fils de prêtre, devenu moine, soit au moins éloigné du lieu où il avait vu le jour. Sauf dispense, l'Église 50 Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, 23, no xxiv, d'après l'original. 51 Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, 28-9, no xxx, d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier. 52 Copie de mars 1713 par Etienne Baluze, Paris BN, Collection Baluze, t. LXXVII, fol. 137, d'après le cartulaire du prieuré de Combour. 53 En 1122 il figure comme bailli Joannes bajulus Comborniensis parmi les témoins de l'ample notice relatant la donation de l'église d'Iffendic à Marmoutier, Original sur parchemin, Archives départemen-tales d'Ille-et-Vilaine, 6 H 29; c'est à dire que Jean est homme de confiance de l'abbé, exerçant des fonctions de courtier. Un peu plus tard une notice, non datée, relatant la donation à Marmoutier par Rivallon prévôt de Combour au moment du mourir du fief qu'il tenait d'Hamon prêtre de Combour, évoque l'intervention de Jean fils d'Hamon dont ceci avait été le fief qui était alors prieur de l'obédience de Combour qui tunc prior obedientie de Comburnio erat Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, pp. 40-1, no xlviii. En 1131 son remplaçant, le prieur Etienne, est témoin d'une charte de Donoal évêque d'Alet en faveur de Marmoutier, cf. les références de la note 28.

< previous page

page_285

next page >


page_286

< previous page

page_286


intendira conférer le sacrement de l'ordre à ceux qui avaient vu le jour ex damno coitu. Des raisons toutes particuliers doivent expliquer cette démarche, qui ne peut être comprise qu'en fonction d'un examen attentif des missions imparties aux abbayes de Marmoutier et de Saint-Florent de Saumur dans la région de Combour. II L'un et l'autre de ces sanctuaires vont bénéficier à partir des années 1050 d'une impressionante série de donations qui de fait les placent en situation de concurrence dans la contexte de la réforme religieuse inaugurée par Léon IX et dont l'action s'oriente immédiatement vers la Bretagne.54 Cependant il ne faut pas oublier que la premiere implantation de Saint-Florent de Saumur et de Marmoutier en Bretagne tient aux concessions accordées par Alain III dès le début de son principat à ces deux établissements,55 alors activement protégés par les comtes de Blois. Or ceux-ci exerçaient depuis les années 952 leur influence sur la partie nord de la Bretagne,56 ce que parachéve en 1029 le mariage d'Alain III avec Berte, fille d'Eudes II de Blois. Les seigneurs bretons en dotant Marmoutier ou Saint-Florent ne faisaient donc que suivre l'exemple de leurs dynastes, à la différence que, leur assise foncière étant moindre, ils ne pouvaient normalement favoriser que l'un de ces établissements. En réponse aux aspirations d'âmes soucieuses de leur salut, pour l'édification des fidèles et la gloire de Dieu ces sanctuaires se trouvaient en concurrence. L'examen de la situation ainsi créée incite à se demander si cette émulation s'est bornée à canaliser par le renoncement les aspirations de lignages rivaux ou si au contraire certains actions n'avaient point été justifiées par une intention plus profonde? Le poids des situations lignagères en matière de réforme religieuse est d'abord révé1é par le calendrier et la géographie des concessions comme des restitutions d'église et se prolonge dans l'organization de l'activité des prieurés. Saint-Florent de Saumur devait bénéficier de la première donation en Combour. Peu avant 1053 un arrière-vassal de Rivallon Ier de Dol-Combour le miles stipendarius Ebroin, fils d'Evrard, et ses frères ont avec l'ensemble de leurs cohéritiers donné le petit monastère de Trémeheuc sis au pays d'Alet dans la paroisse de Combour.57 Le relai est ensuite pris aux années 1047-1064 par Rivallon Ier homo militaris ex Britannie de castello Combornio qui donne à Marmoutier la moitié de l'église Notre-Dame, sise en Bretagne dans l'évêché de 54 Guillotel, 'Bretagne et papauté', 268-72. 55 Guillotel, 'Les actes', pp. 45-8, no 13, privilège d'Alain III et de son frère Eudes des années 1013-1022 en faveur de Saint-Florent; pp. 87-38, no 10, des années 109-1019, pp. 74-7, no 19, des années 1008-1031, pp. 94-5, no 25, des années 1008/1019-1034, premieres chartes en faveur de Saint-Florent. 56 H. Guillotel, 'Le premier siècle du pouvoir ducal breton', dans Actes du 103e Congrès national des Sociètés savantes. Nancy-Metz, 1978, Section de philologie et d'histoire jusqu' à 1610, Paris, 1979, 78-9. 57 Livre noir de Saint-Florent de Saumur, Paris BN, nouv. acq. lat. 1930, fol. LXIV vo et LXV.

< previous page

page_286

next page >


page_287

< previous page

page_287


Saint-Malo auprès de son château, avec une terre d'une charruée ainsi que trois métairies, l'une en Combour, les deux autres en Saint-Ouen[-la-Rouërie].58 Ces deux concessions doivent être analysées en fonction de la démarche adoptée par l'un et l'autre de ces établissements pour s'implanter dans cette région qui politiquement relève du comte de Rennes, mais se trouve proche de la nouvelle frontière avec la Normandie et oh s'articulent les territoires de l'archevêché de Dol avec ceux des évêchfis d'Alet ou Saint-Malo et de Rennes. Dans le plus ancien des cartulaires de Saint-Florent de Saumur, la livre noir compilé sous l'abbatiat de Guillaume de Dol-Combour, l'examen des feuillets répertoriant les cessions obtenues depuis 1013-1022 révèle une action de type capillaire. A partir de Livré-sur-Changeon, concédé au seuil de principat d'Alain III,59 les moines vont solliciter donations et ventes, opérant vers le nord, nordouest. S'inscrivant entre trois pôles solidement tenus par Marmoutier, ceux de Gahard à l'ouest, de Vitré à l'est, de Fougères au nord, cette expansion, se heurtant à l'espace normand, passée la région de Saint-Brice en Cogles, se dirige vers les terroirs d'Antrain et de Tremblay, voisins de ceux de Combour. Le niveau social des interlocuteurs des moines est souvent modeste, parentèle possédant en commun une église comme à Chasné, prêtres, à l'instar de Moïse à Tremblay, ou encore propriétaires ruraux, comme Hamon caballarius de Livré.60 A cette approche insinuante les moines de Marmoutier ont préféré une action plus directive en obtenant de seigneurs châtelains d'amples concessions initiales qui leur permettront d'ériger des obédiences dont les titulaires draineront les offrandes des milieux plus modestes. Indépendemment des donations de Rivallon Ier de Dol-Combour à Combour et à Saint-Ouen la Rouërie, l'abbaye tourangelle reçoit d'un vassal de Main de Fougères, Hamon fils de Guingomar, trois églises sises sur la rive gauche du Couesnon, celle du monastère de Cendre dans l'archevëché de Dol, à proximité de Pontorson, et un peu plus au sud celles de Sougeal et de La Selle dans l'évêché de Rennes, aux années 1040-1047.61 Disposant d'une assise territoriale jugée suffisante, Marmoutier va établir des prieurés à Combour, Saint-Ouen-laRouérie et Sougeal, sans qu'il soit peymis de déterminer les circonstances exactes de ces érections. En effet, contrairement aux analyses simplificatrices qui attribuent la fondation du prieuré au donateur, la décision finale est de la compétence exclusive de l'abbé, même s'il écoute les conseils de certains moines ou prate attention aux sollicitations des concédants. Pour ces époques la documentation est ordinairement muette sur les décisions capitulaires qui jalonnaient la vie administrative des sanctuaires et le développement de leurs réseaux d'obédiences. Le hasard d'une formule de datation révèle le 23 décembre 1086 l'existence du prieuré de Saint-Florent à Tremblay.62 Pour Combour le calendrier est plus précis 58 Cf. les références des notes 5 et 16. 59 H. Guillotel, 'Les actes', 45-8, no 13. 60 Livre noir . . . fol. LXI à LXXII; Inventaire sommaire des archives départementales antérieures à 1790. Maineet-Loire. Archives ecclésiastiques. Serie H. Tome II. Abbaye de Saint-Florent de Saumur, rédigé par Marc Saché, Angers, 1926, 484-7. 61 Guillotel, 'Les actes', 184-6, no 50. 62 Livre blanc de Saint-Florent de Saumur, fol. 89; Inventaire sommaire . . ., p. 527.

< previous page

page_287

next page >


page_288

< previous page

page_288


pour une double raison. L'exposé de la derniére concession de RivalIon Ier de Dol-Combour en faveur de Marmoutier des années 1064-1066 rapelle que le donateur a remis aux fréres qui servent Dieu dans le monastére tourangeau de Marmoutier un établissement construit en l'honneur de la Sainte-Trinité lui appartenant en propre quendam locum juris mei apud Combornium in honore sanct Trinitatis constructurn sis à Combour, en Bretagne dans l'évêché de Saint-Malo. La charte, qui n'est plus connue que par des transcriptions d'érudits, avait été rédigée conformément à l'un des formulaires solennels en usage à Marmoutier au début de l'abbatiat de Barthélemy, ce qui implique une instrumentation préparée à l'abbaye même puis achevée lots de l'adjonction des éléments de corroboration, ici l'énumération des souscripteurs.63 C'est à dire qu'à Marmoutier on reconnaissait que l'obàdience àtablie à Combour avait été construite sur l'intervention directe du seigneur des lieux, et dés avant septembre 1076 quatre moines y sont établis à demeure: le prieur Thibaud et les moines Hildeman, Guienoc et Garnier,64 car il était d'usage à Marmoutier d'instrumenter dans les prieurés mêmes les concessions de personnes de moindre importance. Il faut toutefois noter que cette obédience n'a guère reçu de donations pour la période allant des années 1066/1076 à 1095.65 A la même pêriode Saint-Florent de Saumur drainait la générosité des fidèles dans la région et ce courant s'était amplifté lorsque le 14 juillet 1086 le duc de Bretagne Alain IV avait concédé aux moines de Saint-Florent l'église de Dol élevée en l'honneur de la Sainte-Trinité et à la mémoire de Notre Dame et de Saint-Florent sur la prière de Jean de Dol qui en avait été le promoteur66 et qui, veuf, avait fait profession monastique à Saumur vets 1083.67 Ces temps privilégiés pour le monastère angevin s'expliquent par l'accession de Guillaume de Dol-Combour à l'abbatiat saumurois ainsi que par l'étroitesse des liens l'unissant à ses fréres puînés Jean Ier et Gelduin. Vers la même époque l'abbé de Saint-Florent suscitait d'autres vocations comme celle de Geoffroy de Langan qui au moment de renoncer au siècle se rendit auprés de son frère Gautier de Lanrigan pour lui demander la métairie de Lanrigan qu'il se proposait de concéder aux moines de Saint-Florent qui possédaient déjà l'église du lieu mais, alors que son frère la lui concédait volontiers, l'épouse de celui-ci la revendiquait comme constitutive de sa dot et pour l'obtenir Gautier dut donner à son frère tout ce qu'il possédait.68 Ces négociations sont révélatrices d'enjeux contradictoires. Il ne faut pas oublier que ces deux frères étaient les petits-fils de Gautier évêque de Rennes au premier quart du XIe siècle, que leur mire Oram était fille et sur d'évêques; d'un autre côté Gautier de Lanrigan avait épousé Adelise de la famille du Chat dont le frère Guillaume devenu moine à 63 Guillotel, 'Les actes', 224-35, no 65. 64 H. Guillotel, 'Du ràle des cimetières', piece annexe no 1, 21-2. 65 Le cartulaire factice du prieuré de la Sainte-Trinité de Combour, Bibl. de l'Institit, ms. 2383, ne donne les textes que de sept concessions cernant effectivement le prieuré: no III, p. 7; no IV, pp. 7-8, no V, pp. 8-9; no VII, p. 10; no VIII, pp. 10-11; no IX, p. 11. 66 La Borderie, Recueil d'actes, 51-2, no XXI; Guillotel, 'Les actes', 285-6, no 89. 67 Guillotel, 'Bretagne et papauté', 276, note 39. 68 Copie du début du XIIe siècle dans la pancarte de Saint-Florent sous Dol, 3e des actes dont le texte continu figure à présent dans cette pancarte, Archives départementales de Maine-et-Loire, H 3331.

< previous page

page_288

next page >


page_289

< previous page

page_289


Marmoutier, sera aux années 1096 prieur de la Saint-Trinité de Fougères, l'une des obédiences importantes de l'abbaye tourangelle en Bretagne.69 Quant à Geoffroy de Langan il va, après sa profession religieuse, jouer un rôle notable pour la défense des intérêts de son monastère dans la région de Dol et Combour. Par exemple lorsque Guillaume l'Ismaélite s'oppose à la concession de Lande-Huan à Saint-Florent par Adam ills d'Urvoi, précédemment vassal de Jean Ier de DolCombour, et empèche la mise en culture des terres, c'est à la prière de Geoffroy de Langan, qui lui était apparenté, comme d'un autre moine, Martin, que finalement le seigneur de Tinténiac accepte en 1085 de confirmer la donation et d'en assurer la protection.70 Cette période du dernier quart du XIe siècle est essentielle pour comprendre la développement de la réforme grégorienne en haute Bretagne. Si les évêchés de Rennes et d'Alet avaient été gagnés à l'entreprise de restauration religieuse dès les années 1049-1057, en revanche le siège dolois restait occupé par un prélat simoniaque et nicolaïte, l'archevêque Juhel; celui-ci devait finalement être déposé et remplacé par Even, l'abbé de Saint-Melaine de Rennes, un monastère réformé à la diligence de Saint-Florent de Saumur; cette désignation, imposée en 1076 par le pape Grégoire VII, devait obtenir le soutien efficace de Jean Ier de Dol-Combour, aidé par son aîné, l'abbé de Saint-Florent.71 Cet enchaÎnement explique pourquoi le sanctuaire angevin a plus largement bénéficié des restitutions d'églises dans la région, alors que sa sur tourangelle l'avait un temps précédé sur ce terrain. Il y comme une ligne de force de long de la frontière de l'évêché de Rennes avec celui de Dol puis avec celui d'Alet; à certains endroits les églises sont en vis-à-vis: du côté de Marmoutier Sougeal face à Pleine-Fougères pour Saint-Florent, Saint-Ouen la Rouërie juxtaposé à Antrain, Cugnen à Trémeheuc, Combour à Lanrigan, Noyal à Saint-Léger des Prés, Langan à Dingé avec pour Saint-Florent l'assise d'un autre réseau plus en profondeur vets le sud sud-est dans l'évêché de Rennes.72 Cette situation privilégiée sera inversée à partir de 1095, quand l'abbé de Marmoutier Bernard décidera de confier l'obédience de Combour à Garin, le propre neveu de Geoffroy de Langan, né du mariage de son frère Gautier avec Adelise du Chat. Plus jeune que son oncle, Garin va exercer un rôle qui débordera largement le domaine de sa compétence comme prieur de Combour, responsabilité qu'il va exercer pendant plus d'un quart de siècle, jusqu'en 1122 au plus tôt.73 D'emblée il avait reçu la double charge des obédiences de Combour et de 69 La Borderie et Delabigne Villeneuve, 'Chartes du prieuré de la Sainte-Trinité de Fougères', 193-4, no VIII (bis). 70 La Borderie, Recueil d'actes inédits, 46-7, no XX. 71 Guillotel, 'Bretagne et papauté', 277-81. 72 Cette situation illustrée par la carte publiée en vis-à-vis est déduite d'un dépouillement systématique des sources concernant aussi bien Marmoutier que Saint-Florent de Saumur. 73 Les premiers actes datés avec précision évoquant l'administration de Guerin à Combour sont de 1095: notice relatant la donation de différents droits en Saint-Suliac par Budic, fils d'Alveus de Pleugueneuc, dom Morice, Preuves, t. 1, vol. 487, publication partielle, Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, 12-13; donation du quart de l'église de Noyalsous-Bazouges, Morice, Preuves t. I, col. 486, publication partielle, BN, collection Baluze, t. 77, fol. 134. Passé octobre 1122 et la donation de l'église d'Iffendic à Marmoutier par Donoal évêque d'Alet, dom Morice, Preuves, t. I, col. 545, publication partielle, Archives départementales d'Ille-et-Vilaine, 6 H 31, Garin semble bien cesser d'agir à Combour.

< previous page

page_289

next page >


page_290

< previous page

page_290


Saint-Ouen la Rouërie,74 établissement qui était distant de deux à trois heures de marche de celui de Saint-Florent à Tremblay. Loin de chercher la confrontation avec ses confrères, il accepte peu après qu'un accord intervienne au sujet de la terre de la Banière dans le monastère de Saint-Florent à Dol.75 Indépendemment d'une démarche patiente centrée sur les affaires combourines,76 il est associé aux évènements importants qui jalonnent la vie de Marmoutier, non seulement en Bretagne, mais également dans les rapports avec les représentants de l'autorité pontificale. Il avait fait l'apprentissage de ce rôle de confident d'un temps en 1096 auprès de son oncle Guillaume le Chauve, frère de sa sur, alors prieur de la Sainte-Trinité de Fougères.77 Celui-ci devenu en 1105 abbé de Marmoutier va associer son neveu à certains de ses déplacements en Bretagne comme dans le reste du royaume de France. Lorsque l'abbé Guillaume vient en Bretagne, Garin de Lanrigan, comme les autres prieurs, se rend ordinairement auprès de lui en 1105 à Josselin,78 en 1110,79 entre 1116 et 1118 au château de Lohéac,80 en 1122 le 10 octobre à Gahard pour l'escorter trois jours plus tard à Iffendic.81 Deux fois au moins il l'assiste lors de la tenue de conciles présidés par des légats pontificaux, Brunon évêque de Segni en 1106 à Poitiers,82 Gérard évêque d'Angoulême en 1107 à Nantes.83 Ces témoignages demeurent trop impersonnels pour permettre de conclure à une estime justifiée par les capacités de Garin ou à une confiance née de l'attachement familial, encore que cette donnée soit largement ignorée dans les actes instrumentés par les moines de Marmoutier. Une certitude s'impose, l'importance des lignages combourines qui ont fourni deux abbés contemporains à deux grandes abbayes ligérines; mais faut-il réduire à ce périmètre breton la portée de ces choix? L'abbé de Marmoutier aux XIe et XIIe siècles était un très grand personnage, ce que prouve le rôle qu'il joue dans la restauration de la vie monastique en Anjou. Foulque Nerra, lorsqu'il avait élevé en 1020 aux portes d'Angers un sanctuaire placé sous la patronage de saint Nicolas, s'était tourné vers Marmoutier pour assurer l'encadrement de la nouvelle communauté. Mais en raison des fuites successives de l'abbé Baudri et du moine Renaud, désigné pour le remplacer, ce sera finalement Hilduin, prieur de SaintAubin d'Angers qui assurera le succès de 74 La notice de 1097 relatant la vente à Marmoutier de la terre de la Banière en Saint-Ouen-la-Rouërie lui reconnait cette double responsabilité, Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383,14-15, no XV, d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier. 75 Bib. Inst. 2383, 15-16, no XVI; d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier. 76 Bib. Inst. 2383, 13 à 32 où plus d'une vingtaine d'actes illustre cette activité. 77 Cf. les références de la note 69. 78Cartulaire géréral du Morbihan . . . uvre posthume de Louis Rosenzweig, Extrait de la Revue historique de l'Ouest, vol. 1, Vannes 1895, 148, no 184. 79 Rosenzweig, 150-1 no 187. 80 Rosenzweig, 154-5, no 191. 81 Cf. les dernières références de la note 73. 82 P. Marchegay ed., Cartulaire du Bas-Poitou (département de la Vendée), Les Roches-Baritaud [Vendée] 1877, 206, no IX. 83 Dom Motice, Preuves, t. I, col. 421-2; cf. sur la date du ce concile H. Guillotel, 'Les actes des ducs', la discussion de la chronologie de l'acte no 103, pp. 337-42.

< previous page

page_290

next page >


page_291

< previous page

page_291


l'entreprise. Ces tâtonnements font place à une action beaucoup plus directive au temps de Geoffroy Martel, fils et successeur de Foulque Nerra. Le moine Renaud, qui avait abandoné Saint-Nicolas d'Angers, sera le premier abbé de la Sainte-Trinité de Vendôme, puissante abbaye fondée par Geoffroy Martel et son épouse Agnès dont la dédicace intervient en 1040. Quelques années plus tard, en 1047, l'évêque d'Angers Hubert s'adresse à l'abbé de Marmoutier Albert pour qu'il choisisse dans sa communauté une personne capable de diriger Saint-Serge d'Angers; ce sera Vougrin qui deviendra plus tard évêque du Mans. Le 30 octobre 1055 les moines de Saint-Florent élisent abbé Sigon et, en compagnie de l'abbé de Marmoutier Albert, auprès de qui celui-ci avait fait profession, ainsi que des quelques moines de cette communauté qui étaient venus, ils le présentèrent à leur seigneur le très excellent comte Geoffroy pour obtenir confirmation de cette élection.84 Deux mois et demi plus tard une procédure comparable est suivie à Saint-Aubin d'Angers pour le choix du successeur de l'abbé Gautier; après une vacance du siège abbatial de plus d'un an, les moines élisent Thierry, lui aussi profès de Marmoutier, sur le conseil et par l'autorité de l'abbé Albert, qui présente ensuite l'é1u au très distingué comte Geoffroy.85 Ce rôle tutélaire semble bien remis en cause au soir de la vie de l'abbé Albert. Quand disparait le 29 décembre 1059 l'abbé de Saint-Aubin Thierry et après une vacance de près de trois mois, les moines élisent le 21 mars 1060 leur prieur claustral, Othon, avec l'approbation de l'illustre comte Geoffroy et cette intervention comtale se renouvellera en 1082 avec l'élection de son remplaçant Girard II.86 Parallèlement l'abbé de Saint-Forent Guillaume de Dol-Combour développe une influence comparable à celle qu'avait exercée l'abbé Albert.87 Pour autant les zones d'activité de l'abbaye tourangelle ne cessaient de s'élargir, comme en témoignent les cartes proposées par Odile Gautier.88 Depuis un périmètre centré sur les régions de la Loire moyenne et de la basse Loire Marmoutier structure un réseau d'obédiences qui implique une organisation administrative encore bien mal connue, qu'il s'agisse de la désignation des abbés du choix des dignitaires claustraux ou encore de la nomination des prieurs. Tous ceux qui ont travaillé dans ce qui subsiste du chartrier de l'abbaye savent qu'avant son démembrement sous la Révolution son importance était comparable à celle du fonds de Cluny, dont un abbé, saint Mayeul, avait rétabli l'observance monastique à Marmoutier. L'étude de certains formulaires utilisés pour la 84 Guillot, t. I, 175-83; la charte d'élection de Sigon est parvenu sous la forme d'une transcription dont il est difficile de déterminer s'il agit de l'original ou d'une copie contemporaine, Arch. dépt. de Maine-et-Loire, H 1910, no 10. 85 Gulllot, t. I, pp. 156-60; le procès-verbal de l'élection de Thierry est une charte-notice, Comte Bertrand de Broussillon ed., Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Aubin d'Angers, Paris 1903, t. I, 48-9, no xxviii. 86 Guillot, t. I, p. 160. 87 Ceci ressort de la présentation de l'abbatiat de Guillaume dans l'Historia Sancti Florentii Salmurensis, un travail conçu conformément au genre des Gesta, dans P. Marchegay et E. Mabille, Chroniques des églises d'Anjou, Société de l'histoire de France, Paris 1869, 303-4. 88Recherches sur les possessions et les prieurés de l'abbaye de Marmoutier du XIe au XIIe siècle, dans Revue Mabillon, LIIIe année, 1963, 98-110, 161-7; LIVe année, 1964, 15-24, 56-67, 125-35; LVe année, 1965, 32-44, 6579.

< previous page

page_291

next page >


page_292

< previous page

page_292


rédaction des concessions majeures à partir du deuxième quart du XIe siècle prouve l'existence d'un atelier d'écriture de haut niveau, formé en particulier aux traditions de l'école de Chartres.89 Saint Anselme, restaurateur des études de philosophie à la fin du XIe, a du répondre dans le liber Apologeticus contra Jaunilonem aux objections qu'un moine de Marmoutier avait développées contre l'argument ontologique qu'il avait développé dans le Proslogion. Ces observations conduisent à envisager sour un angle bien spécifique le silence des sources. D'un côté la chronologie de l'accession à l'abbatiat entre 1028 et 1037 d'Albert, ancien doyen du chapitre cathédral de Chartres reste floue,90 de l'autre à compter de la promotion de son successeur, Barthélemy, des donations de plus en plus nombreuses, instrumentées aussi bien à Marmoutier même que dans les obédiences, sont datéqes en fonction des années d'abbatiat. Les synchronismes proposés permettent difficilement d'identifier l'année, encore moins le mois ou son quantième; ce qui prouve qu'à l'abbaye comme dans les dépendances ou avait des références chronologiques particulières, liées au principe de liberté d'élection qui n'avait pas à être justifié vis-à-vis de l'extérieur. Geoffroy le Barbu, comte d'Anjou après Geoffroy Martel, aurait toutefois tenté de soumettre à son dominium Marmoutier lors de l'élection de Barthélemy, successeur de l'abbé Albert, pour le contraindre à recevoir de ses mains la crosse pastorale; pour défendre son indépendance la communauté en aurait alors appelé à l'abbé de Cluny, Hugues de Semur, qui aurait tenté d'agir auprès de Geoffroy le Barbu, mais en vain. Cependant la situation aurait été restaurèe après que Foulque le Réchin, s'étant emparé de la personne de son frère, serait devenu comte d'Anjou.91 Les choix ultérieures ne semblent pas avoir été confrontés à de pareilles difficultés, qu'il s'agisse des promotions de Bernard, d'Hilgaud ou de Guillaume: Bernard de Saint-Venant pourrait être originaire du diocèse de Thérouanne, ce que confirmerait le fait que son successeur Hilgaud, avait été évêque de Soissons, avant de se retirer à Marmoutier,92 comme Gervin, évêque d'Amiens.93 L'impression qui se dégage c'est qu'on se trouve en présence d'élections peut-être orientées par des suggestions du précédent abbé ou de prélats, mais qui échappaient largement aux pressions laïques extérieures. Ce qui comptait c'était la piété du sujet et l'intérêt du monastère. En va-t-il de même pour le choix de Guillaume de Dol-Combour à Saint-Florent de Saumur? A la différence de ce qui se constate pour son prédécesseur Sigon 89 Olivier Guyotjeannin, 'Un préambule de Marmoutier imité de Salluste au XIe siècle et ses antécédents', dans Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, t. 138, 1980, 87-9. 90 Guillot, t. I, 175 et la note 190. 91 Louis Halphen et René Poupardin, Gesta consulurn Andegavorum addimenta, dans Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise, Collection de textes pour servir à l'étude et à l'enseignement de l'histoire, Paris 1913, 153-5, no viii. 92 Faute de mieux, l'Histoire de l'abbaye de Marmoutier de dom Edmond Martène, publiée par l'abbé C. Chevalier, peut être utilisée d'autant qu'il avait dépouillé les archives de l'abbaye, cf. les mss lat. 12878 à 12880 de la Bibliothèque nationale. 93 Laurent Maurelle, 'Un ''grégorien" au miroir de ses chartes: Geoffroy, évêque d'Amiens (1104-1115)', dans A propos des actes d'évêques. Hommage à Lucie Fossier. Etudes réunies par Michel Parisse, Nancy, 1991, 184, note 42.

< previous page

page_292

next page >


page_293

< previous page

page_293


aucun procés-verbal d'élection n'a été conservé, mais en fonction de ce qui vient d'être analysé pour Marmoutier une solution peut être suggérée. En 1070 un bref espace de temps, quinze jours, sépare le décès de Sigon, survenu le II des ides de juin 12 juin de l'intronisation de Guillaume intervenue le IV des kalendes de juillet le 28 juin.94 Foulque le Réchin depuis peu venait d'évincer de façon définitive son frère Geoffroy le Barbu comme comte d'Anjou et il était peut être déjà excommunié;95 quel intérêt aurait-il eu dans ces conditions à favoriser l'élection d'un moine d'origine bretonne dont la famille était alors assez étroite-ment lié à Guillaume le Conquérant? Les moines auraient donc tenu comte des qualités personnelles de l'élu, bien qu'il fût alors très jeune; l'Histoire sancti Florenti Salmurensis lorsqu'elle évoque l'instauration de Guillaume le qualifie bon indolis adolescens,96 c'est à dire qu'il devait approcher des trente ans, sans probablement les avoir. Quels liens unissaient à l'époque la famille de Dol-Combout aux milieux ecclésiastiques réformateurs? Une notice des années 1078-1079 retraçant les étapes de la fondation du monastère de Saint-Florent sous Dol rappelle que l'entreprise avait débuté sous l'autorité du pape Grégoire VII, auprès de qui le constructeur, Jean Ier de Dol-Combour, avait-eu comme caution Milon, d'abord doyen d'une église parisienne, puis archevêque de Bénéventélevé à cette dignité en 1074, décédé le 23 février 1076.97 Il ne faut pas oublier d'autre part qu'en septembre 1076 le même Jean Ier allait uvrer pour le nouvel archevêque de Dol, consacré par Grégoire VII, en empéchant Guillaume le Conquérant de restaurer par force l'ancien titulaire déchu.98 Avec son frère, l'abbé de Saint-Florent, leur cousin le futur abbé de Marmoutier, le seigneur de Combour, avoué de l'église de Dol, agit pour le succès de la réforme religieuse. Cet aspect devait logiquement dominer l'enquête qui vient d'être présentée en raison de la nature des sources utilisées, des archives monastiques à cause des choix des protagonistes qui furent investis de lourdes responsabilités religieuses. Mais, à revenir sur certaines réactions violentes, il n'est pas sûr que leurs cousins, voués à un sort plus modeste, limités à un horizon plus restreint, aient compris l'ampleur des enjeux en cause. Un dernier retour sur les tableaux généalogiques justifiant plusieurs déductions montre que peu de lignages sont appelés à se perpétuer dans la mémoire documentaire alors que les autres vont s'évanouir, parce-que les premiers vont mettre en uvre la règle d'aînesse, essentiellement les lignées châtelaine de Dol-Combour et Tinténiac, les autres, des collatéraux plus modestes, restant soumis à la pratique du partage égal; ainsi se trouve souligné le rôle charnière qu'occupe le XIe siècle dans le développement du droit coutumier. 94Annales de Saint-Florent, dans Recueil d'Annales angevines et vendômoises, éd. L. Halphen, Paris 1906, 119. 95 Guillot, t. I, pp. 111-19. 96 Guillot, t. I, 302. 97 Première des donations de la seconde série de concessions insérée dans la pancarte intitulée castrum Dolense, livre blanc de Saint-Florent de Saumur, fol. 75v-76; dom Morice, Preuves, t. I, col. 433-4. 98 Cf. les références des notes 97 et 71.

< previous page

page_293

next page >


page_294

< previous page

page_294


Piece annexe: 1095-1108/1111 Notice relatant la donation aux moines de Marmoutier d'une partie de l'église Notre-Dame de Combour par Guimond, fils de Gausbert, possesseur à titre héréditaire, du consentement de ses deux fils Guillaume et Boutier ainsi que de son épouse Roscendis, puis la demande par le même Guimond et son fils Guillaume, devenu prêtre, d'être reçus moines à Marmoutier, Rosendis autorisant formellement son époux à embrasser la vie monastique quand il le voudrait et s ' engageant de son côté à vivre chastement, les moines promettant en retour de la tenir comme leur sur et la mère du prieur Garin, accord confirmé du consentement du princeps Guillaume l'Ismaélite parce que cette église relevait de sa seigneurie, ensuite la venue de Guimond et Guillaume pour réinvestir les moines par la corde de la cloche de l'église, après la concession d'une autre partie de cette église par Raoul, fils d'Hervé, qui avec ses neveux, les fils de Rivallon le Chat, la possédait, enfin le renouvellement de cette concession par Guimond le Chat, du consentement de son épouse et de ses frères. A. Original perdu. B. Copie partielle du XVIIe siècle par dom Gui Alexis Lobineau, BN ms. fr. 22322, p. 161, d'après A. C. Copie du XVIIe siècle par dom Edmond Martène, 'Preuves de l'Histoire de l'abbaye de Marmoutier', BN, ms. lat 12878, fol. 242-3, d'après A. D. Copie du XVIIe siècle par dom Edmond Martène, 'Preuves de l'Histoire de l'abbaye de Marmoutier', BN, ms. lat 12880, fol. 175-6. Cette notice n'est pas datée; la série de concessions qu'elle rapporte est postérieure à la nomination de Garin comme prieur de Combour, attestée en 1095.1 L'intervention de Guillaume l'Ismaélite, donné comme titulaire de la seigneurie situe la notice au tournant du XIe siècle, quand il avait évincé de Combour les héritiers de Rivallon Ier de DolCombour. Lorsque Gelduin Ier récupèra ses droits, le prieur Garin ainsi que les moines Herré et Hubert instrumentèrent aux années 1108-1111 une charte ou était renouvelée la donation de Guimond du consentement de Gelduin, dominus du chateau de Combour, qui revenait du domaine de Tréfumel qu'il avait incendié le même jour; cette date est justifiée par la présence de l'évêque d'Alet Benoît, survenu avec l'archevêque de Dol Baudri de Bourgueil pour négocier un accord de paix entre Gelduin et Geoffroy de Dinan.2 Plus tard les moines de Marmoutier ont établi une autre expédition de cette notice prétendument datée de l'année 1099, de la première semaine de earême, cinquième jour de la férie donc un jeudi, quand Benoît évêque d'Alet aurait à son 1 Cf. les références de la note 73. 2 Bibl. de l'Inst., ms. 2383, pp. 25-6, no xxvii; publication partielle par dom Morice, Preuves, t. I, col. 455.

< previous page

page_294

next page >


page_295

< previous page

page_295


tour confirmé la suite des accords relatifs à l'église Notre-Dame de Combour. Cette date est irrecevrable parce qu'alors l'évêque d'Alet était Judicaë1, prédécesseur de Benoît.3 Il est donc illusoire de s'interroger sur le point de savoir si cet acte serait du 3 mars 1099 ou du 23 février 1100 (n.s.). Toutefois, pour la double raison que les moines de Marmoutier choisirent de transcrire cette rédaction avec une adjonction dans leur cartulaire breton et que ce soit la seule qui ait fait l'objet d'une publication partielle, il convient d'établir le tableau de leur tradition. Rédactions interpolées Version pseudo originale datée A1. Pseudo original perdu. B1. Copie de 1780 par l'abbé Bétencourt, Bibliothèque de l'Institut, ms. 2383, pp. 16-18, no xvii, d'après A. INDIQUÉ Dom Gui Alexis Lobineau, BN, ms. fr. 22322, p. 163, d'après A1 Dom Edmond Martène, 'Preuves de l'Histoire de l'abbaye de Marmoutier', BN, ms. lat 12878, fol. 243, d'après A1. Pseudo version du cartulaire breton de Marmoutier A2. Pseudo original perdu? B2. Copie partielle du XVIIe siècle par dom Denys Briant, BN, ms. ft. 22322, p. 364, d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier. C2. Copie partielle de mars 1713 par Etienne Baluze, BN, Collection Baluze, t. LXXVII, fol. 137v, d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier. D2. Copie partielle du XVIIe siècle par Barthélemy Rémy pour Roger de Gaignières, BN, ms. lat. 5441, t. III, pp. 1812, d'après B2. a2. Dom Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne, t. II, col. 225-6, publication partielle d'après B2. - b2. Dom Morice, Preuves, t. I. col. 493, publication partielle d'après B2, reproduisant en fait a2. INDIQUIÉ Bréquigny, Table chronologique, t. II, p. 311, d'après b2. Abbé Bétencourt, Bibl. de l'Inst. ms. 2383, fol. xvii, d'après le cartulaire breton de Marmoutier, no LIV, où se trouve transcrit le passage interpolé. L'édition proposée a été établie à partir des copies dressées d'après la version originale; il a paru superflu de relever pour les parties commune avec cette rédaction les variantes des versions interpolées, d'autant que dom Briant ou Etienne Baluze n'hésitaient pas dans certains cas à contractor les copies qu'ils 3 Guillotel, 'Los évêques d'Alet', 262-3, avec une première discussion de l'authenticité du texte.

< previous page

page_295

next page >


page_296

< previous page

page_296


transcrivaient. En revanche les interpolations sont données en complément entre crochets brisés sur une colonne à droite pour la seule adjonction du cartulaire breton, à longues lignes pour la pseudo-intervention de Benoît, évêque d'Alet. Cum diu sanctæ Dei genitricis Maria: Comburnensis simoniacorum hæresi polluta mansisset, tandem nutu divino Guitmundus, Gausberti filius, qui ejusdem ecclesiæ dimidietatem jure hæreditario nequissime possidebat, compunctus petivit a monachis sancti Martini Majoris Monasterii ut tale (a) consilium ab ipsis impetrare mereretur quo, annuente Christo (b), juste damnationis (c) sententiam evadere valuisset. Horum itaque fultus consilio, supradictam beatæ Mariæ ecclesiam, quam injuste se confitebatur habere et suos antecessores qui eam simili modo possederant in inferno damnari (d) ne similem æternæ damnationis (e) sortiretur pænæ (f) vindicatam, supradictis monachis concessit ac dimisit ut saltem his suffragatoribus Deo posset reconciliari (g). Huic autem (h) concessioni assensum præbuerunt duo filii ejus, Guillelmus scilicet et Boterius, nec non (i) Roscendis uxor ejus, fide sua hoc donum confirmantes (j). Post hæc Guitmundus et Guillelmus (k) filius ejus, qui sacerdotali erat sublimatus, petierunt a prædictis monachis ut Majori monasterio (1) in caritate Dei (m) susciperentur. Monachis annuentibus (n), dedit prædicta Roscendis viro suo Guitmundo legalem licentiam ut quo die vel qua hora vellet abire cum Dei benedictione et sui licentia monachicam vitam legitime arriperet et in ea usque in finem perseveraret (o); se autem promisit spontanea voluntate totam vitam suam in castitate deducere et absque ulla (p) copulatione viri (q) permanere; monachi vero promiserunt se illi benefacere et illam uti (r) sororem et velut matrem domni Guarini suscipere (s). Eandem (t) denique convenientiam, quam concesserunt monachi Guitmundo et Guillelmo, concesserunt et Botero (u); si tamen ante (v) conjugi copulam requireret; sed et hoc in concessione fuit ut quocumque die Guitmundus pater viam pergendi ad monasterium aggrederetur partem ipsorum ecclesiæ ex ipso die, omni potestate solutam, solutam haberemus. Huic conventioni interfuerunt Guarinus, Daniel et Alfredus monachi sancti Martini (w). Hanc (x) iterum reconfirmaverunt coram monachis ac laicis testibus: Andrea de Gommet (y), Gausberto cellarario (z), Gauffredo de Gahart (a), Guarino, Guaulterio (b) Matfredo (c) monachis; de laicis: Ingelberto de Carro, Rainaldo Doardo, Burchardo, Marcherio (d) clerico (e), Urfoeno filio Hamonis. Reconfirmavit iterum prædictus Guitmundus ipsam conventionem coram Guillelmo Hismalensi, ipso principe concedente, cujus dominio isdem locus pertinebat, ita ut ejusdam beneficii mereretur particeps fieri, attestante Radulfo Hervei filio et Guarino monacho. His ita peractis, non post multos dies, (a) tale omis C. (b) annuente Christo omis B. (c) dampnationis B. (d) dannari B. (e) æternæ damnationis omis B. (f) pænæ omis B. (g) ac dimisit . . . reconciliari omis B. (h) autem omis C. (i) necnon et D. (j) fide sua . . . confirmantes omis B. (k) Guilelmus C. (1) in Majori Monasterio C. (m) Dei omis B. (n) assentientibus B. (o) et in ea . . . perseveraret omis B. (p) ulla omis D. (q) viri copulatione C. (r) in B. (s) suscipere omis CD. (t) Eamdem B. (u) Boterio D. (v) ante omis B. (w) sed et hoc . . . sancti Martini omis B. (x) Hanc conventionem B. (y) Gomet D. (z) cellerario D.; Gausberto cellarario omis B. (a) Guahart C. (b) Gaulterio D. (c) Guarino ... Matfredo omis B. (d) Macherio C. (e) Burchardo ... clerico omis B.

< previous page

page_296

next page >


page_297

< previous page

page_297


repediaverunt ad nos Guitmundus et Guillelmus, asserentes hujus vitæ se tædio affici; monuerunt igitur nos ut, cum illis usque ad ecclesiam properantes, revestionem ecclesiæ totiusque supradicti doni ab illorum manibus suciperemus (f); revestierunt igitur nos istius convenientiæ dono, attestantibus plurimis utriusque sexus hominibus: Guitmundo scilicet Cato, Herveo Gaiardo, Johanne filio Hamonis, Gervasio fratre ejus, Haimone clerico, Jarnigoio filio Gausberti, Orguena uxore Haimonis, Roscendis uxore Guitmundi aliisque pluribus: Donio vinaterio, Urfoeno, Gausberto hortolano (g). Hujus vero revestionis (h) saisicio facta est in manu (j) domni Guarini monachi, per cordam signi ecclesiæ sepedictæ. Post non multum tempus, Radulfus, Hervei filius, qui cum nepotibus suis, filiis scilicet Rivallonii, aliam ejusdam basilicæ dimidietatem (j) simili hæreditate injuste possidebat monachis, nutu Dei, Majoris Monasterii (k) illam concessit atque catholice dimisit (1); cui concessioni assensum præbuit Orguena uxor eius et filius eius Poherius, attestantibus (m) his: Guarino monacho; Daniele, Alfredo monachis (n); Gauffredo (o) filio Picaloti; Rotberto carpentario (p); Euano filio Haimonis (q). Guitmundus cognomento Catus, filiorum Rivallonii primogenitus, reconcessit nobis eodem modo suam ejusdam ecclesiæ partem, annuente Ama uxore sua, necnon et utrique donum super altare sancti Martini posuerunt (r) fratres vero ejus in eodem (s) concessionem immittere (t) Guitmundus, si ullo modo voluisset, quin etiam illorum pattern ecclesie nobis (u) spopondit coram testibus: Guarino monacho, Galterio (v), Danihele monacho, Alfredi monacho (w) Radulfo Hervei filio. Version du cartulaire breton de Marmoutier Version du pseudo original datée


page_298

< previous page

page_298


simo nonagesimo nono (f), prima quadragesime hebdomada, feria quinta (g), apud sanctum Petrum Dinanensis (h) capelle, coram his testibus: Guarino, Gaufrido, Daniele (i) monachis; Cainquaredo (j) archidiacono de Dinan; Rivallonis archidiaconis de Lothiaco (k), Glaio canonico sancti Petri Alethensis (1).> (f) 1099 B2 (g) 5aB 2. (h) Dinannensis B2. (i) Gaufrido, Daniele omis B2. (j) Cainguaredo B1; Guingueredo B2. (k) Lochiaco B1. (1) Aletensis B2; coram his testibus ... Alethensis omis C2.

< previous page

page_298

next page >


page_299

< previous page

page_299


13 The Formation of the County of Perche: the Rise and Fall of the House of Gouet Kathleen Thompson The account of the murder of the Norman lord, Arnold of Echauffour, which appears in the Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, is well-known to historians of the Norman aristocracy, both French and British. After one failed attempt in which she succeeded only in killing her brother-in-law, the villainess, Mabel of Bellême, eventually brought about Arnold's death by poisoning him and his companions, Giroie of Courville and William Gouet of Montmirail. Orderic is careful to place Mabel's crime in the context of her family's longstanding enmity with the Giroie clan, the founders of his own monastery at Saint-Evroul, but he has little or no interest in her accidental victim, William Gouet, whom he despatches homeward from the scene of the crime at Courville, to a full recovery and apparent oblivion.1 The Gouet family have been crying out for attention ever since. Despite a multiplicity of acts scattered among the records of the religious houses of Maine, the Dunois and the Chartrain, the Gouet have received remarkably little scholarly attention. There has been considerable confusion about the precise genealogy of the family and next to no assessment of their political importance. The published contribution of historians writing in the English language, for example, is confined to a brief entry in an appendix to the Complete Peerage.2 A consideration of the family is therefore long overdue and will also demonstrate how prosopographical techniques used to determine the history of one family can contribute to a wider understanding of the history of northern France in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In modem France the family name of the Gouet is associated with a smallish area, lying some 100 kilometres west of Paris in the modem départements of 1 Orderic, ii, 122. 2 T. Thibault, 'Etude sur les seigneurs de la Bazoche-Gouet', Bulletin de la Société Dunoise iv, 1885, 373-8; C. Cuissard, 'Les seigneurs d'Alluyes (973-1793)', Bulletin de la Société Dunoise vi, 1891-3, 285-331; M. Marquis, 'Brou et son Passé', Bulletin de la Société Dunoise x, 1901/4,171-88; E. Lefèvre, 'Notice sur la baronnie d'Alluyes', Mémoires de la Société Archéologique d'Eure-et-Loir v, 1872, 42-88; P. Siguret, 'Le Perche-Gouet', Cahiers Percherons v, 1958, 1-64. Important observations were made in A. Chédeville, Chartres et ses Campagnes (XIeXIIIe s.), Paris 1973, 257. GEC, xi, 114-15.

< previous page

page_299

next page >


page_300

< previous page

page_300


The Perche Gouet


page_300

Seine/Loire Region

< previous page

page_300

next page >


page_301

< previous page

page_301


Eure-et-Loir, Loir-et-Cher and Sarthe. Since the sixteenth century this area has been known as the Perche-Gouet.3 The Perche element is derived from the ancient forest of the Perche which in Merovingian and Carolingian times covered much of the region and formed part of the royal fisc.4 In the ninth century large tracts of that ancient forest had been granted by the Frankish kings to abbeys such as Saint-Germain-des-Prés and Saint-Denis, but by the twelfth century royal authority in the area, together with monastic control of those tracts, had virtually disappeared.5 In its place two lordships had emerged, that of the Rotrou family, which came to be known as the county of the Perche or the GrandPerche, and its smaller sibling, the lands of the Gouet family. Both the Grand-Perche and the Perche Gouet were essentially the creation of the families which controlled them in the eleventh century, but they were to evolve a sense of identity and self awareness which would outlive those families by many generations and find expression in the emergence during the later middle ages of bodies of customary law, which would be applicable there and nowhere else, the so-called coutumes of the Grand-Perche and Perche-Gouet.6 These two blocs of territory grew up in the margins between the very much larger principalities of Normandy, Anjou and Blois/Chartres, whose emergence had so weakened the power of the king in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and the Rotrou and Gouet lordships were to prove as much of a challenge to those great principalities as the principalities were to the king.7 In the year 1100 the Gouet family territory had no distinct name. If contemporaries called it anything at all it was the terre Goeti, the lands of Gouet.8 Judging from the area which would later acknowledge the coutume of the PercheGouet it was a compact bloc of land, some 50 kilometres in length and stretching some 25 3 O. de Romanet, Géographie du Perche, Mortagne 1890-1902, 160. 4Cartulaire de Saint-Père de Chartres (hereafter SPC), ed. B. Guérard, Paris 1840, 411: apud Puisatum in Pertico sitas (Le Puiset); Cartulaire de Marmoutier pour le Dunois (hereafter CMD), ed. E. Mabille, Châteaudun 1874, no. CXI: ab oriente Lido fluvio ab occidenti a silva scilicet quam Perticum vocant (near Vieuvicq); CMD, no. CLXX: quatuor quarruchas terrae in Perticho (Chauvigny, Loir-et-Cher, ct. Droué); Cartulaire de l'abbaye de la Trinité de Vendôme, ed. C. Métais, Paris 1893-1904, no. CCCXXV: de pasnagio bosci pertici (near Lisle in the Vendômois). 5Polyptique de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, ed. A. Longnon, Paris 1895, i, 188-222. 6 For a definition of coutume and a brief history, A. Colin and H. Capitant, Traité de Droit Civil, ed. L. Julliot de la Morandière, i, Paris 1957, 116-17, 112. The coutume of the Perche-Gouet was first published with that of Chartres, A. Gouion and O. Ternin, Bibliographie des Coutumes de France edités anterieur à la Révolution, Geneva 1975, 111-13. 7 D. Barthélemy, L'ordre seigneurial xie-xiie Siècle, Paris 1990. On the territorial princes, J. Dhondt, Études sur la naissance des principautés Territoriales en France (IXe-Xe siècles), Bruges 1948, J.-E Lemarignier, Le Gouvernement Royal aux Premiers Temps Capétiens, Paris 1965, K. F. Werner, 'Kingdom and Principality in Twelfth Century France,' in The Medieval Nobility, ed. T. Reuter, Amsterdam 1979, 243-90, E. Hallam, 'The King and the Princes in Eleventh-Century France, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research liii, 1980, 143-56. For discussion of erosion of public power to a lower level, J.-F. Lemarignier, 'La dislocation du "pagus" et le problème des "consuetudines" (Xe-XIe Siècles), Mélanges d'Histoire du Moyen Âge dédiés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen, Paris 1951, 401-10, B. Bachtach, 'Enforcement of the Forma Fidelitatis: the Techniques Used by Fulk Nerra, Count of the Angevins (987-1040)', Speculum lix, 1984, 796-819. 8 Family names were unusual at this period, D. Barthélemy, 'Kinship', in A History of Private Life, ii: Revelations of the Medieval World, ed. G. Duby, trans. A. Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass. 1987, 90.

< previous page

page_301

next page >


page_302

< previous page

page_302


The House of Gouet

< previous page

page_302

next page >


page_303

< previous page

page_303


kilometres from north to south at its widest extent. The geographical feature around which these lands centre is the river Ozanne, a tributary of the River Loir. The Ozanne rises in the hills between Authon and Beaumont-les-Autels and flows in an easterly direction to join the Loir just north of Bonneval. It was wooded country and much of the property mentioned in the documents is woodland, but some arable development was underway.9 Within the lands there were five important settlements, Alluyes, Authon, La Bazoche-Gouët, Brou and Montmirail, and they would later give rise to an alternative name for the Perche-Gouet, that of the cinq baronnies. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries a series of castles, two of which stand on the river Ozanne itself, dominated the area. There was the castle at Brou, where the Gouet had an aula, and another at Dangeau, which remained in the hands of one castellan family throughout the late eleventh and twelfth centuries.10 Finally to the extreme west in the hills above the Ozanne basin lay the great castle of Montmirail.11 Here the Gouet family had a chamera where business was regularly conducted.12 There were no major religious foundations within the area, but a number of priories were established there by the great Benedictine houses, such as Saint-Père of Chartres, Saint-Florentin of Bonneval and Marmoutier.13 The earliest detectable member of the Gouet family was William Gouet, whom we will call William Gouet I. He was active in the 1040s and 1050s and we know next to nothing about him. William married Matilda daughter and heiress of Walter of Alluyes and appears to have been the architect of the Perche-Gouet.14 Although none of his acts have survived the extent of his authority can be gauged by the influence of his widow and heir. Matilda and her son can be shown to have exercised power in Brou, Montmirail, Chapelle-Guillaume and Arrou, as well as retaining control of Matilda's family property at Alluyes.15 Orderic Vitalis gives the Gouet family the toponymic ''of Montmirail" and it may be that William Gouet I was the builder of the first castle there.16 So great in fact was his widow Matilda's potential influence that, at some point after 1060, a marriage was arranged between her and one of the major figures of the Manceau nobility, 9 Siguret, 'Le Perche-Gouet', 1-4, CMD, no. XLIV. Chédeville, 141-2. 10Cartulaire manceau de Marmoutier (hereafter CMM), ed. E. Laurain, Laval 1911-45, 123, CMD, no. XLVI for the aula. For the bailiff of Brou, CMD, no. CLXVI, SPC, i, 225. For Dangeau, CMD, nos XXV, XXVI, SaintDenis de Nogent-le-Rotrou 1031-1789 (hereafter NLR), Vannes 1894, nos XIX, XVI. 11Cartulaire de Saint-Vincent du Mans (hereafter VLM), ed. R. Charles and S. Menjot d'Elbenne, Le Mans 1886, no. 753, CMM, 123 for the family at Montmirail. 12VLM, no. 201. 13SPC, i, 148-51 for the donation of Saint-Romain of Brou to Saint-Père. Chédeville, 128 suggests that the River Eure formed a boundary between the spheres of influence of two great abbeys: Jusqu'au début du xiie, deux abbayes seulement paraissent s'intéresser au Perche: Saint-Père au nord de l'Eure, Marmoutier au sud, but an examination of the material for the Gouet family suggests that both Saint-Père and the cathedral chapter of NotreDame were more than interested in the Dunois. 14SPC, i, 193, 403-4. Walter was probably the Walter of Alluyes who was given property by Count Odo of Blois/ Chartres in 1016: datam esse Walterio de Alogia ab Odone comite, in praelio Pontis Levigati, SPC, i, 197. 15SPC, i, 212, VLM, no. 753, CMM, 123, SPC, i, 208. 16 Orderic, ii, 122.

< previous page

page_303

next page >


page_304

< previous page

page_304


Geoffrey of Mayenne, who was to control the Gouet property during the minority of his stepson, William Gouet II.17 With the career of William Gouet II the history of the family becomes less obscure. William seems to have dispensed with the protection of his stepfather about the year 1070 and asserted his independence by approving his mother's benefactions to the abbey of Saint-Père of Chartres.18 By 1071 he had married Eustachia, whose parentage is unknown, although there is every reason to connect her family with the Chartrain. At much the same time William was deriving profit from the Loir valley. In return for a cash payment he abandoned a dispute with the priory at Château-du-Loir concerning property there, and he secured a similar payment for his sister Hildebourg when she conceded her share of the claims.19 William was to procure a further payment in the 1070s, this time from the monks of Saint-Vincent of Le Mans, when he acknowledged their right to hold property they had been given at Château-du-Loir.20 The nature of William's claims is never specified, but it is clear that the family had held authority at Château-du-Loir at some point, and they chose to remember that association whenever there was the possibility of profit. They may indeed have had their origins in the Loir valley, for two of the three traceable obituaries for family members are to be found among the records of houses there.21 By the 1070s, however, the family seems largely to have abandoned any role they may have had in the Loir valley, retaining only these lucrative rights of approval, and the most significant expression of this apparent withdrawal from the Loir was William's generous benefaction to the abbey of Saint-Père of Chartres, which was made before 1079.22 Accompanied by many of his associates, William went to Chartres and enacted this girl with the approval of his mother, his wife Eustachia and young sons William and Hugh. His donation consisted of the church of Saint-Lubin at Châteaudun and its associated property, together with any future gifts which his followers might choose to make there. The act was plainly intended as a major piece of family patronage, an expression of the family's status and largesse, but by then property in Châteaudun was more readily dispensable, since it lay outside their immediate sphere of influence. In the last twenty years of the eleventh century Gouet family acts suggest that their attention was firmly focussed on the lands of the Ozanne basin. Within those lands of the Gouet it is plain that William was scrupulous to retain and maintain all the rights that he could claim. He was careful, for example to associate himself with all the new monastic foundations which were made in the area. Just as his 17 In 1060 Matilda was still a widow, SPC, i, 163. Details of her marital history and children are given in CMM, 124-6. On Geoffrey qui eo tempore honorem Alogiae ex integro tenebat, SPC, i, 192-3. 18SPC, i, 193, ii, 403-4. 19CMM, 117-18, 118-19. For such residual rights, Barthélemy, 'Kinship', 92. 20VLM, no. 314 21 Châteaudun, SPC, i, 213: a patribus nostris jure hereditario. Château-du-Loir, CMM, 117. Obituaires de la province de Sens, tome II: Diocèse de Chartres, ed. A. Molinier and A. Longnon, Paris 1906, 210 (14 April at Pontleroy), 222 (11 November at St Avit of Châteaudun). The third obit was celebrated on 15 April at Saint-Père of Chartres, (Obits, 187) and probably refers to William Gouet II. 22SPC, i, 213.

< previous page

page_304

next page >


page_305

< previous page

page_305


mother, Matilda, had earlier given her approval to the foundation of a cell of Marmoutier at Chapelle-Guillaume, so William associated himself with other grants to Marmoutier within his lands.23 In 1071 the foundation of a new priory at Dangeau was approved by William and his new wife Eustachia and before 1100 they were to confirm the grants made by the castellan of Brou to the priory of Nottonville.24 In 1079 in another set piece of patronage, probably to be associated with the death of his mother, William approved and increased her benefactions to the priory of Vieuvicq.25 Towards the end of the century when the attractions of Cluniac monasticism became more apparent and the residents of the terre Goeti began to support it, William acknowledged Cluniac benefactions too.26 When it came to making their own family foundation, however, William and Eustachia were perhaps rather more oldfashioned and turned to the Benedictine house of Saint-Père at Chartres. Around the year 1100 they resolved a dispute with the abbey concerning the church of Saint-Romain at Brou and they endowed it as a priory of Saint-Père, granting it both property and immunity from customs and exactions, except for certain specified military services. They undertook to do this for their son Hugh, who had apparently been captured while on a pilgrimage in Domini peregrinatio retenti. It is not clear whether the young Hugh was a casualty of the First Crusade, but given the timing that would appear most likely.27 As the years passed William Gouet II played a less active role in the exercise of power. His wife Eustachia played a major part in the running of the family territory, particularly in hearing lawsuits in the 1110s, and it was their son, William Gouet III, who waited on the count of Blois/Chartres in 1113/14 to give him counsel.28 William occasionally appears in these acts, where he is often described as senior or senex to distinguish him from his son William Meschin or junior. By the time of his death at a great age, which probably took place about 1120, William Gouet II's family were of some significance.29 They had made a further monastic foundation, that of Châteigniers, a priory of Tiron, and they were sufficiently established and well-regarded for Henry I of England to have given his illegitimate daughter, Mabel, in marriage to William Gouet III.30 From this point onwards, however, despite a general increase in the rate of 23CMM, 124. 24CMD, nos XLV, CLXVI. 25CMD, no. XLIV. 26NLR, nos LXXI, XXXIX, SPC, ii, 504-5. 27SPC, ii, 471-4. The compilers of Gallia Christiana, ix, 1224 interpret the act as meaning the first crusade. I have been unable to detect any evidence in primary sources for the frequently made assertion that William Gouet II was involved in the first crusade, unless it is based on the reference by Albert of Aix to Willelmum principem christianum de Perce horumque praesidiorum praesidem, who was captured by Moslem forces in 1115, Historia, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Occidentaux, iv, Paris 1879, 701. If Albert does refer to William Gouet here, then William was soon released and made a very speedy return to the Perche, where his presence is recorded in two acts of 1116, CMD, nos XCV, CLXVII. 28CMD, no. XCIV for the younger William and Count Theobald. CMD, no. XCV: Ex qua re monachi compulsi in curiam jamdicti Willelmi Goeti senis, in presentia Eustachiae uxoris illius. . . . For other cases heard before Eustachia, SPC, ii, 477, 476, 486-8, 489-90, 474-5. 29Cartulaire de l'abbaye de la Sainte-Trinité de Tiron, ed. L. Merlet, Chartres 1883, no. LVII. 30 Robert of Torigni, Chronique, ed. L. Delisle, Rouen 1872, 15-16. William's wife, Mabel, is named in (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_305

next page >


page_306

< previous page

page_306


documentary survival in the twelfth century, information about the Gouet family becomes more and more sparse. William Gouet III approved several benefactions to the Cluniac priory of Saint-Denis at Nogent-le-Rotrou and, together with his wife Mabel, a grant to the Augustinian canons of Saint-Jean-en-Vallée in Chartres.31 Other benefactions were made by the family, but it is impossible to link them with specific individuals. At some point before 1149, for example, a member of the Gouet family gave the church of Saint-Jean of Brou to the Augustinian canons and the Templars, who had established a commanderie at Melleray, near the castle of Montmirail, were also favoured by the family, receiving exemptions from customary payments in the lands of Gouet.32 At another undetermined date William Gouet III was succeeded by William Gouet IV. On chronological grounds it seems likely that the William Gouet who witnessed a charter of Count Theobald IV of Blois in 1140 at Bonneval was William Gouet IV, and he can be found with Count Theobald again at much the same time, witnessing an act of Evrard of Le Puiset in company with the Count of Nevers shortly before 1141.33 This connection with the count of Blois was reinforced in the late 1140s when William Gouet IV married Elizabeth or Isabelle, the daughter of Theobald IV and widow of Roger duke of Apulia, by whom he was the father of two daughters.34 It is nearly ten years, however, before William can be traced again, this time at Chartres in 1158 where he witnessed acts in favour of the hospital of the GrandBeaulieu, a house to which he himself gave property, though his own act of donation has not survived.35 He was present in 1160 when his brother-in-law, Theobald V of Blois made a gift to the Maison-Dieu at Châteaudun and in the years which followed he was engaged in a longlasting dispute with the bishop of Le Mans.36 In the late 1160s he took the cross, probably setting off in company with his wife's cousin, the count of Nevers. Neither the count nor William Gouet was to return from the Holy Land, however, for both died (Footnote continued from previous page) NLR, no. XL and Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Jean en-Vallée de Chartres (hereafter SJV) ed. R. Merlet, Chartres 1906, no. 187. 31NLR, nos XXXIX, XL. SJV, no. 187. 32SJV, nos 56,131. BN Collection Duchesne, XX, f. 230: . . . confirmat donationem factam dictis fratribus a Guillelmo Goio predecessore suo de domo de Melleray libera ab omni consuetudine et peagio in feudo Aloye . . . 33Vendôme, no. CCCCXCI, BN ms lat. 17139, fo. 89. The act was later notifed by King Louis VII between 30 March and November 1141. 34 Suger, Life of Louis VII, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet, new ed. L. Delisle, Paris 1869-1904, xii, 129. Alberic of Trois Fontaines, Chronicon, RHF, xiii, 703: Hanc postea duxit Guillelmus Goez in diocesi Carnotensi et genuit duas filias matrem Gaufridi de Dunzei et Agnetam dominam de Monteforti in Cenomannia. . . The two daughters are named as Matilda and Agnes in William's act for Gué Launay, AD Sarthe H85, but Matilda was the mother of Hervey, not Geoffrey, of Donzé, who was better known as Hervey count of Nevers, BN ms lat. 5480, p. 386. Cartulaire de la leproserie du Grand-Beaulieu et du Prieuré de Notre-Dame de la Bourdinière, ed. R. Merlet and M. Jusselin, Chartres 1909, no. 94 however names her as Isabelle: . . . laudavit Ysabellis ducissa soror nostra uxor prefati Goeti et Ysabellis filia ejus uxor Hervei de Sancto Aniano ad quam terra illa jure hereditario spectat. For Agnes, AD Eure-et-Loir H4455. 35 Beaulieu, nos 42, 43, 94. 36Archives de la Maison-Dieu de Châteaudun, ed. A. de Belfort and L. Merlet, Paris 1881, no. VII. RHF, xvi, 989. For Louis's use of such disputes, M. Pacaut, Louis VII et son Royaume, Paris 1964, 76

< previous page

page_306

next page >


page_307

< previous page

page_307


during the course of their pilgrimage, and William Gouet was buried at Sebastea in Palestine.37 William's widow Isabelle survived him for some time, retaining her title of duchess and exercising considerable influence around Brou, but after William's death the Gouet lands passed to the husband of their eldest daughter.38 William's son-in-law originated from the area around Orléans, and is known by a variety of names taken from his family's properties. Sometimes he is called Hervey of Gien; on other occasions he is Hervey of Saint-Aignan or Hervey of Donzé. Whatever he was called, however, Hervey was a man with a record of belligerence. He had already come to blows with his own father and the king of France over the marriage portion of his sister and he was to show similar hostility over his wife's inheritance. As soon as the death of William Gouet IV became known, William's brother-in-law, Theobald V of Blois, attempted to take possession of his castles.39 Hervey's objections carried little weight, since Theobald had the support of his other brother-in-law, King Louis. Instead of resorting to arms on this occasion, however, Hervey decided to reactivate the Anglo-Norman alliance of his wife's grandparents and he handed over the Gouet castle at Montmirail and his own family stronghold at Saint-Aignan to Henry II of England for magna pecunia.40 It is with this action on Hervey's part, rather than the death of William Gouet IV, that the Gouet family effectively disappears.41 A number of questions are prompted by this brief survey of the rise and fall of the house of Gouet. How and why had a family whose origins apparently lay in the Loir valley come to exercise lordship in a compact bloc of territory some way to the north? What was the nature of their power? Why did they not, for example, assume a comital or even vicecomital style? Why did their importance appear to wane so dramatically in the twelfth century? To answer these questions it is necessary to look again at the context of the Gouet family's lands and to examine in some detail the relations of the Gouet with their neighbours, the Rotrou, counts of the Perche to the north, the Montgommery-Bellême to the northwest, the Fréteval and Genelon to the south and the Courville to the east, but initially with the counts of Blois/Chartres. 37 For the expedition of William, count of Nevers, in 1168, William of Tyre, Chronique, ed. R. B.C. Huygens, Turnholt 1976, 915, cf. John of Salisbury, Letters, ii, ed. W. J. Millor and C. N. L. Brooke, Oxford 1979, no. 287. Details of William's death and burial in the Holy Land are given in W. Morin, Histoire générale des Pays de Gastinois, Senonois & Hurepois ..., Paris 1630, 316-17. 38 Torigni, ii, 15-16, RHF, xvii, 726. For Isabelle's activities after 1170, Beaulieu, no. 94, SJV, nos 133, 187. In 1180 she entered Fontevraud, where other members of her family were to take the veil, BN ms lat. 5480, p. 381. 39 Life of Louis VII, RHF, xii, 129; letter from the chapter of Saint Martin of Tours concerning intolerabilibus injuriis with which Hervey and Stephen of Sancerre had afflicted them, RHF, xvi, 101. Hervey is variously described from his numerous family castles, G. Devailly, Le Berry du Xe siécle au milieu du XIIIe, Paris 1973, 3556, 361, 407. 40 Torigni, ii, 15-16. Peace was eventually made between Hervey and Theobald in 1170, Torigni, ii, 21. 41 Two later references recall their existence: Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs, RS LXVIII, 1876, ii, 116-17 mentions that the castle of Montmirail had been founded by a William Gouet when describing an assault on it in 1194 and a charter was given to the cathedral at Le Mans by Philip, heres terre Goeti, Cartulaire des abbayes de S. Pierre de la Couture et de S. Pierre de Solesmes, Le Mans 1881, no. LII.

< previous page

page_307

next page >


page_308

< previous page

page_308


There is nothing in either chronicle or charter sources to suggest that relations between the Gouet family and the Thibaudian counts of Blois/Chartres were anything other than entirely harmonious. William Gouet II witnessed two of the Countess Adela's acts at Chartres in 1104 when she was acting as regent for her son and in 1113/4 when Count Theobald IV was beset with difficulties William Gouet III was among the optimates from whom he took counsel.42 Theobald's policies were closely related to those of his uncle, King Henry I of England, and William Gouet III's marriage to Henry's illegitimate daughter brought him into the same network of alliances which Theobald had chosen. Relations were to be even more cordial in the next generation, when William Gouet IV witnessed acts of the counts of Blois and, at the end of the 1140s, married Theobald IV's daughter, Isabelle.43 As for their neighbours, the family seems to have maintained amicable relations with all those who were connected with the Thibaudian counts. Relations with the Genelon family, for example, who were established at Montigny and had a record of long service to the counts of Blois, were good. Genelon II, a major landholder in the Loir valley, ceded the fee of Verlena to William Gouet II.44 Other neighbouts included the Courville lineage, one of whom, Giroie of Courville, is presented by Orderic Vitalis as a companion of a William Gouet, probably II, in the poisoning incident with which we began. Later William Gouet III was to act as a surety for Ivo of Courville in the 1120s.45 Finally, links were retained with the descendants of William Gouet II's sister Hildebourg, who had married Fulcher of Fréteval. In the eleventh century Fulcher's family had built the strategically important castle of Fréteval in the valley of the Loir and would continue to control it for much of the twelfth.46 42SPC, i, 109, ii, 408, CMD, no. XCIV. 43 Isabelle's first marriage is mentioned in a letter of Bernard of Clairvaux, RHF xv, 574: Rogamus ut patrem vestrum vel aliquem alium nuncium rationabilem et descretum mittatis pro nobis apud Monte-Pessulanum ita ut ibi sit in octavis Asumptionis Beate Mariae. In ipsa enim die et in ipso loco debent esse nuncii Regis Siciliae qui descendunt mare in navibus ut potent filiam comitis Theohaldi filio domini sui.. Duke Roger died on 2 May 1148, Necrologio de Liber Confratrum di S. Matteo de Salerno, ed. C.A. Crombi, Rome 1922, 60 or 2 May 1149, Annals of Montecassino, MGH, xx, 310. I am indebted to Dr. G.A. Loud for these references. 44 Genelon (Guanilon, Wanilo), treasurer of Saint Martin's of Tours, was the chief agent of the counts of Blois/ Chartres in the Touraine in the first half of the eleventh century. He built up extensive holdings around Montignyle-Ganelon (Eure-et-Loir, ct. Cloyes-sur-Loir), founded the priory of Saint-Hilaire-sur-Yerre and refounded the nunnery of Saint Avit in Châteaudun. He does not appear in chronicles, but his career has been reconstructed from charter references, 'C' est en vain que l' on chercherait dans les chroniques le nom du trésorier de Saint-Martin de Tours . . . Mais, au défaut des historiens, des chartres nombreuses permettent de reconstruire sa biographie . .. ', E. Mabille, 'Ganelon, trésorier de Saint-Martin de Tours et seigneur de Montigny: Son origine-sa famille-ses homonymes'. CMD, xviii-xxxviii. For links with the Gouet, CMD, nos XLVI, CXIV, LXI, Vendôme, no. CCCXXX. 45 The Courville family were clients of the Puiset: domini mei Gilduini vicecomitis, CMD, no. CIX, but also held land of Genelon: Guanilo quoque thesaurarius de quo Ivo tenebat, CMD, no. CVII. Chédeville, 260. Orderic, ii, 122, Tiron, no. LXXXV for links with the Gouet. 46 Chédeville, 257. Nivelon of Fréteval and his son Ursion witnessed, SPC, ii, 475-6, Tiron, no. XII and Fulcher was generous in his gifts to Saint-Père of Chartres on behalf of his Gouet wife, Obits, 193. Nivelon, Hildebourg's father-in-law preserved links with the Angevin counts, despite holding his property from the counts of Blois/ Chartres, Vendôme, no. XCV (1050).

< previous page

page_308

next page >


page_309

< previous page

page_309


All these connections then indicate that the Gouet family was part of a network of lordship which continued to link it the Loir valley and they preserved an association with Thibaudian counts. The nature of relations on the northerly and easterly sides of the terre Goeti were by no means as cordial, however. The border between the Grand-Perche and the Perche-Gouet, as defined by the later coutumes, runs effectively along the watershed between the Huisne and the Ozanne valleys and is subject to numerous ressorts or enclaves which reflect the shifting boundaries of a much fought over area.47 This warfare is reflected in the records of religious houses associated with the area. An act granting Luigny, near the northern border of the coutume, to the abbey of Saint-Père of Chartres, for example, describes the depopulation of the surrounding countryside with the result that the mass was seldom celebrated there more than once or twice a year.48 A similar picture of the devastation and a resulting breakdown of public order emerges from the act of foundation for the priory of Vieuvicq, which William Gouet II approved in the 1070s. The area had originally belonged to Uncbald lord of Vierzon (Cher) and was then divided into four fees, but during frequent wars in the region these arrangements had broken down.49 These references, while they describe conditions on the northern fringes of the lands of Gouet, provide no detail about the warfare and the combatants who wrought this devastation. In this context, however, two hitherto unremarked military actions undertaken against the Gouet castles of Dangeau and Brou can provide useful pointers.50 The first engagement, which took place at Dangeau, is mentioned in a notice in the cartulary of the Cluniac priory of Saint-Denis at Nogent-le-Rotrou. It deals with the consequences of a benefaction made by a follower of Rotrou I, lord of Nogent-leRotrou and count of Mortagne, one Robert Metsasella, who was seriously wounded in the action. It was probably not the only military engagement seen at Dangeau, for other sources tell us that its castellans met sticky ends on more than one occasion.51 The second expedition, this time against Brou, is mentioned in the cartulary of Saint-Martin of Sées, again because a participant was severely wounded during its course and thought it necessary to make religious benefactions. Rotrou of Mortagne also commanded the enemy forces in this expedition against Brou, but he was joined in the campaign by the Norman lord Roger of Montgommery. Although Roger's family lands lay in central Normandy he had acquired lands to the south of the duchy through his 47 J.-M. Vallez, 'Notes sur quelques ressorts du Perche a l'époque moderne', Cahiers Percherons lxii, 1980, 24-32. 48SPC, ii, 491: nunc vero externis atque socialibus bellis ita adnullatam seu in solitudine redactam ut vix incola in adjacenti parrochia inveniatur, sacerdos nullus qui semel vel bis in anno sacra misteria celebraturus in eadem ecclesia ingrediatur. 49CMD, no. CXI: bellis saepius in hisce regionibus frequentatis. 50NLR, no. XIX, Bibliothèque de l'Evêché de Sées, Livre Blanc de Saint-Martin de Sées, fo. 28r. Chédeville, 144 is inclined to doubt the effect of warfare in the Perche: il est rare que la documentation fasse état de destructions. Deux textes en signalent, ils sont aussi suspects l'un que l'autre, but there are more than a couple of references to devastation within the available sources and there is also evidence of military action. 51 For castellans of Dangeau, CMD, no. XXV :... Herlebaldum de Doniolo, ad mortem vulneratum, devenisse monachum nostrum; . . . Postea vulneratus est Odo, frater Herlebaldi, ad mortem.

< previous page

page_309

next page >


page_310

< previous page

page_310


marriage to Mabel, the heiress of the Bellême family, whose interests extended well into northern Maine and indeed even as far as Montmirail itself.52 Neither of these lords had cause to cherish the Gouet family. Rotrou I count of Mortagne and lord of Nogent-le-Rotrou held considerable property to the north of the Gouet lands, but he also had a claim to the vicomté of Châteaudun, which lay to their south.53 Rotrou might reasonably see the Gouet family as preventing his access to Châteaudun, which had been held by his father and elder brother, but had been lost to his family in unknown circumstances in the 1040s. His ally Roger of Montgommery had ambitions in northern Maine, where he hoped to enforce the claims to lordship which were his wife's inheritance. It was an area where the Gouet family also had ambitions and their castle of Montmirail was well-sited for the furtherance of those ambitions. There is no direct evidence concerning the dates of either the expedition against Brou or that against Dangeau, so it is impossible to relate them to the disappearance of William Gouet I in the late 1050s or Rotrou I's resumption of his patrimony at Châteaudun at much the same time. They are however clear evidence for hostility from the area to the north of the Gouet lands and in such circumstances the second marriage of William Gouet's widow Matilda to Geoffrey of Mayenne, a lifelong opponent of the Montgommery family, becomes not only understandable, but also a politically adept move.54 During her widowhood the authority of Matilda and the young William Gouet II was challenged by Roger of Montgommery and the protection offered by a major baron like Geoffrey of Mayenne would have enabled Matilda to withstand this pressure.55 Such animosity between the Gouet and the Montgommery family also puts a new perspective on Orderic's account of the poisoning of William Gouet Il, which probably took place around 1062, for the heiress who brought Roger of Montgommery his claim to authority in northern Maine was none other than the poisoner, Mabel of Bellême. In the context of a rivalry for influence between her family and that of the Gouet it may be that Orderic was mistaken and her intended victim was William Gouet. After William Gouet I's disappearance in the late 1050s, what could be more convenient for Mabel's ambitions than the rapid departure of his only son a few years later? 52 K. Thompson, 'Family and Influence to the South of Normandy in the Eleventh Century: the Lordship of Bellême', Journal of Medieval History xi, 1985, 215-26. 53 De Romanet, i, 42-4. 54 There does not seem to be a modern study on the career of Geoffrey of Mayenne. His family had been settled at Mayenne under the auspices of Fulk Nerra, count of Anjou, VLM, no. 245 and remained a close supporter of the Angevin counts, witnessing numerous acts in their entourage, L. Halphen, Le Comte d'Anjou au XIe Siècle, Paris 1906, catalogue des actes, nos 231, 240, 257, 262, 267, 271, 272 bis, 282 He was forceful opponent of William of Normandy's invasion of Maine in 1063 (Halphen, 178-9) and became closely associated with the last surviving member of the old Manceau comital house, the countess Gersendis, even to the point of being described as her lover, Gaufridus de Meduana tutor et quasi maritus effectus, A ctus Pontificum Cenomannis in Urbe Degentium, ed. G. Busson and A. Lodru, Le Mans 1901, 377. In the 1090s at the end of his very long career he was still encouraging opposition to Roger of Montgommery's son, Robert of Bellême, Orderic, iv, 154. He was to have three children by Matilda of Alluyes, Walter, Haimo and Gersendis, CMM, 124. 55 In the 1050s Walter of Montmirail and his wife Richeldis gave the church of Nouans to Saint-Vincent of Le Mans, but despite the approval of domna Mahildis de Monte Mirabili et filius ejus Willelmus, the gift was disputed by Roger and his wife Mabel, VLM, no. 753.

< previous page

page_310

next page >


page_311

< previous page

page_311


The northern and eastern edges of the terre Goeti then were its fighting frontiers. It was the direction from which trouble might be expected, and it must be said that the line of castles strung out along the course of the Ozanne from Alluyes to Montmirail have all the appearance of expecting that trouble at any moment. Examined on a map the PercheGouet looks like a march, protecting the lands of the Loir valley. So, when and why should such a march have been devised? The evidence we have just examined suggests that the most likely period for its creation is the late 1040s or early 1050s. With Rotrou I consolidating his position across the hills in Nogent-le-Rotrou and looking southwards to his lost patrimony of Châteaudun, the man who held the Ozanne basin would have an important role in challenging further southward expansion by the Rotrous.56 The importance of that territory would have been in no way diminished, moreover, by the events of 1051, when Geoffrey Martel of Anjou took control of Maine. The counts of Blois/Chartres had only recently in 1044 lost the great city of Tours to the Angevins and the extension of Angevin influence into Maine might reasonably have been seen as a threat to Thibaudian holdings in the Loir valley. The area occupied by the Gouet lands to the north of the River Loir would therefore have assumed even more importance as a border zone and a reliable man in precisely this area would have been very valuable to the Thibaudian counts. Both these threats might well lead Count Theobald of Blois to favour William Gouet I, encouraging him to turn his attention from his family holdings in the Loir valley northwards. William probably received a grant of comital rights over the area as an inducement to take on the task and received the benefit of minor adjustments of territory, such as the cession of the fee of Verlena by the Genelon and the acquisition of Vieuvicq, which had formerly been held by Uncbald of Vierzon.57 We do not know whether William already had a stake in the area through marriage to Matilda the heiress of Alluyes, or if the marriage was part of a settlement organised by the count, but the counts of Blois/Chartres had already established such seigneuries in Berry as M. Devailly has demonstrated.58 Just as Jacques Boussard suggested that the Bellême family had been installed along the southern Norman marches as a buffer against the new Norman settlements in the tenth century, so might the Gouet have been established in their region in the eleventh century for the purpose of containing Count Rotrou.59 The Gouet family contribution to the formation of the county of the Perche was, therefore, that the 56 The five baronies which made up the later coutume of the Perche-Gouet are often described as being in the mouvance of the bishop of Chartres and it has been suggested that the ninth century bishops enfeoffed tenants in these baronies to provide protection against the Vikings. The evidence for this is a reference in the necrology of Chartres cathedral: donnus Jerardus episcopus . . . sua inpetratione imploravit aput Karolem imperatorem Aloiarn, cujus medietatem altari sancte marie, alteram cessit profuturam fratrum utilitati, Obits, 14. Certainly the tenants of the Perche-Gouet in the later middle ages always acknowledged the suzerainty of the bishop, but there seems to be no contemporary evidence for episcopal control over the Gouet family. 57CMD, no. CXI: Virsonensis castri possessor in pago Biturigensi inter caetera quae in Carnotensi pago possedit alodia ibi obtinuit quaedam, quorum caput, hoc est villa principalis, Vetus Vicus appellatur . . . 58 Devailly, 133-5. 59 J. Boussard, 'Les Destinées de la Neustrie du IXe au XIe Siècle', Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, xi, 1968, 25-26.

< previous page

page_311

next page >


page_312

< previous page

page_312


Gouet family lands defined the southern boundary of Grand Perche the Perche ends where the Perche Gouet begins. If the primary purpose of the Gouet family patrimony was indeed to prevent the southern expansion of the Rotrou family, then its creation can be counted a success. Rotrou I did repossess the vicomté of Châteaudun in the late 1050s, but he did not secure complete domination of the Dunois region.60 When he died around the year 1080 his lands were partitioned between his two sons and henceforward the Grand Perche and Châteaudun were held by separate branches of the Rotrou family. The Gouet family themselves remained firmly entrenched in their lands, protected in the 1060s by the guardianship of Geoffrey of Mayenne and ensuring that the southern boundary of the Grand Perche remained at the watershed of the Huisne and Ozanne valleys. As the eleventh century progressed the family built on these foundations, slipping, to all intents and purposes, beyond the control of the counts of Blois/Chartres, and attempting to extend their influence into the territory of northern Maine, where there was no be much opportunity for expansion after the failure of the comital house and where the counts of Blois/Chartres had no claims to lordship at all. Within the lands of the Gouet the power exercised by the family made few concessions to the overlordship of the Thibaudians and indicates practical independence. Surviving family acts make it clear that it was the Gouet who exercised the rights of public authority within their lands and it was in their courts that disputes were settled. It was the Gouet family which exacted customary payments and the Gouet family which granted immunity from them and from obligations to military services, such as castle works and castleguard. Under the lordship of William Gouet II and his formidable wife, Eustachia, the family's links with the city of Chartres were not those of subordination to comital authority, but mostly took the form of patronage of the abbey of Saint-Père. Despite this political independence and considerable status, however, the Gouet never arrogated to themselves comital style, as the Rotrous were to do in the Grand-Perche. The compiler of the cartulary of Saint-Père of Chartres was clearly perplexed by the absence of title and opted for the word princeps in an effort to convey the importance of the family.61 But the Gouet themselves did not aspire even to the name of vicecomes, a title which the bellicose le Puiset accepted in relation to Chartres and the Rotrou family were anxious to secure at Châteaudun. Possibly its use implied a subordination to the counts of Blois/Chartres and the Gouet were reluctant to acknowledge such a relationship. If by the 1120s the Gouet appear to be flagging, it is largely because Eustachia's enthusiastic patronage of the abbey of Saint-Père in Chartres, where her cousin William was the abbot, had ceased and her descendants never established patrons' 60 Although the circumstances in which Rotrou secured Châteaudun are unknown, fairly precise dating can be obtained from an act involving property at Châtenay (Eure-et-Loir, ct. Châteaudun), which dates from the 1097/8. This property is said to have been in the hands of the Rotrou family for the previous forty years, twenty years tempore Rotrochi and twenty years in the time of his son the next vicecomes of Châteaudun, Hugh, (c. 1080-1110), CMD, no. CLVI. 61SPC, ii, 471-2.

< previous page

page_312

next page >


page_313

< previous page

page_313


relations with another house whose record of their subsequent doings has survived. Certainly the independence and importance of the family was acknowledged by contemporaries and King Henry I of England considered them sufficiently important to be brought within the network of alliances created by the marriages of his illegitimate daughters. They were a minor power, but they were independent and needed to be conciliated by their larger and more important neighbouts. As the twelfth century progressed the pattern of alliances shifted, but the Gouet family were still represented at the highest level. In the 1140s Count Theobald IV of Blois saw his hereditary rival, Geoffrey count of Anjou, extending his influence northwards to Normandy to enforce the claims of his wife, the Empress Matilda, to the duchy. The count's response was to seek reliable allies. Almost exactly a hundred years after the establishment of the Gouet lordship the fourth William Gouet was drawn into alliance with with the count of Blois/Chartres. Just as King Henry I of England had resorted to the marriages of his illegitimate daughters to guarantee his borders, so his nephew Theobald IV, arranged marriages for his daughters. He gave his widowed daughter, Isabelle to William Gouet IV and a younger daughter, Matilda, to Rotrou III of the Perche. The Gouet and the Rotrous, who had been rivals a hundred years before, were now allied through family relationships. Their territories formed a protective zone between Count Theobald's property in the Chartrain and the Angevin lands which after 1144 stretched from the Norman coast to Angers and beyond. William Gouet IV was, therefore, recast in the role of his great-grandfather, controlling a buffer territory which sheltered the lands of the Thibaudians. Although the physical extent of the lands of the Gouet was small and they had outlasted their original purpose to act as a check on the Rotrous, they still possessed strategic importance in the struggle between the Thibaudians and the Angevins. As that struggle merged in the later twelfth century into the greater rivalry between the Capetian and the Plantagenet kings, the family might have continued to play a role in high politics, as their cousins the Rotrou counts of Perche were to do, but, as we have seen, the Gouet could not sustain a male line.62 In itself this might not have been an insuperable problem to the continued existence of the dynasty for William IV's son-in-law, Hervey, might reasonably have been satisfied with the Gouet patrimony and have continued to exploit its position. He was able, after all, to derive immediate benefit when he made his deal involving the castle of Montmirail with King Henry II in the late 1160s and the fact that the eldest son of his marriage was called William Gouet suggests that Hervey intended to make 62 A hint of their position as border lords, courted by both sides, is suggested by an incident recorded in the chronicle of Walden, which indicates that King Henry II acknowledged his relationship with the Gouet by arranging two marriage alliances, cited in GEC, v, 117: [Rex] dedit etiam [Galfredo] summe ingenuitatis uxorem generis nobilitate sibi consanguineam. Cum autem aliquamdiu non tam naturali ut decebat carnis conjunctione commanerent conquesta est mulier quod debiturn a viro nequaquam ei solveretur unde rex plurimum indignatus facto divortio ablatisque ei duobus maneriis Waldena videlicet et Walteham feminam dedit viro Anselmo scilicet de Campdavene cum duobus maneriis aliis. Geoffrey and Anselm's wife was called Eustachia, which suggests she was the daughter of William Gouet III and Mabel, illegitimate aunt of Henry II.

< previous page

page_313

next page >


page_314

< previous page

page_314


some commitment to the lands of Gouet.63 That commitment seems to have been lost in the 1170s and 1180s, however. Hervey's acts relating to the lands of Gouet deal with alleged abuses of power by his seneschal and unfortunately the potential William Gouet V died young.64 Two younger brothers held authority in the lands of Gouet, but the property came, at last, in the early thirteenth century, into the hands of the sole remaining Donzé brother, the notorious Hervey IV, and from then on is lost in the mass of inheritances accumulated by Hervey and his wife.65 Even the vicomte de Romanet, author of the Géographie du Perche and usually a man to enjoy the niceties of a good genealogy gives up at this point, suggesting that it would be tedious to follow the passage of the area through so many families.66 The chronic instability of the area in which the lands of the Gouet lay is remarked by André Chédeville, who describes it as one of trois grandes zones d'insecurité.67 The foundations of the Gouet patrimony clearly lay in the attempts of the Thibaudian counts to counter that instability, but as in many other cases in the eleventh century the family to whom the count entrusted that specific task slipped out of his control. In the twelfth century such families were able, despite the smallness of their territories, to operate as largely independent magnates and the greater princes, such as the Thibaudians and the dukes of Normandy, were obliged to seek the support of these former agents by means of alliances. The more enterprising of such independent magnates could secure major concessions and could play a significant part in the power struggles of the great princes and later even those of the Plantagenet and Capetian kings, as the Rotrou counts of Perche were to do. Such a role, however, was to be denied to the Gouet. Although there were clear political opportunities for them, they lacked a male heir to exploit those chances and the house of Gouet foundered, its family name surviving only in that series of characteristic placenames.68 63Cartulaire du prieuré de la Charité-sur-Loire (Nièvre), ed. R. de Lespinasse, Nevers 1887, no. LXXVI. 64Chartularium Insignis Ecclesiae Cenomannensis quod Dicitur Liber Albus Capituli, ed. A. Lottin, Le Marts 1869, no. XXII. The fate of the young William Gouet is unknown, though he may be the William Goez who is included among the arrivals at Acre in the summer of 1189 in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum, Chronicles and Memorials Richard I, ed. W. Stubbs, RS XXXVIII, London 1864-65, i, 73-4. 65 A second or more likely third son Philip seems to have taken William's place as heir to the lands of Gouet, but he too disappeared, La Couture et Solesmes, no. LII, Chartularium Cenomannensis, no. XXIII. Another son Reginald can be found in control of the lands of Gouet in the 1190s and even chose to take Montmirail as his toponymic, Les Ternpliers en Eure-et-Loir: Histoire et Cartulaire, ed. C. Métais, Chartres 1902, no. XXXI (1199), BN ms. franc. 24133, p. 309 (1201), Liber Albus, no. DCXX (1202), Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, ed. E. de Lépinois and L. Merlet, Chartres 1865, ii, 43, no. CLXXXVII. Villehardouin describes him as 'one of the great barons of France', but he was lost at the battle of Adrianople in 1205. For the history of the Donzé family, Y. Sassier, Recherches sur le pouvoir comtal en Auxerrois de Xe au début du xiiie siècle, Auxerre 1980, 81-90, C. Bouchard, The Sword, the Miter and the Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980-1198, Ithaca, NY 1987, 327-9. On Hervey IV, Diceto, ii, 167. 66 De Romanet, i, 159: Nous croyons inutile de rapporter ici la suite des seigneurs du Fief-Gouet, qui passa successivement par mariage dans les maisons de Donzy, de Châtillon, de Bourbon, de Bourgogne, de Dampierre, de Bar, de Luxembourg. 67 Chédeville, 109. 68 I am grateful to Professor David Bates for his thoughts on an earlier draft of this paper and to Ruth Harman, Dr Len Scales and Alex Woolf for their comments.

< previous page

page_314

next page >


page_315

< previous page

page_315


14 Quelques exemples de carrières abbatiales en Normandie aux XIe-XIIe siècles Véronique Gazeau Cette étude s'inscrit dans une enquête prosopographique des abbés bénédictins normands à l'époque ducale et s'appuie à ce jour sur 82 personnages. Tous n'ont pas été des abbés mais tous ont dirigé au titre d'abbé ou à un autre titre une abbaye. Il s'agit des chefs des abbayes des dioceses de Coutances et de Lisieux. Le diocèse de Lisieux se trouve au coeur de la Normandie et comporte cinq abbayes fondles avant 1060: Bernay doit sa fondation vers 1008-17 à l'épouse de Richard II, tandis que les quatre autres sont des fondations baroniales: Saint-Pierre des Préaux par Onfroy de Vieilles, l'ancêtre des Beaumont-Meulan-Leicester en 1035, Notre-Dame de Grestain par Herluin de Conteville en 1050, Saint-Evroult par Guillaume Giroie et ses neveux, Robert et Hugues de Grandmesnil en 1050, enfin Notre-Dame de Cormeilles par Guillaume ills Osbern vers 1060.1 Les fondations du diocèse de Coutances, excentrées à l'autre bout de la Normandie, sont plus tardives: La Trinité de Lessay par Turstin Hadulp en 1056, Notre-Dame et Saint-Sever par le vicomte d'Avranches, Hugues, le futur comte de Chester, vers 1066-70, Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte par le vicomte Néel II en 1080/1081-85, Notre-Dame de Montebourg par Richard de Reviers vers 1066-87.2 Comme beaucoup de fondations bénédictines de la Normandie ducale ces monastères sont à la tête d'un patrimoine de taille moyenne, fort dispersé et qui a largement profité de la conquête de l'Angleterre. 1 Bernay (dép. Eure, ch.-l. cant.), 1008 est le terminus ad quem de la formation du douaire de Judith partir duquel elle fonde Bernay (M. Fauroux, Recueil des Actes des Ducs de Normandie (911-1066), Caen 1961, no 11; 1017 est la date de sa mort. Saint-Pierre des Préaux (dép. Eure, cant. Pont-Audemer), Fauroux, no 2, p. 30. Notre-Dame de Grestain (dép. Eure, cant. Beuzeville, cne. Fatouville-Grestain), D. Bates et V. Gazeau, 'L'abbaye de Grestain et la famille d'Herluin de Conteville', Annales de Normandie 40, 1990, 5-30. SaintEvroult (dép. Orne, cant. La Ferté-Fresnel, cne. Saint-Evroult-Notre-Dame-du-Bois), Fauroux, no 122. Cormeilles (dép. Eure, ch.-l. cant.), Gallia Christiana, xi, 847. De la fondation jusqu'en 1204 les listes abbatiales donnent pour Bernay dix abbés, pour Préaux onze, pour Grestain sept, pour Saint-Evroult quatorze et pour Cormeilles neuf. 2 Lessay (dép. Manche, ch.-l. cant.), Fauroux, no 5, p. 30. Saint-Sever (dép. Calvados, ch.-l. cant.), L. Musset, 'Les origines et le patrimoine de l'abbaye de Saint-Sever', dans La Normandie bénédictine, 1967, 357-67. SaintSauveur-le-Vicomte (dép. Manche, ch.-l. cant.), D. Bates, Regesta, no 259. Montebourg (dép. Manche, ch.-l. cant.), Orderic Vital, Histoire ecclésiastique, éd. M. Chibnall, vi, 146. Lessay a neuf abbés, Saint-Sever huit, Montebourg sept et Saint-Sauveur sept.

< previous page

page_315

next page >


page_316

< previous page

page_316


Grestain: Abbaye dont sont issue les abbé étudiés Evrux: lieu cité dans l'article ......: limite des diocèses de Coutances et Lisieux

< previous page

page_316


next page >

page_317

< previous page

page_317


Le propos s'oriente vers trois directions: on s'intéressera tout d'abord aux premiers dirigeants, puis on essaiera d'observer le parcours qui précède l'accession à la carrière abbatiale enfin on s'efforcera d'apprécier quelques aspects de la fonction abbatiale. Dom Laporte a bien établi que les prestigieuses ou les anciennes abbayes ont fourni les premiers abbés aux sanctuaires fondés par les barons après 1035 et on ne reviendra pas sur sa démonstration valable pour le diocèse de Coutances: le premier abbé de Lessay vient du Bec, celui de Montebourg de La Croix-Saint-Leufroy, monastère pré-normand restauré dans les années 1020 ou 1030; le choix de cette abbaye reste obscur; ceux de Saint-Sever et de Saint-Sauveur-leVicomte proviennent de Jumièges.3 Les quatre premiers dirigeants coutançais portent dans les actes le titre d'abbé, ce qui n'est pas toujours le cas dans le diocèse de Lisieux. A Bernay depuis 1025 jusqu'à 1048 et peut-être 1066 on trouve un custos qui agit sous la houlette de l'abbé de Fécamp, Guillaume de Volpiano. Ce sont successivement Thierry, ancien prieur de Fécamp depuis août 1025 jusqu'à fin 1027 et Raoul, moine de Fécamp également, depuis cette date jusqu'à 1048; Thierry cumule les deux abbatiats de Jumièges et du Mont-Saint-Michel ainsi que le gardiennage de Bernay. On ignore qui dirige Bernay de la fondation à 1025 et de 1048 à 1066 au plus tard, date présumée de l'arrivée de Vital, peutêtre d'autres custos dont les noms sont perdus.4 A Préaux de 1035 à 1040 il se trouve un primus oeconomicus qui obéit à l'abbé de Saint-Wandrille.5 A Grestain depuis 1050 environ à 1066 environ le moine Renaud de la Rocque sans doute venu de Saint-Evroult preerat ecclesie.6 La Neustria Pia en fait un prior.7 A Cormeilles venu de La Trinité du Mont de Rouen fondée vers 1030, Osbern n'est qu'un prior pendant environ un an.8 Thierry de Mathonville, de Jumièges, préside aux destinés de Saint-Evroult en qualité d'abbé mais de 1045 à 1049-50 l'établissement fut d'abord une dépendance du Bec.9 Si les sanctuaires coutançais n'ont pas eu recours à cette 3 J. Laporte, 'Les origines du monachisme dans la province de Rouen', dans Revue Mabillon, XXXIe année, 3e série, no 123, Juillet-Septembre 1941, 49-68. Roger de Lessay: Robert de Torigni, De Immutatione ordinis monachorum, éd. L. Delisle, 1872-73, ii, 202. Roger de Montebourg: De Immutatione, ii, 203. Anselme de Saint-Sever: De Immutatione, ii, 202. Benigne de Saint-Sauveur: D. Bates, Regesta, no 259. 4 Fauroux, no 35 et V. Gazeau, Monachisme et aristocratie au XIe siècle: l'exemple de la famille de Beaumont, thèse dactylographiée, Caen 1986-87, 68. On a démontré l'ordre de succession des custos de Bernay. Vital paré du titre d'abbé de Bernay apparaît au plus tard le 27 Mai 1066 aux funérailles de l'abbé de Saint-Evroult (Orderic, ii, 134). 5Gallia Christiana, xi, 836. Les notices no 300 et no 383 du cartulaire de Saint-Pierre des Préaux accordent à tort à Eimard le titre d'abbé (Arch. dép. Eure, H 711). On connaît Eimard par Candelarius, moine des Préaux qui écrivait vets 1300 (Arch. Nat. ms. M 725, no 18). 6 D. Bates et V. Gazeau, 'L'abbaye de Grestain', 26. Reginald de La Rocque est un des deux candidats des moines de Saint-Evroult en 1066 quand Mainier leur est imposé (Orderic, iii, 146); dès lors soit il est retourné de Grestain à Saint-Evroult en 1066, soit il n'a commencé à exercer sa fonction de prieur Grestain qu'après 1066, ce qui reviendrait à supposer qu'il a existé un ou plusieurs plusieurs prieurs avant lui. S'il est retourné définitivement à Saint-Evroult, Geoffroi a commencé à exercer sa charge abbatiale en 1066. 7Neustria Pia, 530. 8 Orderic, ii, 106-8. 9 Fauroux, no 122.

< previous page

page_317

next page >


page_318

< previous page

page_318


méthode c'est sans doute que, fondés plus tardivement, ils ont pu profiter d'expériences. On s'interroge sur les circonstances des choix de ceux qui furent les premiers à la tête des neuf abbayes. Les barons fondateurs semblent avoir été libres de choisir la maison-mère: à Préaux le fondateur s'est adressé à l'abbé Gradulphe de Saint-Wandrille qui a expédié l'oeconomicus et les premiers moines; et l'on voit l'abbé de Saint-Wandrille Gradulphe intervenir fréquemment pour régler tel ou tel problème même quand l'oeconomicus aura cédé sa place à un véritable abbé.10 A Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte Néel dans la charte de fondation prétend avoir fait lui-même le choix de Jumièges, elegi domum de Iumeges.11 A Bernay c'est Richard II lui-même qui rattache l'abbaye à Fécamp et qui la confie à l'abbé Guillaume de Volpiano qui expédie les deux custos connus.12 La durée de la gestion des abbayes par des hommes qui ne sont pas des abbés varie de une à plusieurs dizaines d'années; mais Bernay offre un cas spécifique puisque cette abbaye reste durant route la période rattachée à Fécamp. Dans l'ensemble, excepté Bernay, la durée ne dépasse pas une quinzaine d'années. Quoiqu'il en soit ces hommes qui ne sont pas des abbés semblent avoir uniquement rempli la mission d'assurer les débuts matériels des établissements, sous l'égide d'un abbé extérieur. A côté des anciennes abbayes que sont Fécamp, Saint-Wandrille et Jumièges on mesure l'influence de Saint-Evroult fondé la même année que Grestain, abbaye à laquelle elle fournit un prieur. La fondation de la Trinité du Mont de Rouen est également récente. Pour mesurer l'emprise des maisons-mères on doit examiner l'origine des hommes qui succèdent avec le titre d'abbé à ces prieurs ou custos ou autre oeconomicus. A Bernay, le moine de Fécamp, Vital, qui a été le premier prieur du prieuré fécampois de Saint-Gabriel en 1058, est abbé au plus tard en 1066.13 A Préaux, Ansfroi est un ancien moine de Saint-Wandrille.14 A Grestain c'est un moine de Saint-Serge d'Angers qui prend en charge les moines.15 A Cormeilles Robert vient de La Trinité du Mont de Rouen.16 Partout sauf à Grestain on prolonge les choix effectués lots de la fondation. A titre de comparaison les deuxièmes abbés des abbayes coutançaises n'ont pas été choisis dans les mêmes monastères que les premiers, sauf à Lessay.17 10 Arch. dép. Eure, H 711, no 286. Le choix du fondateur a été effecrué accersito Gradulpho, scion la Gallia Christiana, xi, 834. 11 D. Bates, Regesta, no 259. 12 Fauroux, no 35. 13 L. Musset, 'Actes inédits du XIe siècle. i. Les plus anciennes chartes du prieurè de Saint-Gabriel' (dép. Calvados, cant. Creully), Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 1952-54, lii, 126. 14 Robert de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 199. 15De Immutatione, ii, 202. 16De Immutatione, ii, 198. 17 Gaufridus de Lessay: De Immutatione, ii, 202. Arnulfus de Saint-Sever vient d'Evreux; peut-être s'agit-il de Saint-Taurin? (De Immutatione, ii, 202). On ignore la provenance de Hamelin de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte mais très vraisemblablement s'il avait été choisi à La Croix-Saint-Leufroy comme le premier les sources l'auraient mentionné et parmi elles, l'obituaire de la Croix-Saint-Leufroy qui indique la mort de Roger, Recueil des Historiens de la France, éd. L. Delisle, xxxiii, 479 H. Ours de Montebourg vient de Jumièges (R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 204).

< previous page

page_318

next page >


page_319

< previous page

page_319


Qui sont, d'où viennent ces abbés qui vont devoir exercer une charge dont la durée moyenne est de quinze ans, de quelle expérience se prévalent-ils? On connaît l'origine de 50 des 77 véritables abbés: ils viennent de dix-sept monastères normands et de trois établissements étrangers à la Normandie.18 Le Bec fournit douze abbés à six établissements, toutes les abbayes du diocèse de Lisieux, et Lessay. De Jumièges viennent cinq abbés dont les trois premiers des abbayes de Saint-Evroult, Saint-Sever et Saint-Sauveur. Saint-Etienne de Caen procure quatre abbés à Lessay.19 Les monastères étrangers sont Fleury qui envoie un ou deux abbés à Saint-Sever, Saint-Serge d'Angers un à Grestain et le prieuré de Marmoutier, Perrières, encore un à Grestain.20 Les sources normandes qui signalent l'origine des abbés étrangers à la province se dispensent d'expliquer les motivations de ceux qui, pouvoir politique ou couvent, ont effectué ces choix. Une recherche dans les sources des abbayes ligériennes s'impose pour comprendre. L'abbé Pierre Ier de Saint-Sever qui exerce l'abbatiat dans la deuxième décade du XIIe siècle vient de Fleury. Son successeur, Robert Ier, dont les dates restent malheureusement inconnues, provient vraisemblablement du même monastère ligérien. Robert de Torigni dont on tient l'information n'ajoute aucun commentaire.21 Ce fait est très certainement à mettre en relation avec la fondation qui date d'avant 1129, quasi contemporaine de ces deux abbatiats, du prieuré anglais de Fleury situé à Minting dans le Lincolnshire, fondation du comte de Chester Ralph II le Meschin.22 Or le successeur à Saint-Sever de Pierre Ier et de Robert Ier n'est autre qu'un certain Gui de Chester qui toutefois n'appartient peut-être pas à la famille de Chester, fondatrice de l'abbaye normande. On ignore les dates de l'abbatiat de Gui mais une bulle d'Adrien IV a été accordée à son abbaye en 1158 alors que Ralph meurt en 1153.23 Tout laisse à penser que les descendants des fondateurs ont opté pour Fleury dont les relations avec la Normandie sont actives 18 Les 17 monastères normands sont: Saint-Vigor de Bayeux, Le Bec y compris son prieuré de Saint-Hymer, Saint-Etienne de Caen, Cormeilles, La Croix-Saint-Leufroy, peut-être Saint-Taurin d'Evreux, Saint-Evroult, Fécamp y compris son prieuré de Saint-Gabriel, Grestain, Jumièges, Montebourg, Le Mont-Saint-Michel, Préaux, La Trinité du Mont de Rouen, Saint-Martin de Sées, Troarn, Saint-Wandrille. Les établissements étrangers à la Normandie sont: Saint-Serge d'Angers, Fleury et Perrières, prieuré de Marmoutier. 19 Les abbés Goscelin et Guillaume de Bernay au XIIe siècle viennent du Bec (Gallia Christiana, xi, 832). Les abbés Michel (1152-67) et Henri (1167-82) des Préaux en viennent également (Robert de Torigni, Chronique, i, 262 et 369). Guillaume abbé de Grestain de 1179 à 1185 est un moine du Bec (Chronique, ii, 80). Robert II de Saint-Evroult (1159-77) en vient aussi (Gallia Christiana, xi, 823). Au moins trois moines de Cormeilles sont passes par le Bec: Guillaume au XIe siècle (Gallia Christiana, xi, 847); Hardouin a été prieur de Saint-Hymer (R. de Torigni, Chronique, ii, 54) et Durand (Gallia Christiana, xi, 847). Les trois premiers abbés de Lessay viennent du Bec, Roger, Gaufridus et Garin (R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 202). Au XIIe siècle Raoul (avant 1125après 1154), Roger II (après 1154-avant 1157), Thomas (avant février 1185-après 1192): R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 202 et Gallia Christiana, xi, 919. 20 Le troisième abbé de Saint-Sever, Pierre: R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 202. Le premier véritable abbé de Grestain, Geoffroi: De Immutatione, ii, 202. Le cinquième de la même abbaye, Rodulphus (1186-97): Gallia Christiana, xi, 844. 21De Immutatione, ii, 202. 22 Dom J.-M. Berland, 'Les prieurés normands de l'abbaye de Fleury aux XIe-XIIe siècles', dans Actes du cent cinquième Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Caen 1984, Paris 1990, 112. 23 J. Ramackers, Papsurkunden in Frankreich, ii B, no 99.

< previous page

page_319

next page >


page_320

< previous page

page_320


dès le Xe siècle.24 Le premier véritable abbé de Grestain, Geoffroi, a quitté Saint-Serge d'Angers après 1066 pour venir exercer sa charge jusqu'en 1114. Or Marmoutier vient de prendre en main la réforme de l'établissement angevin. En 1046 l'évêque d'Angers, Hugues, demande à l'abbé Albert de Marmoutier de choisir un frère de Marmoutier pour le faire élever à Saint-Serge. L'abbé Vulgrinus met en place la réforme jusqu'en 1057.25 On est d'autant plus fondé à voir dans le choix de Geoffroi la volonté d'introduire Marmoutier à Grestain que déjà depuis 1030 son influence est puissante en Normandie, à ceci près qu'on la mesure sutout en Basse Normandie. En outre en 1186 c'est encore un moine de Marmoutier qui est requis pour occuper la fonction d'abbé à Grestain. Rodulphe vient du prieuré de Perrières fondé en 1076 dans le diocèse de Sées.26 Il est remarquable que le monastère de taille très moyenne qu'est Grestain est pourvu de deux abbés qui ont acquis une expérience dans l'orbite de Marmoutier. L'influence de l'abbaye tourangelle est appréciée généralement par les prieurés qu'elle détient en Normandie. On doit pouvoir affirmer qu'elle se marque aussi par la venue d'abbés tirés de son sein. Enfin on prendra en considération que Grestain a dû sa fondation au second mari d'Arlette, la mère du Conquérant. N'y a-t-il pas vers 1066 une volonté politique de la part du duc-roi? Quelques années plus tard il manifeste son attachement à cette abbaye en lui remettant les mêmes privilèges qu'à sa propre fondation Saint-Etienne de Caen, à savoir l'exemption des coutumes de tonlieux et de passages sur leurs domaines normands et anglais.27 Certains monastères recrutent leurs abbés en leur sein: c'est le cas pour Grestain qui promeut deux abbés sur les six, Montebourg quatre sur les sept, Préaux seulement deux sur les onze.28 Saint-Evroult procède à un véritable autorecrutement: sur les quatorze abbés neuf sont des moines du lieu, deux sont des étrangers venus de Cormeilles et du Bec et deux restent des inconnus, le premier étant venu de Jumièges.29 A Cormeilles et à Lessay sans doute tousles abbés sont étrangers à la communauté. A Bernay presque tousles abbés devraient provenir du giron de Fécamp en vertu des liens de départ. Le successeur de Vital, Osbern, moine de Troarn a dû d'abord devenir moine de Fécamp avant de prendre la tête de Bernay.30 Au XIIe siècle l'abbé Richard refuse la sujétion à l'égard de Fécamp au début de son abbatiat et l'évêque Arnoul de Lisieux en 1142 statue que l'abbé de Bernay proviendrait 24 M. Leroy-Ladurie, 'Rôle des abbayes du Val-de-Loire dans la colonisation monastique normande aux XeXIe siècles', dans RHDFE 31, 1953, 322-3. 25 O. Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage au XIe siècle, Paris 1972, i, 180. 26 M. Leroy-Ladurie, 'Rôle des abbayes', 322-3. Abbé Ph. Barret, Cartulaire de Marmoutier pour le Perche, Mortagne 1894, 41, note 1. Perrières, dép. Calvados, cant. Morteaux-Couliboeuf. 27 D. Bates et V. Gazeau, 'L'abbaye de Grestain', 26. 28 Les abbés de Grestain sont Herbert (1139-79) et Robert à la fin du XIIe siècle (Gallia Christiana, xi, 843-4). Pierre Ier, Gautier Ier, Robert Ier et Guillaume Ier se succèdent au XIIe siécle à Montebourg (R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 204 et Chronique, ii, 118 et 131). Geoffroy (1096-1101) et Reginald (1146-52) sont abbés des Préaux: R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 199. 29 Le premier abbé vient de Jumièges; le troisième Osbern est le prieur de Cormeilles (Orderic, ii, 106); le onzième, Robert II vient du Bec (voir note 19). 30 R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 194 et 'Epistola III ad Vitalem abbatem Bernacensem' Patrologie Latine, cxlvii, 464.

< previous page

page_320

next page >


page_321

< previous page

page_321


dorénavant de Fécamp ou de Bernay.31 Or les successeurs de ce Richard sont des moines du Bec et cette anomalie n'a pas d'explication.32 Orderic Vital semble considérer que le fait d'être un étranger, advena, constitue un handicap pour le nouvel abbé de Saint-Evroult, Osbern, qui connaît mal le patrimoine de son établissement qu'il doit défendre contre la rapacité des féodaux.33 Il n'est pas aisé de connaître les origines sociales des abbés à cause de l'indigence des sources. Parlant des raisons qui ont motivé les moines de Saint-Evroult dans leur choix en faveur de Robert, Orderic Vital cite sa praeclara generositas.34 La Gallia Christiana relève que le premier véritable abbé de Grestain est a nobili ortus genere.35 Le premier abbé de Bernay, Vital, est un membre de la famille baroniale de Creully, fondatrice du prieuré fécampois de Saint-Gabriel.36 Ansfroi des Préaux est apparenté à la veuve de Raoul de Varenne, Béatrice.37 Ces deux personnages sont bienfaiteurs de Préaux. Robert de la prestigieuse famille de Grandmesnil, fondatrice de Saint-Evroult, en est le deuxième abbé.38 Au XIIe siècle les origines quand elles sont connues sont moins brillantes: à Préaux Michel de Tourville est abbé de 1152 à 1167 et appartient à une famille vassale des Beaumont-Meulan.39 La faiblesse de son extraction est compensée par le passage à l'école du Bec puisque c'est dans ce dernier monastère que se trouve Michel quand il est promu.40 Dans la seconde moitié du XIIe siècle l'abbé Roger de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte vient de Psalmonville situé à une vingtaine de kilomères au nord du monastère; tout laisse à penser que ce personnage issu de la petite aristocratie du Cotentin a fait ses classes à Saint-Sauveur.41 Sur les 77 abbés trois semblent avoir pour origine l'Angleterre: l'abbé Richard de Saint-Evroult a été chanoine de Leicester pendant seize ans; toutefois Orderic Vital ne dit pas qu'il était anglais.42 L'abbé de Grestain Guillaume ancien moine du Bec vient d'Exeter.43 Le cinquième abbé de Saint-Sever vient au milieu du XIIe siècle de Chester.44 Les liens entre la Normandie et l'Angleterre sont naturellement fréquents et des moines traversent régulièrement dans les deux sens la Manche.45 Les sources livrent à notre connaissance onze abbés dont on saisit qu'ils disposent d'une compétence appropriée à leur future fonction. Vital de Bernay a 31Gallia Christiana, xi, 831. 32 Goscelin et Guillaume (Gallia Christiana, xi, 832). 33 Orderic, ii, 96. 34 Orderic, ii, 74. 35Gallia Christiana, xi, 843. 36 L. Musset, 'Acres inédits', 126. 37 Arch. dép. Eure, H 711, no 452. 38 Fauroux, no 122. 39Sur la famille de Tourville, D. Crouch, The Beaumont twins, 1986. 40 R. de Torigni, Chronique, i, 262. 41Gallia Christiana, xi, 923. Salmonville, aujourd'hui Psalmonville, dép. Manche, cant. Les Pieux, cne. Bricquebosc. 42 Orderic, vi, 488. 43 R. de Torigni, Chronique, ii, 80. 44 R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 202. 45 V. Gazeau, 'The effect of the Conquest of 1066 on monasticism in Normandy: the Abbeys of the Risle Valley', dans England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, éd. D. Bates et A. Curry, 1994, 131-42.

< previous page

page_321

next page >


page_322

< previous page

page_322


été prieur du prieuré de Fécamp à Saint-Gabriel pendant au maximum huit ans;46 l'abbé Henri des Préaux de 1167 à 1182 est procurator hospitum quand il est tité du Bec.47 Rodulphus est prieur du prieuré de Perrières dépendant de Marmoutier quand il devient abbé de Grestain en 1186.48 Thierry de Mathonville est prieur de Jumièges après avoir été maître des novices avant d'être le premier abbé de Saint-Evroult en 1050.49 Le second abbé, Robert, est prieur de SaintEvroult quand il est appelé à remplacer Thierry.50 Osbern est prieur de Cormeilles au sens qu'on a accordé à ce mot dans la première partie, avant d'être choisi comme abbé de Saint-Evroult en 1061.51 Mainier aussi exerce la fonction de prieur claustral à Saint-Evroult avant d'être abbé.52 L'abbé Renouf de Saint-Evroult s'exerce au prieuré de Noyon avant d'être é1u en 1140.53 En 1174 le prieur de Saint-Hymer, prieuré du Bec, prend en mains l'abbatiat de Cormeilles.54 Dans le diocèse de Coutances on dispose de deux exemples; deux abbés de Montebourg ont d'abord connu une expérience: Ours était sous-prieur de Jumièges tandis qu'en 1182 c'est le prieur du lieu, Robert, qui devient abbé.55 Il ressort que dans la plupart des cas la fonction de prieur claustral ou de chef de prieuré prédispose aux fonctions abbatiales. D'autres abbés qui ne semblent pas avoir occupé de fonctions dirigeantes ont néanmoins pu acquérir une expérience: c'est le cas de ceux qui ont été moines au Bec ou de Mainier, l'abbé de Saint-Evroult, qui tilt novice à Cluny.56 Deux moines, futurs abbés, ont été chanoines séculiers avant d'entrer dans l'ordre bénédictin: Osbern, l'abbé de Saint-Evroult, est chanoine de la cathédrale de Lisieux avant de faire sa profession de foi à La Trinité du Mont de Rouen.57 Richard de Leicester a été chanoine de Notre-Dame de Leicester, une collégiale de chanoines séculiers fondée en 1107; il y fut le chapelain de Robert Ier de Meulan.58 Quelques moines sont passés par plusieurs établissements monastiques. Vital de Bernay tilt un simple moine fécampois avant d'être prieur du prieuré de Saint-Gabriel et d'être nommé abbé de Bernay.59 Le cas d'Osbern, son successeur, est particulier, car ce moine de Troarn, dut faire profession à Fécamp à la demande de l'abbé de Fécamp pour pouvoir exercer sa charge à Bernay; vraisemblablement le temps qu'il passe à Fécamp est très court.60 L'exemple d'Hardouin, abbé de Cormeilles ressemble à celui de Vital: moine du Bec, il devient prieur de Saint46 En 1066 Vital est abbé de Bernay (voir note 4); en 1076 Guillaume le Conquérant l'appelle à Westminster (Patrologie Latine, cxlvii, 463). 47 R. de Torigni, Chronique, i, 369. 48Gallia Christiana, xi, 844. 49 Orderic, ii, 18. 50 Orderic, ii, 60. 51 Orderic, ii, 106. 52 Orderic, ii, 96. 53 Orderic, vi, 148. Noyon-sur-Andelle, dép. Eure, cant. Granville, cne Charleval. 54 R. de Torigni, Chronique, ii, 54. Saint-Hymer, dép. Calvados, cant. Pont-l'Evêque. 55 R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 204 et Chronique, ii, 118. 56 Orderic, ii, 96. 57 Orderic, ii, 106. 58 Orderic, vi, 488. 59 R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 194. 60 Voir note 23.

< previous page

page_322

next page >


page_323

< previous page

page_323


Hymer avant d'être requis à Cormeilles.61 Toutefois alors que Vital est resté dans une orbite fécampoise, Hardouin n'a pas été élevé à l'abbatiat au Bec, où il a fait ses classes. Osbern, qui est abbé de Saint-Evroult, est passé par La Trinité du Mont et par Cormeilles.62 Rodulphus, abbé de Grestain, est d'abord moine à Saint-Julien de Tours avant de rejoindre le prieuré de Perrières d'où on vient le chercher.63 Bénigne, le premier abbé de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, vient de Jumièges mais a été simple moine à Fécamp.64 Le temps passé à acquérir une expérience donne à penser que les personnages élevés à l'abbatiat ont déjà atteint l'âge de la maturité. On dispose de quatre indications pour déterminer un ordre de grandeur. Osbern, au moment de son intrônisation à Saint-Evroult, est selon Orderic Vital dans la fleur de l'âge, perfectae aetatis.65 On sait que Richard de Leicester a passé seize années à la collégiale de Leicester et quelque temps à Saint-Evroult avant d'y être élu abbé.66 L'abbé Herbert de Grestain serait mort centenaire en 1179 alors qu'il est abbé depuis 1139; il aurait eu soixante ans au moment de son accession à l'abbatiat.67 Garin des Essarts, le septième abbé de Saint-Evroult reçoit sa charge à quarante-huit ans.68 Cette maturité concorde avec les qualités d'administrateur requises pour mener à bien, selon Orderic Vital, la mission d'abbé. En effet au nombre des dispositions dont doit faire preuve un candidat à l'élection il y a l'efficacia et la strenuitas.69 Dans la fleur de l'âge certains futurs abbés brillent par des qualités qui pour Orderic Vital prédisposent à l'abbatiat, religieuses, intellectuelles ou morales. Richard des Fourneaux, le quatrième abbé de Préaux, est pour Robert de Torigni vir religiosus et valde litteratus; il a reçu les lemons de Robert de Tombelaine, ancien moine du Mont-Saint-Michel, devenu abbé de Saint-Vigor de Bayeux, dont les qualités intellectuelles sont reconnues.70 Orderic Vital ajoute qu'il a composé un commentaire de la Genèse, un autre des Proverbes de Salomon et écrit des exégèses de l'Ecclesiaste, du Cantique des Cantiques et du Deutéronome.71 Bénigne de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte est un religiosissimus vir.72 L'abbé de Montebourg, Roger, se fait adresser le traité rédigé par son ancien compagnon de La Croix-Saint-Leufroy, Guimond, le Liber de corpore Domini, contre Bérenger.73 Guillaume de Cormeilles, qui rut un des disciples de Herluin au Bec participe à la 61 Voir note 19. 62 Orderic, ii, 106. 63Gallia Christiana, xi, 844. 64 R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 203. 65 Orderic, ii, 106. 66 Voir note 58. 67Gallia Christiana, xi, 843. 68 Il meurt en 1137 à l'âge de 63 ans; ayant reçu la dignité abbatiale en 1122 on en déduit l'âge de 48 ans (Orderic, vi, 487). 69 Orderic, iii, 74. 70 R. de Torigni, De Immutatione, ii, 199. 71 Orderic, iv, 304-6. 72 D. Bates, Regesta, no 259. 73Histoire littéraire de la France par les religieux bénédictins de la Congrégation de Saint-Maur, Nouvelle édition, viii, Paris 1868, 563-4.

< previous page

page_323

next page >


page_324

< previous page

page_324


controverse avec le même Bérenger.74 Aux yeux d'Orderic Vital cet abbé compte parmi les venerabiles coenobiorum rectores au même titre que l'abbé Hugues de Cluny.75 Il est certain que les abbés qui sont passés par le Bec y ont reçu les leçons de maîtres prestigieux. Les abbés de Saint-Evroult sont parés par leur biographe de qualités variées. Thierry excelle dans le souci pastoral, idoneus ad pastoralem curam.76 Son successeur Robert a été assidu à l'étude des lettres.77 Osbern est également très instruit dans les lettres, éloquent dans ses discours, et connaît des arts tels que la sculpture, le travail du métal, l'architecture et l'écriture.78 Aptes à la conduite d'une abbaye car dans l'ensemble certainement dotés d'une riche expérience, les abbés doivent se présenter aux suffrages des moines. Qu'en est-il de l'épineux dossier des élections abbatiales sur lequel les recherches de Jean Yver et du Professeur Olivier Guillot ont apporté des informations capitales.79 Se fondant sur la lecture de l'Histoire ecclésiastique d'Orderic Vital, ces historiens montrent que dès 1059, c'est-à-dire avec l'élection de Robert de Grandmesnil les moines de Saint-Evroult ont respecté la Règle de saint Benoît. Mais quand Robert doit s'exiler en 1061 le duc s'interpose et choisit Osbern. Il recommence avec Mainier et ce n'est qu'en 1091 que les élections semblent à nouveau respecter la clause de liberté octroyée en 1050 par le duc. Qu'en est il effectivement au XIIe siècle à SaintEvroult et ailleurs aux XIe-XIIe siècles dans les deux dioceses? On est en droit de s'interroger sur la réalité de la liberté d'expression du couvent, notamment en 1137 à propos du choix de Richard de Leicester, l'ancien chapelain de Robert I de Meulan. David Crouch, à la suite de R. H. C. Davis, montre que les moines de Saint-Evroult répondent à l'attente de la faction des Beaumont influente à la cour.80 Orderic Vital disparu, on ignore dans quelles conditions les successeurs de Renouf ont été désignés. La clause concernant la liberté des élections abbatiales figurant dans la charte de fondation et par laquelle le duc reconnaissait le couvent n'a pas toujours été respectée.81 Les lettres qu'échangent Guillaume le Conquérant et l'abbé de Fécamp traduisent avec netteté le rôle du prince; Guillaume a lui-même élu à la place des moines l'abbé Osbern de Bernay en 1076 alors qu'il a déjà de son propre chef arraché Vital à ses frères pour l'expédier à Westminster.82 En 1169 une lettre de l'évêque Arnoul de Lisieux au prieur et au chapitre de Bernay parle de l'electio de l'abbé Goscelin qui vient de se dérouler, sans indication supplémentaire.83 On ne sait pas grand chose des élections de Saint-Pierre des 74Histoire littéraire, Paris 1750, xi, 491. 75 Orderic, iv, 297. 76 Orderic, ii, 16. 77 Orderic, ii, 40. 78 Orderic, ii, 106. 79 J. Yver, 'Autour de l'absence d'avouerie en Normandie. Note sur le double thème du développement du pouvoir ducal et de l'application de la réforme grégorienne en Normandie', BSAN 57, 1963-64, Caen, 1965, 191-283. O. Gulllot, 'A Reform of Investiture before the Investiture Struggle in Anjou, Normandy and England', The Haskins Society Journal 3, 1991, 81-100. 80 D. Crouch, The Twins, 149. 81 Fauroux, no 122. 82Epistola prima Willelmi Anglorum regis ad Joannem abbatem Fiscamnensem, Patrologie Latine, cxlvii, 463. 83 F. Barlow, The letters of Arnulph of Lisieux, 1939, no 56.

< previous page

page_324

next page >


page_325

< previous page

page_325


Préaux. Orderic Vital note qu'en 1101 Richard des Fourneaux est electus ad regimen Pratellensis.84 On peut sans doute donner raison à David Crouch qui une fois encore voit l'oeil des Beaumont-Meulan derrière le choix des moines en la personne de Michel de Tourville en 1152: ne rut-il pas moine du Bec où l'influence de Galeran de Meulan est déterminante?85 Est-ce pour faire cesser ces pratiques qu'en 1179 dans la bulle de confirmation générale d'Alexandre III on trouve la clause 'Ob eunte'?86 La seule source dont on dispose pour appréhender la situation à Grestain réside dans la Gallia Christiana: ce serait Robert de Mortain, le ills du fondateur, qui aurait appelé le premier véritable abbé Geoffroi. Herbert en 1139 aurait été élu.87 Une lettre d' Arnoul, l'évêque de Lisieux, adressée à la mort de ce dernier abbé à l'évêque Richard d'Avranches, fait allusion à la controverse ancienne qui agite le monastère au sujet de l'élection abbatiale.88 L'évêque écrit que comme dans les précédents cas litigieux, l'affaire est devant le pape qui a chargé l'évêque de Poitiers, Jean de Belmeis, un homme du roi, et d'autres, dont le destinataire de sa lettre, de la régler.89 Ce dernier, ne pouvant se rendre sur place, charge Arnoul de recevoir les dépositions des parties et de les lui adresser. L'évêque lexovien indique que le roi s'est violemment dressé contre les moines parce qu'ils refusent de se plier comme les autres au choix de sa volonté. Arnoul attend de son confrere dans l'épiscopat qu'il recherche la justice de Dieu et la liberté de l'Eglise, libertatem ecclesiae. On ignore dans quelles condition il a été procédé à la désignation de Guillaume qui succède à Herbert. Les moines de Saint-Evroult n'osent pas refuser l'abbé Osbern qui leur est imposé parce qu'ils redoutent l'animositas du duc Guillaume.90 En 1186 le prieur de Perrières aurait été fait abbé de Grestain volente rege. Le roi, Richard Coeur de Lion, accordera un diplôme de confirmation générale à l'abbaye en 1189, dans lequel il n'est nullement question des élections.91 Son successeur, Robert, en 1197 aurait été élu.92 On ignore tout du déroulement des élections à Cormeilles hormis le fait que le pape adresse une bulle de confirmation générale à l'abbé Robert qui comporte la clause 'Oh eunte'.93 Au diocese de Coutances la procédure de l'élection à Lessay et à Saint-Sever n'est pas connue en raison de l'indigence des sources. La charte de fondation de Saint-Sauveur indique de façon nette que Néel II, le fondateur, a constitué, constitui, l'abbé.94 Il s'agit du premier abbé qui vient de Jumièges; on peut s'interroger sur le sens de constitui; il s'agit très vraisemblablement et du choix opéré par le fondateur, ce qui exclut l'élection, élection rendue difficile par l'absence de communauté encore établie, et de l'investiture temporelle. La Gallia 84 Orderic, iv, 306. 85 D. Crouch, The Twins, 206. 86 Arch. dép. Eure, H 711, no 1. 87Gallia Christiana, xi, 843. 88 Ed. F. Barlow, no 113. 89 Sur l'évêque de Poitiers, J. Boussard, Le gouvernement d'Henri II Plantagenêt, Paris 1956, 434. 90 Orderic, ii, 92. 91 Ed. Ch. Bréard, L'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Grestain, Rouen et Paris 1904, 199-209. 92Gallia Christiana, xi, 844. 93 Bibl. Nat., n. acq. lat. 2588, no 9. 94 D. Bates, Regesta, no 259.

< previous page

page_325

next page >


page_326

< previous page

page_326


Christiana cite Robert de Mortain comme responsable de la désignation de Geoffroi, le premier véritable abbé de Grestain, la maison fondée par son père.95 Une charte de Raoul Taisson, le descendant de la famille fondatrice, délivrée à l'abbaye de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte en 1188, s'achève par la formule: 'in presentia Roberti de Veules electione capituli et positione mea tunc presentis abbatis ordinati et benedicti a Wuillelmo de Tornebusc Constanciensi episcopo'.96 Le dossier de Montebourg n'offre pas une grande clarté; les travaux de Jean Yver et de Le Cacheux concluent à l'absence de clause de liberté en matière d'élection dans les actes ducaux.97 Robert de Torigni dans son De Immutatione note que le sixième abbé qui meurt en 1185 a été electus.98 Il est avéré que la liberté d'élection a été sérieusement entravée par le pouvoir le plus haut et ce encore à la fin du XIIe siècle, qu'il s'agisse d'injonctions ou de pressions. Les familles fondatrices semblent conserver longtemps un droit de regard. Si l'on considère que la liberté existait au prix de quelques entorses, on ne peut que mettre ces entraves en relation avec la faible occurence de l'attribut electus qu'accolent par exemple Robert de Torigni ou la Gallia Christiana aux abbès dont ils dressent des notices biographiques. On remarquera que l'évêque de Lisieux en a appelé au pape pour faire respecter la règle canonique à Grestain. On ne dispose d'aucun éleément d'information sur les modalités de l'investiture temporelle. Les autres abbayes ont sans doute comme Saint-Evroult abandonné le rite de la crosse et de l'anneau dans les années 1120. En dehors de ce que décrit Orderic Vital pour les abbés de Saint-Evroult, les autres sources ne montrent pas les nouveaux abbés se rendre auprès du duc-roi pour recevoir l'investiture. En revanche le progrès canonique observé par Jean Yver à Saint-Evroult, la présen-tation de l'élu à l'évêque avant la présentation au duc, se vérifie à Bernay en 1169. C'est encore une lettre de l'évêque lexovien, Arnoul, qui exige en vertu de la règle canonique que lui soit présenté dans son église cathédrale sous dix à douze jours le nouvel élu accompagné du prieur et d'un nombre de frères adéquat. Seulement après cette présentation, la bénédiction pourra être organisée.99 On sait que l'abbé Serlon a exercé sa charge sans investiture spirituelle, tout comme son successeur Roger du Sap pendant sept ans, parce qu'ils refusèrent la profession d'obédience réclamée par l'évêque Gilbert de Lisieux. L'affaire rut réglée en 1099.100 La charte de Saint-Sauveur de 1188 montre en tout cas parfaitement l'investiture spirituelle par l'ordinaire du lieu, l'évêque de Coutances.101 Une charte du cartulaire de Saint-Pierre des Préaux mentionne que c'est en 1182, sans autre précision, que l'abbé Osbern a reçu l'ordinatio.102 95Gallia Christiana, xi, 843. 96 Bibl. Nat., ms. lat. 17137, fol. 38. 97 J. Yver, 'Autour de l'absence', 215, note 4. 98De Immutatione, ii, 131. 99 Ed. Barlow, no 56. 100 J. Yver, 'Autour de l'absence', 276. 101 D. Bates, Regesta, no 259. 102 Arch. dép. Eure, H 711, no 177.

< previous page

page_326

next page >


page_327

< previous page

page_327


En poste les abbés normands vont animer la vie spirituelle de leurs maisons et gérer le patrimoine. Ce n'est pas cet aspect de la fonction abbatiale qui va retenir notre attention mais les relations avec le pouvoir royal. Observons en premier lieu les souscriptions d'abbés au bas des diplômes ducaux ou royaux. Vital de Bernay est au côté de Guillaume le Conquérant lorsqu'il accorde Le Plessis-Grimoult à Odon de Bayeux en 1074; il est le dernier des quatre abbés souscripteurs, derrière Gerbert de Saint-Wandrille, Nicolas de Saint-Ouen de Rouen et Durand de Troarn.103 Vets 106876 il souscrit encore une confirmation du roi pour Montivilliers.104 Son successeur Osbern souscrit le dernier des douze cosouscripteurs d'une confirmation en faveur de Troarn en 1082-83.105 Il est le seul abbé, en queue de liste des souscripteurs d'un acte de Richard Courte Heuse confirmant la donation d'un particulier à Jumièges.106 Guillaume de Cormeilles atteste la troisième charte de dotation de Troarn en 1082-83.107 En 1096-98 Geoffroy de Grestain est témoin d'un précepte de Guillaume II adressé à deux officiers de l'honneur de Richmond leur enjoignant le respect des terres détenues par Saint-Serge d'Angers.108 On se souvient que le premier véritable abbé de Grestain vient précisément d'Angers et cette presence reste à expliquer; en tout état de cause comme d'autres abbés Geoffroi se trouve en Angleterre sans doute pour surveiller les nombreux domaines. Mainier d'Echauffour le quatrième abbé de SaintEvroult est témoin au côté des abbés de Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives et de Sées de la confirmation de 1080 délivrée par les fondateurs en présence de Guillaume le Conquérant en faveur du prieuré de Saint-Gabriel.109 Reginald des Préaux se trouve en 1149 à Rouen à la cour du duc Geoffroy lorsque ce dernier tranche dans un différend entre son abbaye et un membre de l'aristocratie.110 Galeran de Beaumont-Meulan descendant du fondateur de Saint-Pierre des Préaux est un des puissants soutiens du duc. Pierre Ier de Lessay atteste en 1172 un acte de l'évêque de Coutances qui termine un litige sur une église locale, litige réglé au chapitre épiscopal en présence du roi et de son fils.111 Richard Ier de Montebourg est par deux fois témoin de confirmations de Henri II; une première fois on le trouve à Valognes en 1168 au côté de l'évêque de Coutances dans une confirmation en faveur de l'abbaye de Blanchelande et une seconde fois avec des abbés de Haute Normandie dans un acte délivré à Troarn en 1171.112 Le septième abbé de Saint-Sever, Geoffroi, se rend à la convocation de Henri II à Caen é la cour plénière de Noël 1182 où est conclu un accord qui n'a 103Regesta regum Anglo-normannorum, 1066-1154, éd. H. W. C. Davis, Oxford 1913, i, no 76. 104Gallia Christiana, xi, Appendix, 330. 105 Ed. R.-N. Sauvage, L'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn au diocese de Bayeux des origines au XVIe siècle, Caen 1911, P.J. no iii, 353. 106 Ed. J.-J. Vernier, Chartes de l'abbaye de Jumièges, v. 825 à 1204, Rouen-Paris 1916, no 38. 107 Voit note 105. 108Regesta, éd. Davis, ii, no 412 a. 109 Ed. L. Musset, 'Acres inédits', 141. 110 Arch. dép. Eure, H 711, no 453. 111 Ed. L. Delisle, Recueil des actes de Henri II, roi d'Angleterre et duc de Normandie, concernant les provinces françaises et les affaires de France, Paris 1909-27, 583. 112 Ed. L. Delisle, Recueil, i, no 179 et no 190.

< previous page

page_327

next page >


page_328

< previous page

page_328


rien à voir avec son monastère; il y côtoie Robert de Meulan, l'abbé de Fécamp et l'abbé de Saint-Etienne de Caen.113 Ces douze souscriptions de neuf abbés démontrent que les prélats lexoviens et coutançais n'ont jamais brillé par leur présence à la cour ducale. Les affaires dans lesquels ils ont figuré restent mineures même lorsqu'il s'agit de confirmation générale. Les monastères pour lesquels leur souscription est requise ne se distinguent pas par leur prestige; lorsqu'ils figurent dans une liste d'abbés, leur place est parmi les derniers. Leur action semble assez isolée, irrégulière si on la compare au rôle joué à la même époque par les évêques qui souscrivent à tour de bras les actes ducaux. Mais cela ne signifie pas leur absence de la scène politique. Dans les conciles réunis sous l'égide ducale ou royale des abbés ont étéprésents mais on ne dispose de listes que pour les conciles de Rouen de 1118 et de 1128. Les abbés des deux diocèses ne se font pas réellement remarquer; en 1118 on ne trouve que Richard des Préaux.114 En 1128 à la suite des évêques suffragants ne figurent que six noms d'abbés.115 Orderic Vital qui rapporte l'événement affirme que d'autres étaient présents; cependant parmi les six, seul figure Garin de Saint-Evroult. Orderic Vital, décrivant les abbés venus assister aux funérailles de Guillaume le Conquérant à Caen, précise qu'il va en citer quelques uns, c'est-à-dire douze sur la trentaine de prélats normands; seuls sont nommés Mainier de Saint-Evroult, ce qui paraît normal puisqu'il est son abbé, et Osbern de Bernay qui n'arrive qu'en neuvième position.116 Certains abbés peuvent se voir appelés par le duc-roi pour des conseils; c'est le cas d'Ansfroi des Préaux qui, avec Lanfranc, conseille à Guillaume le Bâtard de demander à l'abbé de la Trinité du Mont de Rouen, Rainier, d'envoyer son moine Osbern comme prieur à Cormeilles.117 Les abbés peuvent aussi être sollicités par l'autorité religieuse pour remplir des missions précises. La charte d'exemption délivrée au Bec par l'archevêque de Rouen Guillaume Bonne-Ame indique la présence de Guillaume de Cormeilles.118 D'une façon générale ils ne souscrivent pas les actes épiscopaux dans le diocèse de Lisieux, ce qui n'est pas le cas à Coutances. Mais ce n'est pas sous cet angle qu'on étudiera les relations entre l'épiscopat et les abbés qui connaissent des temps forts lorsque la discipline ecclésiastique est mise en cause. En 1056 l'archevêque Maurille, le philosophe Fulbert, l'évêque Hugues de Lisieux, Ansfroi des Préaux et Lanfranc alors prieur du Bec, se rendent à Saint-Evroult pour tenter de récon-cilier l'abbé Thierry et son prieur.119 C'est ainsi qu'avec l'évêque de Lisieux, Arnoul, l'abbé des Préaux, Henri, vers 1174 est appelé à régler le cas d'un moine apostat de Cormeilles.120 Le même évêque vers 1159 intime l'ordre à l'abbé de 113 Ed. L. Delisle, Recueil, ii, no 445 A. 114 Orderic, vi, 202. 115 Orderic, vi, 390. 116 Orderic, iv, 104. 117 Orderic, ii, 90. 118 Bibl. Nat., ms lat. 13905, fol. 52. 119 Orderic, ii, 66. 120 Ed. F. Barlow, no 100.

< previous page

page_328

next page >


page_329

< previous page

page_329


Saint-Evroult, sans doute Robert II, de réintégrer au sein de la communauté un moine dont le délit n'est pas prouvé et qui semble aux yeux du prélat avoir été pris en grippe par son supérieur.121 Mais l'affaire la plus grave est celle qui concerne la discipline à l'intérieur du monastêre de Grestain. Une lettre d'Arnoul en date de mars 1166 au pape Alexandre III décrit la vie quotidienne des moines. Ils se battent à couteaux tirés dans le cloître; ils prétendent opérer des miracles et pour cela ont immergé une femme dans de l'eau glaciale; celle-ci est morte de froid. La faute de l'abbé réside dans la dissimulation des faits et ses absences répétées; Herbert, sous le prétexte d'administrer les biens anglais, séjourne trop longtemps en Angleterre où il préfère d'ailleurs les plaisirs de la table et du lit.122 Arnoul reprend la plume quelques mois plus tard pour rapporter au pape le mépris apporté par l'abbé à ses injonctions et ajoute qu'il n'a pas pu entrer dans le monastère. Arnoul va même jusqu'à suggérer de remplacer les moines de Grestain par des chanoines réguliers.123 Malgré les menaces Herbert reste en poste jusqu'à sa mort vers l'âge de cent ans et l'évêque ne met pas son plan à exécution. C'est cette question de la fin des cardères abbatiales que l'on analysera maintenant; on ne dispose d'aucune information précise sur le devenir des abbés du diocèse de Coutances. Tous pourraient bien avoir exercé leur charge jusqu'à leur mort, celle-ci ne faisant pas l'objet de commentaire spécial dans les sources. En revanche les abbés du diocése de Lisieux n'ont pas tous terminé leur vie comme supérieurs du monastère où ils avaient été désignés. Certains ont été promus à d'autres fonctions. Vital de Bernay est appelé à l'abbatiat de Westminster sur ordre de Guillaume le Conquérant.124 L'abbé Serlon de Saint-Evroult est élevé à l'épiscopat de Sées en 1091.125 L'abbé Guillaume de Grestain quitte son abbaye en 1185. La Gallia Christiana indique que l'archevêque de Rouen, Gautier qui voulait avoir près de lui son compatriote et ami, le transfert à Saint-Martin de Pontoise. Il y meurt cinq ans après.126 D'autres n'achèvent pas leur abbatiat et résilient leur charge. La règle bénédictine ne prévoit pas la démission de l'abbé. Les informations concernant Saint-Evroult sont riches grâce à Orderic Vital. Thierry le premier abbé abandonne la cura anirnarum entre les mains de son évêque Hugues le 29 août 1056 et part en pélerinage à Jérusalem.127 Robert de Grandmesnil devra abandonner sa charge et s'exiler en 1061.128 Roger du Sap, se jugeant trop âgé, rend son ministère en 1123.129 Selon la Gallia Christiana l'abbé Bernard du même monastère aurait été déposé en 1159.130 Son abbatiat a duré peine un an. Aucun élément d'explication n'est fourni. 121 Ed. F. Barlow, no 19. 122 Ed. F. Barlow, no 47. 123 Ed. F. Barlow, no 49. 124 Voit note 82. 125 Oraleric, vi, 328. 126Gallia Christiana, xi, 843. Ce sont Caresme et Charpillon qui indiquent la date et le lieu de sa mort (Dictionnaire historiclue du département de l'Eure, Les Andelys 1868-79, ii, 158). 127 Orderic, ii, 68. 128 Orderic, ii, 90. 129 Orderic, vi, 325. 130Gallia Christiana, xi, 822.

< previous page

page_329

next page >


page_330

< previous page

page_330


Il serait vain de croire qu'on peut se livrer à des conclusions définitives au sujet des abbés normands à partir de ces observations, ne serait-ce que parce que seule la documentation lexovienne et coutançaise a fait l'objet d'un dépouillement. Qui sait si on ne découvrira pas dans un cartulaire du diocèse d'Evreux la mention d'un de ces abbés? Néanmoins ces remarques invitent à approfondir la recherche dans plusieurs directions. Le choix des abbés n'est jamais gratuit. Leur origine doit toujours être suspectée. Un des résultats appréciables de cette enquête, le rôle des grandes abbayes du Val de Loire, doit être mesuré, à l'aune de la réforme de l'Eglise normande voire anglo-normande tout entière. Le commentaire de la Genèse qu'élabore l'abbé Richard des Préaux est dédicacé à l'abbé Maurice de SaintLaumer de Blois; l'abbaye blésoise détient aussi des terres dans le Perche.131 L'abbé Geoffroi de Grestain qui vient de Saint-Serge d'Angers figure dans le nécrologe de cette abbaye.132 Les relations entre Normandie et Val de Loire perdurent et sont multiformes. Il faudra sonder les relations entre l'aristocratie et les chefs des maisons bénédictines. La diminution du niveau social des abbés telle qu'on semble l'entrevoir en passant du XIe au XIIe siècle demande à être confirmée. Quel membre des grandes families devient abbé? Pour quoi faire? Quelles pressions s'exercent autour de sa personne? De quelle influence jouissent l'aristocratie et le duc-roi au moment des élections? Ace propos il faut établit autant que faire se peut une chronologie de l'application de la règle canonique par abbaye. Il semble qu'on ne puisse pas réellement voit dans les abbés un corps constitué comme l'est l'épiscopat. Il est vrai qu'ils sont au nombre de la trentaine contre sept évêques seulement. Ils semblent agir auprès du duc en ordre dispersé et il faudra le vérifier. Peut-être pourrat-on observer des cercles plus ou moins proches autour du pouvoir? Il est remarquable qu'alors que certains abbés participent aux conciles au côté d'Henri Ier, pas un ne souscrive les actes de ce prince. La politique menée par Henri II à l'égard de l'Eglise normande mérite certaine-merit d'être mieux analysée. Les interventions des autorités épiscopale et pontificale devront être évaluées, en premier lieu celle d'Alexandre III. Peut-être pourra-t-on dresser une typologie de ces abbés parmi lesquels on entrevoit déjà des maîtres spirituels, des pasteurs, des gestionnaires, des conseillers du duc, des exégètes. 131 Voir la bulle de Pascal II datée de 1107 et délivrée à Saint-Laumer de Blois, éd. J. Ramackers, vi, no 20. 132 Bibl. Nat., coil. d'Anjou et de Touraine, vol. 13, 1, fol. 267r.

< previous page

page_330

next page >


page_331

< previous page

page_331


Listes abbatiales du diocese de Lisieux Abbaye de Bernay Thierry, custos de août 1025 à fin 1027 Raoul, custos de fin 1027 à 1048 Vital au plus tard 1066-76 Osbern 1076-après 1091 Robert ?-1128 Nicolas 1128-? Richard avant 1145-69 Goscelin 1169-? Guillaume ?-? Secundus ?-1203 Abbaye des Préaux Evrard oeconomicus 1034-vers 1040 Ansfroi vers 1040-78 Guillaume I 1076-96 Geoffroi 1096-1101 Richard Ier 1101-31 Richard II 1131-46 Reginald 1146-52 Michel 1152-67 Henri 1167-82 Osbem 1182-? Guillaume II .9-? Abbaye de Saint-Evroult Thierry 1050-57 Robert de Grandmesnil 1059-61


page_331

Osbem 1061-66 Mainier 1066-89 Serlon 1089-91 Roger du Sap 1091-1123 Garin 1123-37 Richard de Leicester 1137-40 Renouf de Noyon 1140-59 Bernard 1159 Robert II 1159-77 Raoul 1177-88 Richard II 1188-90 Reginald 1190-1214 Abbaye de Grestain Renaud prior 10507-66 Geoffroi 10667-1114 Fulco 1114-39 Herbert 1139-79 Guillaume 1179-85 Rodulphus 1186-97 Robert 1197-1233 Abbaye de Cormeilles Osbern prior 1060-61 Robert 1061-657 Gilbert ?-10717 Guillaume 10717-1109 Richard 1109-? Benoit ?-? Robert 1169-74 Hardouin 1174-? file:///C|/Documents and Settings/••••/••• •••••••••/Istfuck/Articles and books/Keats-Rohan. Family trees/files/page_331.html (2 of 3)29.06.2009 22:58:52

page_331

Durand ?-après 1200

< previous page

page_331

next page >


page_332

< previous page

page_332


Listes abbatiales du diocese de Coutances Abbaye de Lessay Roger 1056-94 Geoffroi 1094-? Garin ?-? Robert Ier après 1118-avant 1125 Raoul ?-après 1154 Roger ?-avant 1157 Pierre Ier après 1164-après 1179 Thomas avant 1185-après 1192 Onfroy ?-après 1206 Abbaye de Saint-Sever Anselme 1066/70-? Arnoul ?-entre 1113 et 1122 Pierre après 1113/22-? Robert ?-? Gui de Chester ?-après 1158 Etienne avant 1173-après 1176 Geoffroi avant 1182-? V.D. ?-après 1208 Abbaye de Montebourg Roger 1066/87-1093 Ours 1093-après 1112 Pierre ?-? Gautier avant 1147-après 1154 Richard ?-1182 Robert 1182-85


page_332

Guillaume 1185-après 1204 Abbaye de saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte Benigne vers 1080-avant 1113 Hamelinus ?-? Onfroy avant 1136-47 Hugues 1147-après 1165 Guillaume ?-? Roger ?-après 1185 Robert de Veules 1188-?

< previous page

page_332

next page >


page_333

< previous page

page_333


15 De quelques champenois dans l'entourage français des rois d'Angleterre aux XIe et XIIe Siècles Michel Bur Y eut-il des Champenois dans l'entourage des rois d'Angleterre aux XIe et XIIe siècles? Le problème posé est celui de l'influence normande, puis normannoangevine et, plus précisément, de l'attraction que les ducs-rois, par le moyen de promesses ou de dons, ont pu exercer sur l'aristocratie champenoise. En d'autres termes, comment, pourquoi, à quelle occasion et selon quel réseau de relations des Champenois ont-ils pu entrer au service des souverains anglo-normands et angloangevins? Cette attraction s'est-elle exercée en profondeur ou s'est-elle arrêtée sur les marges occidentales du comté, les plus proches de la Normandie? D'un point de vue géopolitique, le problème est celui de la porosité des limites médiévales aux sollicitations venues de l'extérieur. A vrai dire les principautés se définissent moins par leurs contours, assez flous, que par leur structure interne faite de réseaux de dépendance, que viennent renforcer selon les cas la ligesse ou la réserve de fidélité envers le prince. Certes, individus et lignages, pris dans les liens de la vassalité et du fief, peuvent être tentés d'obéir à la voix du sang ou de l'intérêt quand des héritages importants sont en cause. Si le passage d'un système de fidélité àh un autre n'entraîne pas nécessaire-ment des mesures de rétorsion définitives de la part du seigneur qui s'estime lésé, il n'en reste pas moins difficile pour un vassal de vouloir servir deux maîtres à la fois. Cet exposé débute avec la conquête de l'Angleterre par Guillaume de Normandie en 1066. L'aventure a attiré autour de lui des guerriers qui feront souche Outre-Manche et y obtiendront des honneurs. D'autres combattants, étroitement apparentés aux premiers, rentreront en France, où ils retrouveront une situation parlois moins brillante que celle de leurs frères ou de leurs cousins restés en Angleterre. Certains, qui seront parvenus àh se marier dans la famille du Conquérant, transmettront à leurs descendants l'orgueil d'être nés Normands. Dans quelle mesure cette nébuleuse faite de souvenirs, d'aides, de conseils, de dons, de serments, d'unions matrimoniales et de terres a-t-elle pu servir durablement les intérêts des rois d'Angleterre sur le continent? La réponse découlera de l'examen, dans un secteur géographique limité entre Marne et Oise au nord de Paris, du comportement d'une demi-douzaine de grandes familles durant les centcinquante années qui séparent la victoire d'Hastings (1066) de celle de Bouvines (1214).

< previous page

page_333

next page >


page_334

< previous page

page_334


Map 1. Situation des comtés de Blois, de Champagne et du duché de Normandie

< previous page

page_334


next page >

page_335

< previous page

page_335


La Champagne constitue la partie orientale de la principauté des comtes de Blois. Entre la Marne au nord et la Seine au sud, elle est coupée du domaine capétien par un épais manteau forestier qui ne sera défriché qu'entre 1130 et 1250. A proximité immédiate de Meaux, la forêt du Mant subsistera jusqu'au début du XIIIe siècle. Plus au sud, celle de Jouy indique encore aujourd'hui la limite entre les cités de Meaux et de Sens, cette dernière incluant Provins et le Provinois. De 1138 à 1225, une douzaine de villeneuves seront construites dans les essarts, des commanderies et des chateaux y seront édifiés, mais vers 1270 la marche séparante fera encore de 5 à 15 kilomètres de large.1 Les seules voies de circulation aisées se trouvaient aux deux extrémités: sur la Seine, près de Montereau, en direction de Chartres ou d'Orléans, et sur la Marne, pros de Meaux et de Lagny, d'où il était possible de gagnet Paris, la plaine SaintDenis,la vallée de l'Oise et le Vexin. Traditionnellement la ville de Meaux regardait vets le nord.2 D'anciennes et vastes clairières culturales favorisaient les échanges économiques, sociaux et religieux avec Senlis, Beauvais et Soissons. En 1179, la cité recevra une charte de franchises inspirée du module soissonnais. De Lagny à Pontoise, la distance à vol d'oiseau est d'environ 50 kilomètres et jusqu'à la vallée de l'Epte de 90 kilomètres, alors que de Montereau à la frontière normande, toujours à vol d'oiseau, il yen a au moins 130. Meaux se trouve aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans une zone d'autant plus sensible que le Vexin français, entre Epte et Oise, done tout proche, appartient au diocèse de Rouen. Des abbayes normandes y possèdent des biens rattachés aux prieurés de Saint-Pierre de Pontoise et Saint-Martin-la-Garenne (diocèse de Rouen, 1082), Sainte-Honorine de Conflans (peu en amont du confluent de la Seine et de l'Oise, diocèse de Paris, 1080), Saint-Nicaise de Meulan (dans une île de la Seine, diocèse de Chartres, 1095-98) pour Le Bec-Hellouin et Saint-Georges de Mantes (diocèse de Chartres, 998) pour Fécamp.3 Les dues de Normandie, rois d'Angleterre, revendiquent cette petite région depuis qu'en 1031 Henri Ier l'a médiatisée en faveur de Robert le Magnifique. Guillaume le Conquérant tenta de s'en rendre maitre après la conversion à la vie monastique de son dernier comte, Simon de Valois, en 1077. Il finança même la construction d'une tour de transept à Saint-Denis, sans doute parce que cette abbaye y avait des domaines.4 Au début du XIIe 1 Ch. Higounet, Défrichement et villeneuves du bassin Parisien (XIe-XIVe siècles), Paris 1990, p. 61. M. Bur, 'Le défrichement et le partage de la forêt du Mant près de Meaux', Bulletin philologique et historique (1963), 1966, 93-127. J. Hubert, 'La frontière occidentale du comté de Champagne', Recueil de Travaux offerrs à M. Clovis Brunel 2, Paris 1955, 14-30. 2 M. Bur, 'Meaux dans l'histoire de la Champagne du Xe au XIIe siècle', Revue d'Histoire et d'Art de la Brie et du Pays de Meaux 28 (1977) 1978, 1-11. 3 Sur les possessions du Bec, V. Gazeau, 'Le domaine continental du Bec. Aristocratie et monachisme au temps d'Anselme',Les mutations socio-culturelles au tournant des Xle-Xlle siècles: Etudes Anselmiennes (IVe session, 1982), Paris 1984, 260-71 et, plus récemment, 'The Effect of the Conquest of 1066 on Monasticism in Normandy: The Abbey of the Risle Valley', England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, ed. D. Bates et A. Curry, Londres 1994, 131-42. 4 Guibert de Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. E. R. Labande, Paris 1981, 467 (III, c. CXX). M. Bur, Suger, abbé de Saint-Denis, régent de France, Paris 1991, p. 28.

< previous page

page_335

next page >


page_336

< previous page

page_336


Map 2. Position relative des différents intervenants

< previous page

page_336


next page >

page_337

< previous page

page_337


siècle, Louis VI riposta en reconnaissant la suzeraineté dionysienne sur le Vexin français, dont il investit le fils déshérité de Robert Courteheuse, Guillaume Cliton,5 en 1127. A partir de 1149 et de la mainmise angevine sur la Normandie, la tendance s'inverse: Louis VII obtient même de Geoffroi Plantagenêt la cession du Vexin normand compris entre l'Epte et l'Andelle, cession qui devint définitive en 1193/96.6 Dans l'espace compris entre la pointe occidentale du comté de Champagne et le Vexin français se sont formées des seigneuries qui ont tenu une place honorable sur l'échiquier local: Montjay avec sa dépendance de Livry; Gournay-surMarne réunie à Crécy, Pomponne et Chàteaufort; Montmorency sur une colline proche de Saint-Denis . . . Mais ce sont surtout les petits comtés de Dammartin-en-Goëlle, démembré de la cité de Meaux, de Beaumont-sur-Oise, héritier du pagus de Chambly à l'extrémité méridionale du diocèse de Beauvais, et, un peu plus au nord, de Clermont-enBeauvaisis, mouvant du Vexin français, qui doivent retenir l'attention. A cette liste il convient d'ajouter le comtè de Meulan, sur la Seine, dans le Vexin, qui, plus que les trois autres, subit la forte attraction de la Normandie. De la fidélité ou de la félonie des comtes de Meaux (= Champagne), de Dammartin, de Beaumont, de Clermont et de Meulan dépendit pendant pros d'un siècle et demi non seulement la possibilité pour le roi de France de communiquer aisément avec le nord de son royaume, mais aussi la sécurité de Paris. C'est sur ces itinéraires septentrionaux que se rencontrent le premier Normand passé au service du Capétien, Guillaume Busac, petit-fils du duc Richard Ier par son père Guillaume, comte d'Eu. Chassé de Normandie par le futur Conquérant, Busac devint le fidèle de Henri Ier, qui le maria en 1057 à l'héritière du comté de Soissons.7 Cette ville était une étape importante sur la route Paris, Senlis, Soissons, Reims, Châlons-sur-Marne ou Mouzon, que le roi s'efforçait de contrôler pour garder le contact avec l'Empire et la Lotharingie. En 1048, il avait arraché au comte de Champagne l'abbaye de Saint-Médard de Soissons. Vers 1060, il lui acheta sa résidence rémoise, l'abbaye de Saint-Nicaise, et en 1065 les derniers lambeaux de ses droits comtaux à Châlons. Plus que Soissons, Reims, dont le destin comme ville du sacre commençait à se préciser, était la pièce maîtresse du dispositif de contrôle royal sur la région. Aussi Henri Ier y transféra-t-il comme archevêque en 1055 l'adversaire malheureux du due de Normandie, l'évêque du Mans Gervais de Château-du-Loir.8 Le duc Guillaume acquit un prestige exceptionnel avec son débarquement réussi en Angleterre et son couronnement comme roi en 1066. L'évènement déclencha des ondes concentriques qui traversèrent le Vexin et vinrent mourir à l'est de Paris. A Meulan, fief français, c'est une famille normande qui s'installe à la suite du mariage de Roger de Beaumont-sur-Risle avec la soeur du comte Hugues, dernier 5 A. Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Paris 1890, p. 175, no 378. 6 L. et A. Mirot, Géographie historique de la France, Paris 1979, pp. 116 ss. 7 D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror, Londres 1964, table 5. W. M. Newman, Les seigneurs de Nesle en Picardie (Xlle-XIIIe s.), Paris, 1, 59, n. 3. 8 M. Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne (v. 950-v. 1150), Nancy 1977, pp. 200-11.

< previous page

page_337

next page >


page_338

< previous page

page_338


représentant mâle de la premiere race. Roger, qui avait construit le chateau de Beaumont, était un fidèle et un familier de Guillaume le Conquérant. Le Domesday Book indique qu'il posséda des biens en Dorset et dans le Gloucestershire. De son mariage avec Adeline de Meulan, il eut deux fils, dont l'aîné, Robert, participa comme tiro à la bataille d'Hastings. En 1082, ce Robert hérita de son oncle maternel le comté de Meulan.9 Son frère Henry devint en 1088 comte de Warwick et lui-même en 1107 comte de Leicester. Robert est connu pour avoir tenté de s'emparer de Paris en 1111. Du chef de sa femme Elisabeth de Vermandois, cousine germaine de Louis VI, il y possédait sur la rive droite le quartier de la Grève et du Monceau Saint-Gervais.10 Elisabeth, qui était beaucoup plus jeune que son mari, se fit enlever par le fils d'un autre combattant d'Hastings, Guillaume II de Warenne, comte de Surrey, qui l'épousa quand elle fut veuve en 1118. Elle était la soeur du comte de Vermandois Raoul, sénéchal de France de 1131 à 1152, et de Constance, femme de Geoffroi de la Ferté-Ancoul (= sousJouarre), vicomte de Meaux.11 De Robert et d'Elisabeth sont issus des jumeaux, Galeran II, comte de Meulan, et Robert, comte de Leicester, un troisième fils, Hugues, par mariage comte de Bedford, et des filles qui s'unirent pour trois d'entre elles à des seigneurs normands, la dernièe, Elisabeth, devenant la concubine du roi Henry Ier Beauclerc, puis la femme de Gilbert de Clare, dit 'Strongbow', comte de Pembroke, fils de Gilbert de Clare, sire de Tonbridge, et d'Adèle de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis. Galeran II, partisan de Guillaume Cliton, rut privé par Henry Ier Beauclerc en 1124 de ses possessions normandes (Beaumont, Brionne, Pont-Audemer . . .), qu'il recouvra sous le règne d'Etienne de Blois avec, en plus, le comté de Worcester en 1138. A cette date, sur un total de 14 comtés anglais, les Beaumont-sur-Risle en tenait quatre (Leicester, Worcester, Warwick, Bedford) et leurs alliés trois (Surrey, Pembroke et, comme on le verra plus loin, Northampton).12 C'est en effet le roi Etienne qui donna le comté de Pembroke à Gilbert Strongbow en 1138. Gilbert avait pour frère Richard, comte de Clare, et pour soeur Alice, épouse d'Aubri de Ver, ancien chambrier d'Henry Ier Beauclerc. Par leur père Gilbert, les Clare descendaient du duc de Normandie Richard Ier. Par leur mère Adèle, fille du comte Hugues de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis et de Marguerite de Roucy, ils étaient les neveux de Renaud II, comte de Clermont, d'Ermentru, femme de Hugues d'Avranches, comte de Chester, et de Béatrice, femme de Mathieu Ier, comte de Beaumont-sur-Oise. Au sud de Clermont, le petit comté de Beaumont-sur-Oise était en relation avec l'abbaye du Bec-Hellouin depuis que le comte Yves III le Clerc avait fondé 9 D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 86-7. J. Depoin, Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, Pontoise 1895, pp. 306 ss. Ce dernier ouvrage comprend des indications erronées, en particulier sur la sépulture de Robert dans une abbaye qu'il aurait fondle à Barkley en Angleterre et qui, selon V. Gazeau que je remercie de ce renseignement, n'a jamais existé. 10 R. H. Bautier, 'Paris au temps d'Abélard', Abélard et son temps, Paris 1979, 41. 11 M. Bur, 'Meaux dans l'histoire de la Champagne', p. 6. 12 D. Crouch, The Beaumont Twins, Cambridge 1986, pp. 4 et 41.

< previous page

page_338

next page >


page_339

< previous page

page_339


en 1080 le prieuré de Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. D'un premier mariage, il avait eu une fille, Alice, mariée à Hugues de Grandmesnil, vicomte de Leicester. De sa seconde épouse, née probablement Gournay-en-Bray, était issu le comte Mathieu Ier.13 Mais le personnage le plus curieux du lignage est sans aucun doute le frère d'Yves, Aubri, devenu dès 1059 sire de Coucy par mariage avec Ade, héritière de ce château situé aux environs de Laon. En 1066, Aubri se trouvait dans cette région, ayant maille à partir avec l'abbaye de Saint-Médard de Soissons. En 1079, il figure dans l'entourage du roi Philippe Ier. Cette année-là, il fut trahi par sa femme, capturé par l'amant de celle-ci, Enguerrand de Boves, et obligé de renoncer à tous ses droits. Finalement, il se refugia auprès de Guillaume le Conquérant qui, selon le Domesday Book, lui attribua une terre en Northumbrie. En 1088, Aubri est présent à la cour du duc Robert Courteheuse au Mont SaintMichel en compagnie du comte de Meulan Robert. Nul ne sait ce qu'il est devenu ensuite. Par simple attrait de l'aventure cette fois, deux 'jeunes' de Senlis, fils de Raoul le Riche, pattirent combattre à Hastings en 1066. Leur père étant décédé, l'aîné, Garnier, revint en France pour prendre sa succession comme châtelain de Pontoise en 1072. L'autre, Simon Ier, resta Outre-Manche, où il épousa Mathilde, fille aînée de Waltheof, comte de Huntingdon et Northampton, et de Judith, elle-même fille de Lambert de Lens et d'Adélaïde, soeur de Guillaume le Conquérant. De ce mariage naquit Simon II, qui faillit être frustré de l'héritage maternel, Mathilde s'étant remariée au roi d'Ecosse David. Partisan d'Etienne de Blois, Simon II finit par récupérer Northampton en 1138 et Huntingdon à la mort de son demi-frère Henry d'Ecosse en 1152. Il avait épousé Isabelle, fille du comte de Leicester Robert et niece de Galeran II de Meulan.14 Sa soeur Mathilde était la femme de Robert de Clare (+ 1137), frère de Gilbert de Tonbridge (+ 1117). A Dammartin, le comte Hugues (. . . 1067-95), mari de Rohais, eut pour fils le comte Pierre (+ 1106) et un certain Eudes qui paraît, selon des recherches encore inédites de J. N. Mathieu,15 devoir être identifié à Eudes, sire de Norton dans le comté de Suffolk, décédé en 1130. Rohais, qui épousa en secondes noces Eudes le Sénéchal, était la soeur de Gilbert de Clare, sire de Tonbridge, époux d'Adé1aïde de Clermont et père, comme on l'a vu, d'Alice, femme d'Aubri de Ver, de Richard, comte de Clare, et de Gilbert, comte de Pembroke. Son premier mariage avec le comte Hugues de Dammartin est d'autant plus probable que sa soeur Adélaïde épousa Gautier Tirel, vicomte de Poix en Picardie, lequel, après le meurtre 13 J. Depoin, 'Les comtes de Beaumont-sur-Oise et le prieuré de Sainte-Honorine de Conflans', Mémoires de la Société historique et archéologique de l'Arrondissement de Pontoise et du Vexin 33, 1915. 14 J. Depoin, Cartulaire . . . de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, pp. 278-9. J. Ward, 'Royal service and reward: The Clare Family and the Crown, 1066-1154, Anglo-Norman Studies, xi, Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1988, ed. R. Allen Brown, 1989, 262. 15 J.N. Mathieu, 'Recherches sur les premiers comtes de Dammartin', Paris et Ile-de-France, Mémoires, t. 47 (1996) 7-59. Je suis extrêmement redevable à l'auteur qui a bien voulu mettre à ma disposition un travail très fiche, fondé sur le dépouillement des sources anglaises, et dont les autres parties concerneront tousles rameaux issus de la famille de Montdidier.

< previous page

page_339

next page >


page_340

< previous page

page_340


accidentel de Guillaume le Roux en 1100, se retira à Pontoise, où il exerça un temps les fonctions de châtelain.16 Enfin, parmi les chevaliers qui mirent leur épée au service du duc Guillaume, le comte de Champagne Eudes III occupait certainement le rang le plus élevé. De son pèe Etienne, décédé prématurément en 1045/48, il tenait les comtés de Meaux et de Troyes à titre de vassal de son oncle Thibaud Ier, maitre du reste du patrimoine familial, les comtés de Blois, Chartres, Châteaudun, Sancerre, avec, de l'autre côté de la Seine, Provins. Selon la Chronique de Fountains, Eudes tua un jour un de ses fidèles et dut s'expatrier pour échapper à la justice de son oncle. Plus probablement, il fut frappé d'une sentence de bannissement assortie de la confiscation de ses biens pour atteinte à l'autorité du prince, comme il s'en trouve de nombreux cas en Normandie à la même époque. Réfugié auprès de Guillaume qui préparait alors son débarquement en Angleterre, il épousa avant 1068 la soeur de ce dernier, Adélaïde, comtesse d'Aumale, veuve depuis 1054 de son second mari, Lambert de Lens.17 Il semble que Eudes III fut accompagné dans son exil par un certain nombre de chevaliers du comté de Meaux. La Chronique de l'abbaye de Meaux (Melsaabbaye fondée en Angleterre et qui porte le même nom que la ville françaiserapporte en effet ce qui suit: 'Gamel, fils de Ketell de Meaux, grand-père de Jean de Meaux, partit de la cité de Meaux en France et vint avec Guillaume le Bâtard et d'autres hommes cherchant fortune dans les parages d'Holderness. Gamel devint habitant de Meaux dans le pays d'Holderness et ses compagnons s'installèrent sur d'autres domaines, à savoir sire Basin de Wawne, Siward de Sutton, Francon de Routh, qui arrivèrent tous ensemble en même temps et, après la guerre menée par les Normands, devinrent seigneurs de ces lieux. Prévoyant les besoins de leurs descendants, ils fixèent les limites de leurs possessions afin d'éviter les disputes.'18 Eudes III, devenu comte d'Aumale par son mariage, reçut de Guillaume le Conquérant en 1086-87 l'honneur d'Holderness. En 1095, il se mit à comploter contre Guillaume le Roux pour mettre à sa place sur le trône son propre fils, Etienne, comte d'Aumale du chef de sa mère depuis 1090 environ. Jeté en prison et privé de ses biens, il survécut jusqu'en 1115-18. Quant à Etienne, marié à Havise de Mortemer, il récupéra Holderness dès 1102. A sa mort en 112730, ses honneurs passèrent à son fils Guillaume le Gros. Celui-ci obtint de son cousin, le roi Etienne, en 1138, le comté d'York, qu'Henry II Plantagenêt lui retira en 1155. C'est en 1151 que Guillaume le Gros fonda sur une terre qu'il venait d'acheter à Jean de Meaux, pour y aménager un parc, l'abbaye de Meaux. Il y installa des cisterciens venus de Fontaines. Le tableau ne serait pas complet si était passée sous silence l'alliance la plus 16 J. Depoin, Cartulaire . . . de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, pp. 452-4. J. Ward, 'Royal service and reward . . .', Anglo-Norman Studies xi, 261-78. 17 M. Bur, La formation . . ., p. 211. L. Musset, 'Le droit d'exil', Autour du pouvoir ducal normand, Caen 1985, 4459. 18 B. English, The Lords of Holderness (1086-1260), a Study in feudal Society, Oxford 1979, pp. 9, 26, 138.

< previous page

page_340

next page >


page_341

< previous page

page_341


importante, conclue avant la mort du Conquérant. En 1080, celui-ci donna sa fille Adèle en mariage au comte de Blois Etienne-Henri, fils de Thibaud Ier et cousin germain d'Eudes III le 'deshérité'. De cette union devaient naître Thibaud II, comte de Blois et de Champagne, Etienne, par la libéralité d'Henry Ier Beauclerc, comte de Mortain et sire d'Eye dans le Suffolk, comte de Boulogne par mariage et, pour finir, successeur de son oncle sur le trône d'Angleterre, Henri, évêque de Winchester, Mathilde, femme de Richard, comte de Chester, et donc bru de Hugues d'Avranches et d'Ermentru de Clermont . . . Thibaud II, à partir du naufrage de la Blanche-Nef en 1120, put s'estimer le légitime héritier d'Henry Ier, dont il souscrit les actes au premier rang quand il séjourne trop peu, il est vrai, pour se faire connaître Outre-Manche, et dont il fut le meilleur soutien sur le continent, même et surtout contre le Capétien. Le sentiment d'appartenir à la Normanitas, comme disait R. Allen Brown, ne le quittera qu'à partir du moment où son frère Etienne, mieux implanté que lui en Angleterre, lui ravira la couronne.19 Probablement à l'instigation de son beau-père, Etienne-Henri, qui était destiné à recueillir la Champagne, prit finalement dans l'héritage paternel les comtés ligériens et beaucerons, mais y ajouta, contrairement à toutes les traditions familiales, celui de Meaux, lequel, avec le Provinois, devait constituer ultérieure-ment le comté de Brie. Guillaume le Conquérant cherchait alors à s'assurer la possession du Vexin français, vacant depuis 1077. Il vit en son gendre l'auxiliaire qui lui permettrait de réussir et même de prendre le domaine royal en tenailles et d'étrangler Paris qui en commandait le secteur le plus étroit et le plus vulnérable. Cette politique fut poursuivie par Henry Ier et son neveu Thibaud II, surtout dans les années 1107-11. Suger rapporte qu'après le siège du Puiset, Thibaud s'efforça de soustraire à Louis VI ses barons par des promesses et des cadeaux. Il s'attacha Lancelin II de Beauvais, sire de Bulles, baillistre de son neveu par alliance, le tout jeune fils du comte Pierre de Dammartin récemment décédé. Ce Lancelin aspirait à recouvrer le 'guidage' de Beauvais. Il attira aussi dans le patti bléso-normand Payen de Montjay qu'Henry Ier aida à remettre en état son château de Livry. 'La terre de Payen', précise Suger, 'était placée comme à un carrefour offrant un accès stir pour jeter le trouble dans Paris'. L'abbé de Saint-Denis est le premier à avoir expliqué par la géopolitique du XIIe siècle la lente promotion de la place forte de Paris comme capitale de la France.20 Même si les 'déshérités', qui ont trouvé en Angleterre ou en Normandie une femme et des biens, ne peuvent être pris en compte parce qu'ils n'ont pas gardé d'attaches réelles dans leur pays d'origine, il semble bien que jamais réseau aussi dense de parenté n'a été tissé dans les hautes couches de l'aristocratie entre les marges occidentales de la Champagne, l'Ile de France, la Normandie et l'An-gleterre. L'importance stratégique des mariages ne pouvait échapper à personne. Il y a tout lieu de penser qu'oncles, cousins, beaux-frères, bâtards et vassaux 19 M. Bur, 'Les comtes de Champagne et la Normanitas: Sémiologie d'un tombeau', Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, III, 1981, ed. R. Allen Brown, 22-32. 20 M. Bur, La formation . . .,p. 233. Suger, La Geste de Louis VI et autres oeuvres, ed. M. Bur, Paris 1994, pp. 78, 107-10 et 121.

< previous page

page_341

next page >


page_342

< previous page

page_342


Liens de parenté entre les Clare, les Clermont et les Dammartin

< previous page

page_342


next page >

page_343

< previous page

page_343


fonctionnaient pour le moins comme un service de renseignement au profit de l'un ou l'autre roi. En 1112, par exemple, Louis VI renonça à se rendre en Flandre parce qu'il avait été averti secrètement qu'un contingent normand se dirigeait vers le Puiset. En 1124, des 'amis intimes' l'informèrent des intentions belliqueuses d'Henry Ier et de son gendre, l'empereur.21 Mais ce qui surprend, c'est le peu de résultat qu'ont tité d'une situation qui leur était apparemment si favorable les successeurs de Guillaume le Conquérant. A cela deux raisons au moins. D'une part, même dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle, le réseau demeure très segmenté et les intérêts de chaque lignage l'emportent naturellement sur les autres formes de solidarité, celles du cousinage en particulier, même dans les groupes les mieux structurés: parentèle campanoblésoise (minée, il est vrai, par des rivalités internes), comtes de Meulan et consorts, Clare et NortonDammartin. D'autre part la dynastie normande eut à souffrir de ses propres divisions: révolte de Robert Courteheuse contre son père, rivalité de Robert et d'Henry Ier, revendication de Guillaume Cliton lui aussi un 'déshérité', accueilli à la cour de Louis VI, qui lui donna le Vexin français puis le comté de Flandre, conflit entre Etienne de Blois et les Angevins . . . Si Robert Ier de Meulan vécut dans la familiarité d'Henry Ier, son fils Galeran II soutint Cliton, puis Etienne de Blois qui lui restitua ses biens confisqués par Henry. Refusant à Amaury de Montfort, en 1118, le comté d'Evreux auquel celui-ci avait droit du chef de sa mère, le même Henry Ier obligea ce fidèle du roi de France à le lui arracher et, de ce fait, le rejeta dans le camp de Cliton . . .22 Le roi de France ayant à redouter semblable comportement de la part de ses propres vassaux, et d'abord des comtes de Blois et de Champagne, il n'est pas abusif de se demander si un équilibre n'a pas fini par s'instaurer entre les deux partis et si le réseau de parenté, fonctionnant dans les deux sens, n'a pas contribué à repousser jusqu'en 1204 l'échéance du contentieux né de la conquête de l'Angleterre en 1066. En fait, les fidélités s'enracinaient dans le fief, base réelle du contrat liant seigneur et vassal. Tout le reste n'était que convenientiae, accords de circonstance sans véritable durée. Les vassaux politiquement vulnérables étaient ceux qui, toujours en quéte de nouveaux domaines, possédaient en personne des fiefs des deux côtés et se trouvaient soumis à une dangereuse surenchère de la part des rois. Amenés à trahir l'un pour servir l'autre, ils eurent souvent à subir les conséquences de leur félonie, comme l'illustre le tragique destin des Dammartin, bien éclairé par les recherches de J. N. Mathieu.23 Mais avant de reprendre cette histoire, un dernier exemple montrera que les Plantagenêt, eux aussi, n'ont pas cessé de recruter dans l'aristocratie française. Issu de la famille des vicomtes de Mantes, neveu par son père Raoul de l'archevêque de Reims Samson, Guillaume Mauvoisin donne vets le milieu du XIIe siècle au prieuré du Bec à Stoke by Clare ses droits sur l'église de Little 21 Suger, La Geste deLouis VI, pp. 113 et 141. 22 A. Rhein, La seigneurie de Montfort en Iveline (Xe-XVe siècles), Versailles 1910, pp. 44 ss. 23 Cf. n. 12.

< previous page

page_343

next page >


page_344

< previous page

page_344


Bradley. Il sert Henry II entre 1164 et 1183. Les registres de l'Echiquier de Normandie indiquent en 1184: Pro uxore Willelmi Malveisin L. 9 de breve regis. Guillaume eut à son actif de brillants faits d'armes, recompensés en 1195: L 51 de redemptione prisonariis, quos Malveisin fecit, qui tenebantur apud Walmont, et encore: L. . . 10 s. de venta quinque navium piscatoriscurn, quos Malveisin cepit in tempore guerre. Peu avant sa mort vers 1201, Guillaume hérita de son frère Raoul la terre de Rosny-sur-Seine. Il laissa des enfants qui firent souche en Normandie.24 Venons-en à présent aux Dammartin, lignage mixte franco-anglo-normand, dont l'histoire reproduit quelque peu celle des Meulan. La branche française de la famille est représentée au début du XIIe siècle par le fils aîné du comte Hugues et de Rohais de Tonbridge, Pierre, mort préma-turément en 1106, laissant à Lancelin II de Beauvais, mari de sa soeur Adélaïde, la tutelle d'un enfant mineur, dont le nom est inconnu, lequel, devenu adulte, épousa Clémence de Bar-le-Duc et décéda bientôt sans rejeton. Clémence garda le comté de Dammartin en douaire et se remaria au comte Renaud II de Clermont, dont elle eut, entre autres enfants, une fille appelée Mathilde. Aucun Dammartin ne semble avoir pris part à la conquête de l'Angleterre. Aucun ne figure non plus dans le Domesday Book. La branche anglaise de la famille paraît avoir pour origine un frère présumé du comte Pierre, Eudes, dont l'installation Outre-Manche pourfait avoir été favorisée par son oncle maternel Gilbert de Clare, sire de Tonbridge. L'épouse d'Eudes se nommait Basilie. Divers indices laissent penser qu'elle appartenait au lignage norm and de SaintClair-sur-Elle, vassal du second mari de Rohais, Eudes le Sénéchal (+ 1120). Eudes de Dammartin est témoin en 1113 d'un acte de sa grand-mère maternelle en faveur du Bec. Avant 1121, il donne une terre au prieuré de Lewes. C'est ensa faveur que furent créés divers fiefs de chevalier, tenus directement du roi d'Angleterre, Norton et Mendlesham dans le Suffolk et à Strumpshaw dans le Norfolk.25 Du mariage d'Eudes et de Basilie naquirent six fils: Aubri, Eudes, Manessier, Guillaume, Etienne et Haimon, dont les cinq premier sont relativement bien connus. L'aîné, Aubri Ier, commença sa carrière en France dans l'espoir de faire valoir son droit au comté de Dammartin, au cas où cette terre tomberait complète-ment en déshérence. De 1122 à 1129 il fut chambrier de Louis VI. A la mort de son père en 1130, il revint à la cour d'Henry Ier, qui lui inféoda le manoir de Norton. Ses frères Manessier-Gautier et Eudes héritèrent, le premier de Mendlesham et le second de Strumpshaw. En 1152-53, Aubri reçut en fief d'Henry de Ryes, neveu d'Eudes le Sénéchal et vassal de Simon II de Senlis, une ancienne possession du Sénéchal, la terre de Hamerton dans le comté d'Huntingdon, en présence de Manessier et de Guillaume, lequel, surnommé Alain, paraît avoir été possessionné 24Stoke by Clare Cartulary, B.L. Cotton Appx XXI, ed. C. Harper-Bill et R. Mortimer, 1982, pp. 2, 201, no 278. Que K. Keats-Rohan, qui m'a signalé ce cartulaire, trouve ici l'expression de ma gratitude. J. Depoin, Cartulaire. . . de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, p. 263. 25Regesta Anglo-Normannorun, II, ed. C. Johnson, H. A. Cronne, Oxford 1956, no 1015 a (1113); Publications of the Pipe Rolls Society 10, Ancient Charters Royal and Private, no 8; The Book of Fees, 132 (Strumpshaw), 138 (Mendlesham); The Red Book of the Exchequer, 138 (Strumpshaw).

< previous page

page_344

next page >


page_345

< previous page

page_345


dans le Surrey et le Sussex sous le règne d'Etienne. Manessier détenait en 1166 des biens dans le Kent.26 II fut en 1170, avec le comte de Clare, commissaire de l'enquête des sheriffs dont trois réponses seulement ont été conservées. La plus courte, de huit lignes, fait état du paiement à Manessier de Dammartin par ses tenanciers dans le Suffolk de 3 marcs pour deux osts, 15 marcs pour l'équipement et l'armement ('encumbrement') de son fils et 5 marcs pour la garde du château de Leyland. Ce texte est probablement le plus ancien document original anglo-normand existant rédigé en vieux français.27 Quant à Etienne, époux de Sarah et père d'un Gilbert, il devint le sénéchal de Gilbert de Clare, comte de Hertford vers 1140, puis de son frère et successeur Roger, tous deux petits-fils de Gilbert de Clare, sire de Tonbridge, et d'Adèlaïde de Clermont. Etienne ayant usurpé la terre de Pitley, son fils s'en démit en faveur du prieuré de Stoke by Clare dans les années 1156-73, en y ajoutant l'église d'East-Peckham et deux maisons sous les ponts de Tonbridge. Le comte Rogerqui, dans l'adresse de ses actes, use volontiers de la formule: omnibus hominibus meis Francis et Anglicis, confirma la donation de Pitley, en spécifiant que celle-ci était faite pour l'âme du comte Gilbert, son frère, pour la sienne propre, ainsi que pour le repos du père de Gilbert de Dammartin et des ancêtres de celui-ci -pro anima Gilberti comitis fratris mei et mea et patris sui et omniurn antecessorum suorum, laissant entendre par là qu'un lien de parenté existait entre lui et le donateur.28 Aubri le Chambrier était encore en vie en 1162. Il avait eu deux fils, dont le cadet, Eudes, obtint de Simon II de Senlis, en 1152-53, les terres de Buckden et de Beachamstead dans l'honneur d'Huntingdon et de Wrestlingworth dans celui de Bedford.29 L'aîné, appelé également Aubri, devait hériter de Norton. On voit les deux fils payer l'écuage en 1155-56. Toutefois, depuis l'accession au trône d'Henry II Plantagenêt, Aubri le Chambrier et son fils aîné regardaient de plus en plus vets de la France. Louis VII accepta de les recevoir et d'inféoder à Aubri II la seigneurie de la Ferté-Alais,30 avant de l'investir dans les années 1156-61, à la suite de son mariage avec Mathilde de Clermont et du décês de son beau-père Renaud II, du comté de Dammartin. La branche anglaise de la famille finissait ainsi par récupérer le patrimoine ancestral, sous réserve de fidélité au Capétien. Du mariage d'Aubri II et de Mathilde naquirent six enfants, dont l'aîné, Renaud, devait s'illustrer de la manière que l'on sait. 26 Pour Aubri: Regesta, II, no 1934 (Norton) et BL, Add. Charters, 11233 (4) (Hamerton). Pour Manessier: L. C. Lloyd et D. M. Stenton, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, Oxford 1950, no 350, PRS, VI, 30 et VIII, 18 (Mendlesham); The Red Book, 195 et 197, PRS, XXII, 218 (Kent). Pour Eudes: J. Hunter, The Great Roll of the Pipe for the 31st Year of King Henry I, Londres 1833, 94, 98 (Strumpshaw). Pour Guillaume: The Red Book, 403 et 405; W. Dugdale, Monasticum Anglicanum, II, 135 et V, 14. 27 J. Beauroy, 'Centralisation et histoire sociale: Remarques sur l'lnquisitio Vicecomitum de 1170', Cahiers de Civilisation médiévale 37, 1994, 6. 28Stoke by Clare Cartulary, ed. C. Harper-Bill et R. Mortimer, 1, no 24, 25, 28, 50, 101 et 2, no 538. 29 BL, Add. Charters, 11233(5). 30 A. D. Essonne, 63 H 66 (v. 1166) et A. Luchaire, Etude sur les Actes de Louis VII, Paris 1885, no 704 (1176).

< previous page

page_345

next page >


page_346

< previous page

page_346


Aubri II, comte de Dammartin, fut envoyé en mission en Angleterre en 1180-81, époque où Henry II jouait au protecteur du jeune Philippe Auguste. Il obtint avant 1184 de Simon III, comte de Huntingdon et Northampton, les fiefs jadis concédés à son frère Eudes par Simon II, soit Wrestlingworth et Beachamstead. En 1186-87, il réapparaît dans les comptes de l'Echiquier anglais pour le Norfolk et le Suffolk au côté d'un de ses cousins, Eudes, sire de Shrumpshaw. Il paie une taxe sur la terre de Piddington dans le comte d'Oxford, terre qui relevait de l'honneur de Huntingdon. La même année 1187, il se voit confirmer par le roi, à Lyons-la-Forêt, la possession du manoir de Norton. Bien plus Henry II décide de s'attacher le jeune Renaud en lui inféodant la terre de Lillebonne-en-Caux avec le château et tout le domaine attenant.31 Philippe Auguste feignit d'ignorer cette situation ambiguë. Henry II étant décédé, il ne s'opposa pas au mariage de Renaud (en fait le second) avec Ide de Boulogne, petite-fille du roi Etienne, héritière du comté de Boulogne, pour lequel il reçut l'hommage de Renaud en 1192. Ide avait des droits sur Fécamp, Montivilliers, Etretat, Harfleur, Barneville, toutes localités jouxtant la terre de Lillebonne.32 Cinq ans plus tard, poussé par le comte de Flandre et de Hainaut Baudouin, qui avait à se plaindre du roi de France, sollicité aussi en sous-main probablement par Guillaume le Maréchal, Renaud passa ouvertement du côté de Richard Coeur de Lion, lequel, en 1198, lui confirma la possession de Lillebonne, des fiefs normands et anglais de sa femme les manoirs de Kirton, Bampton, Dunham, Exning dans les comtes de Lincoln, Oxford, Nottingham, Suffolk et de tout ce qui pourrait lui échoir en Angleterre et en Normandie à la mort de son père Aubri II, à quoi il ajouta encore une somme de 500 marcs. En 1199, une alliance perpétuelle fut scellée avec Jean sans Terre, successeur de Richard. Le nouveau roi et le sire de Lillebonne se promettaient de ne point faire la paix avec Philippe Auguste l'un sans l'autre.33 Le roi de France commença alors à prendre ses précautions. Aubri II étant décédé, il investit Renaud du comté de Dammartin en 1201, mais exigea que son jeune fils, Philippe Hurepel, soit fiancé à la fille unique du nouveau comte, héritière de tous ses biens. Jean sans Terre riposta en faisant saisir Lillebonne et les fiefs anglais de Renaud. Mais les temps avaient changé. En deux ans le roi de France fit la conquête de la Normandie et combla Renaud de ses faveurs, sachant qu'elles devaient profiter à son propre fils.34 Il lui donna les comtés d'Aumale, de Warenne 31PRS, XXX, 152, mission en Angleterre; BL, Add. Charters, 11233 (6), Wrestlingworth et Beachamstead; PRS, XXXVII, 59, écuage pour la campagne d'Irlande et 49, Piddington; BL, Add. Charters, 11233 (3), Norton, et charte de toutes la plus importante selon J. N. Mathieu, à qui j'emprunte ces références11233 (1), Lillebonne. 32 Th. Stapleton, Magni Rotuli Scaccarü Normanniae, Londres 1840-44, p. 90. 33 BL, Add Charters, 11235 (1 et 2); PRS, XLVII, 44, 111, 189; J. Hunter, The Great Rolls of the Pipe for the second, third and fourth Years of the Reign of King Henry the Second, Londres 1844, 24, 36, 38,125 (Kirton, Bampton, Dunham, Exning). Th. Stapleton, Magni Rotuli . . ., 381 (500 marcs). H. Malo, Un grand feudataire, Renaut de Dammartin et la coalition de Bouvines, Paris 1898, p.j. no 37. 34 Alors que se déroulaient ces évènements, Renaud commandait au scriptorium de l'abbaye de Battle une traduction en français du Pseudo-Turpin (1206). Le Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. J. Holden, 3, Paris 1973, 20. Je dois ce renseignement à E. Van Houts, que je remercie vivement. Sur ce point, G. Spiegel, (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_346

next page >


page_347

< previous page

page_347


et de Mortain, satisfaisant avec ce dernier une ancienne revendication des Boulogne, descendants du roi Etienne. Puis il brusqua les choses. Dès 1210, il fit célébrer le mariage de Hurepel et mit la main, au nom celui-ci, sur Aumale et les terres du pays de Caux, sauf Lillebonne. Excédé, Renaud chercha à se venger. Un incident avec Philippe de Dreux, cousin du roi et évêque de Beauvais, lui en fournit l'occasion. Il décida de fortifier Mortain. Le roi exigea que la place lui fût livrée et, comme Renaud tâchait de gagner du temps, il la fit saisir ainsi qu'Aumale, Dammartin, Lillebonne et Domfront en 1211. La-dessus, Renaud s'enfuit en Lorraine, prit langue avec l'empereur Otton IV et avec Jean sans Terre et, l'année suivante, prêta hommage à ce dernier pour ses biens et ceux de sa femme en Angleterre et en Normandie. Il devint vite l'âme de la coalition qui fut écrasée à Bouvines en 1214. Capturé durant la bataille, il mourut en prison en 1227. Sa fille et son gendre héritèrent de ses biens, saul du patrimoine anglais. Avant 1199, Philippe Auguste confisque Meulan au comte Robert, fils de Galeran II et de Mathilde de Cornouailles, elle-même fille de Renaud, bâtard d'Henry Ier. En 1200, il achète Evreux au comte Amaury, fils de Simon de Montfort et d'Amicie de Leicester, descendante de Robert de Beaumont-sur-Risle qui devint comte de Meulan en 1082. En 1211, il saisit Dammartin sur le comte Renaud qui vient de le trahir pour la troisième fois. En 1218, il achète le comté de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis et en 1223, celui de Beaumont-sur-Oise. Toute la nébuleuse anglo-normanno-française d'entre Marne et Oise se trouve anéantie. Quant à la famille de Blois et Champagne, elle s'est ralliée au Capétien quand Louis VII, en 1160, épousa Adèle, fille de Thibaud II, soeur du comte de Troyes Henri le Libéral et du comte de Blois Thibaud, lesquels s'unirent en 1164 aux deux filles du roi et d'Aliénor d'Aquitaine, Made et Alix. Quant à la Champagne le futur comté de Champagne et de Brie du XIIIe siècle, qui s'individualise au sein des possessions blésoises dès la mort de Thibaud II en 1152, elle n'a été sensible à l'attraction anglo-normande que sur sa frange septentrionale, plus spécialement dans la région de Meaux. Des Meldois ont peuplé la presqu'île d'Holderness sur l'estuaire de la Humber. Un comte de Troyes et de Meaux, banni par son oncle et seigneur, a fait souche de comtes d'Aumale et de Holderness. Un vicomte de Meaux est devenu le beau-frère d'un comte de Surrey. Hormis ces quelques cas, il n'y a rien à signaler. Pour employer une expression dont font usage les historiens de la Guerre de Cent Ans, la Champagne ne fait pas partie de la 'France anglaise'. Le phénomène est d'ailleurs plus général et plus profond. A l'intérieur même de la principauté bléso-champenoise, les deux moitiés ne communiquent pour ainsi dire pas. Les cours tenues par un même prince Thibaud Ier, Thibaud II en Champagne et en Brie ne sont pas fréquentées par les membres de l'aristocratie (Footnote continued from previous page) Romancing the Past. The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Century France, Univ. of California Press 1993, 71.

< previous page

page_347

next page >


page_348

< previous page

page_348


de la Beauce et des pays de la Loire. A Blois et à Chartres, les seigneurs champenois sont absents. Les officiers domestiques ne sont pas les mêmes des deux côtés. Ce cloisonnement est ancien. Il tient à l'histoire, aux distances et aussi à la psychologie des individus. Déjà en 1025, Gilduin de Saumur, dont le château avait été pris par le comte d'Anjou Foulques Nerra, refusait les compensations que son seigneur, le comte Eudes II, père de Thibaud Ier, lui offrait en Champagne.35 A part les 'déshérités', les cadets sans terre, les jeunes agacés par la longévité de leur père et les maris trompés, chacun se trouvait bien chez soi. C'était le sentiment de Roger de Beaumont-sur-Risle qui, en 1066, laissa ses fils acquérir des honneurs en Angleterre, mais ne voulut pas y aller. Ainsi s'expliquent in fine la stabilité du système féodal, la longue patience des rois et aussi leur faveur à l'égard des aventuriers. Même un évènement comme la conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands n'y a rien changé. 35 M. Bur, La formation, 306, n. 80.

< previous page

page_348

next page >


page_349

< previous page

page_349


16 How Norman was the Principality of Antioch? Prolegomena to a Study of the Origins of the Nobility of a Crusader State Alan V. Murray Nine hundred years ago at the Council of Clermont in Auvergne Pope Urban II set in motion the crusading expedition which recaptured the Holy Sepulchre for Christendom and in doing so established four new Latin states in the Middle East: in order of their foundation, the county of Edessa, the principality of Antioch, the kingdom of Jerusalem and the county of Tripoli. Over eighty years ago Charles Haskins concluded that the share of the Normans in the First Crusade was 'out of all proportion to their contribution to the permanent occupation of the East'. Yet, despite the evidently small numbers in which they settled, he regarded the principality of Antioch in northern Syria as having a distinctive Norman character; as he put it, 'the only Norman state in the eastern Mediterranean'.1Later, David C. Douglas argued in similar terms, claiming that 'the Normans were not only the chief military contribution to the success of the crusade, but they were also, before its close, to establish a powerful Norman state in the East'.2 Douglas even talks of a 'third Norman conquest' following those of southern Italy and England, which established in northern Syria a state which he and others have often referred to as the 'Norman principality of Antioch'.3 The crusader conquest of Antioch was merely one reflex of what Robert Bartlett has called the 'aristocratic diaspora' of the tenth to thirteenth centuries, in the course of which lords and knights from the heartlands of the former Carolingian empire conquered or settled lands on the periphery of Latin Christendom: Norman knights in England, Scotland and Ireland, Germans in Prussia, and French in Spain, to name only a few. Thus the study of the settlement of crusader Antioch, a principality at the extreme eastern limit of the Latin world, offers a comparison The following abbreviations are used below for frequently cited works: AA = Albert of Aachen, 'Albert Aquensis Historia Hierosolymitana', in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Historiens Occidentaux, IV, Paris 1879; RRH = Reinhold Röhricht, Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani, Innsbruck 1893, and Additamentum, Innsbruck 1904. 1 Charles H. Haskins, The Normans in European History, New York 1915, 215-16. 2 David C. Douglas, The Norman Fate 1100-1154, London 1976, 169. 3 Douglas, The Norman Fate, 169, 172, 184.

< previous page

page_349

next page >


page_350

< previous page

page_350


with that of England in the west, and thus with the aims and methods of the Continental Origins of English Landowners project.4 However, the interest in this subject is not merely a comparative one. The study of the origins of their ruling classes is vital to a proper understanding of the history of the crusader states in Outremer. We can see this particularly in the case of the kingdom of Jerusalem. For many years there existed a generally accepted model for the origins of the Jerusalem nobility. Put in a simplified form, this model stated that the nobility essentially originated in the crusading army of Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin I, the first two rulers of the kingdom. While some knights entered Godfrey's service in the course of the crusade, the bulk of his army was made up of men who had been his vassals in the duchy of Lower Lotharingia, and to a lesser extent, men from the county of Boulogne. This view is part of a wider scheme which sees each of the crusader states as having particularly 'national' characteristics which affected their traditions and institutions: thus Jerusalem and Edessa are regarded as Lotharingian, Antioch as Norman and Tripoli as Provençal. The essentially Lotharingian character of the early ruling class of Jerusalem was further stressed in discussions of relations between monarchy and nobility during the early kingdom.5 Richard saw in the Frankish state a reproduction of the feudal conditions obtaining in Godfrey's duchy of Lower Lotharingia before the crusade, and Prawer followed him in regarding this phenomenon as the principal factor which contributed to the relative strength of the early Jerusalem monarchy, in contrast to that of the later twelfth century and to the second Latin Kingdom of the period after 1187:6 As Jean Richard has pointed out, the court of Godfrey of Bouillon was overwhelmingly composed of people who were his vassals in Lower Lotharingia. The political tradition of those vassals could not have been that of strong aristocratic opposition against the Advocatus who was their sovereign as duke of Lotharingia. Yet on detailed examination, the so-called 'Lotharingian character' of the Jerusalem nobility proves to be something of an oversimplification. In the first two decades of the kingdom Lotharingians made up only one significant element in the nobility along with men from Flanders, Picardy, Normandy and the Ile-de-France, along with smaller numbers of Germans, Italians and Provençals. Some did indeed have ties with the Bouillon-Boulogne family dating back to before the crusade, but most had only entered the service of Godfrey and Baldwin during the expedition to Palestine. Kinship ties between the nobility and the ruling house 4 Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest. Colonization and Cultural Change, 950-1350, London 1994. 5 Jean Richard, Le royaume latin de Jérusalem, Paris 1953, 62-63; Joshua Prawer, 'La noblesse et le régime féodal du royaume latin de Jérusalem', Le Moyen Age, lxv, 1959, 42; Jonathan Riley-Smith, 'The Motives of the Earliest Crusaders and the Settlement of Latin Palestine', EHR xcviii, 1983, 721-37. 6 Richard, Royaume latin, 63; Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions, Oxford 1980, 8. See also Joshua Prawer, Histoire du royaume Latin de Jérusalem, Paris 1969, I, 467-70; H. E. J. Cowdrey, 'The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem', History lvii, 1972, 230; and W. Zollner, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, Berlin 1977, 175.

< previous page

page_350

next page >


page_351

< previous page

page_351


were insignificant. This situation began to change after the death of Baldwin I in 1118, when after a short dispute over the succession the throne passed to Baldwin II, who despite his name was a fairly distant kinsman of his predecessor. Baldwin II was a son of a count of Rethel, whose family had extensive connections with the nobles of the lie-de-France and the surrounding areas. From 1118 we find an increase in the number and influence of new men with certain shared characteristics: a late arrival in Outremer, geographical origins in Francia, ties of kinship and vassalage with each other and the ruling house, a tradition of independence and resistance to royal authority. The growing factionalism of the nobility and its deteriorating relationship with the monarchy actually threatened the crown on two occasions: in 1124, when a faction attempted to depose Baldwin II in favour of Count Charles the Good of Flanders, and ten years later, when Baldwin's son-in-law and successor Fulk of Anjou was opposed by a revolt led by Hugh of Le Puiset, lord of Jaffa, a member of a family well-known in France for its traditions of opposition to the Capetian dynasty.7 It would seem that far from contributing to the strength of the monarchy, the nobility constituted a threat to the crown. The first four rulers of Antioch all belonged to the family of the lords of Hauteville-la-Guichard, most of whose members had emigrated from Normandy to southern Italy in the course of the eleventh century: Bohemund I, son of Robert Guiscard; Bohemund's cousin Tancred, son of Odo 'the Good Marquis'; Roger, son of Richard 'of the Principate' of Salerno; and Bohemund II, son of the first Bohemund. Only after Bohemund II's death in 1130 do we find the intrusion of non-Normans as rulers, when his heiress Constance was married first to Raymond of Poitiers, a son of William IX of Aquitaine, and after his death to Rainald of Chatillon. The case of the kingdom of Jerusalem shows that in the crusader states the relationship between the geographical origins of rulers and those of nobilities is a complex one, and it is hardly surprising that while there is evident unanimity on the Norman character of the ruling dynasty and nobility of Antioch, there is no agreement on how long this Norman character prevailed. For Haskins, the principality's distinctively Norman character 'largely disappeared with the passing of Bohemond I and Tancred', that is as early as 1112.8 Mayer has claimed that a caesura was marked by the arrival of Raymond of Poitiers in 1136 as consort to the Princess Constance; Raymond's accession, he argues, saw the Norman element in Syria finally displaced by French influence.9 By contrast, the author of the 7 Hans Eberhard Mayer, 'Jérusalem et Antioche au temps de Baudouin II', Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1980, 719-30; Mayer, 'Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem', Dumbarton Oaks Papers xxvi 1972, 93-182; Alan V. Murray, 'The Origins of the Frankish Nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1118', Mediterranean Historical Review iv, 1989, 281-300; Murray, 'Dynastic Continuity or Dynastic Change? The Accession of Baldwin II and the Nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem', Medieval Prosopography xiii, 1992, 1-27; Murray, 'The Army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096-1099: Structure and Dynamics of a Contingent on the First Crusade', Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire lxx, 1992, 30129; Murray, 'Baldwin II and his Nobles: Baronial Factionalism and Dissent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1118-1134', Nottingham Medieval Studies xviii, 1994, 60-85. 8 Haskins, The Normans in European History, 216. 9 Hans Eberhard Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, 7th edn, Stuttgart 1989, 83.

< previous page

page_351

next page >


page_352

< previous page

page_352


magisterial work which remains the only monograph on the principality, Claude Cahen, has found that the nobility remained predominantly, if not exclusively Norman, with the non-Norman minority being augmented by new immigrants arriving with Raymond of Poitiers and with the Second Crusade.10 It seems, however, that little attempt has been made to test in any detail the one assumption common to all of these views: namely, that at least initially, the principality of Antioch and its nobility were largely Norman in character at the time of its original foundation. This, then, leads to my initial question: how Norman was the principality of Antioch? Undoubtedly the Italian Norman Bohemund and his followers were instrumental in the capture of the city of Antioch during the crusade in 1098. After much wrangling among the leaders of the crusade, the city and its immediate territory were eventually conceded to him. He and many of his followers remained there while the bulk of the crusading army marched on to Palestine, and the next few years saw a rapid expansion of the new state, which was extended inland to the frontiers of Aleppo, southwards along the coast of Syria, and northwards into Cilicia. The obvious assumption is that most of Bohemund's army remained with him, and that the nobility of Antioch was drawn from this group.11 However, there are certain problems inherent in this assumption. Evelyn Jamison has analysed the composition of the southern Italian contingent on the crusade, and shown that most knights who accompanied Bohemund and whose names are recorded formed a homogeneous group of Normans settled in Italy. However, her evidence is mostly drawn from the Gesta Francorum; most names derive from one passage dealing with the departure of Bohemund from Italy.12 Yet it is clear that none of the armies on the crusade were static entities, but changed constantly through the effects of casualties and desertion, while attracting new followers from other contingents, as the effects of starvation and impoverishment made themselves felt. Those leaders with ample funds or who had access to booty or tribute were especially sought after, as they commanded the means by which poor knights could retain their weapons and horses, and consequently, their status.13 Certainly if we look at this question from a different angle we find that not all Normans who remained in the East opted for Antioch. A substantial number can be found in the kingdom of Jerusalem. Many if not most of these came from the army of Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy, but several can be shown to have 10 Claude Cahen, La Syrie du Nord á l'époque des croisades at la principauté franque d'Antioche, Paris 1940, 527-46. 11 This is the assumption made by Joshua Prawer, 'Social Classes in the Latin Kingdom: The Franks', in History at the Crusades, gen. ed. Kenneth M. Setton, V, Madison 1985, 117-92. The total number of knights in Antioch and Edessa is estimated at 700 by Josiah C. Russell, 'The Population of the Crusader States', in A History of the Crusades, V, 295-314, 309. The principality of Antioch must have accounted for well over half of this total. 12 Evelyn Jamison, 'Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with special reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade', in Studies is French Language and Mediaeval Literature Presented be Professor Mildred K. Pope, Manchester 1939, 183-208; Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. Rosalind Hill, London 1962, 7-8. 13 Murray, 'The Army of Godfrey of Bouillon'.

< previous page

page_352

next page >


page_353

< previous page

page_353


left Europe in Bohemund's army. We can identify two of them in a group of household officers of Godfrey of Bouillon which on his death summoned his brother Baldwin I to come from Edessa and seize the throne of Jerusalem. Robert de Apulia was a Norman settled in Anzi (prov. Potenza), but by 1100 had clearly joined the Jerusalem nobility, later being assigned the revenues of Arsuf as a money-fief.14 Robert FitzGerard was the second son of Gerard, count of Buonalbergo and had served Bohemund as standard bearer.15 Mayer has recently argued that noblemen of Norman origin remained a relatively identifiable and influential group in Jerusalem until at least the 1130s, when several were displaced in favour of Angevins by the new king, Fulk of Anjou, a development which was noticed and commented on by Orderic Vitalis.16 Why then should Bohemund's army, by the time it reached Syria, not have included men who had originally left Europe with other leaders? We would do well to bear in mind the origins of the companions of William the Conqueror in 1066. Research of recent years has made it clear that what was once thought of as a 'Norman Conquest' of England included numbers of Bretons, Flemings, Poi-tevins, Manceaux, Burgundians and others, many of whom remained to form significant elements within the so-called 'Anglo-Norman' nobility.17 The study of English landholders benefits from continuity of settlement and the relatively full and diverse evidence, neither of which conditions can be said to apply to the case of Antioch. While the crusade and its success brought forth a great amount of writing, most accounts are not concerned with events after the capture of Jerusalem. What we are interested in are not those crusaders who returned home to Europe, and in many cases presumably acted as informants for the western authors. Therefore we are essentially dependent on a handful of narrative sources. The histories of Albert of Aachen and William of Tyre are excellent sources, but have a bias to events in the kingdom of Jerusalem. Orderic Vitalis clearly was interested in events in Antioch, and thus provides a valuable corrective. The one narrative source actually written in northern Syria is the Bella Antiochena of Walter the Chancellor, which deals with the defence of the principality against the Turks in the period 1115-22, which offers a handful of names of Antiochene nobles. A 14 AA 514-15, 526; Gesta Francorum, 7, 20; Jamison, 'Some Notes', 202-3; Murray, 'Origins', 289. 15 AA 316, 526; Gesta Francorum, 36; Jamison, 'Some Notes', 201-2; Murray, Origins', 289-90. 16 Hans Eberhard Mayer, 'Angevins versus Normans: the New Men of King Fulk of Jerusalem', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society cxxxiii, 1989, 1-25. Other known or probable Normans in the kingdom of Jerusalem include Ralph of Montpinçon (Murray, 'Origins', 290), Walter Bigodus (Murray, 'Origins', 290), Henry of Alençson (RRH no. 104a), Ralph of Sept-Meules (RRH no. 190), Robert Giffarz (RRH no. 79) as well as William, an illegitimate son of Robert Curthose (Murray, 'Origins', 290). 17 See for example: Robert P. George, 'The Contribution of Flanders to the Conquest of England, 1065-1086', Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire v, 1926, 81-99; Johan Verberckmoes, 'Flemish Tenants-in-Chief in Domesday England', RBPhH lxvi, 1988, 72556; K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'William I and the Breton Contingent in the non-Norman Conquest 1060-1087', in Anglo-Norman Studies xiii, ed. Marjorie Chibnall, Woodbridge 1991, 15772; Keats-Rohan, 'The Bretons and Normans of England 1066-1154: The Family, the Fief, and the Feudal Monarchy', Nottingham Medieval Studies xxxvi, 1992, 42-78; Keats-Rohan, 'The Prosopography of Post-conquest England: Four Case Studies', Medieval Prosopography xiv, 1993, 1-52; George T. Beech, 'The Participation of Aquitanians in the Conquest of England 1066-1100', in Anglo-Norman Studies ix, ed. R. Allen Brown, Woodbridge 1986, 1-24.

< previous page

page_353

next page >


page_354

< previous page

page_354


similar bias towards the kingdom of Jerusalem is evident in the genealogical traditions of the crusader states themselves. The Lignages d'Outremer were compiled in the fourteenth in the kingdom of Cyprus, when the mainland principalites had been extinguished. The purpose of this compilation of genealogies may have been to preserve claims to lost territories, which would explain why the chapter headings frequently refer to the heirs of a particular lordship.18 The Lignages were used as the principal source for the only modem monograph to be devoted to the nobility of crusader states, Du Cange's Familles d'Outremer, later revised and edited by Rey.19 The preoccupation with genealogical continuity gives both works a rather limited value for the first half of the twelfth century. Many of the early noble families died out or were dispossessed within a few generations. Above all, the Cypriot Franks who compiled the Lignages were concerned with Palestinian rather than European origins. Even the most famous baronial family of the Latin East, the Ibelins, are given a quite spurious ancestry as descendants of the counts of Chartres.20 Most prosopographical evidence is contained in the charters of the period, although compared to the wealth of evidence available for England and Norman Italy, these documentary resources are meagre indeed. Most of them survive in cartularies of religious institutions based outside the principality, copied out by scribes who may have had little knowledge of the names of Antiochenes, and even less of the toponymy of Syria.21 Even restricting discussion to laymen of the noble and knightly classes it is sometimes difficult to establish who belonged to the nobility of Antioch and who were mere temporary visitors; indeed it may be unrealistic to try to make such a distinction. The Robertus de Anza who witnessed a charter of 1098 was undoubtedly identical with the Robert of Apulia who settled in Jerusalem two years later.22 Normans were clearly used to travelling between Normandy, southern Italy and Byzantium, both before and after the crusade, taking service with different rulers. For a Norman with Wanderlust, with ambitions or simply with a desire to escape his homeland, it was easy to incorporate Outremer into this axis. Others travelled even farther afield, going even beyond the frontiers of Christendom in some cases. The most exotic specimen in this respect was Hugh Bunell, son of Robert of Igé. He had killed the Countess Mabel of Bellême in 1077 and fled with his brothers to Sicily and thence to Byzantium. However, even here he did not feel safe from the vengeance of the Bellême family and the justice of William the Conqueror, and went to live among the Saracens, 'studying their customs and languages', as 18 'Lignages d'Outremer', in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Lois, ii, Pads 1843, 435-74. 19Les Familles d'Outre-Mer de Du Cange, ed. E.-G Rey, Paris 1869, repr. New York 1971. 20 'Lignages', 448; Jean Richard, 'Guy d'Ibelin OP, évêque de Limassol et l'inventaire de ses biens', Bulletin de correspondance héllenique lxxiv, 1950, 98-100. 21Chartes de Terre Sainte provennant de l'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Josaphat, ed. Henri-François Delaborde, Paris 1880; Cartulaire général de l'Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, ed. Joseph Delaville Le Roulx, Paris 1894-1906; C. Kohler, 'Chartes de l'abbaye de la Vallée de Josaphat, 1108-1291', Revue de l'Orient latin vii, 1899, 108-222; Cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, ed. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, Pads 1984. For ease of reference all documents are referred to by the numbers assigned to them in RRH. 22 RRH no. 12. See above, n. 14.

< previous page

page_354

next page >


page_355

< previous page

page_355


Orderic tells us. In 1099, over twenty years after leaving Normandy, he turned up unannounced at the siege of Jerusalem and offered his services and expertise to a no doubt astonished Robert Curthose.23 The strength of continuing connections with other Norman countries may well have helped maintain a Norman character in a way that did not always apply in the kingdom of Jerusalem. How can Norman origins be determined? In his prosopographical analysis of the conquest and settlement of southern Italy Léon Ménager distinguished five criteria by which the Norman origin of settlers could be established: (1) by forename of Scandinavian origin; (2) by surnames deriving from Norman toponymy; (3) by Norman family name or patronymic; (4) by use of the surname Normannus; and, (5) by declaration of Norman origin.24 These are tests that can similarly be applied to the nobility of Antioch, although the nature of the evidence means that we cannot necessarily expect the same results. In the case of Italy one of the clearest indications of Norman identity is by forenames of Scandinavian origin. The most frequent there are derivatives of Old Norse Áskell, Þorsteinn, Ásmundr, Ásbjørn, Þorgísl and Þraldr, which appear in Latin as variants of the forms A(n)schetinus, Torstenus, Osmundus, Osbernus, Torgisius and Toroldus. Scandinavian names are extremely rare among the Antiochene nobility, with only two documented cases: Toroldus vicecomes and Osmundus Dux.25 These occurrences are so few that they should probably be interpreted as evidence of changing onomastic fashion, and that in the century after the conquest of southern Italy Normans were abandoning names of Scandinavian in favour of those of Continental-Germanic origin. In the second half of the twelfth century we find several occurrences of the forenames Tancred and Guiscard, which at least indicates a Norman influence on name-giving habits, even if we cannot prove actual Norman origins for the individuals concerned.26 Otherwise the large group of names without any qualifying surname do not reveal much, except in the case of those distinctive names such as Leo and George, which probably relate to Greeks and Armenians who made up a certain proportion of administrators and vassals in the principality.27 If we turn to identification by toponymic surname, we find that it is easy to get into a circular argument. If we decide that the character of the nobility was Norman, we can look to Normandy for locative surnames and, given the nature of French placenames, we will undoubtedly find similar or identical names there. However, without corroborating evidence it is difficult to make any identifications with certainty. On the other hand, we may well be ignoring equally possible candidates 23 Orderic, V, 156-58. 24 Léon-Robert Ménager, 'Inventaire des families normandes et franques émigrées en Italie mériodionale et en Sicilie, XIe-XIIe siècles, in Relazioni e communicazioni nelle Prime Giornate Normanno-Sveve del Centro di studi normanno-svevi, Bari 1973: Roberto il Guiscardo e il suo tempore, Roma 1975, 260-390; reprinted with same pagination in Ménager, Hommes et institutions de l'Italie normande, London 1981. 25 Ménager, 'Inventaire des families normandes', 267-96; RRH nos 35, 119. 26Tancred: RRH nos 282, 347, 473. Guiscardus: RRH nos. 388, 478, 493, 511, 523, 524, 550, 586, 610, 979, 989. 27 RRH nos 149, 151a, 157, 195, 196, 228, 253, 282, 292.

< previous page

page_355

next page >


page_356

< previous page

page_356


elsewhere. Thus, it is tempting to link Hugo de Cantalou with Canteloup in the départements of Calvados or Manche; however, there is also a Canteleux in the Pas-de-Calais, and other similar examples elsewhere in France.28 Ivo de Sancti Galeri bears a name found in the départements of Oise, Seine-Maritime and Somme.29 We find similar problems with Giselbertus Sanci Victoris.30 Even less common placenames are problematic. The surname of Hugo de Cheteville is toponym deriving from the Scandinavian personal name Ketill, which greatly limits its occurrences in France; however, we can still find various examples in both Normandy and Picardy.31 In cases of greater probability, we cannot assume that bearers of a particular toponymic surname were necessarily members of the same family as those bearing the same surname elsewhere. Thus Malgerus de Altavilla and Guillelmus de Altavilla probably derive their surnames from Hauteville-la-Guichard, but it is uncertain whether they were descendants of Tancred of Hauteville and therefore belonged to the ruling dynasty of Antioch.32 Clearly the vast majority of names occurring on Antioch witness-lists are problematic. Many of them do probably point to a Norman origin, but the question of identification really boils down to what we are really willing to accept as proof. Ideally we would require corroboration from narrative sources which identify specific places of origin or clarify the circumstances of arrival in Outremer. This corroboration is available in only the fewest cases. One good example is that of several men bearing the surname de Surdavalle or de Surdis Vallibus, that is Sourdeval-la-Barre in the département of the Manche. A Robert of Sourdeval witnesses a charter of Bohemund I of Antioch issued in 1098. He can be found in southern Italy as early as 1081, when he acted as one of the commanders of a Norman force which besieged Muslim-held Catania. In 1094 he witnessed a charter of Count Roger of Sicily for the abbey of Lipari, and he is mentioned in a list of crusaders departing with Bohemund on crusade. Jamison states that there is no further evidence of him after 1098, but in fact we can trace him to 1115 when he was killed at the battle of Tell Danith.33 A Walter of Sourdeval is documented in Antioch between 1134 and 1154. His son Robert (II) appears between 1134 and 1163. Since this Robert's son is also called Walter it is likely that these were the direct descendants of the settler who accompanied Bohemund, and that the family used the alternating naming pattern of Robert and Walter. We therefore have considerable evidence of one Norman family documented from Italy in the 1080s to Antioch more than a century later.34 It is possible, but as to my knowledge unproved, that the Sourdevals of Antioch belonged to the same family as those 28 AA 682. 29 RRH no. 263. 30 RRH no. 150. 31 RRH no. 114c; Francis de Beaurepaire, Les noms des communes et anciennes paroisses de La Manche, Paris 1986, 108. 32 Walter the Chancellor, Galterii Cancelarii Bella Antiochena, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer, Innsbruck 1896, 83; RRH no. 73a. 33 RRH no. 12; Jamison, 'Some Notes', 207; Gesta Francorum, 7; Walter the Chancellor, 75. 34 Walter: RRH nos 150, 151a, 195, 282, 292, 586, 649. Robert (II): RRH nos 150, 151a, 282, 292, 314, 387, 388. Walter (II): RRH no. 586.

< previous page

page_356

next page >


page_357

< previous page

page_357


who settled in Yorkshire and Ireland, the latter giving their name to the settlement of Swordlestown in Co. Kildare. While Cahen provides a putative genealogy of the family in Antioch, he does not discuss the evidence on which it is based; this applies to several of Cahen's findings, although it is his work which in the past has been accepted by many historians, including myself, as evidence of the 'Norman character' of the principality.35 With Norman family names we are again in the area of possibility or probability rather than certainty. Two members of the nobility appear with the surname Fraxinus or Fresnellus and may therefore have belonged to the Fraisnel family of La Ferte-Fraisnel.36 Nevertheless, even using the various means of identification mentioned so far, we have a mere handful of cases where an identification, Norman or otherwise, can be regarded as a certainty, rather than simply a probability. I have already mentioned the cases of Torold the Viscount, Osmundus Dux, Robert of Anzi, and the three members of the Sourdeval family: Robert I, Walter and Robert II. Orderic Vitalis gives detailed information on the precise origins of a group of six men. These include one bona fide Norman, Robert of Caen, one Manceau, Musched of Le Mans, and three Bretons, Gervase, son of Haimo of Dol-de-Bretagne, Rivallon of Dinan, and Guiomar, son of an unidentified Count Alan. Although all of these names occur in one extended passage containing a large number of legendary elements, there is little reason to doubt the information on the origins of these individuals.37 Boello Carnotenis, as his name suggests, came from Chartres and was therefore a Francien, although his presence is documented in southern Italy and on the crusade.38 This meagre harvest of precisely identified origins may be disappointing, but it is surely significant that all those mentioned so far were Normans or belonged to groups who had traditionally provided allies in Norman military enterprises. It is clear that a simple analysis of Antiochene witness lists and crusader histories alone will prove insufficient to identify European origins conclusively. Fortunately, two projects in progress promise to revolutionise our knowledge of the crusader nobility. The first is these is Hans Eberhard Mayer's edition of the royal charters of Jerusalem, which has already produced valuable insights on the chancery and charters of Antioch.39 The second is Jonathan Riley-Smith's database of crusaders and settlers.40 In a recent study Max Pfister observed that Italian philologists and historians tend to restrict themselves to the study of the Normans 35 Cahen, Syrie du Nord, 544. On Normans with the surname Sourdeval in England and Ireland, see Bartlett, The Making of Europe, 29-30. 36 AA 682; RRH nos 86 195. 37 Orderic, VI, 108, 110, 120. On this group see K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'Two Studies in North French Prosopography: 2, Wigan the Marshal and Other Bretons in Orderic Vitalis's Ecclesiastical History', Journal of Medieval History xx, 1994, 25-37. I am grateful to Hubert Guillotel, Michael Jones and Katharine Keats-Rohan for their advice on the Breton names mentioned by Orderic. 38Gesta Francorum, 8; RRH no. 12. 39 Hans Eberhard Mayer, Varia Antiochena: Studien zum Kreuzfahrerfürstentum Antiochia im 12. und frühen 13 Jahrhundert, Hannover 1993. 40 For a description of this project see Jonathan Riley-Smith, 'Crusaders and Settlers: A Prosopographical Database', Bulletin of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East ix, 1989, 26-27.

< previous page

page_357

next page >


page_358

< previous page

page_358


of Italy, while their French and English colleagues confine themselves to the Anglo-Norman world in the narrower sense.41 As far as Antioch is concerned, it will be necessary to evaluate documents and narrative sources from all of the Norman territories, while a detailed study of Syrian toponymy is a desideratum in order to establish patterns of land tenure as well as the extent of surnames of non-European origin. To return to my initial question, we can provide a provisional answer, that is as far as the rather inadequate evidence allows, the nobility of Antioch was drawn from Normandy and the surrounding countries. However, it is also worth asking whether a Norman identity had the same meaning in the crusader states as it did in England or Italy. One of the ways Ménager traced Norman origins in southern Italy was through occurrences of the word Normannus used as a surname, and by actual declarations of origin in phrases such as ex genere Normannorum.42 This phenomenon seems to be absent in Antioch. A possible explanation is that the nobility was so homogeneous in its character that such declarations were pointless. A more likely explanation is that the evidence is simply too restricted to allow a valid comparison. However, there may be another explanation, which has to do with how the Normans perceived themselves in their new environment. Many of the eleventh- and twelfth-century chroniclers who wrote about the Normans believed that as a race they had certain characteristic qualities which made them distinctive from, and even superior to other peoples. One of these qualities was the courage of the Normans which is repeatedly alluded to in battle orations as reported by Norman writers, as well as the idea that the Normans were divinely favoured.43 However, we look in vain among the writers of twelfth-century Outremer for any notions of the people of Antioch, or any section of it, as having any Norman identity. William of Tyre uses the word 'Normans' and 'Normandy' only in connection with Robert Curthose and his contingent on the First Crusade, and once to describe the origins of Ralph of Domfront, patriarch of Antioch. The one historian known actually to have written his work in the principality of Antioch, Walter the Chancellor, never uses the words Norman, Normandy and their derivatives, whether of the people of Antioch or elsewhere. The ethnic diversity of the First Crusade was a feature of the expedition which struck several of the writers who recounted it.44 When referring to those European settlers who remained in Outremer after 1099, Fulcher of Chartres and Walter the 41 Max Pfister, 'Toponomastische Herkunftsangaben bei der Nennung von Normannen in Süditalien und England', in Sprache, Literatur, Kultur. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte im deutschen Süden und Westen. Wolfgang Kleiber zu seinem 60. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. Albrecht Greule and Uwe Ruberg, Stuttgart 1989, 175-201. 42 Ménager, 'Inventaire des familles normandes', 261-66. 43 Graham Loud, 'The Gens Normannorum Myth or Reality', in Anglo-Norman Studies iv, 104-209; Pierre Bouet, 'Les Normands: le nouveau peuple élu', in Les Normands en Méditerannée dans le sillage des Tancrède: Colloque de Cerisy-la-Salle, 24-27 septembre 1992, ed. Pierre Bouet and François Neveux, Caen 1994, 239-52. 44 Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, ed. L. C. Bethmann, in MGH, VI, Hannover, 1844, 367; Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana, 1095-1127, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer, Heidelberg 1913, I.13.4; Huntingdon, 220; Ekkehard of Aura, in Frutolfs und Ekkehards Chroniken und die anonyme Kaiserchronik, ed. Franz-Josef Schmale and Irene Schmale-Ott, Darmstadt 1972, 138.

< previous page

page_358

next page >


page_359

< previous page

page_359


Chancellor prefer the term Franci which had begun to be used to describe the army of the First Crusade. It gained a greater currency as the normal term for the European settlers in Outremer, and probably derives from the terms for ) and Arabs (al-Ifranj). William of Tyre normally prefers western Christians used by both Byzantine Greeks ( the term Latini, reflecting the confessional allegiance of the settlers, a word which is also on occasion used by Fulcher.45 Neither of these terms derive directly from any European traditions of nationality, but rather serve to describe the Europeans of Outremer in a way which primarily stresses their distinctiveness from the other peoples of the Middle East, whether Muslim or oriental Christian. These terms are also quite separate from concepts of statehood, being applied to the Europeans of Outremer irrespective of which particular state they belonged to; to express notions of political territoriality, the writers resort to terms such as 'Antiochenes' (Antiocheni) and 'Jerusalemites' (Hierosolymitani), and the distinction becomes quite explicit in formulations such as 'congregatis Francis . . . Edessanis scilicet et Antiochenis'.46 What is also striking is that the Outremer writers use a terminology which implies that the Franks of the East, despite their diverse origins, were a people or race. Thus, whereas writers such as Orderic and William of Jumièges talk of a gens Normannorum, Fulcher of Chartres and Walter the Chancellor talk of a gens Francorum and gens nostra.47 It would seem, then, that in the environment of the crusader states the concept of Normanitas was redundant. Therefore, to return to my original question, I would argue that as far as prosopographical evidence goes, we can conclude that in all likelihood the Normans of southern Italy contributed the main element of the nobility of Antioch. By contrast, in terms of cultural or ethnic identity, it would seem that those Normans settled in Antioch, while retaining strong links with their homelands, were prepared to see the concept of a separate Norman race subsumed in a common Frankish nationality. 45 See Alan V. Murray, 'Ethnic Identity in the Crusader States: The Frankish race and the Settlement of Outremer', in Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. S. Forde, L. Johnson and A. V. Murray [forthcoming]. 46 Fulcher of Chartres, I.35. 47 For gens nostra see, for example, Fulcher, I.15.10; II.21.10; II.54.1; III.18.1; Walter, II.6.7; II.8.5; for gens Francorum, Fulcher, II.64.7.

< previous page

page_359

next page >


page_361

< previous page

page_361


17 Between the Angevin and Capetian Courts: John de Rouvray and the Knights of the Pays de Bray, 1180-12251 D. J. Power The duchy of Normandy in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries is a fruitful ground for prosopographical research. On the one hand, there is the aristocracy: although Judith Green, David Crouch, Kathleen Thompson and Lucien Musset amongst others have all made valuable contributions to the study of individual families in twelfthcentury Normandy, much work remains to be done upon the barons and knights of the duchy, especially from the evidence of their charters.2 The period after the fall of Normandy also offers many possibilities for the study of the Norman aristocracy: more than eighty years ago, Sir Maurice Powicke called for detailed genealogical research into the history of this caste in the thirteenth century, but no one has yet executed so gargantuan a task. On the other hand, the governance of French principalities in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries also stands to benefit from prosopographical research. Just as the origins and careers of the 'new men' of Henry I in England and Normandy have been analysed, so, too, in the late twelfth century did the increasingly sophisticated administrations of kings, dukes and counts across France require 1 A number of charters in the Archives Départmentales de la Seine-Maritime at Rouen (formerly Archives de la Seine-Inférieure) have been consulted for this article. The catalogue numbers at this archive are currently being revised for Série H (regular clergy). 1 H 16 H, 27 H and 54 H remain unaltered; otherwise, until the new classification is in place, all classes above 17 H have been allocated a provisional code HP (HProvisoire), e.g. 53 HP 32. At a late stage in the preparation of this paper, I was able to see Registres de Philippe Auguste, ed. J. W. Baldwin et al., Paris 1992, i (texte) [hereafter Registres]. Since this edition is not yet generally available, I include older references, particularly to Delisle's Cartulaire Normand and to the Recueil des Historiens de la France. I have been unable to consult M. Nortier, 'Le rattachement de la Normandie à la couronne de France', unpublished thesis, École des Chartes 1951; see Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, Positions des Thèses 1951, 121-6. 2 F. M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 2nd edn, Manchester 1961, 328; J. A. Green, 'Lords of the Norman Vexin', War and Government in the Middle Ages, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt, Woodbridge 1984, 47-61; D. Crouch, The Beaumont Twins, Cambridge 1986; D. Crouch, William Marshal: Court, Career and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire, 1147-1219, London 1990; Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, ed. D. E. Greenway, London 1972; W. E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in England and Normandy 1066-1194, Oxford 1966; L. Musset, 'Origines d'une classe dirigeante: les Tosny', Francia v, 1977, 45-80, although he devotes little attention to the period after 1144.

< previous page

page_361

next page >


page_362

< previous page

page_362


large numbers of baillis, prévôts, and justices to collect their revenues and hold their courts.3 The origins of many of these officials were obscure, yet little attempt has been made to use such evidence as does exist to shed light upon these individuals whose activities were so crucial to their masters' success. Moreover, prosopography may help to shed light upon otherwise hidden aspects of the collapse of the Angevin régime in Normandy and its replacement with the Capetian administration. Sir James Holt has noted that for the monks of PontAudemer, the replacement of King John by Philip Augustus was, in his words, 'not annexation but supersession'.4 By studying the aristocracy and ducal officials, focussing attention upon family connections over a long period, we may discover how far this great set of events represented a serious rupture with the past or was a smooth transition noticed only at the very top of society. Judith Green's study of the four greatest baronial families in the Norman Vexin over five or so generations revealed that their interests of land and kinship varied between Normandy, the French Vexin and England, but none of the families had much for which to thank the rulers of Normandy. Taking my lead from Dr. Green, I intend here to look at the transition from the Angevin to the Capetian régimes through the study of one local landowning community in another area of eastern Normandy, the Pays de Bray, and one of its most successful scions in particular, John de Rouvray. At the head of the Angevin administration before 1204 stood the seneschal and baillis; the Capetian administration after 1204 generally lacked a seneschal but was similarly led by officials known as baillis, with much greater slices of territory under their control than their Angevin predecessors. While the Angevin baillis have yet to be studied in detail, the Capetian agents with this title have received rather more attention.5 Nearly a century ago, Léopold Delisle published what was in effect the first prosopographical study of Capetian baillis throughout the kingdom of France between the reigns of Philip Augustus and Charles IV.6 With Delisle's survey as their starting point, Joseph Strayer, Lucien Musset and John Baldwin have drawn a number of conclusions about the Capetian baillis of Normandy. One of these conclusions above all is of concern to the present study: it has been axiomatic that none of the baillis in Normandy were in fact of Norman origin before 1243, and that only two Normans achieved this position before 1270. The baillis have therefore been treated as intruding Franceis, who had no prior interests in Normandy and zealously carrying out the interests and wishes of the king of France with little regard for the local clergy or laity.7 The annals of 3 R. W. Southern, 'The place of Henry I in English history', Procs BA xlviii, 1962, 127-69, reprinted in Medieval Humanism, New York 1970; K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, 'Wigan the Marshal and other Bretons in Orderic Vitalis's Ecclesiastical History', Journal of Medieval History xx, 1994, 25-37. 4 J. C. Holt, 'The end of the Anglo-Norman realm', Procs BA lxi, 1975, 223-65, at 225. 5 J. W. Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus, Berkeley 1986, 220-5, discusses several differences between the functions of baillis of Normandy and Francia. 6 'Chronologie des baillis et sénéchaux royaux, depuis ses origines jusqu'à l'avènement de Philippe de Valois', Recueil des Historien des Gaules et de la France [hereafter RHF], ed. M. Bouquet et al., 24 vols in 25, Paris 17381904, xxiv, I, 1*-270*. 7 J. A. Strayer, The Administration of Normandy under Saint Louis, Cambridge, Mass. 1932, 95; L. Musset, 'Quelques problèmes posés par l'annexation de la Normandie au domaine royal français', La (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_362

next page >


page_363

< previous page

page_363


Jumièges complained soon after 1204 that the French received many rewards in Normandy and that the abbeys had to buy protection from the king of France; the baillis were the cutting edge of this oppression.8 Only one leading Capetian official in Normandy in the reign of Philip Augustus has been identified as a Norman: Guérin de Glapion, who had been seneschal of Normandy in 1200-1 under King John, was called seneschal once more in May and June 1204 by Philip Augustus, who was then subduing the duchy; but the title was soon suppressed and Guérin does not appear to have exercised this office thereafter, and he fell from grace by 1208.9 Thereafter, it is certainly true that the governance of Normandy after 1204 was dominated by close associates of the king of France, mostly from the 'old royal domain'. However, Guérin de Glapion was not the only Norman whom Philip Augustus placed in a highly prominent position in the duchy's administration. There is good evidence that the first Capetian bailli of Caux or Arques, John de Rouvray, was also of Norman stock. It is John's career which will be the subject of this paper: not just as the isolated exception to an otherwise rigorously held rule that the baillis were outsiders imposed upon the conquered duchy, but as a window onto an entire local society in the eastern Norman marches. An examination of the career of John de Rouvray illuminates much about the relationship between the Angevin dukes of Normandy and the knights of the duchy, and reveals the infiltration of French royal power and influence into Normandy from the 1190s onwards, leading to the Capetian subjugation of the duchy in 1204. It also demonstrates how much remains to be gleaned from two abundant types of evidence: on the one hand, from the great mass of charters scattered around the archives and libraries of Northern France, in particular here from acts in favour of the abbeys of Beaubec, Saint-Ouen de Rouen, Préaux, Foucarmont, Île-Dieu, and Clair-Ruissel, and the priory of Longueville; on the other hand, from the rich records of Angevin and Capetian government such as the Norman and French exchequer rolls and the registers of Philip Augustus. John de Rouvray was one of the most ruthless agents of Philip Augustus in Normandy. He participated in King Philip's subjugation of Normandy in May and June 1204 and was rewarded with Earl Roger Bigod's lands in the Pays d'Auge.10 (Footnote continued from previous page) France de Philippe Auguste: le temps des mutations, ed. R.-H. Bautier, Paris 1982, 303-4; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 134, 222. 8Les Annales de l'abbaye Saint-Pierre de Jumièges, ed. J. Laporte, Rouen 1954, 87. The Coggeshall annalist also recorded Norman complaints against the French king's 'tyranny' in 1205: Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. J. Stevenson, RS 1875, 152. 9Recueil des Actes de Philippe Auguste, ed. H.-F. Delaborde et al., 4 vols, Paris 1916-79, ii, nos 793, 802; cf. Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 221. For Guérin de Glapion, see Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanni, ed. T. Stapleton, 2 vols, London 1840-44 [hereafter MRSN], ii, ccxix-ccxxi; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 173-4. I intend to devote a separate article to Guérin's origins, lands and career. 10Actes de Philippe Auguste ii, no. 797 (conferred outside Rouen, May 1204): lands granted to the value of 240 li. (angevins?). L. C. Loyd, Origins of some Anglo-Norman families, ed. C. T. Clay and D. C. Douglas, Leeds 1951, 32, identifies these lands with Corbon (Calvados, ar. Pont-l'Evêque, cant. Cambremer); cf. PHF xxiii, 709, 754. For John's role at the surrender of Rouen in June 1204, see below, pp. 380-1.

< previous page

page_363

next page >


page_364

< previous page

page_364


He was installed as castellan of the ducal fortress of Arques near Dieppe after its surrender in the summer of 1204; and from there he wielded effective judicial and military authority throughout the surrounding region, the eastern Pays de Caux.11 His usual title was 'castellan of Arques', but an inquest copied into Register E of Philip Augustus described him as the bailli of Arques, not merely the castellan.12 An act for Fécamp called him the 'king's justice in Caux' as early as 1204-5, and John exacted a heavy tensamentum from that abbey on the king's behalf.13 His most notorious repressions were inflicted against Dieppe, a port of the archbishop of Rouen which had always enjoyed close ties with the ousted dukes of Normandy. At Dieppe, John de Rouvray captured and ransomed Roger de Mortemer, who had lost his lands in Caux as a result of the separation of England and Normandy and was probably trying to stir up the town against the Capetian régime. Soon afterwards, John clashed with the burgesses of Dieppe over fishing rights and cut off their water supply until they capitulated.14 At some point between 1210 and 1216, the functions of bailli of Arques were delegated to two royal agents from the Orléannais, William and Geoffrey de la Chapelle; but John de Rouvray continued to take a prominent role in Norman affairs until 1224.15 In 1214, moreover, he was one of the leaders of seventy Norman knights who fought for Philip Augustus at Bouvines and was credited 11RHF xxiv, I, 109*-110*. See also A. Hellot, Essai sur les Baillis de Cause de 1204 à 1789, Paris 1895, 2-6. 12RHF xxiv, I, 109*, and 'preuves de la préface', no. 62 (Cartulaire Normand de Philippe Auguste, Louis VIII, Saint Louis et Philippe-le-Hardi, ed. L. Delisle, Caen 1852, no. 167); cf. MRSN ii, cxxxii-cxxxiii. The bailliages of Arques and Caux had certainly sometimes been treated as distinct before 1204: in December 1202, the former was committed to William de Mortemer and the latter to William Martel, but they shared custody of the castle of Arques itself (Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, Record Commission 1835, 22; Rotuli Normanni in Turri Londinensi Asservati, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, Record Commission 1835, 81, 93-6). Cf. Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 68. 13Actes de Philippe Auguste ii, no. 883: the abbot of Fecamp has paid to John de Rouvray 500 silver marks which he owed pro tensamento (March 1205). Rouen, Bibl. Mun., Y 51 (cartulary of Fécamp), fo. 65r (charter of Renaud de Pierreville, '1204'): 'Johanne de Roboreto tunc temporis justiciarius domini regis in Caleto'. Cf. Hellot, Baillis de Caux, 2-3; RHF xxiv, I, 109*. 14RHF, xxiv, I, 'preuves de la préface', no. 62. For Dieppe, see Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 116, 263-4; it had been a ducal port until 1198, when Richard I exchanged it for Les Andelys. For Roger de Mortemer, see ibid., 2634, 353; GEC ix, 272-3. Powicke interprets Roger's activities at Dieppe as resistance to the French subjugation of Normandy in 1204, but Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, 2 vols, Record Commission 1833-44, i, 46-7, shows that Roger was ransomed in August 1205; cf. MRSN ii, cxxii-cxxiii. 15 For William and Geoffrey de la Chapelle, see RHF xxiv, I, 110*-112*; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 127, 130-4. John de Rouvray was still prominent in Norman affairs in 1224: Cartulaire Normand, no. 1129 (promise of Archbishop Theobald of Rouen to observe the customs of Normandy, at Gisors). John de Rouvray issued an act as castellan of Arques in 1208, announcing that he had witnessed an act of Gerard the prevôt of Gournay for the priory of Notre-Dame-du-Pré near Rouen. An act of the English baron Robert FitzWalter after 1204 concerning the same alms begins 'Sciant omnes balliui et seruientes domini regis Gallie Archarum et Rothomagi . . .' (Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 20 HP 6). Some other examples of John de Rouvray witnessing acts as castellan of Arques are discussed below; he was so called in acts in 1205 in favour of St-Denisen-France and St-Amand de Rouen (RHF xxiv, 109*, nn. 7, 8; I have been unable to consult either manuscript used by Delisle). John de Rouvray has also been identified with the witness of this name of a chyrograph between Nicholas de Montagny and the chapter of Rouen Cathedral in 1210 (Archives de la Seine-Maritime, G 4106; Rouen, Bibl. Mun., Y 44 (cartulary of Rouen Cathedral), fol. 140r), and of an act of Philip de Béthisy for Fécamp in 1218 (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_364

next page >


page_365

< previous page

page_365


with an important part in the capture of the count of Boulogne.16 He held a number of lands in northeastern Normandy in 1220, including the honour of Bacqueville and a moiety of the honour of Auffay as husband of the widow of William Martel, a leading baron of the Pays de Caux.17 John de Rouvray was quite clearly one of the leading curiales of Philip Augustus. At Vaudreuil in May 1205, he was one of the pledges for Bartholomew de Roye, King Philip's closest confidant, in the marriage of Bartholomew's daughter to the son of the count of Alençon; the other pledges for Bartholomew were given by the leading French curiales Ursio the chamberlain, Cadoc the castellan of Gaillon, and King Philip's Capetian cousin Robert de Courtenay. John was also recorded as a prominent member of the court of King Philip in the Île-de-France in 1219.18 Philip Augustus even provided a dowry near Rouen for one of John's daughters.19 Yet despite the prominence of John de Rouvray at the Capetian court and his high office in Normandy at a critical point in its history, Delisle did not make any suggestion as to his origins. He merely identified him with a John de Roboreto whom King Philip rewarded for his faithful service with royal domains at Auffargis and Poigny in the Forest of Yvelines, southwest of Paris, in 1197.20 Delisle cited no evidence for John before that date, and Strayer, (Footnote continued from previous page) (RHF xxiv, 109*, n. 18). He was present with several other baillis at the assizes of Rouen in 1214: Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 7 H 1269 (act of Roger de Ultra Aquam for Fécamp). 16uvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, ed. H.-F. Delaborde, 2 vols, Paris 1882-5, i, 272 (William the Breton, Liber, § 184); ii, 302, 346 (William the Breton, Philippidos, X, lines 495-9, XI, 683-5). 17RHF xxiii, 639: 'Johannes de Roboreto, dimidiam feodum ad Binchi (sic), ad Sanctam Surrectionem et ad Magnum Pratum'. The places are Buchy (Seine-Maritime, ar. Rouen, chef-lieu du canton), Ste-Croixsur-Buchy (cant. Buchy) and Grandpré (cne. Ste-Croix): Dictionnaire Topographique de la Seine-Maritime, ed. C. de Beaurepaire, revd. J. Laporte, 2 vols, Paris 1982-4, i, 156-7, 448, ii, 895-6. RHF xxiii, 641, lists a number of fiefs around Bacqueville-en-Caux, the Martel caput, which 'answered' to John de Rouvray or in which he was to 'take his third', ie. his wife's dower. Cf. ibid., 693: servitia nonnullorum feodorum in Register C includes 'Johannes de Rovreio se decimo'. For John de Rouvray's marriage to the widow of William Martel (d. c. 1207), see A. Hellot, Essai Historique sur les Martel de Basqueville et sur Basqueville-en-Caux, Rouen-Dieppe 1879, 20-2; the identification is proved by Archives de Seine Maritime, 7 H 9 (2nd Cartulary of Fécamp), fols 23v, 24v. The evidence precented below (n. 29) suggests that John the bailli had first been married to a certain Alice, who was dead in 1215. 18 See p. 380 below. 19 BN, ms. lat. 9778 (Register F of Philip Augustus), fo. 182r (Bichi); cf. C. Petit-Dutaillis, Étude sur la Vie et le Règne de Louis VIII, Paris 1894, 481, 'Catalogue des actes de Louis VIII', no. 231 (Pont-de-l'Arche, 1225, probably March); RHF xxiv, I, 109*-110*. King Philip had granted half of Buchy to John as a dowry for his daughter, but Louis VIII now transferred it to John and all his heirs. 20Actes de Philippe Auguste ii, no. 556. Delisle (RHF xxiv, I, 109*) must have known that Hellot, Baillis de Caux, 2 n. 1, presumed that John was the son of Osbern de Rouvray (fl. 1166), ie. Osbert I, although Hellot did not consider most of the evidence given here. Registres, 309, tentatively identifies John de Rouvray (Roboreio) with Rouvray-Catillon, but not makes no identification for Osbert (Rovreio); cf. n. 35 below. In 1204, when Philip Augustus granted the castle of St-Léger-en-Yvelines to Amice de Montfort, the fiefs of John de Rouvray and another royal knight, William de Garlande, were explicitly exempted from Amice's portion: Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, ed. A. Teulet et al., 5 vols, Paris 1863-1909 [hereafter Layettes], no. 738. In 1556, Poigny still claimed to be an enclave of the custom of Paris under direct royal jurisdiction, rather than following the customs of Montfort-l'Amaury: Nouveau Coutumier Général, ed. C. Bourdot de Richebourg, 4 vols in 8, Paris 1724, iii, I, 162. In 1227, 'Johannes de Roboretto, miles,...dominus de Pogniis' confirmed grants made at Poigny to the Grandmontine priory of Moulineaux: Recueil des chartes et pièces relatives au prieuré Notre-Dame de Moulineaux, ed. A. Moutié, Paris 1846, xci-xciii and no. XV.

< previous page

page_365

next page >


page_366

< previous page

page_366



page_366

North-eastern Normandy in the Late Twelfth Century

< previous page

page_366

next page >


page_367

< previous page

page_367


less cautiously, took this endowment as proof that John de Rouvray actually came from the Forest of Yvelines, perhaps Rambouillet, the nearest town to Auffargis and Poigny.21 Strayer was echoed without comment in this identification by Musset in 1982 and Baldwin in 1986.22 Yet there is nothing to link John with Rambouillet until the endowment of Philip Augustus in 1197. The toponym 'Rouvray' is too common to give much clue about John's place of origin.23 But a certain John de Rouvray is in fact mentioned in 1194, that is, three years before the future bailli of Arques was first rewarded by Philip Augustus near Rambouillet: and he appears in the chronicle of Roger of Howden. Howden was recording the terms of the abortive truce of July 1194, which was concluded between the representatives of the kings of France and England but repudiated by King Richard immediately afterwards.24 Amongst the former men of King Richard whom the king of France wished the truce to protect was a certain John de Ruvereio.25 The question immediately arises whether the ruthless castellan of Arques was not a Frenchman at all, but the Norman deserter of 1194. If so, the implications for the bailli's career are very profound indeed. Two supporting pieces of evidence, after 1204, do indeed suggest that John de Rouvray was from Normandy. It has already been seen that John was one of the two leaders of the small Norman contingent at the battle of Bouvines, the other being Stephen de Longchamps. In describing John's leadership of this force, William the Breton praised Normandy for remaining faithful during the Bouvines war. While we may ignore the more florid aspects of William the Breton's poem, it would have been strange if he had extolled the Normans for their loyalty while referring to their leadership under a Frenchman.26 The other sign that John was a 21 Strayer, Normandy under Saint Louis, 95. Rambouillet was a town of the lords of Montfort-l'Amaury, who until 1181 were also counts of Évreux: see Cartulaire de la léproserie du Grand-Beaulieu, ed. R. Merlet and M. Josselin, Chartres 1909, no. 34. 22 Musset, 'Quelque problèmes ...', 303; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 134. 23 It is derived from rouvre, the spring oak: A. Longnon, Les Noms de Lieu de la France, ed. P. Marichal and L. Michot, Paris 1920-9, 160. Its Latin forms include Roboretum, Rouvreium, Ruvereium, Roureium, Ruverei. In Normandy and the Île-de-France, there are places called Rouvray in the départements of Eure, Eure-et-Loir and Seine-et-Marne, as well as the Forest of Rouvray south of Rouen, which was also the medieval name of Paris's Bois de Boulogne. Layettes i, 628 (index), identifies John with Rouvray in Eure (cant. Pacy). A Renaud de Rouvray witnesses three acts of Count Theobald of Blois in the 1180s: Cartulaire du GrandBeaulieu, nos 102, 119, 120. Renaud also appears in the French royal accounts of 1202-3 and the necrology of the abbey of St-Père de Chartres: F. Lot and R. Fawtier, Le Premier Budget de la monarchie française, Paris 1932, 70, cxcvii; Obituaires de la Province de Sens, ed. A. Molinier and A. Longnon, 4 vols in 5, Paris 1902-23, ii, 186. It is likely that he derived his name from one of the places called Rouvray in Eure-et-Loir. 24Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols, RS 1868-71 [hereafter Howden], iii, 257-60. 25 Howden iii, 258-9: 'Præterea rex Franciæ ponit in treuga sua ... illos qui fuerunt homines regis Angliæ, quos infra nominabimus: ... Johannem de Ruvereio, et Baldewinum de Aquinni, et comitem Mellenti et terram suam'. For the truce of July 1194, see Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 103-5. 26uvres de Guillaume le Breton ii, 302 (William the Breton, Philippidos, X, lines 495-500): Roboreus veto cum Thoma fratre Johannes In scala regis regi lateraliter herent, Et Longi Stephani Campi dominator, et illi Septuaginta equites regio quos Neustria misit; (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_367

next page >


page_368

< previous page

page_368


Norman is a well-known inquest at Rouen in 1205, in which leading members of the Norman aristocracy stated the rights of the dukes of Normandy over the Norman clergy as they had been in the time of Henry II and Richard I. John de Rouvray was one of the jurors, which suggests that he had prior knowledge of Norman custom and the ducal regalia; all the other jurors either were from Normandy or had lands and kin in Normandy before 1204.27 These two details appear to corroborate the evidence of the truce of 1194 that John the bailli was either a Norman or had previous connections with Normandy. If so, where in Normandy should we look for John de Rouvray's family? A charter for the Premonstratensian canons of Ile-Dieu directs us to the Pays de Bray, that region of scattered settlements and forests which straddled the border of eastern Normandy and the county of Beauvais and the limits of dioceses of Rouen and Beauvais. The charter concerned Le Tronquay in the Forest of Lyons, between the Norman Vexin and the Pays de Bray; it was performed 'in the presence of John de Rouvray' in 1206, a phrase which suggests that this was the bailli; and John witnessed this act with a knight called Michael de Rouvray.28 In 1215, this John endowed the canons of Ile-Dieu from lands at Le Tronquay for the soul of his brother Osbert, a gift which was in turn witnessed by Michael de Rouvray.29 A number of acts show that he was Osbert II de Rouvray, a minor baron named after Rouvray-Catillon in the Pays de Bray, some twenty miles northeast of Rouen, while an act in favour of the priory of Longueville shows that Michael de Rouvray was Osbert's son.30 What is more, this Osbert de (Footnote continued from previous page) Neustfia fida satis, immo fidissima regi, Parcere mordaci si lingue vellet in illum. The author is here making a pun upon John's surname: in the previous line (494), he describes Thomas de Saint-Valéry's followers as 'audaces animi et robore fortes'. The reference to John's brother 'Thomas' is problematic. It is most likely that William the Breton was referring to Osbert. This was not the only occasion on which this author got a Norman's name wrong; he followed Rigord in calling the earl of Leicester 'William', not Robert (uvres de Guillaume le Breton i, 127, 196). 27Layettes i, no. 785 (November 1205). The other jurors who may not appear Normans at first sight were Roger de Meulan and Odo, castellan of Beauvais: Roger was the younger son of Count Waleran of Meulan, well known for his vast Norman estates, and had himself been viscount of Évreux until 1204 (ibid. i, no. 736); while the castellan of Beauvais had interests, probably lands, in eastern Normandy (see below, n. 82). The jury's statements about the restricted fights of the archbishop of Rouen in the lands of Hugh de Gournay may have been derived from the testimony of the castellan of Beauvais, Nicholas de Montagny, and John de Rouvray. For this inquest, see Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 316-21. 28 Évreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 392 (act of John du Tronquay, at Ile-Dieu, 1206): 'coram domino Johanne de Roboreto. Testibus ipso et domino Michale de Roboreto'. The performance of an act in John's presence implies very strongly that this was the bailli. 29 Évreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 392: act of John de Rouvray for the souls of his wife Alice, for whose anniverary he instituted prayers, and for his brother Osbert; the first witness is Michael de Rouvray, knight. 30Chartes du prieuré de Longueville . . . antérieures ô 1204, ed. P. Le Cacheux, Rouen-Paris 1934, no. lxxxviii: act of Osbert II with the consent of wife Denise and son Michael, and witnessed by his brother John. Cf. no. lxxxix (act of Renaud de Bosco and Matilda de Cailly): the witnesses included 'Osbert de Rouvray and his son Michael'. For the identification of Rouvray with Rouvray-Catillon (Seine-Maritime, ar. Dieppe, cant. Forges), see Dictionnaire de la Seine-Maritime ii, 864. In 1220, Michael de Rouvray's fiefs lay in an arc around RouvrayCatillon (see below, n. 43, and map on p. 366).

< previous page

page_368

next page >


page_369

< previous page

page_369


Rouvray, who was head of the family of Rouvray from about 1180 to about 1215, had a brother called John.31 Reconstructing the genealogies of such families from charter evidence is by no means easy, but apart from the two charters for the canons of Ile-Dieu, there is other evidence that John de Rouvray the bailli was the same man as John, brother of Osbert II de Rouvray-Catillon. John the bailli and Osbert appear together on a number of occasions, sometimes being placed by side in witness-lists and other records. For instance, in 1206, both were present at the resolution of a dispute between the Cluniac priory of Longueville on the one hand and the abbey of Saint-Wandrille and the priory of Saint-Saëns on the other.32 They were leading witnesses for another knight of the Pays de Bray, Nicholas de Montagny, in an endowment made before the Exchequer in 1208.33 They were both at a judgment at the Norman Exchequer at Rouen in Lent 1214.34 The list of Norman knightsbanneret in the Registers of Philip Augustus, probably compiled shortly before the Bouvines campaign, mentioned John and Osbert de Rouvray together.35 The cartulary of Rouen Cathedral chapter, compiled in the mid-thirteenth century, placed an administrative act of 'John de Rouvray, castellan of Arques' immediately after an act of Osbert II in the cathedral's favour.36 Taken together, these reinforce the evidence of the acts for the abbey of Ile-Dieu that John de Rouvray the bailli of Arques, a Norman, was the younger brother of Osbert II de Rouvray. What can we know about the Rouvray family? Little can be said before the mid-twelfth century, and it is possible that it rose through a fortunate marriage about that time. The now vanished castle at Rouvray was probably its caput.37 A certain Osbern or Osbert de Rouvray, who will be referred to here as Osbert I, confirmed several grants which his men had made to the abbey of Foucarmont in 1166,38 and endowed the abbey of Clair-Ruissel with his wife Godehild at about 31.Chartes de Longueville, no. lxxxviii; Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 14 H 842, an act of Enguerrand de Montagny witnessed by 'Osbert and John de Rouvray, knights, and their brother William, clerk' (1208). Enguerrand was a Norman deserter in 1203 (Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 176); Montagny is cant. Argueil, cne. Nolleval. 32 See below, p. 380. 33Neustria Pia, ed. A. Du Monstier, Rouen 1663, 898 (RHF xxiv, 'preuves de la préface', no. 19): act in favour of the abbey of Bonport. John and Osbert de Rouvray are the first two witnesses; the context of the Exchequer suggests the bailli. 34Recueil des Jugements de l'Échiquier de Normandie au XIIIe siècle, ed. L. Delisle, Paris 1864, 35n. (division of Taisson inheritance). 35RHF xxiii, 684; Registres, 309, which shows, however, that Register A recorded 'John de Roboreio' but 'Obertus de Rovreio', both altered to 'de Roboreto' in Register C (c. 1220). For this list, see Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 262. 36 Rouen, Bibl. Mun., Y 44 (cartulary of Rouen Cathedral chapter), fo. 137r-v, nos 253 (Osbert II, 1208 × 20), 254 (John, castellan of Arques, 1204 × 1207). Osbert's act was a quitclaim of his own rights in the church of Roncherolles-en-Bray, whereas John was acting tanquam justiciarius domini regis against William de St-OuenPrend-en-Bourse, in favour of the cathedral chapter (cf. RHF xxiv, I, 109*, n. 9). 37 J. B. N. Cochet, Rèpertoire Archeologique de la Seine-Inférieure, Paris 1871, col. 203, mentions a medieval castle at Rouvray replaced by the seventeenth-century chàteau. 38 Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 8 H 299 (Hosbernus de Roureio); copy in Rouen, Bibl. Mun., Y 13 (cartulary of Foucarmont), fols 90v-91r. Osbern confirmed gifts made to Foucarmont's priory at Varimprè by William de Fraxineto and Renaud de Meduana, who probably derived their names from the hamlets of Fresnoy-en-Val (SeineMaritime, at. Dieppe, cant. Londinières, cne. Clais) and La (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_369

next page >


page_370

< previous page

page_370


The Family of Rouvray (c.1150-c.1250) Known relationships are shown with a continuous line; probable relationships are indicated by a broken line. The dates refer to appearances in the sources.

< previous page

page_370


next page >

page_371

< previous page

page_371


the same time.39 Between 1151 and 1177, an Osbert de Rouvray witnessed an agreement which a knight from the honour of Gournay, John de Hodeng, made with the 'French' count of Beaumont-sur-Oise over his fief in the county of Beaumont.40 Thereafter, references to the family become far more common, particularly Osbert II (Obert) and his three brothers, including John de Rouvray. Two of Osbert II's brothers, William and Ralph, need little mention here. They appeared in a handful of acts with their brothers Osbert and John. William, a clerk, is known from two acts of Richard I at Rouen in 1190, from acts of Baldwin de Canteloup and Gilbert de Vascuil at about the same time, and an act of a neighbouring baron, Enguerrand de Montagny, in 1208.41 Ralph also appears in acts of Baldwin de Canteloup and Gilbert de Vascuil, but his chief claim to fame was in his death: he and two other chevaliers were killed by the inhabitants of Messina when they rioted against Richard I's crusaders in October 1190, an event recorded by the Norman poet Ambroise.42 More may be known about the heads of the family. About 1220, according to the registers of Philip Augustus, Osbert II de Rouvray's son Michael held two (Footnote continued from previous page) Moyenne (cant. Neufchâtel-en-Bray, cne. Fesques). Cf. ibid., fo. 88r: Osbern de Rouvray and Geoffrey de Sauceio confirm alms of William de Fraxineto for Foucarmont (undated). For Clare lands at Varimpré, see below, n. 58. Sauceium is probably Sauchay (cant. Envermeu), which was in the custody of John de Rouvray, knight, in the mid-thirteenth century (RHF xxiii, 265). Dictionnaire de la Seine-Maritime ii, 867, mentions an act of a certain Osbert de Rouvray at Rouvray in 1106, in the library of Neufchétel-en-Bray, but this building was destroyed in 1940. D. Gurney, The Record of the House of Gournay, 4 vols and suppl., London 1848-58, i, 100, 103, dates an act of Hugh de Gournay witnessed by an Osbert de Rouvray 'after 1147', and attributes it to Hugh IV (dc.1180), but the witnesses accord more with Hugh V (d.1214) and a date of c.1180 is not unreasonable. However, the act is known only from a vidimus of Charles VI, and its use of signa appears suspiciously archaic for 1180. See below, n. 53. 39 Gurney, House of Gournay i, 114-15; act of Hugh de Gournay, mentioning girls from the molta of Sarqueux of Osbert and his wife Godheldis to the priory of Clair-Ruissel (1158×74). Cf. 113--14 (act of Rotrou archbishop of Rouen). The date suggests that this is Osbert I. 40Layettes i, no. 272 (notice), dated 1151-77 by Teulet: accord between John d'Hodeng and Matthew, count of Beaumont-sur-Oise (see also Layettes i, nos 793, 818). I have been unable to consult the originals (Paris, Archives Nationales, J 168, Beaumont-sur-Oise nos 12, 18, 34). For John de Hodeng and his son Giles, of HodengHodenger in the Pays de Bray, see Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 25 HP 1 (lazarhouse of Mont-aux Malades at Rouen), doss. SSS (act of John de Hodeng); Beauvais, Archives de l'Oise, H 4846 (act of John de Hodeng for the abbey of Lannoy); Gurney, The House of Gournay i, 103, 113, 117; RHF xxiii, 638, 684 (Giles de Hodeng); Dictionnaire de la Seine-Maritime ii, 517; D. Lohrmann, 'St-Germer-de-Fly und das Anglonormannische Reich', Francia i, 1973, 193-256, at 244. 41 For these acts, see below, p. 376. 42 Ambroise, Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ed. G. Paris, Paris 1897, lines 759-60, 765-6 (Raols de Rovrei). For the related Latin account, see Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Regis Ricardi, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 1864, 162; for these texts, see J.G. Edwards, 'The Itinerarium Regis Ricardi and the Estoire de la Guerre Sainte', Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. J.G. Edwards, V. H. Galbraith, and E. F. Jacob, Manchester 1933, 59-77. Cf. L. C. Landon, The Itinerary of Richard I, Pipe Roll Soc. 1935, 42. Gaston Paris, in his edition of Ambroise, xii, identified Ralph tentatively with Rouvray near Pacy, as part of his case for Ambroise's origins in the Évrecin. The identification of Ralph with the Pays de Bray removes one peg in Paris's argument that Ambroise came from the Évrecin, but it also reinforces the association of Ambroise with eastern Normandy in general. J.L. La Monte, in his notes to Ambroise: the Crusade of Richard the Lionheart, trans. M. J. Hubert, New York 1941, 57n., linked Ralph to Osbert and John de Rouvray, and to Rouvray-Catillon in Bray. For Ralph as a witness for Baldwin de Canteloup and Gilbert de Vascuil, see below, notes 68, 73; he and Gilbert also witnessed another act of Baldwin concerning Fumechon (Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 53 HP 32, no. 35).


page_371

< previous page

page_371

next page >


page_372

< previous page

page_372


knight's fiefs scattered around eight localities in the district of Rouvray, probably part of the confiscated honour of Gournay, as well as a quarter-fief held of the confiscated honour of Montfort-sur-Risle and another quarter from William de Bosco.43 Osbert and Michael had a few other more distant lands, but all apparently in northeastern Normandy.44 The Rouvrays were probably not tenants-in-chief of the duke, although Osbert II and Michael qualified for the designations dominus and miles.45 Nor do they appear to have had lands in England. In short, this was a minor baronial or knightly family, rooted firmly in one locality: a group of whom we know very little, but who must have been the backbone of the duchy's political community, for the Infeudationes Militum of 1172 counted about two thousand knights in the duchy and omitted many more.46 This then, is what is known of the family from which the Capetian castellan of Arques appears to have come. Yet the interest, challenges and problems of prosopography also lie in the collective biography of groups within political structures, and the connections of land, power, kinship and association of the Rouvrays merit investigation. The chief evidence for such bonds between families comes from charters, but these, needless to say, pose considerable problems for a reconstruction of the ceremonies and associations which lay behind them. The routine and businesslike charters of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries are perhaps less informative than the idiosyncratic and verbose diplomas of previous eras, while the two main features in charters offering prosopographical information, the so-called laudatio parentum and the witness-list, were set to decline in Northern France from the early thirteenth century.47 Evidence of kinship 43RHF xxiii, 639: 'Michael de Roboreto, duo feoda ad Boscum Odelinæ et ad Hurlou, ad Sarquex, ad Sanctum Sansonem, a [sic] Eteville, ad Rebeiz, ad Castellionem' (Bois-Édeline, Huclou, Roncherolles, Sarqueux, St-Sanson, Atteville, Rebets, Catillon). Ibid., 614: 'Dominus Michael de Rovreio tenet de rege unum quartum feodi militis ad Ronqueroles en Brei, de feodo Montis Fortis. Dominus Willelmus de Bosco tenet dimidium feodum de ducatu ad Mauquenchi, unde Hugo de Quenai tenet ibi de eo unum quarterium, et Michael de Rovreio unum quarterium.' 44Chartes de Longueville, no. lxxxviii: St-Ouen-sous-Bailly (ar. Dieppe, cant. Envermeu) and Esclavelles (cant. Neufchàtel-en-Bray). For Esclavelles, see BN, ms. lat. 5425 (copies of acts for St-Wandrille), p. 119, and F. Lot, Études Critiques sur l'Abbaye de Saint-Wandrille, Paris 1913, lxxxvi, n. 13; for Le Mont Rémont (Morimont, cne. Esclavelles), see BN, ms. lat. nouv. acq. 1801 (cartulary of Beaubec), 41v. Mauquenchy, Roncherolles (cant. FertéSt-Sanson): see ibid., fols 15r, 16r; cf. fols 7r, 18v. See also Gurney, House of Gournay i, 100 (confirmation by Hugh de Gournay of gifts of Osbert I or Osbert II de Rouvray to Beaubec): lands at Mauquenchy, Roncherolles, Morimont, Radegil, and Massy (cf. n. 53 below). Varimpré and Fresnoy-en-Val: see above, n. 38. 45 For the knights of Hugh de Gournay in 1172, see The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall, 3 vols, RS, 1896, ii, 628; RHF xxiii, 695; Registres, 268. 46 581 knights for service to the duke and 'about 1500' for the barons' service (RB ii, 645; RHF xxiii, 698; Registres, 276). For the Infeudationes Militum, see J. Boussard, 'L'Enquête de 1172 sur les services de chevalier en Normandie', Recueil de Travaux Offerts à M. Clovis Brunel, 2 vols, Paris 1955, i, 193-207. For men of this status in southern Normandy and their part in the political events of 1193-1204, see D. J. Power, 'The Norman frontier in the 12th and early 13th centuries', unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge 1994, 112-27. 47 For the laudatio parentum, see S. D. White, Custom, Kinship, and Gifts to Saints: the Laudatio Parentum in Western France, 1050-1150, Chapel Hill and London, 1988; he dates its decline in conveyances from the midtwelfth century onwards (177-209), and observes changes in the function of close kin in conveyances as well (195). The undoubted decline of the witness-list in France after 1200 requires similarly systematic investigation.

< previous page

page_372

next page >


page_373

< previous page

page_373


or ties of association is in any case notoriously hard to evaluate. Late in the thirteenth century in the neighbouring Beauvaisis, Philip de Beaumanoir devoted long passages to stating the various rights of gentils homes to make war upon any of their kin except brothers of the full blood.48 In Normandy, such warfare may have been regarded as contrary to custom, but tensions of this sort within kin groups were probably not negligible. In any case, there is remarkably little evidence of the kinship and marriages of the family of Rouvray, even though there must have been a number of links of kinship between the families of the Pays de Bray.49 Even the genealogy of the great lords of Gournay poses many problems in this period.50 So we must concern ourselves mainly with ties of association. Here, too, there may problems, since our chief source, witness-lists, may reflect the interests of the beneficiaries as much as those of the donor. Other indications of contact, such as adjoining lands, may or may not be important for ties of association, and likewise these could generate disputes instead of friendship. Hence significant ties of association may be inferred only where a number of acts for different houses corroborate one another, or where charter evidence may be compared with the details of fiscal records, inquests, necrologies and, very occasionally, narrative sources. Notwithstanding these problems, it is possible to reconstruct some connections between Osbert II de Rouvray and a handful of families in northeastern Normandy. Two separate considerations for these links: on the one hand, at a local level; on the other, in the context of the Angevin court, for Osbert appears to have stood on the uncertain fringe of Angevin politics in the late twelfth century, before his brother's somewhat more distinguished career at the Capetian court. The dominant barons of the Pays de Bray were the lords of Gournay-en-Bray, whose castle at La Ferté overlooked the Rouvray fiefs.51 In 1172, Hugh de Gournay owed the service of twelve knights, with an unspecified number of knights of his own who were expected to defend the ''March" as well as a number of English manors and the scattered fiefs in the Beauvaisis known as the Conquests Hue de Gournay. The annals of Jumièges simply equated the Pays de Bray with the lands 48 Philippe de Beaumanoir, Les Coutumes de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis, ed. A. Salmon, 2 vols, Paris, 18991900, ii, 354-8, §§ 1669-73. Presumably half-brothers retained the right to resolve their disputes by arms because second marriages were inherently likely to provoke conflict over inheritance. 49 The only well-documented Rouvray marriage is John de Rouvray's second marriage (c. 1216) to Joan, coheiress of John d'Auffay and widow of William Martel: see Hellot, Les Martel, 22. 50 The pedigree in Gurney, House of Gournay i, 22, is contradicted by charter evidence. For instance, Hugh IV's son Gerard, whom Gurney believed had died in 1151, was still alive in 1161 (Evreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 633). Gurney's pedigree may have omitted a generation. The marriage of Hugh V to a Julia de Dammartin is based on a largely fictitious genealogical tract from the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (ibid. i, 143, 145-52); the most we can say is that Hugh's wife was called Juliana (Rouen, Bibl. Mun., Y 51, fo. 53; Gurney, House of Gournay, suppl., 756). I am grateful to Dr N.C. Vincent for discussing the Dammartin genealogy with me; see also Michel Bur, 'De quelques champenois dans l'entourage français des rois d'Angleterre aux XIe et XIIe siècles', above. 51 For the lords of Gournay in general, see Gurney, House of Gournay i, 3-179 and suppl. vol., 726-68; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 108-9, 285-6, 340-1. For the castle of La Ferté, see Chronique de Robert de Torigni, ed. L. Delisle, 2 vols, Paris 1871-72, i, 268; as a French royal castle after 1202, see Lot and Fawtier, Premier budget, clxxxiv-clxxxv, ccvi; RHF xxiii, 681 (Feritas in Braio), and Registres, 339; Layettes i, no. 785 (in feodo terre Gornaii et Feritatis et Goellenfontis).

< previous page

page_373

next page >


page_374

< previous page

page_374


of Hugh de Gournay.52 The Rouvray family were much smaller fry in comparison. The lords of Gournay on occasion confirmed the Rouvrays' gifts to their Fontevraudian priory of Clair-Ruissel as well as to the Cistercian abbey of Beaubec, and an Osbert de Rouvray and Roger de Rouvray, uncle of Osbert II, both appeared in charters of the lords or knights of Gournay.53 Morover, in about 1200, Hugh had lands at Le Tronquay in the Forest of Lyons, where John de Rouvray also had land in 1215.54 The Rouvrays were not closely associated with the lords of Gournay, being both geographically and socially at the fringes of this lordship, but a connection between the two families certainly existed. The lords of Gournay were sometimes at the Angevin court; Hugh V in particular was entrusted with important military commands by Richard I and King John, and was denounced as a manifestus proditor when he broke this trust in 1203.55 He had already abandoned Richard for several years between 1193 and about 1196, although, interestingly enough, not all Hugh's knights followed him into the French king's camp.56 Perhaps Osbert II's chief connection with the Angevin court, however, was through that professional courtier William Marshal. During an acrimonious parley between the kings of England and France at Gisors in 1188, the Marshal proposed that Osbert should be one of four champions to fight for Henry II against Philip Augustus.57 A year later, the Marshal's marriage to Isabella de Clare may well have helped to strengthen a connection born of comradeship-in-arms, for Isabella's Clare patrimony abutted Rouvray fiefs north of Drincourt.58 She and the Marshal soon received a moiety of the Giffard honour of Longueville which included properties near Rouvray itself in the Andelle valley, while Osbert held land property near the Giffard castle of Meullers at Saint-Ouen52Annales de Jumièges, 85: 'Philippus rex occupavit totam terram Hugonis de Gornaio que Braiurn dicitur.' See also Wace's statement about Hugh de Gournay (Elisabeth van Houts, 'Wace as Historian' above, p. 123). 53 Clair-Ruissel, see n. 39 above. Beaubec: see notes 38, 44 above. For Osbert as witness for Hugh de Gournay, see ibid. i, 103, 117-18. Roger de Rouvray witnessed an act of Hugh V de Gournay in favour of the church of Gournay in 1181 (Gurney, House of Gournay i, 153); since Osbert II had an uncle of this name in 1184 (Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 2 H 85), it is reasonable to assume that they were the same person. For Osbert I or Osbert II as a witness for John de Hodeng, one of the most frequent witnesses of the acts of the lords of Gournay in the late twelfth century, see above, p. 371. 54 Évreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 392: act of Walter archbishop of Rouen confirming the alms of Hugh de Gournay in the forest of Vascuil and at Le Tronquay; edited in A. Le Prévost, Mémoires et notes pour servir à l'histoire du département de l'Eure, 3 vols, Évreux 1862-9, iii, 315-16, 326. 55Gesta Henrici ii, 179-80; Howden iii, 123,193; for his 'treason' in 1203, see Annales de Jumièges, 87; Rot. Chart., 113, 116; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 160-1, 285-6. 56 Howden iii, 218 (truce of 1193), 258 (truce of 1194); Layettes i, no. 432 (treaty of 1196). The last of these texts includes terms for those of Hugh's knights who had fought for King Richard. 57Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, ed. P. Meyer, 3 vols, Paris 1891-4 [hereafter HGM], i, 1. 7616 (iii, 90 and n. 3). 58The following acts of the Marshal's father-in-law, Richard de Clare (Strongbow), earl of Stiguil, or his mother Countess Isabella, widow of Gilbert earl of Pembroke, reveal their lands near Drincourt: Archives de la SeineMaritime, 8 H 108 (Foucarmont, concerning Varimpré); 56 HP 1 (priory of St-Saëns, concerning Équiqueville near Meullers); 'Recueil des chartes concernant l'abbaye de St-Victor-en-Caux', ed. C. de Beaurepaire, Société de l'Histoire de Normandie, Mélanges v, Rouen-Paris 1898, 333-455, at 380-2 (Beuzeville-la-Giffard). For Osbert I de Rouvray's lands near Varimpré, see above, n. 38.

< previous page

page_374

next page >


page_375

< previous page

page_375


sous-Bailly which he granted to the Giffard priory of Longueville.59 He also witnessed an act of the Marshal's seneschal, William d'Héricourt, for that house.60 Each of these connections appears minor in itself, but together they proved to be of the utmost political importance. In May 1204, Philip Augustus was to neutralise the Marshal's castles in the Pays de Caux, Longueville and Meullers, by arranging for the earl to hand them over to Osbert.61 The Marshal was a curialis renowned for his loyalty. So, too, was John de Préaux, who, together with his four brothers, was one of the heroes of the third Crusade, and received considerable gifts from Richard I and King John. When John de Préaux, some of whose lands lay close to Vascuil and the Rouvray fiefs, founded a priory of canons at Beaulieu near Préaux in 1200, William Marshal and Osbert de Rouvray were among the witnesses.62 But another baron who, like John de Rouvray and Hugh de Gournay, had lands at Le Tronquay, was Gilbert de Vascuil, an Angevin official who earned the worst notoriety of proditor regis for surrendering Gisors to Philip Augustus in 1193.63 The pro-Angevin narratives never forgave him for this.64 Gilbert's previous service to the duke included acting as justice in the Norman Vexin, as a pledge for Richard I at Messina, and as an escort for Eleanor of Aquitaine from Sicily.65 Gilbert had lands in the earldom of Warwick but his chief strength lay in the Andelle valley below Rouvray-Catillon, and Osbert de Rouvray had close contacts with him.66 Osbert and Gilbert appear together in charters of different donors for different religious houses.67 Osbert's brothers John, William and Ralph attested Gilbert's acts.68 If the Rouvrays had one close associate in the early 1190s, it was Gilbert de Vascuil. 59Chartes de Longueville, no. lxxxviii: Osbert II grants his tenementa at St-Ouen-sur-Eaulne and Esclavelles. The witnesses of Osbert's charter included Eustace, the 'chaplain of Earl William Marshal '. Osbert was recorded in the necrology of Longueville (c. 1385) for this gift: RHF xxiii, 433. For Eustace (de St-Georges) the chaplain, see Crouch, William Marshal, 145-6. For the Giffard lands in the Andelle valley, see MRSN i, cxlviii-cxlix. 60Chartes de Longueville, no. lx. For William d'Héricourt, see Crouch, William Marshal, 165; Rot. Pat., 13 (1202), describes him as William Marshal's seneschal. 61 See n. 18 below. 62Neustria Pia, 917: the witnesses also included Peter de Préaux, Renaud de Bosco and Stephen de Longchamps, all of whom are discussed below. Beaulieu is cant. Darnétal, cne. Bois-l'Evêque. John endowed lie-Dieu from his mills at Crevon (cant. Buchy, cne. Blainville-Crevon) in c. 1200 (Evreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 363). 63 For Gilbert's property at Le Tronquay, see Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 14 H 257 (copy, 1716, of vidimus): Gilbert confirms the alms of Ile-Dieu in his lands, including 20 acres at Le Tronquay, 'quas donavit michi Dominus meus Henricus Rex Anglie, Filius Mathildis pro servitio meo' (undated); cf. 14 H 231 (act of Gilbert confirming gifts of Ascelin de Tronquay). 64 Ambroise, lines 1165-7; Itinerarium, 176; Howden iii, 206; William of Newburgh, 'Historia Rerum Anglicarum', Chronicles of the Reign of Stephen, Henry H and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 vols, RS 1884-9, i, 389. 65 Ambroise, lines 1165-7; Le Prévost, Mémoires de l'Eure i, 148; Howden iii, 59, 62-3. 66 Pillerton Priors (Warks.): Curia Regis Rolls, Richard I-Henry III, 17 vols, HMSO 1922-91, vi, 170-1. 67 Fumechon (Clair-Ruissel): see below p. 376 (acts of Baldwin de Canteloup). Beaubec: Gurney, House of Gournay i, 103 (act of Hugh de Gournay). 68 Evreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 395: act of Enguerrand Pilavene for Île-Dieu, sealed by his lord, Gilbert de Vascuil; witnesses include Odo, castellan of Beauvais, and Ralph de Rouvray. Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 14 H 257: copy of Gilbert's general confirmation of the possessions of the canons of Îie-Dieu, with witnesses including Ralph and William de Rouvray and the castellan of Beauvais. 14 H (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_375

next page >


page_376

< previous page

page_376


So far, we have seen two successful Angevin curiales, William Marshal and John de Préaux, and two curiales who gained exalted positions from Richard I but betrayed that trust, Hugh de Gournay and Gilbert de Vascuil. Another connection of the Rouvrays, Baldwin de Canteloup, probably failed to gain ducal favour altogether. Baldwin's family, named after Canteloup near Vascuil, was very obscure, holding under another family called Canteloup.69 Nevertheless, in 1183, Baldwin founded a chapel for the soul of Henry II at Fumechon in the Andelle valley, at the western boundary of the Norman Vexin.70 After that king's death, he sought the confirmation of Richard I at Rouen for this grant in March 1190.71 If his chapel was intended to gain ducal favour, Baldwin failed, in so far as he witnessed no acts of the Angevin dukes and does not appear to have received preferment or rewards.72 But his endowments reveal another set of local connections. Baldwin gave the chapel at Fumechon to the Gournay foundation of Clair-Ruissel, outside the Gournay castle of Gaillefontaine, and Baldwin arranged for a Fontevraudian nun, Godehild de Rouvray, to be installed there as prioress. Godehild must have been a kinswoman of Osbert II de Rouvray, for Godehild had been the name of Osbert I's wife; in addition, Baldwin's confirmation of this foundation in about 1190 was made at the behest of Godehild's amici, and was witnessed by Osbert and his three brothers surely those same amici.73 Osbert II and his brother William also witnessed Richard I's confirmation of Baldwin's grant in 1190, together with Gilbert de Vascuil, who endowed Godehild with alms of grain, and Hugh de Gournay, the patron of Clair-Ruissel.74 The repetition of detail and actions over several years implies lasting connections between the families of Gournay, Vascuil and Rouvray but a network not utterly detached from the Angevin court. Osbert II also had ties with two men from the Norman Vexin who found favour in ducal service, Roger Torel and Stephen de Longchamps. Roger Torel, lord of La Bucaille near Les Andelys, had been Henry II's constable of La FertéBernard in Maine in 1189. In or before 1198, Osbert, Hugh de Gournay and Stephen de (Footnote continued from previous page) 231: act (original) of Gilbert de Vascuil for St-Ouen de Rouen, with William de Rouvray, clerk, and John de Rouvray, knight, among the witnesses. 69 Cf. RHF xxiii, 614. The terms of Baldwin's grant show that he derived his name from Canteloup-le-Bocage (Eure, ar. Les Andelys, cant. Fleury-sur-Andelle, cne. Bourg-Beaudouin). Warner de Canteloup, brother of Baldwin, described Walter de Canteloup as his lord (Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 53 HP 32, no. 97). 70 Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 53 HP 32, no. 45, a confirmation by Baldwin which states that the chapel was founded 'in the time of the late Archbishop Rotrou of Rouen' (1165-83), and that further gifts were made within a fortnight of the death of Henry II (6 July 1189). See J.-M. Bienvenu, 'L'ordre de Fontevraud en Normandie au XIIe siècle', Annales de Normandie xxxv, 1985, 14, 9 (map); he presumes that Baldwin was closely connected with the court of Henry II. 71 Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 53 HP 32, nos 45 (Canteloup), 44 (Richard I); Bienvenu, 'L'ordre de Fontevraud', 14. The act of Richard I is calendared in Landon, Itinerary, no. 237; Cal. Docs France, no. 269. 72 I am grateful to Professor Sir James Holt for the opportunity to consult his database for the Angevin acta, on which this statement is based. 73 Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 53 HP 32, no. 45. 74MRSN i, cxlviii, 155: payments from the confiscated lands of Gilbert de Vascuil include 7 li. 4 s. to 'Godehelt the nun', for a measure of wheat to be paid to her for life.

< previous page

page_376

next page >


page_377

< previous page

page_377


Longchamps gave pledges to Richard I for Roger.75 The pledges may have been due in some way to the fact that La Bucaille was one of the more notable castles of the Norman Vexin and lay very close to Richard I's darling ChâteauGaillard.76 Apart from giving pledges for Roger Torel with Stephen de Longchamps, Osbert de Rouvray had a number of connections in lands and association with several different branches of the Longchamps clan. Both families had associations with the abbey of Beaubec, which they both endowed from their respective property at Massy near Drincourt, and the act of Hugh de Gournay for Beaubec which Osbert I or Osbert II had witnessed was also attested by Hugh de Long-champs, father of Stephen and Bishop William.77 The marriage of the chancellor's brother Stephen, another leading Angevin curialis, to Alice de Cailly, coheiress of Cailly near Rouen and Baudemont in the Norman Vexin, added other links. Stephen and Alice were benefactors of Longueville and Beaubec, as indeed were Alice's sister and coheiress Matilda and her husband Renaud de Bosco; their act for Longueville was witnessed by Osbert II and his son Michael.78 A glance at these different families all show the Rouvrays at one remove from the Angevin court. The direct relationship between the Angevin court and the Rouvrays appears fairly insignificant, so far as the practices of the Angevin chancery and Norman exchequer rolls permit us to know, even if Osbert really was proposed as the champion of Henry II at Gisors in 1188. On 20 March 1190, Osbert and his brother William were at the court of Richard I at Rouen, where they witnessed the king's confirmation of the chapel of Godehild de Rouvray at Fumechon, but not the other acts given that day.79 More significantly, two months later Osbert was in the entourage of King Richard at SaintJean d'Angely in Poitou, when he attested an act for the English abbey of Walden.80 Apart from this brief participation, the family of Rouvray may well have remained aloof from the 75MRSN ii, 420, 550: both in 1198 and 1203, Osbert's charge was 20 li. 76HGM i, 11. 8359-70 (iii, 101-2). He was a benefactor of the abbey of Jumièges: Chartes de l'Abbaye de Jumièges, ed. J.-J. Vernier, 2 vols, Rouen and Paris 1916, ii, nos ccxxii, ccxxvi, ccxxxiii; Annales de Jumièges, 126. For La Bucaille as one of the fortresses of the Norman Vexin, see Suger, 'De glorioso rege Ludovico, Ludovici filio', Vie de Louis le Gros et Histoire du Roi Louis VII, ed. A. Molinier, Paris 1887, 161-2. 77 BN, ms. lat. nouv. acq. 1801, fols 39r (Hugh and William de Longchamps, property at Massy and Écalles); Gurney, House of Gournay i, 103; cf. above, nn. 38, 44, 53. 78 BN, ms. lat. nouv. acq. 1801, fols 83r-v; Chartes de Longueville, nos lxxxvii (1199-1200), Ixxxix. For the Baudemont and Cailly inheritances, Stephen de Longchamps, and Renaud de Bosco, see Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 334-5; Green, 'Lords of the Norman Vexin', 56-8, 61; W.B. Stevenson, 'England and Normandy, 120459', unpublished Ph.D., 2 vols, Leeds 1974, ii, 396-401. 79 See above, p. 376 (Fumechon); Landon, Itinerary, nos 235-40. Landon named Osbert and William de Rouvray amongst the witnesses of King Richard's act for Le Valasse (Notre-Dame-du-Vu) near Lillebonne, which he mistook for the abbey of Le Vu in Cherbourg (no. 239): but they are not mentioned in his sources (Monasticon vi, 1111; Neustria Pia, 854), and he seems to have transposed the witnesses of the charter for Fumechon to this notice. In any case, the extant original of this act (Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 18 HP 7) mentions neither Osbert or William de Rouvray (I am very grateful to Dr N. C. Vincent for a transcript of this act). It is interesting that Hugh de Gournay and Gilbert de Vascuil did not witness the king's act for Mortemer-en-Lyons that day (no. 240), despite their connections with that abbey. 80 Landon, Itinerary, no. 288 (7 May 1190). British Library, Harl. ms. 3697 (cartulary of Walden), fo. 30r-v. I am very grateful to Professor Holt for allowing me to consult a reproduction of this act.

< previous page

page_377

next page >


page_378

< previous page

page_378


Angevin court except when war threatened on the Vexin frontier, as at Gisors in 1188. There was no ducal patronage, no castellanships or bailliages, for Osbert de Rouvray. His brother John looked instead to the king of France for rewards. Finally, the Rouvrays had at least some connection before 1194 with Francia which lay beyond the Norman frontier. We have already seen that either Osbert I or Osbert II de Rouvray attested John de Hodeng's arrangement with the count of Beaumont-sur-Oise between 1151 and 1177.81 Of the other families mentioned above, Hugh de Gournay's interests beyond the Norman frontier in the Beauvaisis are well known. Moreover, Odo, hereditary castellan of Beauvais, held property at Vascuil from the abbot of Saint-Pierre-de-Préaux in the early thirteenth century if not before, and he appeared in acts of Gilbert de Vascuil together with Ralph de Rouvray.82 We should not forget at this juncture that the Norman Vexin had been ruled by Louis VII for a decade or more in the mid-twelfth century, when the Rouvray lands must have been very close to centres of French royal power. A number of the connections between the family of Rouvray and other families of their region have been briefly surveyed here. Both the strength and the duration of these ties naturally varied enormously; but what is noticeable is the variety. Anglo-Normans, Franco-Normans, passionate curiales or indifferent stay-at-homes, were all rubbing shoulders in eastern Normandy, and, we may surmise, essentially for very localised reasons. However, the climactic events of the last years of the twelfth century and the opening years of the thirteenth were to throw this local society into disarray. In 1193-94, King Philip's armies overran the Pays de Bray and even took control of Arques. The multiplicity of responses to this crisis amongst the Normans have never been examined in full. Amongst the barons and knights discussed here, John de Rouvray, Gilbert de Vascuil and Hugh de Gournay all chose or were constrained to submit to the French king's allegiance; Hugh de Gournay's lands suffered raids from Norman forces loyal to Richard I in consequence.83 Stephen de Longchamps, on the other hand, remained in King Richard's camp and lost his castle of Baudemont.84 We can only speculate why they made these choices, apart from the obvious presence of the French army. While Hugh de Gournay later reverted to his Angevin allegiance, for Gilbert 81 Above, p. 371. 82 This is reconstructed from a comparison of Le Prévost, Mémoires de l'Eure iii, 325-6 (showing the castellans holding lands at Vascuil in the late thirteenth century) with H 711 (cartulary of Préaux), fo. 59v, no. 37, a letter of Odo, castellan of Beauvais (dc. 1225), to Abbot Bernard of Préaux (c. 1216-c.1234) concerning the homage of his son and heir Adam to the abbot before going on crusade (c. 12187). For Ralph and the castellan as witnesses for Gilbert, see n. 68. In general, see le vicomte de Caix de St-Aymour, 'Les châtelains de Beauvais', Mémoires et documents pour servir à l'histoire des pays qui forment aujourd'hui le Dèpartement de l'Oise, Paris 1898, 79-126, especially 85-90, although the connection with Vascuil before the mid-thirteenth century passes unnoticed. For Odo at the Norman inquest of 1205, see Layettes i, no. 785. 83 Howden iii, 217-20, 257-60; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 95-9, 107-9. The earl of Leicester was captured raiding Hugh's lands in 1194: Howden iii, 253-4. 84 He was with the Normans in 1193 (Howden iii, 220), and in the peace of 1196, Baudemont was restored to him, to be held from the king of France (Layettes i, no. 432).

< previous page

page_378

next page >


page_379

< previous page

page_379


and John it was a choice which was never reversed. Whereas John as a younger son could hope to profit from the situation if he won royal favour, Gilbert lost his patrimony, and Osbert de Rouvray also stood to lose his inheritance if he miscalculated as Gilbert had.85 In the event Osbert remained loyal to Richard I, so it is possible that he and his brother connived at having one foot in each camp, as William Marshal may have done in 1215-16, when he supported King John while his son joined the baronial rebels, and probably in 1191-92, following Richard while his brother was in the circle of Count John of Mortain.86 If Osbert and John de Rouvray were colluding, their policy certainly paid dividends, since John was to be so prominent at the French court. However, what will be considered here are the ways in which the family connections outlined above must have influenced John de Rouvray's part in the establishment of Capetian rule in Normandy. For in this context, a number of John's activities from 1202 onwards become explicable, and his local connections take on a much deeper significance. John, we know, was in the French camp by 1194; the special mention of John de Rouvray in the truce of 1194 could have been due to the fact that Bishop William was one of its chief negotiators. But although Philip Augustus kept a firm foothold in the Norman Vexin, he lost control of the Pays de Bray once Richard the Lionheart returned from Germany, and it was only in 1202 that the king of France subdued this area once more, although it fell into his hands with remarkable ease. Soon after, the first French royal accounts in 1202-3 reveal the Capetian administration at work in the Pays de Bray: and it was John de Rouvray who was collecting many of the district's revenues for Philip Augustus. In fact, he raised a tallage around La Ferté-Saint-Sanson that is, from his very own neighbourhood. He also had a hand in fortifying the castle of Gaillefontaine.87 The accounts suggest that John was acting as intermediary between the local political community and the French bailli, Renaud de Cornillon. John's self-interest was as important as any longstanding family ties in the district, however, for in about 1203, the king of France gave John some of Hugh de Gournay's confiscated property in the French Vexin.88 During the fall of Normandy, the event in which the Rouvray brothers were most significant was the surrender of William Marshal's castles in the Pays de Caux to Philip Augustus, an agreement made at Lisieux in May 1204. William Marshal surrendered his castle of Orbec, not far from Lisieux, directly to Philip Augustus, but his more distant castles of Longueville and Caux were to be handed 85 Gilbert's lands were in ducal hands in 1195 (MRSN i, 132, 155-6), but he appears to have held them again after 1204 (RHF xxiii, 707; Registres, 286), although this entry may have been merely a repetition of the words of 1172 (Red Book of the Exchequer, 696). A William de Vascuil appears to have been acting as lord there in 1218; by 1236, Roger de Hotot, grandson of a certain Richeldis de Vascuil, was lord of Vascuil, including the fiefs once held by Gilbert: Évreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 395; Le Prévost, Mémoires de l'Eure iii, 325-7. 86 Crouch, William Marshal, 113-14. Osbert's loyalty to Richard I is suggested by his activities recorded on the exchequer roll of 1198: as well as standing pledge for Roger Torel, he made payments towards acquitting his debts at the Exchequer, perhaps for this purpose (MRSN ii, 444). 87 Lot and Fawtier, Premier budget, clxxxiv-clxxxv, ccv-ccvii. 88Actes de Philippe Auguste ii, no. 944.

< previous page

page_379

next page >


page_380

< previous page

page_380


over at first to none other than Osbert de Rouvray. William Marshal and Osbert each swore to do the king of France no harm from these fortresses. In view of the Marshal's links with Osbert which have been discussed above, we can see why Osbert's mediation was acceptable to him at this most delicate moment of his career; but Osbert's acceptability to Philip Augustus can be explained by the prominence of his brother John in Philip's entourage.89 What is more, after 1204, John de Rouvray, as bailli and castellan of Arques, was the Capetian official who could in theory have most direct influence over the Marshal lands. Of course, William Marshal was a born diplomat who did not need to rely upon petty knights from the Pays de Bray to secure his French lands; but a favourable bailli of Arques was certainly to his advantage. Otherwise, John de Rouvray could have made life difficult for William Marshal's Norman lands, almost alone as the earl was amongst the Anglo-Norman barons in keeping his Anglo-Norman estates intact, without interruption, on both sides of the Channel. In fact, the Rouvrays may well have had a rather more benign influence. In 1206, John as castellan of Arques and Osbert de Rouvray were the chief lay witnesses to the resolution of a dispute between the priory of Longueville and the abbey of Saint-Wandrille: the dispute had been begun by the Marshal, but the continuing Anglo-French war had no doubt made it impossible for him to prosecute his case, and the Rouvrays could well have influenced the outcome of this case in his stead.90 In view of the Rouvray dealings with the Marshal, an incident in the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal is fascinating. When the news of William Marshal's death reached the French court in 1219, Philip Augustus sang the praises of the late earl; and so too did John de Rouvray! Since Richard Marshal was present at the French court on that occasion, these words need not be dismissed entirely as a literary convention. A whole cluster of people in the verses of the Histoire lavished praise upon William Marshal; but apart from the poet himself, it was John de Rouvray who had the very last word.91 This was not the only part which the Rouvrays played in the fall of Normandy in 1204. When Rouen surrendered in June, John de Rouvray was one of the French king's fidejussores; but he had a more important role than this. The knights of the garrison of Rouen were to give hostages for their castles ad laudern Johannis de 89Layettes i, no. 715: Osbert (Obertus) gave sureties that he would hand the castles over to the king of France on 24 June. C.L.H. Coulson, 'Fortress-policy in Capetian tradition and Angevin practice: aspects of the conquest of Normandy by Philip Augustus', Anglo-Norman Studies vi, 1983, 13-38, at 37-8, discusses this pact in the context of contemporary custom. Cf. 00 above. I am preparing a study of the Marshal lands in Normandy and Brittany between 1189 and 1234. 90 C. de Beaurepaire, 'Chartes relatives h Guillaume le Maréchal et à Jean d'Erlée', Bulletin Historique et Philologique, 1906, 397-403, no. 2: resolution of a dispute over the churhc of Éluiqueville near Meullers. 91HGM ii, lines 19113-58. See especially lines 19153-8: Mis sires Johan de Rovrei Dist: "Sire, je di, endreit mei, Que fu trestut li plus sages Chevalier qui en nos cages Fust unques de nul [1]iu veüz; D'itant vuil bien estre creüz."

< previous page

page_380

next page >


page_381

< previous page

page_381


Pratellis et Johannis de Roboreto.92 The brother of John de Préaux, Peter, was commander of the garrison of Rouen, and John de Préaux gave his son as hostage on Peter's behalf; but his previous connections with the Rouvrays were probably not insignificant as he and John de Rouvray together negotiated the surrender of Norman castles. Once again, John de Rouvray was acting as intermediary between the king of France and the Normans, and his task here resembled Osbert de Rouvray's part in the Marshal's surrender of Longueville. When John was granted the custody of the castle and bailliage of Arques, this command must have been in an area familiar to him, in view of the Rouvray lands not far from Arques and their connection with the priory of Longueville. He established his authority through an inquest into the previous administration of the bailliage: the jurors were earlier governors of the region, including the preceding castellan of Arques, William Martel, and John de Préaux.93 Far from imposing his might in disregard for the local community, John was respecting its opinion. Nor should his harshness at Dieppe be seen as the work of a foreign intruder, but as the vigour of a local knight now raised high by a victorious king of France. When John captured Roger de Mortemer at Dieppe in 1205, it is unlikely that he was seizing a stranger. In 1207, he accompanied the French king's two closest associates, Brother Guérin and Bartholomew de Roye, to resolve a serious dispute between the commune and chapter of Rouen, and may have been acting in this instance as an intermediary.94 On more than one occasion, the king of France rewarded a servant with lands in the Pays de Caux and left it to John de Rouvray to make the exact allocation..95 In sum, most of John de Rouvray's actions in French royal service from 1202 onwards can be connected in one way or another to the links which the family of Rouvray enjoyed before 1200. The culmination of this career was John's leadership of the Normans at Bouvines, alongside his brother and another associate from his district of origin, Stephen de Longchamps, who was killed there. Links formed in the eastern Norman marches between two younger sons who had then found service in opposing camps in the 1190s seem to have culminated in the greatest Capetian triumph; a telling sign of the different ways in which the Normans had been affected by the events of 1193-1204. 92Layettes i, no. 716: 'Et omnes alii milites qui habent fortericias tradere debent domino regi ostagios ad laudem Johannis de Pratellis et Johannis de Roboreto'. 93RHF xxiv, I, no. 62: 'Quando Rex Philippus conquisivit Normanniam tradidit ballivam Archiarum Johanni de Roboreto et precepit ei ut terram illius ballire tractaret, sicuti tractata fuerat quando ad manure suam pervenit. Idem Johannes inquisivit de hoc cum Johanne de Pratellis, Guillelmo Martelli, cambellano Tancarville, Richardo de Villiquier, W. de Buesevilla et pluribus aliis qui terrain illam tenuerant.' 94Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesi Baiocensis (Livre Noir), ed. V. A. Bourienne, Rouen, Paris, 1902-3, ii, no. CCCIV (RHF xxiv, I, 'preuves de la preface', no. 16). I am grateful to Dr E. M. C. Van Houts for the reference in Bourrienne's edition. 95Actes de Philippe Auguste ii, no. 851: Odo Troussel is granted lands at Louvetot, 'sicut Johannes de Roboreto illas eidem ex mandato nostro assignavit in terra filli Gerardi de Fornivale quam habebat ex parte uxoris sue' (1204×05); cf. GEC v, 580, note g, for the Fournival connection with Louvetot. Actes de Philippe Auguste iii, no. 1078: Geoffrey de la Chapelle (later castellan of Arques) is granted Fresle and Rosay, near Drincourt, 'per testimonio dilecti et fidelis nostri Johannis de Roboreto'.

< previous page

page_381

next page >


page_382

< previous page

page_382


Apart from his activities as bailli, John de Rouvray's personal acquisitions also take on a rather different hue when viewed in the context of his family. Philip Augustus rewarded John's service with a dowry for his daughter at Buchy, very close to the ancestral lands of John's family. His marriage to Joanna d'Auffay, widow of the previous castellan of Arques, William Martel, and a wealthy coheiress in her own right, served to increase his power in his native region, although it was he alone rather than his progeny who gained by the match since she had had a son by her first marriage. John de Rouvray was far from the only medieval royal servant to find himself a wealthy widow, but it may be taken as representative of his success: such a match would have been beyond the expectations of a mere younger son from Bray, but the enhancing influence of his royal service made it feasible.96 This paper has largely concentrated upon one family from eastern Normandy and the rather unusual career of one of its younger sons. While Osbert II de Rouvray remained on the fringes of the Angevin polity, his brother was able to carve out a far more successful career through his exploitation of the Franco-Norman wars in eastern Normandy. Nevertheless, much of the power and influence which had accrued to John de Rouvray died with him, based as it was upon royal office and probably reinforced by his marriage to Joanna d'Auffay. His descendants and Osbert's comprised two knightly dynasties in eastern Normandy, both using the name of John to excess, with John's son William numbered among the leading knights of the duchy; but they were no greater than that.97 But if John's career was spectacular, his elder brother was perhaps far more typical of the lesser aristocracy of Normandy. Osbert's networks of associations 96 Hellot, Les Martel, 22. 97 John was still alive in the time of Archbishop Maurice of Rouen (1231-5), for he presented to the church of Étainhus iure uxoris, but in 1236, his wife was widowed and his son a minor (RHF xxiii, 276, 725, if Bourayo is a misreading for Rourayo). For William de Rouvray, son of John, see Hellot, Les Martel, 22 and n. 85; RHF xxiii, 241, 243, and 728-9, showing him among leading Norman knights mustered for successive royal campaigns. He was probably the William who endowed the canons of lie-Dieu at Vascuil in 1238 (Évreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 395, also witnessed by a John de Rouvray; Mémoires de l'Eure iii, 328). In 1270, the lord of Buchy, which Louis VIII had transferred from John's daughter to John himself in 1225, was a knight called John de Rouvray (note 19 above), and in 1272 he was lord of the Bigod fiefs granted to John de Rouvray in 1204 (Loyd, Anglo-Norman Families, 32). John the bailli's successor as lord of Auffargis in the Forest of Yvelines in 1250 was Henry de Rouvray (Chartes de Moulineaux, xcij). Henry and William de Rouvray, knights, were both at the Norman Exchequer in 1258 (Jugements de l'Échiquier, no. 813). Osbert II's son Michael was still alive in 1222, but the lord of Rouvray was called John in 1236, 1238 and 1261 (BN, ms. lat. nouv. acq. 1801, fols 16, 99; Archives de la Seine-Maritime, G 4596 (,printed copies of deeds for Rouen Cathedral), 10; RHF xxiii, 240-1, 265; Les Olim i, 137, 146). For representatives of the two lines, see RHF xxiii, 753, 754. The John de Rouvray who granted tithes at Vascuil to St-Ouen de Rouen in 1250 could have belonged to either line (Le Prévost, Mémoires de l'Eure iii, 323). The late second marriage of John de Rouvray the bailli meant that the generations of the two lines did not keep pace with one another (see pedigree). By 1229 there was also a John de Rouvray, lord of Grainville-en-Vexin, married into the family of Moret (which held Radepont-sur-Andelle after 1203): RHF xxiii, 244, 247, 772. It is possible that he was the same as John the son of Michael de Rouvray, representative of the senior line. In a certain dispute in 1276, John de Rouvray, knight, and John de Rouvray, knight, lord of Grainville, gave pledges (Footnote continued on next page)

< previous page

page_382

next page >


page_383

< previous page

page_383


indicate how a Norman knightly family of this period could be connected with both the other families around him. In the course of this specific case-study, it has been necessary to take in the collective biography of a whole region; this has opened a window a much broader section of local society in Normandy. To explain the career of John de Rouvray has required considering his brother Osbert and his kinswoman Godehild the prioress; the Angevin curiales William Marshal, Stephen de Longchamps and John de Préaux and the less successful Baldwin de Canteloup; the deserters and barons of the eastern march, Hugh de Gournay, and Gilbert de Vascuil; other barons, such as Renaud de Bosco in the Norman Vexin and Roger de Mortemer in the Pays de Caux, as well as lesser Cauchois families such as Héricourt; Franceis beyond the Norman frontier such as the castellan of Beauvais; and finally, the French curiales, Bartholomew de Roye and Brother Guérin. While this cannot have comprised a seamless web of connections, it does provide evidence of a complex local society with some surprising links hardly visible except through the prism of charters, but real enough. The Pays de Bray was just one of the districts of Normandy, and by no means unique. When Philip Augustus began to intrude his power into Normandy in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, ties of kinship, friendship and tenure all must have contributed to the multitude of responses amongst the Normans to this new political problem. Many of these merit further investigation. In southern Normandy, examples are administrators such as Ralph l'Abbé, the burgess of Sées who was equally at home as farmer of ducal revenues at Alençon in 1180, a judge at the Caen exchequer in 1201, the constable of Argentan in 1203 and a justice again under the Capetians from 1205;98 or Richard d'Argences, who established himself at Évreux when it was in ducal custody in the 1190s but remained there in local administration after 1204.99 Studying the local aristocracy also tells many tales: reconstructing the families and lands of the knights Gado le Drouais and William du Fresne helps to explain how their petty dispute over a fortified manor near Nonancourt became enmeshed in the struggle between Richard I and Philip Augustus, affecting both families into the mid-thirteenth century.100 Such (Footnote continued from previous page) for opposing parties. Archives de la Seine-Maritime, 16 H 183 includes an original act of 'Johannus dictus de Rouuerai, miles et dominus de Greinvile' for St-Wandrille (1280). There were also lesser families with this surname: Osbert (II?) confirmed alms for Beaubec given by his man Renaud, son of William de Rouvray (BN, ms. lat. nouv. acq. 1801, fo. 41v). 98MRSN i, 18-20, 386-90; Caen, Archives du Calvados, H 6510 (cartulary of St-André-en-Gouffern), fo. 7, no. 21 (undated), calls him constable of Argentan. A justice at Falaise in 1199 and the Exchequer in 1200-1 (Alençon, AD Orne, H 770, H 3333; Rotuli Normanni, 1), Ralph appears in countless acts until c. 1220, and was a justice for Philip Augustus (RHF xxiv, I, preuves de la preface, nos 30, 40; Jugements de l'Échiquier, nos 235, 113n., where he is described as a burgess of Sées. His son, Herbert, a clerk, was John's candidate during the contested Sées election in 1202 (Rot. Pat., 8). 99Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 174-5,206-8,331,349, cf. 172; Lot and Fawtier, Premeier Budget, cxcvi, ccix, ccx. For Richard d'Argences in the Évrecin after 1204, see Évreux, Archives de l'Eure, H 675 (act for the abbey of La Noë, 1211). 100 For this dispute over Illiers-l'Evêque, see Power, 'Norman frontier in the 12th century', 121-4, 352-3, 396 (pedigree); idem, 'What did the frontier of Angevin Normandy comprise?', Anglo-Norman Studies VII: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1994, ed. C. Harper-Bill, Woodbridge 1995, 181-201, at 195 and n. 66.

< previous page

page_383

next page >


page_384

< previous page

page_384 Page 384

examples may be replicated, and they suggest that further research is merited into the interplay of high politics, regional administration and local political society in and around ducal Normandy. The charter material is waiting to reveal these family histories, and prosopography offers the necessary methodology to open them up to view.101 101 Correction to p. 372 above: Osbert de Rouvray was holding some lands in England in 1203; significantly, they comprised the fiefs which Hugh de Gournay had held from Gilbert de Vascuil in Warwickshire. Rotuli de Liberate ac de misis et praestitis, ed. T. Hardy, Record Commission 1844, 34.

< previous page

page_384


Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century

The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century

The Pocket Guide to Trees of Britain and Northern Europe

Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the politics of France

Virtue And Ethics in the Twelfth Century

Roots: The Saga of an American Family

Roots: The Saga of an American Family

The Twelfth Of August

Roots: The Saga of an American Family

The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century

The Politics of the Family: And Other Essays

The Choiring of the Trees

The Fangs of the Trees

The Choiring of the Trees

European Anti-Discrimination and the Politics of Citizenship: Britain and France (Migration, Minorities and Citizenship)

The Choiring of the Trees

The Sound Of The Trees

The Fangs of the Trees

The Politics of Survival: Artisans in Twentieth-Century France

The Construction of Minority Identities in France and Britain

The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government

The Book of Trees

The Silence of Trees

Texts and the Self in the Twelfth Century

The Roots of War in the 21st Century: Geography, Hegemony, and Politics in Asia-Pacific

The Sleep of Trees

From the royal to the republican body: incorporating the political in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century France

The Trees Of Pride

General History of Africa, Volume 4: Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century

Economics of the Family and Family Policies

The Landscape of Britain: From the Beginnings to 1914

Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century

The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century

The Pocket Guide to Trees of Britain and Northern Europe

Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the politics of France

Virtue And Ethics in the Twelfth Century

Roots: The Saga of an American Family

Roots: The Saga of an American Family

The Twelfth Of August

Roots: The Saga of an American Family

The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century

The Politics of the Family: And Other Essays

The Choiring of the Trees

The Fangs of the Trees

The Choiring of the Trees

European Anti-Discrimination and the Politics of Citizenship: Britain and France (Migration, Minorities and Citizenship)

The Choiring of the Trees

The Sound Of The Trees

The Fangs of the Trees

The Politics of Survival: Artisans in Twentieth-Century France

The Construction of Minority Identities in France and Britain

The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government

The Book of Trees

The Silence of Trees

Texts and the Self in the Twelfth Century

The Roots of War in the 21st Century: Geography, Hegemony, and Politics in Asia-Pacific

The Sleep of Trees

From the royal to the republican body: incorporating the political in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century France

The Trees Of Pride

General History of Africa, Volume 4: Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century

Economics of the Family and Family Policies

The Landscape of Britain: From the Beginnings to 1914

Recommend Documents