The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens (Oxford Medieval Texts)

d:/3barlow/Pre.3d ± 9/7/99 ± 8:21 ± vk/mp OXFORD MEDIEVAL TEXTS General Editors J. W. BINNS M. LAPIDGE B. F. HARVEY T...

Author: Frank Barlow

151 downloads 1932 Views 2MB 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

d:/3barlow/Pre.3d ± 9/7/99 ± 8:21 ± vk/mp

OXFORD MEDIEVAL TEXTS General Editors J. W. BINNS M. LAPIDGE

B. F. HARVEY T. REUTER

THE CARMEN DE HASTINGAE PROELIO OF GUY BISHOP OF AMIENS



THE CARMEN DE HASTINGAE PROELIO OF GUY BISHOP OF AMIENS

edited and translated by FRANK BARLOW

CLARENDON PRESS ´ OXFORD 1999


3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford and furthers the University's aim of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok BogotaÂ Bombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris SaÄo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # Frank Barlow 1999 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First published 1999 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Wido, Bishop of Amiens, d. 1075? The Carmen de Hastingae proelio of Guy, Bishop of Amiens.Ð[2nd ed.] / edited and translated by Frank Barlow. Ð(Oxford medieval texts.) Latin poem with English translation and text. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Hastings, Battle of, 1066ÐPoetry. 2. Great BritainÐHistoryÐ William I, 1066±1087ÐPoetry. 3. Epic poetry, Latin (Medieval and modern)ÐTranslations into English. I. Barlow, Frank. II. Title. III. Series. PA8445.W48C3 1999 873'.03Ðdc21 98-54940 ISBN 0±19±820758±1 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset in Ehrhardt by Joshua Associates Ltd., Oxford Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., Guildford and King's Lynn


PREFACE T h e ninth centenary of the Norman conquest of England, celebrated in 1966, triggered an explosion of historical commentaries on the invasion and the battle of Hastings. Most were popular in tone. But a few dif®cult technical problems received a scholarly airing; and one of these was the authorship and value of an anonymous poem on the Norman Campaign, Carmen de Hastingae proelio. The appearance in 1972 of the ®rst adequate edition of the poem, the work of Catherine Morton and Hope Muntz, only fuelled the debate. They accepted its attribution to Guy of Amiens and regarded its account of the events most favourably. But these views were anathema to some established scholars working in the ®eld; and since neither editor was a trained historian with an academic post, their work had a generally cool, occasionally hostile, reception. I got to know Morton and Muntz in 1967, when they wrote to me on some matter concerning the poem. Indeed, they approached a good number of scholars for advice or to air their opinions. And, although from the start I could not accept all their views, I always thought that they were right on the authorship and respected them as enthusiastic and indefatigable workers. When the question of a second edition arose, as both Morton and Muntz had died, I offered to undertake the necessary revision. This has, perhaps inevitably, led to a much more radical rewriting than I had expected. Their Latin text, although it has been roughly handled by some critics and many corrections and ìmprovements' have been suggested, seemed to me, after checking with photographs of the manuscripts, to require only a little revision. There were just a very few faulty transcriptions and two misprints. Textual improvements, beyond the correction of obvious scribal errors, should not be allowed to get out of hand. But, with regard to the editorial matter, as there has been so much new work in this ®eld since 1972 and I have my own views on most of the topics, it seemed pointless not to take the opportunity to express them. Accordingly, the new introduction, translation, and subject notes are my own work. In preparing this edition I have taken into account all the critical literature that has come to my notice, and have found much of it


vi

PREFACE

useful, some indispensable. I have also had the advantage of two `bequests', R. H. C. Davis's personal papers concerning Carmen and, from Arnold Taylor, the correspondence he had with Morton and Muntz, largely concerned with the Sussex ports. With Ralph Davis, although our views differed, I was always on friendly terms; and from my study of his papers I learnt how wide-ranging and thorough had been his investigation of the problems. Even though sometimes I could not accept his conclusions, I enjoyed his lively, lucid, and interesting treatment. With Marjorie Chibnall, who took over the editing of William of Poitiers's Gesta Guillelmi from Davis, I have often been in touch, and have pro®ted from much help and many kindnesses. I wish also to thank Jean Dunbabin, Giovanni Orlandi, and Elisabeth van Houts for assistance of various kinds. Finally, the team which saw the second edition of my The Life of King Edward who rests at Westminster through the Press in 1992, Anne Gelling, the general editors, Barbara Harvey and Michael Lapidge (now reinforced by J. W. Binns), and the copy editor, Leofranc Holford-Strevens, has again served me splendidly. Sarah Ridgard took over from Anne Gelling in the ®nal stages; and Barbara Harvey has been a tower of strength. To all my helpers my grateful thanks! F.B.


CONTENTS list of illustrations abbreviated references

viii ix

introduction i the discovery and reception of the poem ii the manuscripts iii the poem's contents and salient characteristics iv the controversy over the authorship v the date and purpose of the work vi. guy bishop of amiens vii. the historical value of the work 1. The main sources for the Norman invasion 2. The background to the invasion 3. The Channel crossing 4. The preliminaries to the battle 5. Tactics 6. The encounter 7. The aftermath of the battle 8. Conclusions sigla TEXT AND TRANSLATION index

xiii xix xxi xxiv xl xlii liii liii lxi lxiii lxx lxxi lxxvii lxxxv xc xciii 1 51


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Frontispiece `William gives arms to Harold' (?knights him) after their successful joint campaign in 1064 against Conan II of Brittany. Detail from the Bayeux Tapestry. MuseÂe de la Tapisserie, Bayeux, France/ Bridgeman Art Library, London 1. Genealogical table of Guy of Amiens and his relations

xliv

2. William's Campaign August±December 1066

lxix

3. Map of the Isthmus of the Hastings Peninsula and Battleground. Reproduced from the Morton and Muntz edition 4. The opening and ending of Carmen, BibliotheÁque Royale, Brussels, nos. 10615±10719, fo. 227v, bottom half of column 2, and fo. 230v, middle section of column 2

lxxviii

xcii


ABBREVIATED REFERENCES AASS ANS

ASC

Bachrach, `Some observations' Barlow, `The Carmen'

Barlow, Edward the Confessor Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward Barlow, William Rufus Baudri

BenoõÃt Bouquet, Recueil Brevis relatio Brooks and Walker

Acta Sanctorum, ed. J. Bollandus et al. (Antwerp etc., 1643± ) Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1978±81, i±iv (1979±82); renamed Anglo-Norman Studies, v±xi (1983±9), ed. R. Allen Brown; xii±xvi (1990±4), ed. Marjorie Chibnall; xvii± (1995± ), ed. C. HarperBill Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (conveniently translated and arranged in English Historical Documents, ii, ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway, 2nd edn., Oxford, 1981) B. S. Bachrach, `Some observations on the military administration of the Norman Conquest', ANS viii (1986), 1±25 Frank Barlow, `The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio', Studies in International History Presented to W. Norton Medlicott, ed. K. Bourne and D. C. Watt (London, 1967), pp. 36±67; repr. id., The Norman Conquest and Beyond (London, 1983), pp. 189±222 3rd edn. (London, 1997) The Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster, 2nd edn. (OMT, 1992) 2nd edn. (London, 1990) Les êuvres poeÂtiques de Baudri de Bourgueil, 1046± 1130, ed. Phyllis Abrahams (Paris, 1926); Baldricus Burgulianus: Carmina, ed. Karlheinz Hilbert (Heidelberg, 1979) Chronique des ducs de Normandie par BenoõÃt, ed. C. Fahlin, 2 vols. (Bibliotheca Ekmaniana, lx, Uppsala, 1954) Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet et al., 24 vols. (Paris, 1738±1904) Brevis relatio de Guillelmo nobilissimo comite Normannorum, ed. Elisabeth M. C. van Houts, Camden Miscellany, xxxiv, Camden 5th ser., x (1997), 1±48 N. P. Brooks and H. E. Walker, `The authority and


x

ABBREVIATED REFERENCES

Brown, `The Bayeux Tapestry' BT Cowdrey, `Bayeux Tapestry' Davis, `The Carmen' Davis, `William of Poitiers'

Dawson `Discussion' EHR Engels, Dichters Engels, Ònce more' Foreville, GG Freeman, Norman Conquest Gaimar Gallia Christiana GG Giles, Scriptores GND

interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', ANS i (1979), 1±34 S. A. Brown, `The Bayeux Tapestry: Why Eustace, Odo and William?', ANS xii (1990), 7±28 The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. F. M. Stenton (London, 1957, 2nd edn. 1965) H. E. J. Cowdrey, `Towards an interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', ANS x (1988), 49±65 R. H. C. Davis, `The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio', EHR xciii (1978), 241±61 `William of Poitiers and his History of William the Conqueror', The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern, ed. R. H. C. Davis, J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, et al. (Oxford, 1981), pp. 71±100 C. Dawson, History of Hastings Castle (London, 1909) R. H. C. Davis, L. J. Engels, et al., `The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio: a discussion', ANS ii (1980), 1±20 English Historical Review L. J. Engels, Dichters over Willem de Veroveraar: Het Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (inaugural lecture, Groningen, 1967) Ònce more: the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio', ANS ii (1980), 3±18 Guillaume de Poitiers: Histoire de Guillaume le ConqueÂrant, ed. and trans. Raymonde Foreville (Paris, 1952) E. A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 5 vols.: ii (2nd edn., Oxford, 1870); iii (Oxford, 1869) L'Estoire des Engleis par Geffrei Gaimar, ed. Alexander Bell, 3 vols. (Anglo-Norman Texts Society, xiv±xvi, Oxford, 1960) 16 vols. (Paris, 1715±1865) The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, ed. and trans. R. H. C. Davis and Marjorie Chibnall (OMT, 1998) Scriptores rerum gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris, ed. J. A. Giles (Caxton Soc., London, 1845) The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of JumieÁges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, ed. Elisabeth M. C. van Houts, 2 vols. (OMT, 1992±5)



GR

xi

William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, i, ed. and trans. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson, and M. Winterbottom (OMT, 1998) Guillot, Le Comte O. Guillot, Le Comte d'Anjou et son entourage au XI e sieÁcle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1972) Hall, `Critical notes' J. B. Hall, `Critical notes on three medieval Latin texts', Studi medievali, 3rd ser., xxi (1980), 899±916 Hardy, Descriptive T. D. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Catalogue Relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, i (2) (RS, 1862) Hariulf Hariulf of Saint-Riquier, Chronicon Centulense, ed. F. Lot, Chronique de l'abbaye de Saint-Riquier (Collection des textes pour servir aÁ l'eÂtude et aÁ l'enseignement de l'histoire, Paris, 1894) JaÈschke, Wilhelm K.-U. JaÈschke, Wilhelm der Eroberer: sein doppelter Herrschaftsantritt im Jahr 1066 (Sigmaringen, 1977) John of Worcester The Chronicle of John of Worcester, ii, ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk, trans. J. Bray and P. McGurk (OMT, 1995) KoÈrner, Hastings Sten KoÈrner, The Battle of Hastings: England and Europe 1035±1066 (Lund, 1964) Lemmon, `The cam- C. H. Lemmon, `The campaign of 1066', The paign' Norman Conquest: Its Setting and Impact, ed. C. T. Chevallier (London, 1966), pp. 77±122 M. & M. The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens, ed. Catherine Morton and Hope Muntz (OMT, 1972) OMT Oxford Medieval Texts Orlandi, `Recensione' G. Orlandi, review of M. & M. in Studi medievali, 3rd ser., xiii (1972), 196±222 Orlandi, `Some after- 'Some afterthoughts on the Carmen de Hastingae thoughts' Proelio', in Media Latinitas: A Collection of Essays to Mark the Occasion of the Retirement of L. J. Engels, ed. R. I. A. Nip et al. (Instrumenta Patristica, xxviii, Turnhout, 1996), pp. 117±27 OV Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (OMT, 1969±80) Owen, Èpic and his- D. D. R. Owen, `The epic and history: Chanson de tory' Roland and Carmen de Hastingae Proelio', Medium ávum, li (1982), 18±34 Petrie, Monumenta Monumenta historica Britannica, ed. H. Petrie and J. Sharpe (London, 1848; in print from 1833)


xii PL


Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844±64) Prou, Recueil Recueil des actes de Philippe I er Roi de France, ed. M. Prou (Paris, 1909) Regesta Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066±1087), ed. D. Bates (Oxford, 1998) RS Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages, Published under the Direction of the Master of the Rolls (London, 1858±96) Tanner, `The expan- Heather J. Tanner, `The expansion of the power and sion' in¯uence of the counts of Boulogne under Eustace II', ANS xiv (1992), 251±86 van Houts Elisabeth M. C. van Houts, `Latin poetry and the Anglo-Norman court, 1066±1035: the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio', Journal of Medieval History, xv (1989), 39±62 Wace Le Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. J. Holden, 3 vols. (SocieÂteÂ des Anciens Textes FrancËais, Paris, 1971) Werkmeister, `The O. K. Werkmeister, `The political ideology of the political ideology' Bayeux Tapestry', Studi medievali, 3rd ser., xvii (1976), 535±96 White, `Companions' G. H. White, `The companions of the Conqueror', The Genealogists' Magazine, ix (1944), 417±24 White, `Hastings' `The Battle of Hastings and the death of Harold', The Complete Peerage, xii (1) (1953), app. L Williams, The English Ann Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995)

/3barlow/intro.3d ± 9/7/99 ± 9:1 ± vk/mp

INTRODUCTION

i. the discovery and reception of the poem O r d e r i c V i t a l i s , the Anglo-Norman monk and historian at Saint-EÂvroult, states twice in his Historia ecclesiastica, in sections written c.1124±5, that Guy, bishop of Amiens (1058±74/5), was the author of a poem in which he described the battle of Senlac, reviled Harold, and praised William.1 This information was generally available to scholars after AndreÂ Duchesne included Orderic's work in his Historiae Normannorum scriptores antiqui, published at Paris in 1619. And in 1807 Francis Maseres reminded English readers of it when he published at London, in his Historiae Anglicanae circa tempus Conquestus Angliae . . . selecta Monumenta, excerpts from Duchesne's great work, including extracts from Orderic. But on the occasion of Orderic's second mention of Guy's poem, in the context of Matilda's coronation as queen at Westminster in 1068, Maseres annotated dismissively (p. 212): Here we see, that this Guy, bishop of Amiens, in Picardy, had already, in the spring of the year 1068, composed a Latin poem on King William's great victory over King Harold at the battle of Senlac, or Hastings. There seems to be no reason to suppose that he continued his account of King William's exploits beyond the events of that important day, and therefore the loss of this work of his (which was only a complimentary poem) is not much to be regretted.

However, in 1826 the German scholar G. H. Pertz, archivist to the king of Hanover, discovered an epic poem on the Norman invasion of England in two manuscripts in the Royal Library at Brussels; and within ten years it was in print in both France and England.2 In 1

OV ii. 184±7, 214. G. H. Pertz, Archiv der Gesellschaft fuÈr aÈltere deutsche Geschichtskunde, vii (Hanover, 1839), 1006±7; J. N. A. Thierry, Histoire de la ConqueÃte d'Angleterre par les Normands (Paris, 3rd edn. 1830), ii. 411ff.; id., êuvres (Brussels, 1839), pp. 390±1; Chroniques anglonormandes, ed. F. Michel, iii (Rouen, 1840), 1±38; Monumenta Historica Britannica, ed. H. Petrie and J. Sharpe (London, 1848, but in print from 1833), pp. 856±72; Scriptores Rerum Gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris, ed. J. A. Giles (Caxton Soc., x, London 1845), pp. 27±51. See further M. & M., pp. lxiii±lxvi, lxxv. 2


xiv

INTRODUCTION

neither manuscript is the work, as was common enough at the time, given a title or ascribed to an author. But, as was also not unusual, this information was in place, supplied by the prefatory èpistle'. The salutation, which ends the second hexameter of the prologue, reads, `L. W. salutat' (W. greets L.). As the full names would not have made the line longer than the opener, it can only be thought that the scribe, or a predecessor, considered the information of no interest. Pertz naturally was curious and was reminded of Orderic's remarks. He also conjectured that L. represented Lanfranc, abbot of Caen (1063±70) and archbishop of Canterbury (1070±89). The English scholar Henry Petrie, however, after a visit to Brussels, on Pertz's advice, in order to make a copy of the poem, decided that the author was not W. but L.; and Pertz then thought of Sigebert of Gembloux's attribution to Lanfranc of a work De uita, laudibus et triumphis of the Conqueror. But, as soon as he was able to refer to his own notes on the poem, he returned to his original view: the author was W. = Wido = Guy of Amiens.3 In 1830 the French scholar Augustin Thierry, thanks to an English correspondent, the politician William Wickham, who was a member of the Royal Commission on the Public Records, printed an abstract from the poem and referred to the author simply as a contemporary of the events.4 But by 1833 Petrie had somewhat hesitatingly accepted the attribution to Guy.5 In 1840 Francisque Michel published at Rouen a complete text. So dissatis®ed had he been with the copy sent him from Brussels that he went there expressly in order to check it with the original, and he also had it scrutinized by his German friend, Friedrich DuÈbner. Michel opened his Preface with the remark that he had not the slightest hesitation in attributing the poem to Guy of Amiens. `Lanfrancum Wido salutat', he thought, completely satis®ed both sense and metre. J. A. Giles, however, in 1845 was rather scornful of this. When he reprinted a text, probably Michel's (although he excused his failure to collate the original manuscript by praising the accuracy of Petrie and Sharpe's text of 1833/48), he wrote in the Preface: 3 Pertz, p. 1007. Sigebert, writing in the early 12th c., states that Lanfranc `scripsit laudes, triumphos et res gestas Guillelmi Northmannorum comitis;', Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (PL, clx. 583), a claim which, rightly or wrongly, has never been taken seriously. It should be noticed that it is a good description of GG, usually ascribed to William of Poitiers. For Guy, see below, pp. xlii±liii. 4 5 Thierry, êuvres, pp. 1±2. Monumenta, pp. 95±6.


DISCOVERY AND RECEPTION

xv

Pertz was induced to ascribe it to Guy, or Wido, from a fanciful interpretation of the letters L.W. which occur in the second line. These letters he conceives to represent Lanfrancum Wido. This is certainly but a slender base on which to erect such an argument, but it derives support from the known fact that Wido was the author of such a poem.6

And, in fact, Giles then tacitly accepted the bishop's authorship. In 1862 T. D. Hardy, in his Descriptive Catalogue of Materials relating to the early History of Great Britain, fell in cautiously behind Petrie and Michel. He did, however, again draw attention to the dif®culty in reconciling the eminent bishop with the apparent tyro of the IntroductionÐà man unoccupied and aiming at celebrity'.7 There was, however, less hesitation in France: Ferdinand Lot in 1894 followed Michel.8 Orderic, when ®rst mentioning Guy's poem, coupled it with the prose account of the Conqueror's deeds by William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux. This work likewise survived the Middle Ages only in one untitled, unattributed, and defective manuscript (now lost), but which was, from Orderic's description of it, con®dently identi®ed as the archdeacon's. And, from the beginning to the end, both works have sat uneasily together. Thierry, in his foreword to the fourth edition of his Histoire de la ConqueÃte d'Angleterre par les Normands, thought that all the information conveyed by the poem, except for a few details of little interest and the account of the siege of London, which he printed, was to be found elsewhere.9 Petrie remarked, in the preface to his edition, that, if the author was indeed Guy, he would be a good, though prejudiced, source: Ìn various instances, indeed, the narrative is not unlike that of Willielmus Pictaviensis; but that resemblance is only general; each occasionally, in describing the same event, exhibiting circumstances which are not to be found in the other.'10 T. D. Hardy repeated this in 1862.11 Giles, however, although he printed the prose account in the same volume, took no interest in their relationship. Nor did E. A. Freeman in his History of the Norman Conquest, ®rst published between 1867 and 1876.12 As J. H. Round remarked in 1894, he was a scissors and 6

7 Giles, p. xi. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, i, pt 2, pp. 671±2. 9 Hariulf, p. 216n. Thierry, êuvres, pp.1±2. 10 11 Monumenta, p. 96. Descriptive Catalogue, i, pt 2, pp. 671±2. 12 Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 134±6, has a section on the counts of Ponthieu, and on p. 136, n. 4, mentions that Guy bishop of Amiens wrote the famous poem `De Bello Hastingensi'. His reference is to `Will. Gemm.' = Robert of Torigny's interpolations into 8


xvi

INTRODUCTION

paste historian who took snippets uncritically from every available source. Yet Round himself, in his scathing, and amusing, attack on Freeman's misuse of the sources for his imaginary reconstruction of the battle of Hastings, was uninterested in the relationship between òur four leading authoritiesÐthe Tapestry, William of Poitiers, Bishop Guy and Baudri'. Round seems to have preferred Baudri of Bourgueil to Guy, and dismissed only Wace from the canon.13 Likewise Charles Dawson, the Sussex solicitor and amateur archaeologist, the `discoverer' and probably inventor of the Piltdown skull, who in 1909 displayed in parallel columns translated extracts from William of Poitiers, Guy of Amiens, William of JumieÁges. Baudri, Wace, and `Misc.', in that order, did not comment on their relationship.14 Yet it is perfectly clear that the poem and William of Poitiers's so-called History are intimately connected. And this relationship is one of the few points of agreement between all recently interested parties. One author made use of the other. And if the anonymous poet was the borrower, he could not have been Guy, for William's book was not completed before 1077,15 a few years after the bishop's death. It will have been noticed that, unlike the similar case of the prose account, some uncertainty over the authorship of the poem has persisted since its ®nding, the result possibly of its belated discovery. And that it was taken up by that shady character, Dawson, could not have helped. In recent years the lively controversy over its authorship and date has centred on whether Pertz's discovery is indeed Guy's lost work. Many reasons, some weighty, some captious, have been adduced to disprove the bishop's authorship; but no other identi®cations of L. and W. have been seriously proposed and defended.16 Orderic, who used William of Poitiers as one of his sources, mentions Guy's poem in books iii and iv of his History, both ®nished about 1125. On the ®rst occasion, following an account of King William's GND. In later editions he added OV. In his account of the battle he often quotes `Guy of Amiens' or `Wid. Amb.', together with `Will. Pict.', but without critique. Cf. also pp. 733±9. 13 `Mr Freeman and the Battle of Hastings', EHR ix (1894), 209±59, at pp. 217, 245±6, reprinted in Feudal England (1895), and in some of his many articles: see bibliography in Family Origins and other Studies by the late J. Horace Round, ed. William Page (London, 1930), pp. xlix±lxxiv. 14 History of Hastings Castle, ii, ad ®n., sheets 1±12. Cf. N. Hammond in The Times, 31 Oct. 1996, 31 Mar. 1997. 15 Davis, `William of Poitiers', pp. 71±4; cf. Davis, `The Carmen', p. 245n. The possibility of a lost common source, a `text book', was raised by Davis at the Battle Conference in 1979 (`Discussion', p. 19), but seems to have had little support. 16 See below, p. xxv.



xvii

coronation at Christmas 1066, he pays tribute to William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux and royal chaplain, who in polished style and most judiciously had eloquently praised the deeds of the Conqueror. Misfortune had prevented him from continuing his account up to the king's death. Orderic then adds, `Guy, bishop of Amiens, imitating the epics of Virgil and Statius, also wrote a poem in which he describes the battle of Senlac and reviles and condemns Harold but praises and glori®es William.'17 It would seem that Orderic, although he allows that Guy wrote in imitation of the Aeneid and Thebais (both popular at the time),18 did not rate his poem as highly as William's prose account. However that may be, when he next mentions Guy, in connection with Queen Matilda's crossing to England for her coronation at Westminster at Whitsun 1068 and her company of retainers (satellites) and noble ladies, he remarks that preeminent among the clergy who ministered to her spiritual needs was the very famous Guy bishop of Amiens, he who had already written an account in verse of the contest between Harold and William.19 Although Orderic certainly believed, and probably correctly, for there was no reason to invent, that Guy had written a poem on the Battle of Senlac, his story about the bishop and queen is curious. It should be noticed that he does not say expressly that Guy travelled with her to London. And since the bishop did not witness two royal charters given at Westminster on the day of Matilda's coronation, one may well ask how Orderic knew about the visit.20 As for Guy's ministering to Matilda's spiritual needs, although a noble bishop of Amiens might easily have been attracted to the daughter of Baldwin V of Flanders and Adela daughter of King Robert II of France, Guy, as might be expected of a French bishop, was, on charter evidence, routinely to be found at the court of the French king. And in fact he 17 `Guido etiam praesul Ambianensis metricum carmen edidit, quo, Maronem et Papinium gesta heroum pangentes imitatus, Senlacium bellum descripsit, Heraldum uituperans et condempnans, Guillelmum uero collaudans et magni®cans', OV ii. 184±7. Editors of the poem took their title from this: Michel and Giles, Widonis carmen de Hastingae proelio; Petrie, De bello Hastingensi carmen, auctore W.; M. & M., The Carmen de Hastingae proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens. Cf. JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 8±9 and nn. 21±2. 18 For example, both are mentioned together in GG ii. 22, p. 136. 19 Ìn clero qui ad diuina ei ministrabat, celebris Guido Ambianorum praesul eminebat, qui iam certamen Heraldi et Guillelmi uersi®ce ediderat', OV ii. 214. 20 Regesta, nos. 181, 286. For those present at the coronation, see S. Keynes, `Giso bishop of Wells', ANS xix (1996), 203±71, at pp. 242±3. Chibnall, `Discussion', p. 18, suggested that OV's source could have been the Breton monk Samson, formerly a messenger of the queen: OV i. 85, iii. 104. Davis, `William of Poitiers', p. 99, suggested the lost ending of the archdeacon's work; and Chibnall, GG, p. xxxviii, is similarly minded.


xviii

INTRODUCTION

was there at least twice in 1066, on 29 May and 2 November, on 7 August 1067, on 4 October 1069, and thereafter occasionally until 1073.21 In contrast, he appears as a witness to no Norman ducal or English royal charter. It should also be noticed that Hariulf, the Saint-Riquier chronicler who was interested in the bishop and his comital kin, informs us that Abbot Gervin I travelled to England from Wissant in February 1068 in order to ask the Conqueror to con®rm the monastery's English possessions, and indeed obtained a royal charter. Hariulf says that because of the stormy weather a great concourse of abbots and monks, soldiers and merchants, were kept waiting to cross.22 But he does not take the opportunity to say that Bishop Guy also travelled to England about this time for some purpose. None of this disproves what Orderic seems to suppose; but it does make 1068 as the terminus ad quem for the poem less imperative. Another point must also be made here. Even if Guy did attend Matilda's coronation, this had not necessarily any direct connection with the poem. The author-bishop may or may not have taken his masterpiece with him to Westminster and shown it around. But he could not have greeted Lanfranc there. In 1067 the abbot visited Rome and in 1068 was at Caen; and there is no evidence that he ever visited England before 29 August 1070.23 Orderic mentions Guy only on the two occasions cited. For him he was no more than the author of a poem describing the contest (certamen) between Harold and William and the battle (bellum) of Senlac.24 Whether or no he had ®rst-hand acquaintance with the poem, and actually used it, is contentious.25 But the title used by most of its modern editors is based on his summary.26 Orderic certainly made use of William of Poitiers's work. But the archdeacon, although 21 Prou, Recueil, nos. 25, 27, 30, 32, 60±1, 65; Guillot, Le Comte d'Anjou, ii. 170±6; Gallia Christiana, ix. 817, x. 1165. 22 Hariulf, pp. 241±4. 23 OV ii. 200, 248, 252±3; M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978), pp. 110, 113±15; H. E. J. Cowdrey, `The enigma of Archbishop Lanfranc', Haskins Society Journal, vi (1994±5), 129±52, at p. 133. 24 In contrast the poet, like most versi®ers, often uses the plural, bella. It is a handicap that no corpus of Guy's writings has survived. His epitaph on Abbot Enguerrand of SaintRiquier, his master, was preserved (Hariulf, p. 216), and, as M. & M. pointed out, p. xxixn., it opens, like Carmen, with Quem. See also below, p. xlvi. 25 Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 242, 244±5. Petrie, Monumenta, p. 95, considered that `William of JumieÁges' (i.e. Robert of Torigny) and OV àfford no clue for the appropriation of his work, as they either spoke of it as hearsay, or else it was of too declamatory a nature to allow of their using it in their respective accounts of William's successful enterprize.' Cf. 26 Chibnall, `Discussion', p. 18. See above, n. 17.



xix

he had some things, not particularly favourable, to say about the bishop's nephew, Guy I, count of Ponthieu,27 totally ignores the uncle in the extant portion of his work.28 Nor, for obvious reasons, did two others who probably used the poem, the librettist of the Bayeux Tapestry and Baudri of Bourgueil, acknowledge a debt.29 In fact the only other near-contemporary reference to the poem is made by Robert of Torigni in his continuation of William of JumieÁges's Gesta Normannorum ducum, made about 1139. He suggested that anyone wanting to know more about the Conqueror's deeds should read the splendid account of them by William of Poitiers. Àlso Guy bishop of Amiens wrote in the heroic metre a by no means despicable work on the subject.'30 But Robert here, as so often, is merely repeating Orderic.31 Finally, in this connection it should be noticed that manuscripts of William of Poitiers's eulogy also seem to have been few. It was no more popular in the eleventh and twelfth centuries than Guy's poem or its supposed rival. ii. the manuscripts Carmen, untitled and unattributed, is found in two anthologies made at the abbey of St Eucharius-Matthias, Trier, and now in the BibliotheÁque Royale, Brussels, nos. 10615±729 (A) and 9799±809 (B).32 All philologists who have studied texts which occur in both manuscripts agree that B is a direct copy of A. The prototype has been variously dated within the twelfth century. Probably later than 1118, c.11256c.1135 seems to be the favourite. The apograph is not much later. Structurally MS A is a collection of separate and apparently unrelated booklets (codicilli), and its contents are a miscellany of unrelated items of all kinds with poetry increasingly represented. Carmen is in the ®nal booklet (xvii), which is the work of a single scribe. 27

GG i. 31, p. 48; 41, pp. 68±70. But cf. above, n. 20. 29 Brown, `The Bayeux Tapestry', pp. 14±27; Baudri, ed. Abrahams, no. 196, pp. 207± 11; ed. Hilbert, no. 134, pp. 154±64. 30 Èdidit preterea de eadem materia opus non contempnendum Guido, episcopus Ambianensis, heroico metro exaratum', GND ii. 192. 31 See above, n. 17. 32 For the MSS, see M. & M., pp. lix±lxiii, lxvi n.; Engels, Dichters; Orlandi, `Recensione', p. 201; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 253±5; JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 16±20; Engels, Ònce more', pp. 11±18, apparently based on work done by van Houts, ANS ii (1980), 167, with a select bibliography on p. 14. See also below p. xxix. 28


xx

INTRODUCTION

The poem is written in double columns, 70 lines to the page, starting with 21 lines in the second column of fo. 227v. It occurs, together with another poem, Satira in Mettenses,33 within a divided Astiensis Poeta, Nouus Auianus.34 This shows that the scribe was copying from another anthology and that either there was a binding error in the exemplar or the scribe of A turned two pages at once and later attempted to correct the mistake. However, at some stage Carmen lost at least its ®nal pentameter and, in view of the subjectmatter, probably a few more lines. The confusion in MS A shows that Carmen's stemma codicum must include at least one step between it and the author's holograph or even an individual manuscript. In MS B the verses likewise follow Satira at the end of a booklet (ii), but occupy only the right-hand column of fo. 142v. The last folio in the booklet (143) is blank. The text of this fragment, the ®rst sixtysix lines of Carmen, is a fairly accurate copy, repeating one obvious error and introducing one or two of its own. The substantial concordance is testimony to the accuracy of work from the Trier scriptorium; and it would seem that the textual blemishes in AB derive mostly from the earlier history of the text. As, however, it is relatively clean, all commentators agree that there were but few stages between the author's copy and the St Eucharius-Matthias text.35 The two anthologies reached their present location from the collection made by Cardinal Nicholas Cusanus in the ®fteenth century, by way of the hospital he founded at his birthplace, the village of Kues on the river Moselle, and then the Bollandist archives at Antwerp. The earlier history of the text of Carmen is speculative. Palaeographical and codicological investigation of the codices and booklets has thrown little light on it. However, Morton and Muntz made the reasonable suggestion that Guy gave or bequeathed his literary works to his old school, Saint-Riquier, from where a copy could have gone to, say, Saint-Jacques at LieÁge and thence to Trier.36 The ®rst transfer must have taken place before 28 August 1131, when the count of Saint-Pol burnt most of Saint-Requier, including the library. The poem was known to William of Poitiers, perhaps at 33

Printed MGH, Libelli de Lite, iii. 619±21. Printed L. Hervieux, Les Fabulistes latins, iii (Paris, 1899), 182±3. 35 Cf. Engels, Ònce more', p. 14. Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 127, concludes that an estimate of one textual error every 15 lines in the extant MS (A) would suggest one or two exemplars between it and the original. 36 M. & M., pp. lxiif. They also considered St Bavo, Ghent, and Saint-Bertin at SaintOmer. 34


MANUSCRIPTS

xxi

Lisieux, and possibly to Orderic Vitalis at Saint-EÂvroult. If Guy had sent a copy to Lanfranc at Caen, both writers could have learnt of it from there. The script of MS A, Caroline minuscule, is very small but neat and legible, that of B is larger and rougher. Since only one incomplete manuscript and a fragmentary copy of it have as yet been found, the editorial task is relatively straightforward.37 The spelling of MS A has been followed, except that, in accordance with editorial instructions, tagged è's have been changed to plain è's, and the scribe's frequent omission of a double letter (e.g., v. 102, pupes; v. 121, comitere; v. 197, mitamus) has been silently normalized. As for scribal errors, the dif®culty is to know when the correction of obvious slips is, de more magistri (v. 10), changing into the making of improvements, some of which might not have pleased the author. iii. the poem's contents and salient characteristics In his introduction the poet explains that, because poetry is popular and it is commendable to recount the deeds of mighty men, he has endeavoured to write a poem on the Norman war (bella) and, more particularly, to show how William, by his valour, recovered a kingdom of which he had been deprived, and thereby extended his ancestral lands into the far west. This theme is emphasized in the course of the poem largely through the mouths of the duke's envoys to King Harold: William is in pursuit of the kingdom promised him on oath by King Edward the Confessor and then usurped by Harold, who had been a party to the transaction. He has been deprived of his legal rights and is seeking justice. Harold is a perjurer and deserves punishment by God. The poet then covers the duke's invasion of England from the arrival of his ¯eet at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme in September 1066 until at least (for the MS is truncated) the Conqueror's coronation at Westminster on Christmas Day. The decisive battle, although central to the story, even when the preliminaries and immediate consequences are included, takes up only half of the existing verses. And nowhere does the poet give the battle a territorial name. The word `Senlac' does not occur, and `Hastings' only appears when its port is 37 The main textual critics since M. & M.'s edition have been Orlandi in 1972 and 1996 and Hall in 1980.


xxii

INTRODUCTION

mentioned after the battle is over (v. 596). Nevertheless, Orderic's words can be regarded as an acceptable, although reductive, designation of the poem's contents. He could, indeed, have considered the poet's treatment of the subject as both minimalist and inadequate. Although there is a good deal of verbal padding and some rhetorical ornament and excursions, the poet never strays far from his subject and hero. The protagonist is named William in the prologue and in v. 70 styled comes (count), but thereafter is always dux, the duke or leader,38 except once when Harold speaks. Harold, the new king, his wicked and forsworn enemy, is frequently named, although name and title are never in conjunction. The supporting cast is small and makes only rare appearances. Only two women are mentionedÐHarold's mother and his sister, the widowed queenÐ and both are nameless. Remarkably, no other Norman besides the duke is given a name, not even the bishop who takes part in the Conqueror's coronation at Westminster. Entirely omitted from the story are William's half-brothers, Odo bishop of Bayeux and Robert count of Mortain, who were certainly present at the battle of Hastings. If Norman barons were in the duke's army, they are not mentioned. His subordinate commanders and the captains of the auxiliary troops are not identi®ed. A juggler who performs between the two armies is named Incisor-ferri, which apparently represents Taillefer, presumably a Frenchman. An anonymous cowardly knight from Maine is featured in a battle episode. However, as the battle reaches its climax, Eustace count of Boulogne, with an unnamed attendant household knight, in contrast to the coward from Maine, comes to the duke's aid. And, in the ®nal phase, three knights, Eustace, Hugh `the noble heir of Ponthieu', and Gilfard `named after his father', none of them a Norman, help the duke to kill Harold. But no Norman casualty is identi®ed. Indeed, only one, Engenulf of Laigle, is known.39 Similarly, on the English side, the spotlight is on Harold, who has just killed a brother (Tostig) and a `namesake' (Harold Hardrada) in a battle in the north. Also named are his predecessor Edward and his brother Gyrth, who is featured in the battle. Another English soldier, who, in a parallel episode, unseats the duke, is called `the son of Helloc' or `Hellox', but cannot be identi®ed with certainty. After the 38 As JaÈschke points out (Wilhelm, pp. 22±4), this is a rather grand title for a count (comes) of Normandy. At v. 30, however, Guy gives him his correct title in order to amplify 39 his ascent to king. OV ii. 176.


CONTENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS

xxiii

battle, in an excursus concerning the siege of London, which must have been of special interest to the author, Ansgard, à leading citizen', is unusually featured. But the English ñtheling they elect king is not identi®ed, nor are any of the nobles or prelatesÐnot even the two English metropolitansÐwho take part in the duke's coronation. The only `national' entities the poet recognizes are Gallia and, less frequently, and obviously a synonym, Francia. Anglia does not occur; but its inhabitants are always Angli. Inhabiting Gallia/Francia, besides Galli and Franci, are Normanni, Cenomanni (men of Maine), and Britanni (Bretons). The only princes given a territorial title are William (dux Normannorum) and Hugh (nobilis heres Pontiui). Edward and Harold are simply rex, while Eustace is comes. The nationalities in the ducal army are clearly identi®ed. William invaded with Frenchmen (Galli) and Bretons (v. 159). In his address to his army before the battle he calls in turn on the warriors bred by France (Francia), the Bretons, the men of Maine, and the Normans (vv. 250± 60). To attack the English massed on a hill, William, in the centre with his Normans, places the French and the Bretons on his ¯anks (vv. 413±14). But in the ®ghting, apart from the reference to the knight from Maine, the poet only refers to the French and Norman contingents, mostly the former (vv. 444, 449, 452, 466, 532, 535). Even if Galli/Franci covers them all, the disappearance of the Bretons and the invisibility of the Normans, apparently after their feigned ¯ight had turned into a rout (v. 444), is remarkable. Within a minimal geographical and topographical setting, on an uncrowded stage with a rather sketchy scenery, the duke takes the centre and performs heroic deeds. Although described as humble and God-fearing (v. 379), he is a ®ghting general, always at the sharp end. At the start of the battle he leads his troops up the hill to attack the English phalanx. He is twice unhorsed and twice kills his assailant in revenge. Single-handed he ®ghts his way out of trouble. On his own he rallies the French when they turn tail. With his own hand, although with the support of three other knights, he kills Harold. He is portrayed as a bloodthirsty warrior of enormous strength, unshakeable resolution and great military skill, a man without pity, a complete stranger to chivalry. He may appeal to the merciful God, but it is only for victory. And by nightfall the battle®eld is covered by English corpses which are already being stripped and robbed. There is no mention of prisoners of war, of men taken for ransom.


xxiv

INTRODUCTION

A subtext, however, is the use of guile as an alternative to force; and a theme is the English lack of skill in the art of war (as practised by the Normans) and their reliance on stratagems and deceits. Harold is a master of cunning; Ansgar, the chief citizen of London, relies on crafty negotiations. At the same time, William, although he himself prefers to use force, is never deceived by the enemy's guile and always successfully answers it so that the deceiver is himself deceived. It is possible that the portrayal of William as a cruel, inhuman killer who, after the battle, deliberately leaves the English casualties unburiedÐa feature `corrected' by William of PoitiersÐis not entirely complimentary, even in an eleventh-century writer. The poet stresses the devastation in the kingdom the invaders wrought by ®re and sword.40 He has the monk whom William sends to negotiate with Harold beg the king to stop forcing the duke to do evil deeds. He admits that not God but Mars ruled the battle®eld. In contrast, he attributes to an English envoy, on his return from a meeting with William, an encomium of the duke which is extravagantly in¯ated. The duke was `more beautiful than the sun, wiser than Solomon, readier than Pompey, and more bountiful than Charles' (vv. 735±6). Even with an epic poet there must be a touch of ridicule here. Nevertheless, the poem is an epic, concerned with, for western Christendom, some of the most momentous events of a remarkable year, in which Halley's comet was a disturbing portent of undisclosed disasters. In England, after the death of one king, two others were slain in battle and three of Harold's brothers met the same fate. Those violent deaths among the highest, and in one case sacral, nobility were extraordinary and dire. Even at the time men felt that history was being made. Yet the Norman Conquest of England was soon to be outshone by the French Crusades in the Holy Land, a cause nearer the hearts of those seeking the noblest military glory. iv. the controversy over the authorship There is strong presumptive evidence that Carmen was written by Guy of Amiens. The author was clearly `French' rather than 40 Cf. the warning given by two monks to King Edward in a vision on his deathbed that within a year and a day of his death `devils shall come through all this land with ®re and sword and the havoc of war', and the proof of the prophecy, `for under these scourges of the chastising God many thousands of the people are thrown down and the kingdom is ravaged by ®re and plunder', Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward, pp. 116±17, 120±1.


CONTROVERSY OVER AUTHORSHIP

xxv

Norman, and probably from the north of France. He emphasizes the French contribution to the duke's army. All the heroes he names, apart from William, are French, and he is particularly interested in Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and Ponthieu. His emphasis and attitude are quite different from those of William of Poitiers, who, despite his surname, was a true Norman. There is, therefore, no initial dif®culty in identifying the poem with that noted and described by Orderic Vitalis. As we have seen, his preÂcis of Guy's epic ®ts Carmen well enough and has provided a title for modern editors.41 Moreover, proof of the attribution would seem to lie in the second line of the prologue, where the abbreviated salutation, `L. W. salutat', although not necessarily standing for the metrically sound, `Lanfrancum Wido salutat' (Wido = Guy greets Lanfranc), has not yet been challenged by any rival interpretation.42 Indeed, although it is unlikely that such a poem could have passed between two persons both completely unknown to posterity, no speci®c alternative author or recipient has ever been suggested. `Someone at Laon' was R. H. C. Davis's candidate for the authorship.43 But, although Duke William's conquest of England may well have inspired a considerable amount of soliciting and ¯attery, a fairly long account of his military campaign cannot have appealed to many clerical poets.44 Ockham's razor comes in handy here. As for the recipient, if the poem is Guy's, `L.' most likely is Lanfranc. The subsequent complimentary words about his scholarship and distinction are entirely in keeping.45 It might also be thought, in the absence of a reference to it, that the abbot had not yet been promoted to Canterbury. This would give another, although not completely secure, terminus ad quem of 15 August 1070, when Lanfranc was appointed archbishop in a Norman legatine council.46 The one dif®culty so far is Robert of Torigni's belief that Guy's 41

See above, n. 17. The metrically acceptable alternatives are not very many. Barlow, `The Carmen', p. 192, suggested three for W. and eight for L.; M. & M., p. xxvi n., added three more for W.; Davis, `The Carmen', who thought that there were plenty of alternatives, added a further three for W. and two for L. (he also dropped one), p. 243 n., and identi®ed some twelfth-century Widos and Lamberts, p. 261 n. 43 Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 260±1. 44 Van Houts, `Latin poetry', pp. 43, 47±9, 53, suggests that a certain Ingelrannus the archdeacon, of Soissons or Meaux, who is said to have written a poem describing King William, which he dedicated to his daughter Adela, might have celebrated the battle of Hastings. But the evidence seems ¯imsy. 45 F. Barlow, À view of Archbishop Lanfranc', The Norman Conquest and Beyond, pp. 223±7, especially 235; Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, pp. 34±62; Cowdrey, as above, n. 23. 46 OV ii. 252 and n. 42


xxvi

INTRODUCTION

poem was written in the heroic metre.47 Carmen is in fact, after a prologue in hexameters, written in elegiac couplets. But Robert seems simply to have been misled by Orderic's reference to Virgil and Statius. Yet commentators have, from beginning to end, mostly viewed the poem askance. It would have been regarded by the Norman apologists of the Conqueror as undervaluing their countrymen's contribution to the victory at Hastings; and it certainly depicts the duke in a way which William of Poitiers would have wanted to tone down. In the archdeacon's view, William, although of course a ®ne soldier, was essentially a just and statesman-like ruler, a good Christian and an upholder of the church and Christian morality. The poem's reception by modern historians has, predictably, been no warmer. It does not possess a large factual content, and some of its detail con¯icts with the long-established story of the events based on William of Poitiers and his successors. There has, therefore, always been a feeling that it is not a reliable source.48 That is as may be. But in the context of the poem's authorship and date it is an argument that has to be used with care. Modern canons of historical accuracy and objectivity governed none of the literary accounts of the Norman invasion nor the design of the Bayeux Tapestry. In each case it is the purpose and then the literary or pictorial conventions which shape the work and affect all its features. Who were the heroes of the battle of Hastings? For the Tapestry they were, besides the duke of Normandy, Odo bishop of Bayeux and Count Eustace of Boulogne.49 But for William of Poitiers the count was a coward while the bishop's contribution was, to save his reputation, limited to prayers.50 For the author of the poem the second hero was Eustace, aided at the crucial moment by Hugh of Ponthieu and Gilfard. The English view is lacking. And no doubt there were many unsung heroes. The medium must be taken fully into account. Style affects contents. Poetry of its nature is fanciful and inclined to many rhetorical ®gures which distinguish it from sober factual reports. Epics are exceptionally fabulous. An eleventh-century poet had the classical epics of Virgil, Lucan, and Statius as models; he may also 47

See above, n. 30. Às a source for the history of the Norman Conquest it is simply ridiculous', Davis, `The Carmen', p. 261. 49 Brown, `The Bayeux Tapestry'. 50 It has, however, been suggested that Odo could have been the archdeacon's patron and a source of information. See below, n. 182. 48



xxvii

51

have had the Chanson de Roland. The anonymous poem is, if not Davis's school task, certainly a rhetorical exercise of the extravagant type popular at the time: an entertainment. In this, of course, it does not differ radically from William of Poitiers's encomium.52 There are in the poem a number of episodes, mostly uncon®rmed by other contemporaries rather than at variance with them, which can cause disquiet. To make it even more dif®cult, some of the cruces have been thought to be textually insecure.53 But no factual errors of any moment have been irrefutably demonstrated,54 no certain anachronisms found. This is not to say that the story is `historically true'. Bishop Guy, although most probably the ®rst to write on this theme, may, just because of that, have been ill informed. Even if, as the poet seems to reveal, the bishop's nephew, Hugh, fought in the battle and took part in the decisive episodeÐthe killing of HaroldÐ and even if he was one of the poet's informants, this would be no guarantee of the veracity of the account. Moreover, Guy, as a French bishop more closely attached to the French court than to the Norman, would not have viewed the events in the same way as the Conqueror's Norman panegyrists.55 Orderic, we should notice, had an English bias. We do not know the exact reason why the poem was written. The use made of it does not necessarily determine its original purpose. The case of the anonymous life of King Edward the Confessor can be compared.56 This work, almost certainly written in 1065±7 by a monk or clerk from Saint-Omer, and the ®rst on the subject, was used without attribution by later writers. And these, because as Anglo-Normans and mostly hagiographers they disliked the Godwinist purpose and tone and its occasional criticism of Edward, rewrote it to suit their own purposes and the spirit of their age. 51 Werkmeister, `The political ideology', pp. 252±3; Owen, Èpic and history', pp. 18± 34; Brown, `Bayeux Tapestry', p. 13, bibliography, 21±2, n. 52. 52 Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 241±2, 256±7, 260; Engels, Ònce more', pp. 9-11; Foreville, GG, pp. xliii±xlix; Barlow, Carmen, p. 198, Edward the Confessor, p. 225. OV's dictum that William of Poitiers wrote about the Conqueror `with great depth of understanding' (magni sensus profunditate), ii. 184, showed the 12th-c. tolerance of ®ction. 53 This matter was aired at the Battle Conference in 1979 by Foreville and Chibnall (`Discussion', pp. 18±19). But, although Engels, p. 19, gave little hope of solving historical dif®culties by textual emendation, Orlandi has disagreed: below, p. xxxix. 54 He is wrong in associating Halley's comet with the invasion: it was not visible after mid-July 1066: JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 32±3. But this is an ornament. 55 Barlow, `The Carmen', pp. 198±9. 56 Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward, pp. xxxiii±xl.


xxviii

INTRODUCTION

The main twentieth-century critics of the attribution of the poem to Guy have been G. H. White in 1944 and 195057 and R. H. C. Davis in 1978. Supporters of the attribution were Sten KoÈrner in 1964, L. J. Engels and Barlow in 1967, Morton and Muntz in 1972, and KurtUlrich JaÈschke in 1977. In 1979, at the annual Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, Engels read a judicious paper in which he came down in favour of acceptance. In the following discussion he was apparently supported by Raymonde Foreville (William of Poitiers's editor) and opposed by Eleanor Searle. Other speakers seem to have sat on the fence. However, the chairman, R. Allen Brown, can be seen from other evidence to have been, or become, a strong supporter of Davis's view.58 The chief antagonists, Davis and Morton, held to their rival views to the very end. On 11 May 1978 Kate Morton wrote in a private letter, `Davis sent us an off-print of his article, which will be easy enough to refute. . . . There is nothing that cannot be answered; it [is] just tedious having to deal with it at this late date (when I am busy in the sixth century) with an idiotic obsession.' Unfortunately, although encouraged, she never got round to writing her refutation before her untimely death. Since then, although doubts over the poet's reliability as a historian seem to have increased, support for Davis's thesis appears to have waned.59 As Engels pointed out at the Battle Conference in 1979, there are two distinct problems: was the anonymous poem written by Guy of Amiens? and is it of any value as a historical source? But, as he also remarked, these two are in practice inextricably entwined.60 In fact the main argument against Guy's authorship has been the alleged de®ciencies of the poem and the possibility (or likelihood) that it was written in the second quarter of the twelfth century. 57 White, `Companions', printing a lecture he had given to the Genealogical Society on 10 May 1944; id., `Hastings', reproducing a lecture read to the same society on 16 Dec. 1950. In 1944 he accepted the attribution to Guy of Amiens, but considered the poem a romance with ®ctitious details rather than sober history (pp. 423±4). But by 1950 he had decided that collation with GG `cannot leave any doubt that the author copied from William', and so could not have been Guy (pp. 36±7). 58 KoÈrner, Hastings; Engels, Dichters; Barlow, `The Carmen'; M. & M.; Davis, `The Carmen'; JaÈschke, Wilhelm; Engels, Ònce more'; R. A. Brown, `The Battle of Hastings', ANS iii (1981), 1±21Ð`though we shall in some respects miss it' (pp. 2±3). 59 Guy's authorship has been supported by, among others, and in addition to those mentioned in the text, Bachrach, `Some observations', p. 7 n. 12, and van Houts, `Latin poetry'. On the other hand, Owen, Èpic and history', pp. 18±34, supports Davis on the grounds that Carmen borrows from a vernacular Roland which was not available before 60 1086. Engels, Ònce more', p. 3.



xxix

The supposed date of the earlier of the two manuscripts in which the poem occurs has been used in some arguments.61 Palaeographers have suggested dates ranging from the beginning to the end of the twelfth century, with c.11256c.1135 receiving, it seems, most support. And the only dateable item in booklet xvii, which contains Carmen, namely the Satira in Mettenses, is believed to have been composed between 1097 and 1103 in the neighbourhood of Trier. This provides a terminus a quo for this section of the MS. But the appearance of Carmen, when already at several removes from the author's holograph, in a MS written after 1097 throws little light on whether it was composed before or after 1074/5 (Guy's death), earlier or later than 1077 (William of Poitiers's Gesta Guillelmi). The palaeographical and codicological evidence is at present neutral as to the exact date for the composition of the poem. No more capable of incontrovertible solution is the problem of the relationship between the poem and William of Poitiers's Gesta Guillelmi.62 Either William exaggerated the duke's achievements and excised anything that was not entirely to the credit of the Normans, or the poet set out to cut them both down to size. Either the poet inserted the feats of Eustace of Boulogne and the `noble heir of Ponthieu', or William excised them or turned them upside-down. Engels has added to earlier arguments in favour of the priority of the poem some lexigraphical points and the observation `that there is a sort of dialogue between the Carmen and the Gesta Guillelmi, perceptible in what seems to be reactions of William of Poitiers to passages in the Carmen.'63 We should, perhaps, give heed to William's own words, when explaining why he had to be selective in his book: `poets are allowed to bring forth with their pens wars which they have conceived in their minds, and, moreover, to elaborate their knowledge in any way they like by roaming through the ®elds of ®ction. But we . . . will never deviate by one step from the bounds of 61 Barlow, `The Carmen', p. 191; M. & M., p. lix n. 2; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 255±6; Engels, Ònce more', pp. 13±14; Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 127. For the MSS see above, pp. xix±xxi. 62 Foreville, GG, pp. xxii f., xxxv±xxxviii; she was still of the same opinion in 1979: `Discussion', p. 18; White, `Hastings', p. 37, cf. `Companions', p. 424 n.; KoÈrner, Hastings, pp. 91±100; Barlow, `The Carmen', pp. 201±17; M. & M., pp. xviii±xxii; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 245±8. 63 Engels, Ònce more', pp. 6±9. It also seems that the poet's Ètguardus' (vv. 293, cf. 737) has been normalized by GG to Èdwardus'. Moreover, since William of Poitiers had been a knight who had actually fought in battles, he may, although, like Guy, he had not been at Hastings, have looked askance at some of the poet's ¯ights of fancy.


xxx

INTRODUCTION 64

truth.' Against this can be put some words of the poet: `since people enjoy poems, I have endeavoured to put (reponi) the Norman campaign into verse.' (vv. 16±17.) If emphasis is put on the re-, the poet could be imagined as retelling the story or recasting a prose account into verse.65 But this is pushing the metrically necessary form of the word too hard, which in any case often means no more than `putting' or `preserving' (cf. v. 193). Also, as Engels remarks, the contents of a preface are governed by stylistic poetic conventions.66 Hence, on this matter, the view that a Norman apologist and panegyrist revised a less ¯attering French account of the campaign seems the more likely of the alternatives. If this is accepted, we have a terminus ad quem for the poem of c.1077, when William of Poitiers laid down his pen. A number of speci®c objections to Guy's authorship have also been put forward. These fall into one of two main classes: passages which Guy, given his status, is unlikely to have written and those which suggest that the poem was a twelfth-century confection. In the ®rst category is the argument that `L.' cannot be Lanfranc and `W.' Guy because the author's self-deprecation and ¯attery of the addressee (although both are conventional) are inappropriate.67 But the abbot was very distinguished, and van Houts has suggested a reason why Guy should have sent him a complimentary copy in 1067. Lanfranc, after refusing the archbishopric of Rouen, went to Rome in that year to secure it for John, bishop of Avranches. Guy, who had been on bad terms with the papacy for some years, might have been soliciting Lanfranc's help at the papal curia, where the abbot was persona gratissima.68 It has also been queried why, if the author was a chaplain to the queen, there is no mention of her in the prologue.69 But, as we have seen, Guy's relations with MathildaÐif, indeed, any existedÐ seem to have been merely occasional, and the poem cannot be connected with her in any way beyond Orderic's non-sequitur. More serious is the allegation that the poet was ignorant of the affairs of Ponthieu. Since Bishop Guy was the uncle of the reigning 64

GG i. 20, p. 28. Cf. M. & M., p. xxiii n. Davis, `The Carmen', p. 256. 66 Engels, Ònce more', p. 10; cf. Barlow, `The Carmen', p. 201. 67 Petrie, Monumenta, p. 95; Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, no. 1269, pp. 671±2; M. & M., pp. xvi f.; Davis, `The Carmen', p. 243. Cf. Foreville, `Discussion', p. 18. 68 Van Houts, `Latin poetry', pp. 55±6; Acta archiepiscoporum Rothomagensium (PL, cxlvii. 280). 69 M. & M., pp. xvii, xxiii, who suggest that she might have occurred in the lost ending; Davis, `The Carmen', p. 244. 65



xxxi

count, Guy I, this, if true would rule his authorship out. It is, indeed, puzzling that the count is not mentioned in connection with Duke William's occupation of Saint-Valery, the port of Vimeu, which, although probably subinfeudated, was part of Guy's county.70 Even if Guy was not the immediate lord, it might be expected that he would have reacted in some way to the arrival of the Norman ¯eet, if only to wish the intruder `Bon voyage'.71 Yet all the poet says is that the people of Vimeu were always hospitable to òcean-wanderers' (vv. 50± 1). Now both William of Poitiers and the librettist of the Bayeux TapestryÐand, no doubt, Bishop GuyÐknew that in 1064 or 1065 Earl Harold of Wessex, having, probably unintentionally, landed in Ponthieu, had been arrested by Guy I's men, delivered to the count at Beaurain in the extreme north of the county, imprisoned there, and, ®nally, as a result of pressure from William of Normandy, surrendered to the duke.72 William of Poitiers has some very uncomplimentary things to say about the execrable custom of some Gallic nations of taking important and rich persons hostage in order to extort ransoms. And the Tapestry too shows Guy in an unfavourable light. It could be that the poet, far from being ignorant of the feudal geography and history of Picardy, simply did not wish to feature the ruling count of Ponthieu in his poem, possibly because he too disapproved of his behaviour. This would also help to explain two other matters. 70 J. Moreau, Dictionaire de geÂographie historique de la Gaule et de la France (Paris, 1972), s.vv. Vimeu (p. 294); Vimina (p. 370), and Amiens (pp. 1254±72); map in Robert Fossier, Histoire de la Picardie (Toulouse, 1974), p. 157. According to M. & M., pp. 4±5 n. 4, without a reference, Vimeu in 1066 was ruled by Bernard II, lord of Saint-Valery and related to both the Norman and Ponthieu dynasties. See also next note. Bachrach, `Some observations', p. 16, n. 31, comments inconclusively on this. A Reginald and a Bernard occur in the 12th c., but there seems to be no evidence for the 11th: cf. Takeley (Essex) deeds in H. E. Salter, Facsimiles of early Charters in Oxford Muniment Rooms (Oxford, 1929), index, s.v. Sancto Walerico. At an uncertain date the abbey of Saint-Valery had a lay advocate named Rainald (Reginald), although it claimed to have been founded on royal demesne: Vita S. Walarici, AASS April, i. 29±30. I have been much helped on the status of Vimeu by Elisabeth van Houts. 71 F. C. Louandre, Histoire ancienne et moderne d'Abbeville (Abbeville, 1854), p. 67, believed that Guy provisioned the Norman ¯eet from Abbeville and, together with Bernard of Saint-Valery, accompanied the duke to England and fought at Hastings. But E. Prarond, Les Comtes de Ponthieu: Guy premier, 1053±1100 (Paris, 1900), pp. 38±9, disbelieved this. All the same, because Norman writers, especially William of Poitiers, tried to minimize the contribution of other nations to the expedition, we are ill informed about the identity of the auxiliary and mercenary captains in William's expeditionary force. D. C. Douglas, `Companions of the Conqueror', History, xxviii (1943), 129±47, at p. 139, in connection with the slaying of Harold, thought that it may `be con®dently concluded that some member of the comital house of PonthieuÐCount Guy I, or a sonÐwas present at Hastings.' 72 GG i. 41, pp. 68±70;. ii. 12, p. 120; BT, pls 6±19.


xxxii

INTRODUCTION

It has been asked why Eustace count of Boulogne rather than Guy is featured and eulogized in the poem,73 although to make a hero out of Guy, who probably had taken no part in the campaign, would have taxed the ingenuity of even an episcopal poet. What the author would seem to have done in honour of Ponthieu is to stress the assistance given by the inhabitants of Vimeu and its tutelary saint, Valery, to the expeditionary force and then highlight the role of the count's younger brother, Hugh, `the noble heir of Ponthieu', in the battle of Hastings. White, in 1944 and 1950,74 claimed that the poet did not know who was Guy I's heir. But this is probably simply a misunderstanding of the text (vv. 537±8). Charles Dawson had already in 1909 translated it as `the noble heir of Ponthieu, Hugh by name', and Morton and Muntz followed, without acknowledgment but with plenty of justi®cation.75 (And even if the noble heir is not named, it could be a case of antonomasia.) The poet also gives Hugh the patronymic Hectorides (vv. 537, 563), a son of Hector, and credits him not only with a part in the killing of Harold but also with the hot pursuit throughout the night of the vanquished, while the duke rested on the battle®eld. Hector was, indeed, a cult hero in the Middle Ages. But the poet, with Ovid's Tristia, i. 9. 29±30, in mind, could have intended Actorides (for which Hectorides is a manuscript variant). If so, he was referring to Actor's grandson, Patroclus (Iliad, xi. 785), the kinsman, friend, and brother-in-arms of Achilles at the siege of Troy. Duke William would then be Achilles, who killed Hector in revenge for Patroclus's death.76 The confusion is of no signi®cance in this context. The poet's intention was to liken a minor and obscure member of the local aristocracy to some great hero of the Trojan war. There must have been a bond between the two. Hugh could have been the bishop's favourite nephew. 73 M. & M., pp. xvii, xxii±xxv. Owen, Èpic and history', pp. 28±9, compares him with Archbishop Turpin in Roland. 74 White, `Companions', p. 424; id., `Hastings', p. 37. 75 Dawson, ii, ad ®n., sheet 10; M. & M., pp. xviii±xxiv, xxxii, app. D; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 248±50; cf. KoÈrner, Hastings, pp. 93±6; Barlow, `The Carmen', pp. 196±7. 76 As suggested by Hall, `Critical notes', pp. 903±5, in criticism of M. & M., p. 118 n. 1. Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', pp. 124±5, agrees with the interpretation, but would keep the MS reading. Willliam of Poitiers states that Harold had been likened to Hector and Turnus, but William was the equal of Achilles and Aeneas, their slayers: GG ii. 22, pp. 134±6. Owen, Èpic and history', p. 33 n. 22, identi®es Hectorides as `William himself, grappling with the enemy in his waking thoughts just as Charlemagne does in his third dream. Here, as elsewhere, recognition of the Roland in¯uence helps to elucidate the text of the Carmen.'



xxxiii

Moreover, there is no improbability in the bishop admiring the deeds of Eustace, the highest-ranking of William's commanders, the most distinguished prince in Picardy, an ally of the count of Ponthieu, a kinsman and a friend of the family.77 Bishop Guy may well have wanted to do him a service and could have been looking for some pro®t. Incidentally, a eulogy of Eustace is unlikely to have pleased any member of the ducal family, except, perhaps, Robert Curthose, for in the war of succession which followed William I's death, Boulogne favoured him against the Conqueror's chosen heir, William Rufus.78 The second category of objections provides the heavier artillery. Most of the divergences between the narrative of the poem and that of Gesta Guillelmi bear on the problem of which modi®es the other. Seven cases, however, are specially important: (1) the poet's anecdote of the jongleur Taillefer (vv. 389±408); (2) the identity of an English thegn, the son of Hellox (vv. 503±18); (3) the account of the death of Harold (vv. 531±50); (4) the siege of London (vv. 635±752); (5) the coronation of William (vv. 753±835); (6) passages which can be thought to indicate that the prince addressed was not the Conqueror but one of his sons; and (7) a reference to the Italians and Sicilians in the duke's army (v. 259). Most of these, it has been suggested, are ®gments of romance and all show that the poem was not written before the twelfth century. The poet's anecdote about a histrio or mimus named Incisor-ferri (iron/sword-cutter/engraver) is interesting in many ways.79 The name is a translation of the French Taillefer, which appears in the vernacular histories of Geoffrey Gaimar and Wace and must, of course, have been current when the Latin poem was written. And Taillefer, it has been suggested, could have been a French calque on a Celtic name. (It is in fact the name of a mountain-range near Grenoble.) This person, who cavorts between the converging battle lines at Hastings, juggling with his sword, and, by provoking and killing an English soldier, raises the spirits of the French and starts the ®ghting, has clearly some of the features of legend. Since the 77 White, `Companions', pp. 418±24; id., `Hastings', p. 37; Tanner, `The expansion', pp. 251±86; Brown, `The Bayeux Tapestry'; cf. below, Genealogical Table. 78 Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 77, 80, 90±1. 79 For the best treatment, see W. Sayers, `The jongleur Taillefer at Hastings: antecedents and literary fate', Viator, xiv (1983), 77±88. See also J. D. A. Ogilvy, `Mimi, scurrae, histriones', Speculum, xxxviii (1963), 603±19; M. & M., pp. 81±3. Owen, Èpic and history', pp. 26±8, argues that Carmen based him on Roland.


xxxiv

INTRODUCTION

incident is ignored by William of JumieÁges, William of Poitiers, the Bayeux Tapestry,80 and Orderic, but reappears in Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum (1125±9), Gaimar's L'Estoire des Engleis (c.1136±7), Wace's Roman de Rou (after 1170), and BenoõÃt de SainteMaure's Chronique des ducs de Normandie (1174),81 White was unhappy with it and Davis argued that the poet had used twelfthcentury material.82 It should be noticed, however, that in Wace, possibly by contamination with William of Malmesbury's reference to the martial songs struck up by the Normans,83 the juggler becomes a minstrel. The story, therefore, existed in several versions; and there seems to be no compelling reason why the Latin poem should not be the earliest literary account of this, possibly apocryphal, incident. Juggling with weapons, while managing a savage horse, is a feature of the battle®eld in several early European cultures. The son of Helloc or Hellox, à swift and ready man', who, after Harold's brother Gyrth had killed one horse under the Conqueror, killed a second mount, and suffered the same fate at the hand of the duke, presents an even greater problem.84 The name seems to be otherwise unrecorded and, if corrupt, not easily recti®able. It might be thought that the poet, in his schematic approach, would have brought in here Leofwine, Harold's second brother. He knew (vv. 579±80) that Gytha's three sons (unnamed) were killed in the battle. William of Poitiers states that the three corpses were found together the next morning.85 And the Tapestry shows Leofwine and Gyrth (both named) being killed by the Normans early in the battle (pls. 64± 5). It is dif®cult, however, to see how Leofwinus could be represented by ®lius Hellocis. Morton and Muntz's suggestion that it might stand for Havelock caused Davis to wonder whether it was not part of the Havelock legend which seemingly developed in the twelfth century.86 80

Foreville, GG, p. 188 n., was mistaken in this. Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. D. Greenway (OMT, 1996), pp. 392±3; Gaimar, vv. 5265±302; Wace, vv. 8013±42; BenoõÃt, vv. 39732± 42. For Henry's historicity, see D. Greenway, Àuthority, convention and observation in Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum', ANS xviii (1996), 105±21. 82 White, `Companions', p. 432; id., `Hastings', pp. 37±8; Davis, `The Carmen', p. 248. 83 GR, i. 454. 84 Barlow, `The Carmen', p. 211; M. & M., p. 33 n.; Davis, `The Carmen', p. 246. 85 GG, ii. 25, pp. 138±40. 86 M. & M., p. 33 n. 2; Davis, `The Carmen', p. 246. This is a red herring. Havelock ®rst appears in Gaimar's L'Estoire des Engleis, written c.1136±7, where he is a Danish hero Â laÂfr Cuaran Sigtryggsson, a 10th-c. king of York; and it was never loosely based on O suggested that Havelock fought and was killed at Hastings. Cf. Williams, The English, pp. 181±2. 81



xxxv

But in the same episode in Carmen occurs an unnamed knight of Le Mans. And the obscurity of some of the actors in this drama is surely a sign of authenticity. The Bayeux Tapestry likewise names unrecognizable persons; William of Poitiers rarely, if ever. The account in the poem of the death of Harold at the hands of four knightsÐand hence not all that dissimilar in pattern to the story of the murder of Thomas Becket in 1170Ðundeniably has a mythical tone.87 A basic problem is that it is not easy to sort out the four individuals among a welter of epithets in an unpunctuated text. And the passage could have been just as dif®cult for William of Poitiers or any other medieval reader. Charles Dawson in 1909 produced the duke, who calls Eustace of Boulogne to his side, and two men who went with them, Hugh, the noble heir of Ponthieu, and Gilfard, who was known by his father's byname (Gilfart = jouf¯u = chubbycheeks). And Morton and Muntz followed.88 Davis, who ridiculed this interpretation as being too absurd even for a twelfth-century romancer, argued that the quartet was Eustace, the (unnamed) heir of Ponthieu, Hugh (II of Montfort-sur-Risle) and (Walter) Giffart (I of Longueville-sur-Scie)Ðall, except the noble heir, mentioned by William of Poitiers as having fought at Hastings.89 The identi®cation of the four and the trustworthiness of the story are discussed below.90 But the insertion of the noble heir of Ponthieu, whether named or not, into the decisive moment of the battle, unrecorded elsewhere, points to Guy's authorship. In all these three battle cases the problem is to decide whether the poet was the retailer (or creator) of stories, true or false, in circulation in 1066±8 or took them from twelfth-century literary accounts and traditions. As those who have lived through periods of warfare know full well, marvellous stories about heroes and villains circulate from the very beginning; and the earlier can be the least reliable.91 The fourth crux in this series, the account of the siege of London which precedes the duke's coronation, is an extensive set piece 87 White, `Companions', p. 423; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 248±50; `Discussion', pp. 2± 3; Owen, Èpic and history', p. 29. 88 Dawson, Hastings, ii, ad ®n., sheet 10; M. & M., p. 34 n., App. D. Hall, `Critical notes', pp. 903±5, and Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 121 n. 16; Engels, Dichters, pp. 13 ff., JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 13±14. 89 Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 248±50. 90 Below, pp. lxxxii±lxxxv. 91 Chibnall, `Discussion', p. 20, gave an example from OV of how quickly legends could gather; cf. Davis, `William of Poitiers', pp. 82±4. Cf. also Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 117 n. 2.


xxxvi

INTRODUCTION

involving a London magnate, Ansgard, probably Esgar the Staller, grandson of To®g the Proud and antecessor of the Mandevilles (vv. 635±753). This, rather detached excursus is ignored by William of Poitiers, but seems to have been taken up by Baudri of Bourgueil (vv. 529±50), who features a walled and turreted city which surrenders when threatened by the ducal army just before the coronation. In both poems it has, naturally, a legendary ¯avour, and Davis explained it as designed to glorify the Mandevilles, who struggled to dominate London in the twelfth century.92 The election of Edgar átheling as king by the magnates and citizens of London (vv. 645±52), rather than by the magnates of the kingdom, as Orderic Vitalis thought, has also been claimed as pointing to the events of 1135±41.93 On the other hand, the Conqueror certainly obtained the surrender of London by a show and probably use of force. Also in this category is the account of William's coronation (vv. 753±835), which is truncated in the manuscriptÐand omitted by Baudri, who ®nishes with the acclamation (vv. 551±64). The loss of the concluding text of Carmen is unfortunate, for William of Poitiers states that the ceremony was marred by the Norman guards, who, misinterpreting the joyful shouts in the abbey, set ®re to buildings in the neighbourhood. And Orderic adds that this tumult emptied the church of almost all but the of®ciating clergy, who, only with dif®culty, completed the crowning of the trembling duke.94 As the story is to the discredit of the Normans, it may be that it originated in Carmen. Be that as it may, the poet prefaces his account of the ceremony with an elaborate and obviously imaginary description of a wonderful new crown crafted for the occasion, which is possibly an allusion to the German imperial crown95 and certainly a rhetorical ®gure of the sort popular both before and after 1066. And the coronation ordo he describes is indubitably not that used in the ceremony. Moreover, ìt con¯icts with every royal ordo known to have been used during or before this period anywhere in Christendom'; indeed, it is much closer to the rites for the ordination of a bishop than to the sacring of a king.96 In other words, the poet, who clearly 92 Barlow, `The Carmen', p. 213 and n.; C. N. L. Brooke and G. Keir, London 800±1216 (London, 1975), pp. 191±2; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 250±1, 259. 93 94 OV ii. 180; Davis, `The Carmen', p. 259. GG, ii. 30, p. 150; OV ii. 184. 95 Werkmeister, `The political ideology', p. 572; cf. P. E. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik (Stuttgart, 1955), ii. 393 ff.; Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward, pp. 42±3 n. 96 Barlow, `The Carmen', pp. 214±15, 219±20. Janet L. Nelson, `The rites of the



xxxvii

had not been at the ceremony and had no access to English coronation ordines, simply made it up. This is only to be expected97 and in no way weakens the case for Guy's authorship. That the bishop had attended the coronation of Philip I of France on 23 May 105998 would have helped him little in 1067. Indeed, the poet's ignorance and ®ctions suit Guy very well. The poet's view of the two participant archbishops has likewise been impugned.99 He believed that, although the most celebrated of the bishops, one of irreproachable character and outstanding righteousness (who turns out to be an archbishop), was chosen to anoint the king, both metropolitans, prelates of equal rank, took part. A Norman bishop had a subsidiary role. No one is named. According to William of Poitiers, the archbishop of York, a man of holy life and unspotted reputation, crowned the king, and the bishop of Coutances had a subsidiary role.100 Again there are no names. But William goes on to say that the duke had refused to be consecrated by Stigand of Canterbury because he had with justice been excommunicated by the pope. The likeliest explanation of the main divergence between the two accounts is that the Norman excised the second archbishop for the reason he gives. Whether he was right to do so is another matter. Stigand had thrown in his lot with the Conqueror and, excommunicate or not, was allowed by the king to consecrate the Norman Remigius bishop of Dorchester in 1067.101 There has also been a good deal of discussion of the signi®cance of the poet's belief that the two metropolitans were of equal status.102 It was a natural description of two prelates ¯anking the king in the coronation procession and is also Conqueror', ANS iv (1982), 117±32, identi®es the `Third English ordo', possibly composed by Archbishop Ealdred of York in 1066 for Harold's coronation, as the one employed; see especially pp. 123±9, 215 n. 52. Cf. also R. Foreville, `Le sacre des rois anglo-normandes et angevins et le serment du sacre (XIe±XIIe sieÁcles)', ANS i (1979), 49± 62, at 57±60, H. E. J. Cowdrey, `The Anglo-Norman Laudes regiae', Viator, xii (1981), 37± 78, at 50 ff. 97 Cf. the sensible remarks of J. BruÈckmann, `The Ordines of the Third Recension of the Medieval English Coronation Order', Essays in Medieval History presented to Bertie Wilkinson, ed. T. A. Sandquist and M. R. Powicke (Toronto, 1969), pp. 99±115, especially 112±15. 98 Bouquet, Recueil, xi. 32±3. 99 M. & M., pp. xxi f.; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 247±8, 251; Nelson (as above, n. 56), p. 124. 100 GG ii. 30, p. 150. John of Worcester, ii. 606, agrees that Ealdred not Stigand was the consecrator. 101 Barlow, The English Church 1000±1066 (London, 2nd edn., 1979), pp. 302±10. 102 See above, n. 96.


xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

evidence of an early date. To have suggested that an archbishop of Canterbury was not the superior of an archbishop of York would have been offensive after Lanfranc's appointment in 1070 and the settlement of the dispute over the primacy in 1072. There are, lastly, two passages in the poem which Davis thought clearly pointed to a date posterior to William of Poitiers's book; and both may be textually corrupt. The ®rst occurs at the end of the report to the duke by the messenger he had sent to Harold before the armies engaged (vv. 329±34). The messenger, according to William of Poitiers, a monk of FeÂcamp, a ducal foundation,103 conveys the de®ant words of the king and ®nishes with what would seem to be his own words of encouragement for William. `Remember, great duke, your noble ancestors, and do what your grandfather (avus) and father did. Your great-grandfather (proavus) subdued the Normans, your grandfather the Bretons, and your sire (genitor) put the necks of the English under his yoke (cf. v. 33). Will you not continue and perform even greater deeds?' Whereupon the duke marshals his troops for the attack. There are several dif®culties here. First, at some point the actor changes from the monk to the duke. And, as this is not signalled, there may be a lacuna at the end of the monk's speech (vv. 334±5). Second, the exhortation would seem to be more suited to a baron than to a monk. And, third, the recital of the ducal achievements is undoubtedly idiosyncratic and could possibly be improved by advancing all the actors by a generation. Because of this last dif®culty Davis suggested that it is not the rousing conclusion to the messenger's speech but an intercalated apostrophe by the poet to the current duke, one of the Conqueror's sons (i.e. 1087±1135).104 But, if so, it would have to agree with the reference to the ruler in the prologue (vv. 15±25) and in the apostrophe at the beginning of the `song' (vv. 1 ff.). In the former he is named William and is the doer of the deeds to be described in the poem. In the latter, he is not only a supporter of justice but also a protector of the church. This can hardly be William Rufus, who, in 103 GG i. 12, pp. 118±20. Foreville, i. 12, p. 175 n., suggested that he could have been the Vital of the Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 56. 104 Davis, `The Carmen', p. 258. Robert Curthose was probably titular duke of Normandy from about 1066 until 1106: Barlow, William Rufus, p. 29. But Davis, wisely, did not suggest that the poem was dedicated to him. At the Battle conference in 1979 Foreville opposed Davis on this matter, p. 19; and G. A. Loud suggested that there might have been a (lost) chanson de geste on Duke Robert the Magni®cent (William's father) which magni®ed his intervention in England: `Discussion', p. 20.



xxxix

any case, was never a duke. Hence it would seem that it is evidence more of the poet's uncertain knowledge of the duchy's history than proof of his being a twelfth-century author. A more drastic solution would be to regard the whole passage (vv. 329±34) as an interpolation from some other poem altogether, although, on the evidence of the repeated phrase `per probitatis opem' (vv. 258, 334) by the same hand. The second passage considered anachronistic by Davis is the duke's address to the various nationalities represented in his army (vv. 255±60). According to the unmetrical text proffered by the manuscript, William praises the men of Maine and the Bretons, both famous for their martial history, the Apulians, Calabrians, and Sicilians with their javelins (iacula); and the Normans, ready for famous deeds. This is, no doubt, a curious selection. William of Poitiers lists the men of Maine, the French, Bretons, Aquitainians, and NormansÐan obvious revision.105 Davis explained the poet's `mistake' by William of Poitiers's remark, just after describing William's coronation, that the Normans were in possession of Apulia and had conquered Sicily.106 But, although it is not impossible that Italian sailors and captains, the most skilful mariners of the period,107 took some part in the expedition, or that their presence is simply a ¯ight of fantasy, a textual change could remove the dif®culty.108 The closeness of the text to a verse celebrating the achievements of the Norman adventurers in Italy and Africa makes transforming the Italians from comrades-in-arms into subject races attractive. And although the verse, Àpulus et Calaber, Sicilus mihi seruit et Afer', is ®rst mentioned by Ralf of Diss, writing in the second half of the twelfth century and probably with reference to Roger II of Sicily (1127±54), the motto could easily go back in essentials to August 1059, when Pope Nicholas II invested Robert Guiscard with Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily by the treaty of Mel®. Before the Norman invasion of Enland this was the greatest Norman conquest, its prototype and perhaps its inspiration. 105

GG ii. 19, p. 130. Davis, `The Carmen', p. 257; GG ii. 32, p. 156; JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 25±6. 107 Cf. JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 25±6; Matthew Bennett, `Norman naval activity in the Mediterranean, c.1060±c.1108', ANS xv (1993), 41±58. 108 Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', pp. 125±6. It is, however, doubtful whether his suggested correction provides the desired meaning. For the monostichon in praise of King Roger II, said to have been inscribed on his seal and sword, see D. Abula®a, `The Norman kingdom of Africa and the Norman expeditions to Majorca and the Muslim Mediterranean', ANS vii (1985), 26±49, at pp. 48±9, where he notes the text of Carmen. 106


xl

INTRODUCTION

When all the points raised in this controversy are considered, it seems fair to say that, although it cannot be proved that the anonymous poem is Guy's, the attribution cannot be disproved. Moreover, the weight of the evidence is in favour of the poem having been used by William of Poitiers. If that is accepted, it is otiose to prevaricate further. The obvious is not always wrong. And, as Francis Crick has observed, Àny theory that ®ts all the facts is bound to be wrong, since some of the facts will be misleading or just wrong in themselves.' v. the date and purpose of the work If Guy bishop of Amiens wrote the poem, when did he do so? The terminus a quo must be the return to the Continent of participants in the invasion after the victory at Hastings and the coronation at Westminster on Christmas Day 1066.109 The subsequent movements of the bishop's nephew Hugh, who could have been one of Guy's sources, are unfortunately unknown. The Conqueror had a triumphant return with the spoils and hostages about 21 February 1067.110 Eustace of Boulogne was back by Easter, 8 April 1067, when he is found in attendance on Count Baldwin of Flanders at Bergues.111 Robert Giffard, perhaps one of the regicides, was at the French royal court on 7 August 1067, together, apparently, with Guy.112 If Orderic Vitalis is correct the terminus ad quem is May 1068;113 if incorrect, the summer of 1070, Lanfranc's elevation to Canterbury, will serve. It has always been tempting to try to narrow the date by considering the case of Eustace of Boulogne. William of JumieÁges, William of Poitiers, and Orderic Vitalis,114 but not independently, tell of a hostile return to England by Eustace, apparently in the autumn of 1067, instigated by the men of Kent. This became a ®asco when the count failed to surprise Dover and his nepos was captured by the 109

Cf. van Houts, `Latin poetry', pp. 54±6. GG ii. 41±5, pp. 174±80. Engels, Dichters, p. 17, suggested that the poem was written for William's homecoming. Van Houts, `Latin poetry', p. 54, thought that Count Ralf IV of Valois, CreÂpy, the Vexin, and Amiens, Bishop Guy's terrestrial lord, who was at William's Easter court in 1067 at FeÂcamp, could have provided Guy with information. 111 Tanner, `The expansion', p. 272. 112 Prou, Recueil, no. 34; and see Guillot, Le Comte d'Anjou, ii. 170±6. 113 See above, pp. xvii f. 114 GND ii. 176±8; GG ii. 47, pp. 182±4. OV ii. 204±6, See also Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 307±8; Tanner, `The expansion', pp. 270±4, and for the nepos, 266n.; Williams, The English, pp. 15±16. 110


DATE AND PURPOSE

xli

garrison. Subsequently Eustace was condemned to loss of the king's grace and forfeiture of the ®efs he had been allotted in England. This could have happened when William returned to England at Christmas 1067. However, by the time William of Poitiers was writing (about 1077), the two had been reconciled. And, indeed, in 1086 Domesday Book records the count's very substantial estates and his place of honour in several shires.115 The exact date of the reconciliation, like that of the offence, cannot be established.116 But even if the disgrace was short, it seems that, despite Orderic's placing him ®rst among the Conqueror's most distinguished vassals,117 he ceased to be closely attached to the king. In 1087 the family supported Robert Curthose against William Rufus, the king's chosen heir.118 It has been argued that a poem on the 1066 campaign which paints Eustace as a hero and a staunch supporter of the duke could not have been written after the author had learnt of the escapade of 1067.119 Alternatively, it has been suggested that one of the purposes of the poem was to point out the virtues of the disgraced count and the king's indebtedness to him, a task for which Guy of Amiens was well quali®ed.120 Guy's remarks, in connection with William's occupation of Dover on his way from Hastings to London at the end of October 1066, that the place offered the best entry for invaders of England, except that the town on its hill was a serious obstacle, have also been considered relevant.121 All things considered, it seems likely, although by no means certain, that the poem was written after Eustace's ìnvasion' of Dover, but at the earliest opportunity. What then was the purpose of the poem? What motives shaped the 115

Barlow, William Rufus, p. 161. Lists in Tanner, `The expansion', pp. 279±86. Two royal writs addressed to, inter alios, Èarl' Eustace (Regesta, nos. 223, 291), seem likely to date from 106661067. G. Garnett, `Coronation and propaganda: some implications of the Norman Claim to the Throne of England in 1066', Trans. of the Royal Hist. Soc., 5th ser., xxxvi (1986), 91±116, at pp. 99±100. Later, but how much later is uncertain, is Eustace's restoration to Saint-Martin-le-Grand of some estates formerly granted to it by Ingelric the priest: A. J. Kempe, Historical Notices of the Collegiate Church of St. Martin-leGrand, London (London, 1825), pp. 179±80. 117 OV ii. 266; Barlow, William Rufus, p. 159. 118 Ibid., pp. 77, 80, 90±1. 119 M. & M., pp. xxiif., xxv, xxvii, lxvii; van Houts, `Latin poetry', p. 55. 120 Barlow, `The Carmen', p. 200. Werkmeister, `The political ideology', pp. 585±6, when arguing that the Bayeux Tapestry was produced after Bishop Odo's disgrace, in order to recommend him to the Conqueror, compares the possible purpose of Carmen. Davis, `The Carmen', p. 258, suggested that the occasion could have been the marriage in 1125 of Eustace's granddaughter and heiress Matilda to Stephen count of Mortain, the 121 Cf. JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 86±90. Conqueror's grandson, king in 1135. 116


xlii

INTRODUCTION

story and provided the bias and tone? Ostensibly it was intended to commemorate William's achievements in the West (vv. 20±4), and there are apostrophes to the ànointed king' and the `great duke' at suitable points (vv. 26±39, 329±34). And, indeed, the story is constructed to this end. The battle closes with the duke killing King Harold, and the campaign with his coronation as king. Because William of Poitiers was even more sycophantic, an archdeacon rather than a bishop, a Norman rather than a Frenchman, Guy's similar purpose and design can be overlooked. But there is no reason to doubt that formally the Conqueror is his hero. Yet other heroes, almost totally absent from the prose account, but featured in the Bayeux Tapestry, also show up, here the count of Boulogne and the principality of Ponthieu. The bishop of Amiens was commemorating a great `French' victory to which his family and friends had made a noteworthy contribution. And clearly he wanted to remind the victor of their services. vi. guy bishop of amiens Guy was the second of four known sons of Enguerrand (Ingelrannus) I, count of Ponthieu who occurs in 1026 and 1043. For our knowledge of Ponthieu at this time, its counts and its abbey of Saint-Riquier, we are almost entirely dependent on a second-hand source, Hariulf, an oblate of Saint-Riquier, born about 1060 and died in 1143, who wrote his Chronicon Centulense at the turn of the twelfth century, before becoming abbot of St Peter's, Oudenburg, near Bruges, in 1105.122 The county, in Picardy, was one of the smaller of those petty principalities which emerged in the late tenth century out of the wreckage of the Carolingian empire. Situated round the mouth of the river Somme and bounded in the north by the river Canche and in the south by the river Bresle, it was within the French ecclesiastical diocese of Amiens, and had its own archdeaconry (of Ponthieu122 For Guy and his family, see Hariulf, iv. 6, 12, 21±2, 36. Clovis Brunel, Recueil des actes des Comtes de Pontieu (1026±1279) (Collection de documents ineÂdits sur l'histoire de France, Paris, 1930), pp. i±iv, docs, nos. vi±x, xii, xiv; J. Laporte, Ètude chronologique sur les listes abbatiales de Saint-Riquier', Revue Mabillon, xlix (1959), 101±36; Barlow, Carmen, pp. 192±4, 217±18; M. & M., pp. xxx±xxxv; Jean Dunbabin, France in the Making (843±1180) (Oxford, 1985), p. 217. The most detailed life of the bishop is in Gallia Christiana, x. 1164±6, reprinted PL cxlvi, 1503±6. Cf. also M. J. Corblet, `Notice sur une inscription du xie sieÁcle provenant de l'abbaye de Corbie', Soc. des Antiquaires de Picardie, Bulletin, 1865, 79±94, at pp. 89±90.


GUY BISHOP OF AMIENS

xliii

Vimeux). To the north was the county and diocese of Boulogne, to the south the Norman county of Eu and the duchy itself with its diocese and province of Rouen. Ponthieu had a good harbour and was crossed by the main road from Boulogne to Rouen. Although in the politically restless marches between France and Flanders, and too close to Normandy for comfort, it was itself relatively stable.123 The founder of the dynasty was Guy's grandfather Hugh, a knight, who was a vassal of Hugh Capet, duke and later king of the Franks (king, 987±96). The duke gave him his daughter Gisla in marriage and established him on the Somme as part of the French defences against the barbarians (i.e. the Vikings and Normans). His endowments were at the expense of the ancient and distinguished monastery of Saint-Riquier, of which he was appointed advocate. He was castellan of Abbeville-sur-Somme, which the king had forti®ed on its demesne; he converted its cell of Forest-l'Abbaye, situated across the bay from Saint-Valery-sur-Somme, into a domestic abbey, and appropriated others of its lands and revenues.124 Abbeville was a north-western outpost of some importance to the French monarchy; and its new castellans remained faithful to the new Capetian dynasty. Hugh's son, Enguerrand I, is said to have taken the title of count after he had killed the count of Boulogne in battle (apparently Baldwin I in 1024) and married his most noble widow, Adelvie.125 He was also renowned for having heavily defeated an invasion of Vimeu, south of the Somme, by Gilbert count of Brionne, the cousin of Duke Robert of Normandy, with an army 3,000 strong.126 The birth-dates of Enguerrand's sons, Hugh II, Guy, and Fulk, can only be conjectured from the comital succession. The eldest, Hugh, who witnesses with his father from 1035, was killed in 1052 on a military expedition which he is unlikely to have joined if much older than 40. And it is dif®cult to put the date of his birth long after 1012 because his heir, Enguerrand II, was excommunicated at the papal council of 123

For a map of the area, see R. Fossier, Histoire de la Picardie (Toulouse, 1974), p. 157. Hariulf, pp. xvii, 229±31. William of JumieÁges, GND ii. 160, calls Guy I `count of Abbeville'. 125 Hariulf, pp. 206, 230±1, where the widow (Adelvia) but not the count is named. A variety of identi®cations of the count have been suggested. Cf. M. & M., p. xxxi n. 7. Baldwin I and Adelvie in 1024 are given in the latest study, Tanner, `The expansion', table, pp. 252±3 (where called Baldwin/Eustace), cf. pp. 251, 262 (where called Baldwin I) and n. 9. Thus the count's identity remains uncertain. Enguerrand I died after 1045, according to Lot at Hariulf, p. 230 n. 126 OV ii. 12. Orderic attributes the foundation of the abbey of Bec to the knight Herluin's escape from the slaughter. 124

BOULOGNE

PONTHIEU


ENGLAND

FRANCE Hugh Capet (987–96)

Arnulf II (c.971–c.990) Richard I duke of Normandy (942–96)

Hugh I = Gisla (c.980)

Robert II, the Pious (996–1031) Henry I (1031–60)

Baldwin I = Adelvie = Enguerrand I (c.990–1024) (occ. 1026, 1043)

(2) King Æthelred = Emma (978–1016) (†1052)

Philip I (1060–1108)

Hugh II = Bertha of Guy Fulk abt of Robert Robert I (†1052) Aumale bp of Amiens Forest l’Abbaye duke of (1058–74/5) Normandy (2) (1) Lambert = Adelaide = Enguerrand II Guy I Hugh Waleran d. = William of Talou of Lens (1052–3) (1053–1100) (occ. ?1066, (†1054) ct of Arques (†1054) 1075, 1084)

Eustace I (1024–47)

(1) (2) Drogo = Godgifu = Eustace II Fulk II ct of the (1047–88) bp of Amiens Vexin (†1035) (1036–58) Walter III ct of Mantes († post 1063)

Ralf earl (†1057)

Earl Waltheof = Judith

Adelaide

Enguerrand († ante 1100)

NORMANDY Richard I = Emma (942–96) sister of Hugh Capet

Earl Godwin = Edith Edward the Confessor (†1075) (1042–66)

Harold (King, 1066)

Tostig (†1066)

Leofwine (†1066)

Richard II (996–1026)

Gyrth (†1066) Robert I (1027–35)

Key abt = bp = ct = d. =

abbot bishop count daughter

William of Talou ct of Arques

Matilda = William d. of Baldwin V the Conqueror ct of Flanders and (1035–87) Adela d. of Robert the Pious King of France

1. Guy of Amiens and his relations

Emma = King Æthelred (979–1016)

Edward the Confessor (1042–66)

(1) Godgifu = Drogo (2) ct of the Vexin = Eustace II ct of Boulogne

(1) Adelaide = Enguerrand II (2) ct of Ponthieu (1052–3) = Lambert (3) ct of Lens = Odo ct of Champagne



xlv

Reims in October 1049 for incest, apparently because of his marriage to Adelaide, the sister of Duke William of Normandy.127 By the time of his death in 1053 he had a daughter named after her mother,128 but apparently no son, for he was succeeded by his younger brother, Guy I, who lived until 1100.129 A third son, Hugh, the `noble heir of Ponthieu', who fought at Hastings, occurs in 1075 and 1084.130 And a fourth son, Waleran, was killed at the battle of Mortemer in 1054.131 On this evidence Hugh II's birth can be dated c.1012, and, simply by extension, Guy's c.1014 and Fulk's c.1016. Accordingly, Guy would have been elected bishop at the age of 44 and died when just over 60, and Fulk would have become abbot at the age of 43 and died when about 67. These seem reasonable ®gures but allow the birthdates to be advanced by a few years in each case. The dates also bear on the identity of the mother or mothers of these children. The widowed countess of Boulogne, whom Enguerrand married apparently after 1024, could not have been the mother of Hugh II, nor, although it is not impossible, is it likely that she was Guy's. Enguerrand, `very old' when he died, could have been married several times.132 127 J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, xix (Venice, 1774), 742; Bouquet, Recueil, xi. 523. Enguerrand's perhaps elder sister or half-sister was married to Adelaide's uncle, William of Talou, count of Arques. Adelaide must have received Enguerrand's mother's county of Aumale as her marriage portion, for it passed before 1096 to her son Stephen, by her third husband Eudo, for whom see the next note. 128 Adelaide (Adeliza), the duke's full sister, who may have married, secondly, Lambert count of Lens (the brother of Eustace II of Boulogne), and, lastly and indubitably, married Odo count of Champagne and later lord of Holderness in England, had at least two daughters, Adelaide and Judith. The latter, whom the Conqueror married to the English earl Waltheof and who had King Malcolm IV of Scots among her descendants, is expressly identi®ed by the 12th-c. encomiast of her husband as Lambert's daughter: Vita et passio Waldevi Comitis, in Chroniques anglo-normandes, ed. F. Michel (Rouen, 1836±40), ii. 112; cf. Freeman, Norman Conquest, 2nd edn., iv. 301±2, 3rd edn., ii. 632±3. Adelaide's marriage to Lambert was, however, brief. Even if she married him shortly after her union with Enguerrand was condemned as incestuous by the council of Reims in Oct. 1049, and before Enguerrand was killed at Saint-Aubin-sur-Scie on 25 Oct. 1053, Lambert himself perished at the siege of Lille in the summer of 1054. 129 E. Prarond, Les Comtes de Ponthieu: Gui premier (Paris, 1900), p. 8, argued that Count Guy was the son, not the brother, of Hugh II, since he con®rmed a grant of his uncle (patruus) Robert. There would seem to be no reason why Guy should not have been born about 1040. 130 Petrie, Monumenta, p. 866 n. d; Engels, Dichters, pp. 13±14, `Discussion', p. 10; M. & M., pp. 117±18; van Houts, `Latin Poetry', pp. 54±5. 131 Not named in GG i. 31, p. 48, only in Wace, vv. 4927±8, and BenoõÃt, vv. 37699±700, cf. 37661, 37746. 132 M. & M., p. xxxii, thought it possible that Guy and Fulk were sons of the second marriage.


xlvi

INTRODUCTION

The early counts continued to put their advocacy of Saint-Riquier to good use. Enguerrand I, who was regarded by Hariulf as, on the whole, a benefactor of the monasteries, put his third son, Fulk, into the abbey, perhaps as an oblate; and when later he failed to get him the abbacy (c.1042), he pushed him into the headship of Forest-l'Abbaye (before 1059).133 Guy, the second son, also entered Saint-Riquier, although not to be professed a monk but rather to be educated for a career in the church. Their abbot was Enguerrand (occ. 1017±45), whose brother Guy was the abbot of Forest-l'Abbaye. Although their relationship with the comital family is denied by Hariulf, these names link unmistakably with theirs. Abbot Enguerrand, a pupil of Fulbert of Chartres (as schoolmaster, c.990±1007, as bishop 1007±28), at the request of his master put the life of St Richarius into verse, wrote other saints' lives, and attracted noble disciples.134 Among his pupils, according to Hariulf, the most distinguished were Guy bishop of Amiens and Dreux bishop of TheÂrouanne (1030±78); the chronicler records Guy's epitaph on their master.135 Generally known as `the Wise', Enguerrand's rule was the abbey's golden age. As Guy was in his ®fties, seven or eight years from his death, when he wrote his poem on William's invasion of England, he must have kept his hand in throughout his life.136 His academic pedigree could hardly be bettered, and Giovanni Orlandi has remarked, `we have not found in Carmen a single incontestable example of irregular prosody, something indeed notable for the time.'137 The subject of the poem, however, is aberrant. The characteristic products of the school of Chartres were saints' lives, sermons and hymns. And even though the basic theme of the anonymous poem has been seen as William's reliance upon, and indebtedness to, the church,138 it can hardly be considered a devotional work. We do not know what books were in Saint-Riquier's library when Guy was a pupil there or what he found 133

Hariulf, pp. 204±8. Ibid., pp. 195, 202±3. 135 Ibid., p. 216. He died on 9 Dec. 1045, ibid., pp. 213±15. 136 The short epitaph on his abbot (last note) is the one secure attribution. The thirtytwo verses cataloguing the abbot's achievements which follow, although markedly inferior, have also been thought his. Jean de la Chapelle, writing in 1492, credited him with many prose works, apparently on the same subject: Histoire litteÂraire de la France (Paris, 1733± ), viii. 31, reprinted PL cxlvi. 1505±8. For Guy's letters and charters when bishop, see below, n. 147. 137 Orlandi, `Recensione', p. 207. 138 John C. Hirsch, `Church and monarch in the Carmen de Hastingae proelio', Journal of Medieval History, viii (1982), 353±7. 134



xlvii

at Amiens. The abbey's library, of which a catalogue dated 831 survives, was dispersed during the Viking raids of the ninth century; and, although doubtless reformed, and under Abbot Enguerrand cherished, may still have been basic in the ®rst half of the eleventh century. In 1131 it was destroyed by the count of Saint-Pol.139 In all schools the pupils were required to write Latin verses; and with boys the favourite model seems to have been Ovid. Orderic Vitalis thought that Guy in his Carmen had imitated Virgil and Statius. And echoes of all these writers have been noticed in the epic. Yet, although an outstandingly competent versi®er, the bishop can hardly be regarded as a great poet. And his work owes its survival, apart from chance, probably to its theme rather than its style. The lack, however, of a single, popular hero deprived his epic of a wide circulation and so of in¯uence. Until 1826 it descended, badly deformed, only through William of Poitiers. Guy was never a cloistered man of letters. He remained a secular clerk, becoming a canon and then, c.1045, one of the two archdeacons (probably the one for Ponthieu) of the cathedral church of Amiens,140 some 45 km. up the Somme and within a different county. He became the trusted agent of his bishop, Fulk II (1036±58), the brother of Drogo count of the Vexin, who was to marry Godgifu, sister of King Edward the Confessor. Guy undertook a mission to the papal curia in 1049 in order to accuse the abbot of Corbie,141 and succeeded Fulk as bishop in 1058. Together with his brother, Abbot Fulk, and his nephew, Count Guy I, he attended the coronation of King Philip I of France (when still a child) at Reims on 23 May 1059, only ®fteen months before the death of Philip's father, King Henry I;142 and thereafter the bishop was often to be found at the royal court.143 He 139 The second epitaph on Abbot Enguerrand (see above, n. 136) witnesses to his renovation of the library, his love of books, and his use of silver in their binding. The library and the poet's literary sources have been considered by Engels, Dichters, and M. & M., pp. lxvii±lxviii. The latter stress the poet's dependence on the Carolingian poets Theodulf of OrleÂans and Ermoldus Nigellus. Cf. Orlandi, `Recensione', pp. 199±201. And Bachrach, `Some observations', p. 7 n. 12, criticizes M. & M., and praises Foreville, GG, pp. xxxviii±xliii. Van Houts, `Latin poetry', does not concern herself with the literary sources of the poems. Doubtless more could be done. Cf. Orlandi, `Recensione', pp. 199± 201; Owen, Èpic and history'. 140 Hariulf, pp. 216 (1045), 234 (6 Dec. 1046). Corblet (as above n. 122), p. 90, gives 1049 for his canonry and then archdeaconry in Amiens. 141 Gallia Christiana, x. 1146; M. & M., p. xxxiii. 142 Bouquet, Recueil, xi. 32±3. Henry I died on 4 Aug. 1060: Lot, Hariulf, p. 234n. 143 See above, p. xviii; van Houts, `Latin poetry', pp. 54±5.


xlviii

INTRODUCTION

remained a benefactor of Saint-Riquier;144 but the quarrel with Corbie abbey, which he had inherited from his predecessor, led to some papal displeasure.145 He died on 21 November 1074 or 1075.146 Although the evidence is slight, it would seem that, by the standards of the age, Guy was a respectable bishop of the aristocratic type which had not yet fallen out of fashion.147 A cadet member of a comital family renowned for its warrior rulers, and possibly as keen as his even nobler predecessor at Amiens on hunting and hawking,148 it was perhaps in character that he should have written a poem on the battle of Hastings. As Carmen shows, he was interested in the countryside, the weather and the night sky. Three of his similes refer to hunting (vv. 385±7, 490, 723); and a lion makes four appearances (vv. 225, 437, 471, 477). He was undoubtedly fascinated by the bloodiness and squalor of armed combat. Yet, as a Christian, he appears to have been not entirely happy with even a `just' war. There is in his epic a frequent antithesis between force and diplomacy or guile as instruments of policy; and it would seem on balance that he favoured the latter. In the battle scenes, Mars, the god of war, is twice invoked (vv. 345, 362, cf. 564) and his cruelty condemned. Although Harold's `cunning' may have been despised, William's atrocities, although sometimes excused as necessary, are never approved. The tone of the poem is not entirely to Guy's discredit. The bishop, because of his family, his of®ce, and his geographical situation, lay within an extensive and intricate web of connections, both feudal and ecclesiastical. Owing to plural marriages and fragmentary, sometimes mistaken, information, much of this pattern is uncertain. Nevertheless, to get some idea of Guy's involvement in the Norman invasion of England and his possible sources of information, it is worth 144

Hariulf, pp. 238±9, 282. M. & M., pp. xxxiv±xxxv; van Houts, `Latin poetry', p. 56 n. 49, where she points out that their account is confused. For Pope Alexander II's suspension of Guy, possibly in 1063, because of his ill-treatment of Corbeil by, seemingly, usurping some of the abbey's churches, see papal letters to Guy and Gervase, archbishop of Reims: Mansi (as above, n. 127), xix. 956±7, 973; PL cxlvi. 1297±8. In 1066 Guy granted or con®rmed a church to the abbey, ibid. 1507±10. 146 XI kal. dec.: Martyrologium of the church of Amiens, Archives deÂpartmentales de la Somme (cote 1-G-1091); Canon Roze, `NeÂcrologe de l'eÂglise d'Amiens', MeÂmoires de la SocieÂteÂ des Antiquaires de Picardie, xxviii (1885), 448; E. Prarond, Les Comtes de Ponthieu: Gui premier (Paris, 1900), p. 13; Barlow, Carmen, pp. 217±19. 147 For his letters and charters as bishop, see PL cxlvi. 1507±10; Cartulaire du chapitre de la CatheÂdrale d'Amiens (MeÂmoires de la SocieÂteÂ des Antiquaires de Picardie: documents ineÂdits concernant la Province, xiv, xviii; Amiens, 1905±12), nos. 4, 6, 7, cf. no. 5. 148 Hariulf, p. 252. 145



xlix

while noting those of his relations who had some connection with it.149 The bishop was the great-grandson of the ®rst Capetian king of France, and a cousin once removed of the reigning king, Philip I. His mother, or stepmother, had been the countess of Boulogne; and so Eustace II of Boulogne (1047±88) was his (step)-nephew. It was from a port within his diocese, indeed his old archdeaconry, and the principality of his nephew, Count Guy I of Ponthieu, that the duke's ¯eet sailed in 1066. His deceased nephew, Count Enguerrand II of Ponthieu, had been married to Adelaide, the Conqueror's sister,150 who may have married next Eustace II's younger brother, Lambert count of Lens, and, thirdly, probably before 1067, Odo count of Champagne, who took possession of her dower lands in Aumale.151 And a niece of the bishop had married William of Talou, count of Arques, the Conqueror's and Adelaide's uncle. This niece had with her husband taken refuge in Boulogne in 1053, after the battle of Saint-Aubin.152 The bishop's sister-in-law, Bertha, wife of Hugh II, was the daughter, and had probably been the heiress, of the lord of Aumale. A problem, however, with familial connections is that it is seldom clear exactly which relations are important. Blood is not always thicker than water.153 Less complicated is the basic system of military alliances in this area in the period 1050±68.154 As we know, Bishop Guy came from a family whose loyalty to the French crown had been unswerving, and, as a French bishop, related to the king and within easy reach of the French royal demesne, he was personally involved with the court and its policies. After 1052 King Henry I of France reversed the Capetians' traditional alliance with Normandy in favour of Anjou. Hence two fairly stable leagues emerged: on the one hand were Henry I, the counts of Ponthieu, Boulogne (Eustace II), and Mantes (Walter III), and the king of England, Edward the ConfessorÐthe last three closely related; and, on the other, were William duke of Normandy, his 149

See genealogical table. Jean Dunbabin, `Geoffrey of Chaumont, Thibaud of Blois and William the Conqueror', ANS xvi (1994), 101±16, at pp. 109±10. And see also above, n. 127. 151 Above, n. 128. 152 OV, interpolation in GND ii. 104. As van Houts, p. 105 n. 3, points out, OV is the only source for the existence of this marriage. 153 For a discussion of this problem and a bibliography, see Joanna H. Drell, `Family structure in the principality of Salerno during the Norman period, 1077±1154', ANS xviii (1996), 79±104. 154 KoÈrner, Hastings, pp. 181±254; Barlow, Èdward the Confessor's early life, character and attitudes', EHR lxxx (1965), 225±51; id., Edward the Confessor, pp. 97±104; Tanner, `The expansion', pp. 263±70. 150


l

INTRODUCTION

father-in-law Baldwin V of Flanders, Theobald count of Blois, and, in England, the house of Godwin, King Edward's father-in-law. From the standpoint of Ponthieu, this meant military support for the French king against Normandy. Consequently, Bishop Guy's nephew, Enguerrand II, who succeeded Hugh II on 20 November 1052 and was `famous for his nobility and bravery' as well as his marvellous beauty, was killed less than a year later (25 Oct. 1053) at Saint-Aubinsur-Scie in Normandy, when he took part in a French expedition to relieve the stronghold of his brother-in-law, the count of Arques, who was in rebellion against his nephew, the duke.155 Enguerrand was succeeded by his younger brother, Guy I, who, when involved in a similar adventure in February 1054, was captured by the Normans at Mortemer. The duke kept him in prison at Bayeux for two years, releasing him only in return for homage and fealty and the annual service of 100 knights.156 It may be that Bishop Guy governed Ponthieu during his nephew's imprisonment.157 The `peace' between Count Guy and William may have been strengthened when King Henry I died in 1060 leaving an infant son, Philip I, as his crowned heir, and Baldwin V of Flanders, William's father-in-law, became regent. Flanders had been hostile to England since 1035,158 and in 1066 no obstacles were put in the way of William's invasion of the kingdom. Thus from 1060 to 1066 the French royal court was, if not a warm abetter, at least tolerant of Norman plans. How this change affected Bishop Guy is unknowable. Because of his geographical situation he seems always to have had some dealings with the counts of Flanders; indeed, on 2 April 1066 he witnessed a charter and dedicated a church for Baldwin V.159 We notice, however, that his nephew the count probably did not take part in the 1066 expedition, nor did he pro®t from the conquest of England. But the family may have hedged its bets by sending the `noble heir of Ponthieu', perhaps in the train of Eustace II of Boulogne,160 who had to leave a son as hostage in Normandy as 155 GG i. 26, p. 40; i. 29, p. 44; Hariulf, pp. 231, 239, `Northmannorum dolo occisum'; OV iv. 84. For his beauty, Hariulf, p. 231. 156 GG i. 31, p. 48; OV ii. 118; and see above, n. 131. 157 Amiens necrology: see above, n. 146. 158 Barlow, Edward the Confessor, p. 97. 159 Gallia Christiana, x. 1165. 160 But he does not seem to have had a share in Eustace's (restored) English honour. He cannot be identi®ed in Tanner's list of Eustace's manors, `The expansion', pp. 279±86. But he could have been a participant in 1066±7, before Eustace's disgrace.



li

161

surety for his loyal behaviour. It could be imagined that Bishop Guy, in 1066 an old-timer, would not have been an unquali®ed supporter of the duke of Normandy, but could have acknowledged, and been prepared to pro®t from, his outstanding success. The bishop cannot have been ignorant of English affairs. According to Vita ádwardi Regis, King Henry I of France was a `close kinsman by blood' of Edward the Confessor and sent a congratulatory embassy to his coronation at Easter 1043. And Edward kept in touch with him through Helinand, a native of Pontoise, a chaplain sent to Edward by his nephew, Walter III count of Mantes. Helinand became bishop of Laon in 1052 and later archbishop of Reims.162 It is possible that Edward was always more partial to France than to Normandy. Guy also had some personal connections with England through his predecessor and friend at Amiens, Bishop Fulk II. The bishop's elder brother, Drogo count of the Vexin, had married Edward's sister, Godgifu. The younger of their two sons, Ralf, was created an English earl by Edward, possibly in 1047, and was his trusted military captain until the earl's death in 1057.163 The family could be regarded as containing a possible heir to the childless English king. Godgifu's elder son, Walter III count of Mantes, was captured by Duke William in 1063, and he and his wife did not survive their imprisonment in the castle at Falaise.164 Saint-Riquier too had English interests. Its English estates were the gift, in Edward's reign, of Ralf de Gael, the Staller, who was made earl of East Anglia, in succession to Gyrth Godwineson, by the Conqueror;165 and Abbot Gervin I is said to have been a close friend of Queen Edith. On one of his visits to the English court Edith gave him an amice ornamented with orfrey and precious 161

GG ii. 47, p. 182. Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward, p. 16; Guibert of Nogent, De vita sua libri tres (PL clvi. 909). 163 Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 93±4, cf. 50, 114; 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. C. Harper Bill et al. (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 329±39; D. Bates, `Lord Sudeley's ancestors: the family of the counts of Amiens, Valois and the Vexin in France and England during the eleventh century', The Sudeleys, Lords of Toddington, The Manorial Society (London, 1987), pp. 34±48, at 37±8. 164 OV ii. 116±18, 312; GG i. 38, pp. 60±2, ignores their fate. 165 Hariulf, pp. 240±5. Even if Abbot Gervin I recovered them in Feb. 1068 (see above, p. xviii), possession did not survive the rebellion of Ralf the Staller's son, Earl Ralf Guader, in 1075. Cf. also Helen Cam, `The English lands of the abbey of St-Riquier', EHR xxxi (1916), 443±7; J. Laporte, `Rapports de l'abbaye de Saint-Riquier avec l'Angleterre', Revue Mabillon, xlix (1959), 145±51. For the two Ralfs, see Williams, The English, pp. 61± 3; C. R. Hart, `William Malet and his family', ANS xix (1997), 123±65, at p. 153 and n. 93. 162


lii

INTRODUCTION

stones, which was coveted and eventually acquired by Guy.166 We cannot doubt that the bishop had a high regard for Edward and Edith and was aware of the succession problem. He would also have been interested in the fate of Saint-Riquier's estates in Norfolk. Because Baldwin of Flanders was allied with Normandy and had close relations with Earl Godwin and his sons,167 and since Eustace of Boulogne was an enemy of the family,168 Guy must have regarded that powerful English dynasty askance. It may well be that he had actually met Earl Harold in 1056 at the Flemish court, perhaps at Ghent, when he, then an archdeacon, and Count Guy, together with `Duke' Harold, witnessed a judgement of Baldwin in a case between Eustace and St Peter's, Ghent, decided in the latter's favour.169 He would also have known that Guy had captured Harold in 1064 or 1065 when the earl was probably on a royal mission to Duke William. As the count conveyed Harold to Beaurain-sur-Canche, a castle in the extreme north of his county on the border with Boulogne, it is possible that he intended delivering him into Eustace's hands. At Beaurain, according to the Tapestry (pl. 11), Harold and Guy had a parley, which, from the illustration, involved Harold's sword and hence, possibly, his fealty. But William acted with speed and forced Guy to surrender the earl to him.170 We can assume that the bishop would have heard some version of the purpose of Harold's embassy and of the nature of the undertakings William forced from him (`the oath of Bayeux'). And the poet refers to Harold's oath forsworn and states that he became the duke's vassal, presumably by that oath (vv. 239±40). One member of Godwin's family, however, Harold's younger brother and seemingly longstanding rival, Tostig, earl of Northumbria 1053±65, could have been regarded more favourably by Guy. 166

Hariulf, pp. 372±8; Barlow, Edward the Confessor, p. 190. In 1051 Earl Godwin and his wife and three of their sons, Swegn, Tostig, and Gyrth, took refuge in Flanders; and Tostig married Judith, Baldwin V's half-sister: Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward, pp. 36±8, 40, cf. 26n. And Tostig returned to Flanders when exiled in 1065: ibid., p. 82. 168 Eustace, when on a visit to King Edward's court in 1051, clashed with the family at Dover, an event which led to the outlawry of Godwin and his family and their exile in Flanders: Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 109±11. 169 P. Grierson, À visit of Earl Harold to Flanders in 1056', EHR li (1936), 90±7; KoÈrner, Hastings, pp. 205±6; Tanner, `The expansion', p. 269, n. 40. 170 GG i. 41, pp. 68±70; ii. 12, p. 120. BT, pl. 7±19; Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 220±8; Arnold J. Taylor, ` ``Belrem'' ', ANS xiv (1992), 1±23; Tanner, `The expansion', p. 270 n. 44. 167



liii

Tostig, while in exile in Flanders in 1051, had married Baldwin V's half-sister, Judith; and when he was exiled again in 1065, the pair had once more wintered in Flanders, this time at Saint-Omer. Both were celebrated patrons of churches and had probably travelled through Picardy or Flanders on their pilgrimage to Rome in 1061. The author of Carmen much preferred Tostig to Harold (vv. 129±40). There is nothing in this rather fragmentary background which discourages an attribution of the anonymous poem to Guy of Amiens, except possibly his age.171 He would seem to have been about 53 years old in 1067, about 14 more than the Conqueror. Yet the poet's references to the levity of youth and the wisdom of seniors172 suggest that he himself was of mature age; and the special interests noticeable in the poem and its political and racial prejudices suit Guy well. Moreover, its de®ciencies as a historical record are partly explicable by the bishop's situation and the date of composition. It would seem unnecessary to look elsewhere for its author. The one disappointment is that the search for a speci®c motive for writing the epic peters out. Guy's social and political ambience remains unfocused, and the poem cannot be seen in the context of his presumably other literary works. But we know enough to serve our purpose. vii. the historical value of the work 1. The main sources for the Norman invasion Military campaigns and battles, always of general interest and since antiquity an inspiration to some of the greatest historians, require artistic interpretation. They have to be given shape. Only a fraction of the multiplicity of incident is ever reported; each report is affected by the concerns of the reporter; and chance governs which reports survive. Although it would seem that usually the winner of a campaign only blunders to victory, however well deserved the result may be, and that, particularly in primitive warfare, the outcome is often simply a matter of luck, with hindsight it is usually possible to provide an orderly account of the steps to victory by suppressing the many more inconclusive and seemingly misdirected moves. Even if 171 Petrie, Monumenta, pp. 95±6, considered that his age caused some dif®culty as the style and subject of the introduction suggest à young man unoccupied and aiming at celebrity by writing verses'. But this is not quite what the poet says. 172 Cf. vv. 183 (with n. 5), 231, 693.


liv

INTRODUCTION

God had not guided his champion to his triumph, the hero himself had found the way to glory. Eleventh-century battles, fought by tiny armies, equipped with few long-range weapons and not easily controlled by their captains, quickly disintegrated into hand-to-hand combat with the sword, axe, or lance. Although the ®ght was for the ®eld of battle, with the advantage usually to the defenders, it was the casualties which determined the issue. In such small-scale operations the soldiers, whenever they paused for breath, could see and judge how the day was going. Whenever some group lost heart and ¯ed, it drew others with it; and the death of the commander was inevitably decisive. In detail every battle is chaotic; and the most that can be expected of contemporary or near-contemporary descriptions is some indication of the initial tactics and the major phases of the encounter, illustrated by a few incidents which will have been chosen by the author according to his particular interests and purpose. We have these for Hastings, and perhaps the basic outlines are correct: a French attack with archers and cavalry on an English dismounted phalanxÐ`Waterloo without the Prussians', according to J. H. Round, quoting Charles Oman.173 We can also peer now and then into the hurly-burly before the battle was lost or won. But the sources should not be squeezed too hard. They did not know much, and the little they told is bound to include some mistakes and inventions.174 Moreover, they had in common one misleading source of information: the fruits of their classical education. They all knew Caesar's Wars and Latin epic. They may well have known Roland. 173

372.

J. H. Round, `Mr Freeman and the battle of Hastings', Feudal England, p. 390; cf.

174 The battle has been described many times on the authority of GND, GG, William of Malmesbury, OV, other 12th-c. chroniclers, the French romances and, from 1820, also of BT. A few markers are: George Littleton, The History of the Life of King Henry II, i (London, 1767), pp. 20±5; Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, ii (London, 1820), pp. 578±99 (Turner made use of all the sources available today, including Brevis Relatio and the `ship-list', which he printed, pp. 596±7 n. 137, except Carmen); J. M. Lappenberg and Benjamin Thorpe, A History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, ii (London, 1845), 289±303; Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii, ch. xv; C. W. C. Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages (London 1885, 1898, 1924), pp. 151±66; W. Spatz, Die Schlacht von Hastings (Berlin, 1896); White (1950, 1953), pp. 35±48; J. F. C. Fuller, Decisive Battles of the Western World, i (London, 1954), pp. 360ff.; David C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964), pp. 193±204; C. H. Lemmon, `The campaign of 1066', in The Norman Conquest: its Setting and Impact, ed. C. T. Chevallier (London, 1966) pp. 77±122; R. Allen Brown, `The Battle of Hastings', ANS iii (1981), 1± 21, bibliography, p. 197 n. 2.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lv

Hence they all knew how battles should be fought and how heroes should behave. The value of Guy's Carmen as an historical source can only be gauged by comparing his story with the other surviving nearcontemporary accounts.175 The two earliest Norman narratives are the short section in Gesta Normannorum Ducum contributed by William Calculus, monk of JumieÁges, near Rouen, and the relatively long excursus in the so-called History of William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux. It is now generally accepted that the archdeacon knew the monk's account. A third, seemingly independent account, the Brevis relatio, written between 1114 and 1120 by a monk of Battle, presumably a Norman, is thought to be based on the testimony of Abbot Ralph of Battle (1107±24), a former monk of Bec and prior of Caen and then Rochester, a royal chaplain and closely associated with Lanfranc.176 The only purely English offering is the several versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which, under 1066, give a full account of the invasions of Earl Tostig and King Harold Hardrada and of Harold Godwineson's measures against them, but have little to say about the Norman invasion. The Bayeux Tapestry, however, can be regarded as an Anglo-Norman production and interpreted as treating the parties in a remarkably even-handed way. But the twelfth-century Anglo-Norman historians, William of Malmesbury and especially Orderic Vitalis, monk of Saint-EÂvroult, although not unsympathetic to the English, had no means of correcting the Norman bias of their sources. Indeed, the one completely uncanonical description is that of Guy of Amiens with its Ponthieu±Boulogne orientation. Hence, until the mid-nineteenth century the Norman version of events, as the only one existing in print, was by and large unquestioned by historians. The creators of the legend were, after all, although not eyewitnesses, contemporaries and likely to have got it substantially right. They would have been biased, but that is the way of the world. The ®rst of these, William of JumieÁges, abbreviated, interpolated, and continued Dudo of Saint-Quentin's Gesta Normannorum Ducum in c.1070±1.177 He dedicated it to the Conqueror, and the duke may indeed have commissioned it when he attended the consecration of 175 The relationship of the narrative sources for the Norman Conquest have been considered by Barlow, `The Carmen', M. Chibnall, OV ii. 368±70, and KoÈrner, Hastings, 176 pp. 82±104. Brevis relatio, pp. 14±24. 177 E. M. C. van Houts, `The Gesta Normannorum Ducum: a history without end', ANS iii (1981), 106±18; GND i, p. xxxii. He was surnamed Calculus according to OV ii. 78.


lvi

INTRODUCTION

the new abbey church on 1 July 1067.178 The monk continued in the rather stereotyped gesta form, but widened the origo gentis type to comprise a justi®cation of the duke's invasion of England in pursuit of his valid claim to the throne. Although he wrote to praise and to legitimate the new king, he had a respect for historical truth and kept his own contribution short. His work was revised and interpolated by Orderic in c.1095±c.1113 and by Robert of Torigni in the late 1130s. The popularity of the Gesta in their various redactions and later continuations is proved by their survival in many manuscripts. We know a little more about the life and work of William of Poitiers, almost entirely, however, from Orderic Vitalis, who wrote the relevant passages before 1125.179 We are told that William was a nobleman born at PreÂaux, spent his early years as a soldier, then studied the arts at Poitiers, and, in his clerical career, became archdeacon of Lisieux and, for many years, a chaplain to the duke;180 that he wrote verses as well as prose; and that he was prevented by ill-fortune from continuing his history up to the end of the king's reign. He seems to have stopped writing c.1077.181 There is little personal information in the archdeacon's own work; he names none of his sources directly; but he does give us clearly to understand that he himself was not in England in 1066, or, it would seem, at any other time.182 All the same, if we can believe Orderic, William had a useful sort of education for a military historian and was well placed to gather information. He was, however, not writing a history or even a biography of the Norman duke and king: like William Calculus he was writing an apologia for William's conquests. So the details of the campaigns were not of much importance. Moreover, he is always most concerned with the opening phase of a campaign, for this illustrates his hero's patience and justice. The duke had been provoked beyond endurance, had been forced to invade, but conducted his campaign so as to spare both his own troops and the innocent enemy inhabitants. And once 178

Van Houts, p. 111; GND i, p. xx. OV ii. 78, 184, 258±60; Chibnall, GG, pp. xv±xix. Davis, `William of Poitiers', pp. 88±9, doubts the chaplaincy. 181 Ibid., p. 74. 182 Davis, however, ibid., pp. 89±93, has suggested that William could have been a canon of St Martin's, Dover, a proteÂgeÂ of Bishop Odo of Bayeux and a victim of Odo's estrangement from the king. Odo could, therefore, have been one of his sources. See also Chibnall, GG, p. xvii; D. Bates, `Le patronage cleÂrical et intellectuel de l'eÂveÃque Odon de Bayeux', Annales de Normandie (SeÂrie des CongreÁs des SocieÂteÂs Historiques et ArcheÂologiques de Normandie, 2, 1997), 105±14, at p. 112. 179 180


HISTORICAL VALUE

lvii

the archdeacon has made these points, he begins to dry up. His account of William and Harold's Breton expedition in 1064 or 1065 is a good example of his method.183 He was also very well read in the classical authors, and some of the episodes may well be literary topoi.184 More particularly, his panegyric of the Normans and their duke relies heavily on a comparison with the achievements of the Romans, always to the advantage of the former. Carmen opens with this conceit and takes it up again (vv. 32±3, 350±3); in later writers it becomes standard.185 So we may think it unlikely that William of Poitiers interviewed 1066 war veterans in order to get vivid details for his book.186 What he really needed was just enough facts to suit his purpose. Accordingly, he took what he could from his compatriot, William of JumieÁges,187 and, probably faute de mieux, from Carmen, a source which he may have disliked not only because of its bias but because of its author. He had no love of the comital family of Ponthieu and held Eustace of Boulogne in contempt. Nevertheless, it would seem that the archdeacon followed the bishop's account from beginning to end, but always adapting it to his own purpose.188 This treatment raises dif®cult problems for the critical historian. When William omits or radically changes some feature of the poem, is he correcting an error or perverting the truth to the advantage of the Normans and their duke? Are his individual insertions true? And when he reproduces the poet's account, is he giving it added authority? Obviously no blanket answer is possible. But some general observations can be risked. He certainly had independent sources of information. Indeed, William and Guy probably had an entirely different set of informants. It is even possible that Guy's, as a bishop and higher-ranking nobleman, were of better quality.189 But, whereas returning Norman soldiers may have taken pride in the duke's achievements, the opinion of volunteers from the northern marches and Flanders could have been 183 184 185

2.

GG, i. 43±6. Davis, `William of Poitiers', pp. 71±3, 82±3, as Freeman had realized, ibid., p. 73 n. 1. Werkmeister, `The political ideology', pp. 535±96; van Houts, `Latin poetry', pp. 41±

186 This, however, is what the Benevento historian, Falco, did in c.1122±44; G. A. Loud, `The genesis and context of the chronicle of Falco of Benevento', ANS xv (1993), 177±98, at p. 183. 187 KoÈrner, Hastings, pp. 86±91; Davis, `William of Poitiers', pp. 77±82; van Houts, GND i, pp. liif. 188 See above, pp. xxix f, xxxiii ff. 189 M. & M., p. 92, suggest that Eustace himself could have been a source.


lviii

INTRODUCTION

ambivalent. The archdeacon, as a former knight, may be credited with knowing how campaigns were fought; but the bishop, with his warrior kin, can hardly be considered an innocent in these matters. Neither was writing academic history; and on this score neither has an inbuilt superior credibility. The Bayeux Tapestry stands apart for several reasons. There is its different nature, its somewhat later date and its ambiguous purpose. A strip-cartoon, with a meagre Latin explanatory text (tituli), must inevitably simplify the story. It also has its own conventions. In form it inclines towards the dramatic. The pictures must be vivid and eyecatching, the text basic. Moreover the Tapestry often has pictorial upper and lower margins which seem sometimes to expand or comment on the main illustrations. It is a richer medium than a literary account, susceptible to iconographical interpretation. Hence in recent years it has inspired a considerable amount of investigation and commentary, some daring, and in judgement remarkably diverse.190 It would appear, however, that there is more or less agreement on some matters which affect its standing as an historical source. There is little doubt that it was commissioned by the duke's half-brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux and, after the Conquest, earl of Kent. It is possible that it was connected with the dedication of Bayeux cathedral in 1077 and, at the outside, started before 1082 when Odo was imprisoned by the king.191 The workmanship is thought to be English and the artist is believed to have had a connection with St Augustine's abbey at Canterbury. The provider of the story and the composer of the Latin commentary may or may not have been distinct from the artist, but seem to have had the same background. It is convenient to call the designer or the whole team the librettist. The librettist was acquainted with several of the earlier accounts, William of Poitiers's, perhaps also William of JumieÁges's, and even 190 F. M. Stenton's edition (London, 1957) is referred to here. Also available is the edn. of D. M. Wilson (London, 1985). But more useful for the story-line are the reproductions in strip. There is a vast bibliography: cf. S. A. Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry: History and Bibliography (Woodbridge, 1988); id., `The Bayeux Tapestry', pp. 7±28; id. and M. W. Herren, `The Adelae Comitissae of Baudri of Bourgeuil [sic] and the Bayeux Tapestry', ANS xvi (1994), 55±73; Brooks and Walker, `The authority and interpretation', pp. 1±34; D. Bernstein, `The blinding of Harold and the meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry', ANS v (1993), 40±64; Werkmeister, `The political ideology'; W. Grappe, The Bayeux Tapestry (Munich and New York, 1994). 191 Werkmeister, `The political ideology', pp. 579±89, argues against this and favours 1082±7, the period of Odo's imprisonment.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lix

Vita ádwardi Regis. And he is closest in plan to Carmen. His method was to take what suited his purpose from the available literary sources and also to make his own contributions. Among the pictorial sources may have been Trajan's column in Rome, a portrayal of imperial Roman triumphs.192 A complication for modern interpreters is that the Tapestry underwent much restoration in the nineteenth century and that the concluding scenes, perhaps 2 m. in length, have been entirely lost. It may have ended, like Carmen and Baudri of Bourgueil, with the siege of London and the coronation of the Conqueror. This would balance the opening scene of Edward enthroned and the medial image of Harold's coronation. A variety of reasons have been proposed to explain why the Tapestry was manufactured and what message it was intended to convey. But these are not necessarily contradictory: there may have been multiple purposes and even subliminal meanings. It is, nevertheless, clear that, like Carmen, it was not designed simply to glorify the Conqueror. He is not given star billing. Always described as the duke, he shares command with his half-brothers, Odo and Robert count of Mortain, and martial deeds with Count Eustace of Boulogne. It can be thought that Harold, `duke of the English' (pl. 1±2), `king of the English' after his coronation (pl. 34), and almost always portrayed as a hero, is the protagonist. And it can be argued that we have an epic, in which a great hero is destroyed because of a crime, a single act of treachery and perjury. Yet this moral is not made explicitly. Harold is still noble in defeat and death. It takes not the òffered' single combat with his rival, but four horsemen, and perhaps an arrow as well, to bring him down. There is no ignominy in his fate. What then is the Tapestry's value as a historical source? That its patron, Odo, was a participant in the events must give it some credibility, although the presentation will inevitably be slanted. Its dependence on earlier written accounts raises again those problems already discussed in connection with William of Poitiers and Carmen. And again there is no simple answer. The strength of the Tapestry is generally considered as lying in the authenticity of its representation of a typical military scene. But its English provenance raises doubts. For example, the hauberks, shown so often and in meticulous detail, are apparently always trousered. And so they would have been for the English infantry, whereas horsemen, for obvious reasons, had to be 192

Ibid., pp. 535±48. Cowdrey, `Bayeux Tapestry', p. 49 n. 1, disagrees.


lx

INTRODUCTION 193

provided with skirts. It could be thought that the apparent verisimilitude and simplicity of the Tapestry cannot be taken at their face value: they dazzle only to deceive. We must also glance at Baudri of Bourgueil's description of a tapestry in the bedchamber of Adela, countess of Blois, the Conqueror's daughter, which appears in a poem he wrote in 1099±1102 addressed to her. One section of this clearly imaginary fabric is similar in subject-matter to the Bayeux tapestry. And whether or no the abbot had that masterpiece in mind, and, if so, had actually seen it, has long been debated.194 The ®rst supposition would seem not improbable; but no conclusive proof has been, or is likely to be, produced in support of the latter. Baudri could have relied, as with the other parts of his creation, on literary sources, in this case those employed by the librettist of Odo's tapestry. And if he used Carmen, he would be a further witness to how the poem, not the Tapestry, ended. A review of the sources for the campaign and battle shows that, although all can be called in evidence, none is likely to be completely reliable; and the Norman apologists' brief is to support the ducal claim to the English throne. In the end each crux has to be considered individually. Usually, and particularly with Guy and William of Poitiers, there is a minimum of fact and an abundance of authorial commentary. Both, being rhetoricians, pad out the story with setpieces: generalized descriptions, speeches by the actors, and, especially in the case of the archdeacon, comparisons with the deeds of classical heroes, real and ®ctional. These interludes, although interesting in several ways, are not discussed here with reference to historical truth.195 Also, it cannot be thought that any of the images of the Tapestry are lifelike portraits or exact reproductions of the scene; and many will be clicheÂs and stereotypes. But they were intended to picture places, persons, and events which are usually identi®ed by the Latin text, although sometimes evasively, sometimes enigmatically.196 Indeed, the Tapestry can be regarded as more factual than any of the literary accounts, in which hard fact is in very short supply. 193

Brooks and Walker, `The authority and interpretation', pp. 19±20. Cf. van Houts, `Latin poetry', pp. 49, 53; Brown and Herren (as above, n. 190); Werkmeister, pp. 554±63; Bates (as above, n. 182 at p. 111). 195 What can be done is shown by D. Greenway (as above, n. 81). 196 A. J. Taylor, `Belrem', ANS xiv (1992), 1±23. 194


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxi

2. The background to the invasion Guy starts his poem with the arrival of the Norman ¯eet, much delayed by storms and driven willy-nilly up the coast, to take shelter in the port of Vimeu, which lies beneath the town of Saint-Valery (vv. 34±77). He thus ignores the expedition's background, whether political or logistic. He was not, however, ignorant of it. In the diplomatic exchanges he reports between William and Harold immediately before the battle (vv. 210±300) he has William's envoy answer the king's complaint that the duke has unjustly invaded his kingdom by stating William's case. King Edward had, with the consent of the witan, appointed William his heir and had sent Harold to Normandy with symbols of investiture (a ring and sword). Harold had taken an oath of fealty to William and become his vassal. They had made a compact about the succession. Because Harold had seized the throne on Edward's death in breach of his undertakings he was a perjurer. And the story that as part of their treaty Harold had agreed to marry one of William's daughters, may explain why the envoy also called Harold an adulterer. More disappointing is the lack of circumstantial detail about the ¯eet's visit. Its anchorage off the south bank of the estuary of the Somme was 19 km. downstream from Abbeville, the capital of Guy of Ponthieu's county, and some 60 km. from Amiens, the bishop's see.197 Although the bishop could have obtained from locals all sorts of information about the event, he contents himself with mentioning the traditional hospitality of the inhabitants of Vimeu to seafarers and recounting the duke's supplications to the tutelary saint for a favourable wind. Even more remarkable, and surely of signi®cance, is the omission of any direct reference to the ruler of the area. Was Guy there? Did he welcome or tolerate this intrusion? The silence may imply that the bishop found the episode in some way embarrassing. The ¯eet, he says, was detained at Saint-Valery for a fortnight; but some time before Michaelmas (29 Sept.) the south wind blew at last. In contrast, William of Poitiers, who would in his lost opening pages have highlighted Emma of Normandy's marriage to King áthelred198 (although her subsequent marriage to the usurper Cnut must have been awkward), prepares in the following section for William's claim to the English throne in 1066 at every suitable opportunity. He tells of 197 For Vimeu and Saint-Valery, see above, pp. xxxi, xlii f. The author of Brevis relatio, p. 29, thought that Saint-Valery was the appointed assembly point for the ¯eet. 198 Davis, `William of Poitiers', pp. 98±9.


lxii

INTRODUCTION

Norman help given to the exiled Edward (1013±41);199 of the `crime' of Earl Godwin against Edward's brother Alfred (1036);200 of Edward, in gratitude for Norman aid, making William his heir (?1051);201 of his sending Earl Harold (Godwin's son) to William to con®rm the succession (?1064/5); and of how the duke rescues the earl from the clutches of Guy of Ponthieu; whereupon Harold takes an oath at Bonneville to secure the crown for the duke, becomes William's sworn vassal, is knighted, and accompanies him on a military expedition into Brittany, before being returned to England with one of the hostages given earlier (?1051).202 A section on William's piety and justice provides a ®tting introduction to his actions in 1066.203 The historicity of this background, some of which the archdeacon had taken from William of JumieÁges,204 does not concern us here. More immediately, starting with the death of Edward, the archdeacon describes the duke's public claim to the English throne, his appeal for justice to the pope and other European rulers, the support he received from a group of his Norman vassals (none connected with Boulogne or Ponthieu), and his logistic preparations for an invasion. The duke maintains a force of 50,000 knights at his own expense while the ¯eet shelters in the estuary of the Dives and neighbouring ports.205 His rival, the per®diously crowned Harold, also raises a navy, which he stations off the English coast, and sends spies to discover the duke's preparations. Finally, the Norman ¯eet, driven by the west wind and suffering grave losses, reaches the anchorage at Saint-Valery. The duke, overcoming all dif®culties, including the desertion of some of his troops, has the body of St Valery carried in procession outside the church. And the hostile wind veers into a favourable quarter.206 It should be noticed that the archdeacon immediately embroiders an incident, the appeal to St Valery, with details which, even if imaginary, are not unlikely. The Bayeux Tapestry, probably drawing on William of JumieÁges, William of Poitiers, or both, begins with Edward's dispatch of Harold on an embassy to an unstated court, shows his capture by Guy of Ponthieu207 and, in some detail, his adventures at the Norman court and with the Norman army in Brittany, which culminate in the earl's receiving knighthood from the duke and taking an unspeci®ed oath on 199 202 205 206

200 201 GG i. 1±2, 5. Ibid. i. 2±3. Ibid. i. 14. 203 204 Ibid. i. 41±6. Ibid. i. 47±59. GND ii. 158±60. Reconstructed map in Bachrach, `Some observations', p. 6; description, pp. 10±11. 207 GG ii. 1±6. This episode is also featured in Brevis relatio, pp. 27±8.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxiii

208

two vested altars at Bayeux (pl. 29) before returning to Edward's court, possibly in disgrace. Edward's death and burial and Harold's coronation follow. And William, when given the news, orders (apparently on the advice of his half-brother Bishop Odo of Bayeux) ships to be built. These are then loaded with military stores. The embarkation at an unnamed place is shown and the destination is given as Pevensey (pls. 1±43). It will be noticed that there is no mention of St Valery. Perhaps it would take something away from the relics at Bayeux. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (versions `C', `D', È', followed by John of Worcester), after telling of Edward's death and Harold's succession, gives detailed accounts of the invasions by Earl Tostig in March and his ally Harold Hardrada king of Norway in September, and of Harold's measures against them, culminating in his victory at Stamford Bridge on 25 September, when the two leaders were killed and Harold was merciful to the survivors. Both `C' and `D' interpolate that Harold had assembled an exceptionally large navy and army because he believed that èorl Willelm' intended to invade; and È' also alludes to his naval force mobilized against William. According to `C', the ¯eet was summoned to Sandwich in early summer and then transferred with the troops to the Isle of Wight. This force, however, was decommissioned on 8 September because supplies ran out; and the navy returned to London, losing some vessels on the way.209 Orderic Vitalis believed that Harold had been defending Hastings, Pevensey, and the other seaports facing Normandy all that year with a large force of men and ships until called away in August to deal with the Scandinavian invasion of the north, when he left the south coast undefended.210 And there is other evidence that he had put the coastal areas on full alert,211 only for his dispositions against a Norman invasion to be disrupted by Tostig's reappearance in an unexpected sector. 3. The Channel crossing The embarkation at Saint-Valery is graphically described by Guy (vv. 78±148). The duke makes a last visit to the church to offer gifts, 208 According to ibid., p. 28, Harold swore three oaths `super ®lacterium quod uocabant oculum bouis'. D. Bernstein, `The blinding of Harold and the meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry', ANS v (1983), 40±64, sees many covert references to this `bull's eye' on the tapestry. 209 210 ASC, s.a. 1066. OV ii. 168. Cf. John of Worcester, ii. 604. 211 Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. 717; F. M. Stenton, `St Benet of Holme and the Norman Conquest', EHR xxxvii (1922), 225±35, at p. 233.


lxiv

INTRODUCTION

and, towards nightfall, all ships have cleared the harbour. It is a moonless night, but every vessel is illuminated by torches. Nevertheless, the duke, for safety's sake, orders the ¯eet to anchor in close formation on the open sea and wait for sunrise. At daybreak the ¯eet weighs anchor and enters an unnamed bay at the third hour (about 09.00 hrs). A comet in the sky announces the English defeat. The landing is unopposed because Harold was ®ghting his brother at the other end of the kingdom and had cut off his head with his sword (Stamford Bridge, 25 Sept.). William protects his beachhead by adapting existing ruined forti®cations (Roman Anderida), and also ravages the countryside. There is no mention of a move to Hastings. William of Poitiers likewise gives a spirited account of the embarkation,212 and has the ¯eet anchor on the high sea until the duke should give the signal to set sail by the lighting of a lantern on his ship's mast and a trumpet call, lest they reach the English coast before dawn. When they set off, still in darkness, the duke's ship213 outpaces the rest and at dawn he is out of sight of the others; so he anchors and has a large meal with spiced wine. After the ¯eet has caught up, they all sail on to Pevensey, where the troops make a peaceful landing, because Harold was in Yorkshire ®ghting Tostig and Harold king of Norway. Another of Harold's enemies was his sister (Queen Edith), for she supported William's claim to the throne.214 The Normans fortify Pevensey and then Hastings. (Elsewhere, he mentions that some ships had landed by mistake at Romney.215) William reconnoitres with an escort of twenty-®ve knights, including William ®tzOsbern. To a warning message from Robert ®tzWimarch, a Norman resident in England, the duke replies that even if he had only 10,000 men instead of the 60,000 he had brought, he would fear nothing. The Tapestry shows the Norman ¯eet, necessarily in line ahead, crossing the Channel (pl. 42±5). One ship (presumably the duke's) has a lantern at its masthead and a sailor apparently about to climb the mast (? to see where the rest of the ¯eet was). The ships are then beached and unloaded, while troops pillage the neighbourhood for food. The duke has a meal, which the bishop (Odo of Bayeux) blesses, 212

GG, ii. 7±10. For the description and name (Mora) of the duke's ship, see E. M. C. van Houts, `The ship list of William the Conqueror', ANS x (1988), 159±83, at pp. 162, 172. Stephen ®tzAirard provided and commanded the king's ship by service tenure: OV vi. 296. 214 215 Cf. below, vv. 625±34. GG ii. 27, p. 142. 213


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxv

followed by a council of war; after which Robert count of Mortain (the duke's other half-brother) orders a castle to be constructed at Hastings. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle `D', William came from Normandy to Pevensey on Michaelmas Eve (28 Sept.) and then built a castle at Hastings, while È' states that he landed at Hastings on Michaelmas Day.216 The dates for the crossing can be harmonized to a start on 28 and arrival on 29 September, or by making William arrive on the 28th and move to Hastings on the next day. But there can be no certainty here. A day's difference, however, does not seriously affect the time of the tides and other phenomena which are discussed below. Generally speaking, in this section there is little signi®cant disagreement. Both the archdeacon and the Tapestry, however, introduce matters which point to their special interests. The former's hyperbole is also evident. The 50,000 knights have expanded to 60,000 troops, although this could be achieved by including the infantry and auxiliary services. Guy's statement that Harold cut off his brother's head with his sword may be compared with his assertion later that William killed Harold with his own hand. Many attempts, using every conceivable approach, have been used by historians and others to estimate the size of the ¯eet and the expeditionary force. But there is no ®rm basis for any of the calculations. Most of the processes are circular. The closest to solid information is an apparently contemporary list of ships and knights promised on oath by some of William's vassals, lay and clerical.217 The ships total 776 (although the text gives 1,000) and the knights 280. Some vassals may, of course, have fallen down on their engagements; and it is uncertain whether ships specially built or hired fall within or outside the list. Wace's father told him that he had seen 700 less 4 ships sail from Saint-Valery.218 But the rough congruity of the ®gures is meaningless, for the father was not even born at that time.219 Not only the number but also the capacity of the ships employed is unknown. They would in any case have been a motley collection. The hardest evidence, based on excavated Viking 216 ASC, s.a. 1066. The crossing was on the night of St Michael, OV ii. 170, cf. note; on 28 Sept., Brevis relatio, p. 5. 217 Van Houts, `The ship list', pp. 159±83. 218 Wace, vv. 6445±7. GND ii. 164, offers up to (ad) 3,000 ships. Chibnall, GG, p. 111 n. 5, considers that, if all kinds of transports are included, 1,000 is not excessive. 219 J. H. Round, Feudal England (London, 1909), pp. 407±8.


lxvi

INTRODUCTION

ships of the period, is that they could have carried forty to ®fty men. Also to be transported were the warhorses; a complement of eight per vessel is often suggested. But on a calm sea ships can be grossly overloaded. Orderic Vitalis thought that King Henry I's White Ship, which foundered in 1120, was burdened with some 300 passengers besides the crew of ®fty.220 It seems, therefore, likely that a ¯eet of 500 ships could easily have transported some 20,000 troops with their horses, equipment, and luggage. It should also be allowed that the size of the army could have changed between the landing on 28/29 September and the battle of Hastings on 14 October. Desertions are unlikely, but some casualties were inevitable; reinforcements are possible, perhaps likely. All the same, the estimates should not be allowed to get out of hand. Although the ®gure of 280 Norman knights provided by the `Ship List' obviously refers only to the nucleus of the ducal forces and has to be supplemented by (1) their squires, (2) the contingents of those allied and mercenary north-French nobles who provided both wings of the army which fought at Hastings, (3) the infantry component, which usually greatly outnumbered the cavalry, and about which we have little information, and (4) non-combatant support personnel, a total of 20,000 seems far out of reach. An elaborate technical analysis has been made of the administrative and logistic problems which an army of 14,000 (10,000 effectives and 4,000 support personnel) with 3,000 horses would have presented to the Norman command in the weeks before the embarkation at SaintValery.221 They seem insurmountable. It may not be completely irrelevant to recall that Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55 bc with 2 legions, some 10,000 men, carried in about 100 transports, and, more successfully, in the following year with the greater part of 8 legions, some 30,000 legionaries, together with 4,000 cavalry, in 540 transports defended by 28 warships. In 1210 King John needed about 700 ships to transport his army to Ireland, of which the largest constituent was a thousand or more serjeants and crossbowmen. In 1806 the English launched a 5,000-man amphibious operation at Maida on the toe of Italy, and in 1808 Arthur Wellesley landed with 9,000 men to begin the Peninsula campaign. The enormous ®gures given by Guy and multiplied by William of Poitiers do not ®t easily either the ®ghting they describe or the constriction of the battle®eld. 220

OV vi. 296.

221

Bachrach, `Some observations', pp. 1±25.


lxvii

HISTORICAL VALUE 222

More amenable is the course of the invasion. Since it is possible to calculate the time of the tides, moonrise, and other astronomical data for the area on 28±9 September (4±5 Oct. Gregorian) 1066, and weather patterns can be recognized and the effects gauged, the literary accounts can be checked against all these, and, if they make sense, further developed. The accuracy of Carmen in these matters has been acclaimed;223 and the course of events can be reconstructed with reasonable assurance. Whether or not William intended originally to cross the Channel sailing from the Dives in August, and bound via Bar¯eur for the Isle of Wight and Southampton WaterÐthe most direct crossing and one which would take him into the heart of the kingdom224Ðhis ¯eet was driven by westerly gales, consequent on an Àtlantic low', off course and up the lee shore to Saint-Valery, on the left, and sheltered, bank of the estuary of the river Somme. This, according to Carmen (v. 46), unintentional move, may have disrupted not only William's timetable but also his route. The series of low-pressure systems came to an end on 28 September,225 when high atmospheric pressure gave a light southerly wind and allowed the ¯eet to resume its voyage. Since the estuary dried out extensively at low waterÐindeed, twice a day it could be crossed on foot226Ðthe ships to be loaded had to be ¯oated in on the rising tide. It was also necessary for the ¯eet to sail fairly soon after high water to secure good clearance for the heavily laden transports and take advantage of the seaward ¯owing ebb (about 4 knots on 28 September) for rowing or poling the vessels down stream until sails could be raised. On 28 September at Saint-Valery low water was just before 09.00 hrs (GMT) and high water at 15.17, with a height of 9 m. At Cayeux, 8 km. west of Saint-Valery, near the exit of the river channel, high tide was at 14.51, with a similar height. The optimum time of sailing would, therefore, be between 18.00 and 19.00 hrs. The sun set at 17.26 and rose 222 Among the latest studies are C. M. Gillmor, `Naval logistics of the cross-channel operation, 1066', ANS vii (1985), 105±31; J. Neumann, `Chroniclers of the 11±12th centuries on the weather of September 1066 in the English Channel', Weather, xli (1986), 346±9; id., `Hydrographic and ship-hydrographic aspects of the Norman invasion, AD 1066', ANS xi (1989), 221±43; C. and G. Grange, `The Pevensey expedition: brilliantly executed plan or near disaster?', The Mariner's Mirror, lxxix (1993), 261±73. There is not much factual disagreement between them, and the following section is based on their statistics and technical apparatuses. All their ®gures, as they mostly recognize, are only approximate because of the changes in the con®guration of the Somme estuary and 223 Pevensey bay since 1066. Grange, p. 272. 224 As I argued in William I and the Norman Conquest (London, 1965), pp. 67±70. 225 If this date is accepted: see above, p. lxv. 226 `Vita S. Walarici', AASS, April, i. 25; cf. i. 27.


lxviii

INTRODUCTION

at 06.00. The moon, near its ®rst quarter, set at 22.04. If the ¯eet sailed at nightfall, it would not have encountered tidal streams or wind speeds in the Channel which presented any dif®culty. A south wind would have been the best possible for a passage NNW to Pevensey. William could, and surely would, have chosen his objective. He was not sailing into terra incognita. Apart from the maritime trade in the Channel, the Norman monasteries of Grestain and FeÂcamp had possessions in Sussex. And it is very likely that William aimed at Pevensey bay. The sailing distance is about 100 km. (90 from the mouth of the Somme), and, allowing an average speed of between 3 and 4 knots for the ¯otilla, the passage would take at least twelve hours. A period at anchor off the French coast would have allowed the commanders a ®nal review of the situation, enabled the crews and troops to snatch some sleep, and ensured that the English coast was not reached before dawn. Some commentators have imagined that the ¯eet would have sailed according to a predetermined formation, e.g. in line abreast.227 But this is optimistic in view of the motley collection of ships and the level of discipline that might be expected. In the good sailing conditions, torches would serve to keep the boats apart. If the invading force did make the coast about 09.00 hrs,228 it would have been roughly an hour before low water (10.15 on 29 Sept.), and there would have been no dif®culty in beaching the ships and disembarking, in the absence of strong opposition. The con®guration of the coast has changed considerably since 1066, mostly by the retreat of the sea.229 It may well be that none of those who described the landing was personally acquainted with the area, and both the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle È' and the Tapestry name only Hastings. It is also likely that a ¯eet of up to 500 sail, travelling in darkness, would make a dispersed landfall. A few certainly found themselves at Romney in Kent, some 30 or more miles to the east. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that the invasion force was ®rst assembled at Pevensey, 227

Grange, p. 269. But `the third hour', likewise the time at which the battle of Hastings started, may only mean ìn the morning'. 229 For a map of the area, see J. A. Williamson, Evolution of England (2nd edn., Oxford, 1944), p. 70, reproduced by M. & M., p. 110. See also K. M. E. Murray, Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports (Manchester, 1935), p. 208 n. 5; J. A. Williamson, `The geographical history of the Cinque Ports', History, n.s. xi (1926±7), 97±115; A. J. Taylor, Èvidence for a pre-Conquest origin for the chapels in Hastings and Pevensey castles', ChaÃteau Gaillard III, European Castle Studies (1969), pp. 144±51; id., `Belrem', ANS xiv (1992), 1±23, esp. pp. 19±22. I have also pro®ted by correspondence and discussions on these matters with Arnold Taylor. 228


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxix

2. William's Campaign August±December 1066 where there was the shelter of the walls of Roman Anderida, and only later moved to Hastings, a bigger and very much more important harbour, where, on `Castle Hill', the high cliffs were crowned by the earthworks of an Iron Age hill-fort. This promontory offered not only basic defences but also an unrivalled visual command of the coast from Beachy Head to Dungeness. It also afforded easy access to the hinterland and a good road to London. William had a motte-and-bailey castle thrown up within the earthworks, adjacent to the village church, and


lxx

INTRODUCTION

may well have used the church buildings as his headquarters. The Bayeux Tapestry vividly illustrates this phase (pls. 45±52) 4. The preliminaries to the battle Carmen takes us from the landing to the battle by way of some diplomatic exchanges while each commander prepares for the combat (vv. 149±336). First, Harold, as he returns from his victory in the north laden with spoils, is informed by a countryman, who has hastened from Pevensey with the news, that the duke has invaded with French and Breton troops. The king holds a council of war at which it is decided to negotiate with the invader. A monk is sent to the duke with an ultimatumÐeither withdraw or face the king's 1,200,000 troops. This would seem to be two days before the battle, i.e. 12 October, about a fortnight after the landing, when the two armies could not have been very far apart. William replies by explaining the justice of his claim to the throne, by reminding Harold of his undertakings to him and by offering Harold possession of all his inherited lands if he will accept William as king. He also sends on the next day his own monk to Harold with a further statement of the justice of his claim and actions. Harold, however, answers that tomorrow God will show who is the rightful king. He was planning, we are told, by arming under cover of darkness, to make a surprise attack on William's troops when these were still in camp or on the march. The Norman monk on his return ®nds the duke marshalling his forces, tells him that Harold is close at handÐ`you can see his standards'Ðand informs him that Harold intends to attack and has stationed 500 ships to cut off the duke's retreat. Whereupon William draws up his battle-lines. According to William of JumieÁges, Harold, by riding through the night, arrived at the battle®eld in the morning (mane).230 William of Poitiers tells basically the same story as Guy, but elaborates.231 He begins with the arrival of Harold's monk when the duke is inspecting the guard he has placed on his ships, presumably at Hastings. The crafty William pretends to be the ducal steward and thereby delays making a reply until the morrow. He then states his case concerning the throne. After getting a safe-conduct for his own envoy, he sends a monk of FeÂcamp232 to Harold, offering to settle the 230

231 GND ii. 166. GG ii. 11±15. Chibnall, GG ii. 12, p. 120 n. 1, thinks that William would have taken one or more monks with him as guides. Dawson, ii, ad ®n. sheet 3a, n., thought that the monk could have been resident at Rye, a manor owned by the abbey. 232


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxi

dispute by process of law, either English or Norman, or by judicial combat between the two rivals. The monk meets Harold as he advances on Hastings and is brushed aside: Harold exclaims that he is marching to victory. Meanwhile William's scouts report Harold's approach and his plan to destroy the invader by a surprise night attack. He has brought up a ¯eet of 700 ships to prevent William's escape. Whereupon William summons his troops to armsÐmost are out foragingÐtakes the Eucharist, presumably at his headquarters in the village church, and hangs around his neck the relics on which Harold had sworn,233 while Bishops Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey of Coutances with the clergy and monks in attendance pray for a Norman victory. The duke is not dismayed by a sinister omen as he puts on his hauberk,234 and encourages his army with a brief, rousing address. The Tapestry proceeds more by the reports of scouts than by the interchange of envoys (pls. 52±61). After the castle had been built at Hastings the duke is ìnformed about Harold' by someone in civilian clothes but wearing a sword. As he is clean-shaven he would appear to be a Norman (?Robert ®tzWimarch). After a house containing a woman and child is burnt down, the French cavalry arm and march out of Hastings `to ®ght a battle against Harold'. It is presumably the duke who is shown, fully equipped, holding a banner, leaving, perhaps, the church by a ®ne gate, and about to mount a superb stallion. Later, in balancing scenes, William is shown asking an armed knight named Vital235 if he has seen Harold's army, while a fully armed English footsoldier informs the mounted king about William's army. Their reports are left to the imagination. The duke then exhorts his knights to prepare themselves manfully and prudently for the ®ght. 5. Tactics The size of Harold's army at Hastings is as uncertain as that of William's. Guy likened the English phalanx to a dense forest (v. 421), and claimed that many thousands were slain (vv. 555±6). But, as with 233 For the Conqueror's amulets, see E. van Houts, `The memory of 1066 in written and oral traditions', ANS xix (1997), 167±79, at pp. 167±8; Brevis relatio, p. 31. 234 The omen is variously reported. In GG ii. 14, while William is armed for battle, there was a sinistra conuersio of his hauberk; in Brevis relatio, p. 7, it was handed to him inversa. Perhaps it fell or turned to the left (Foreville) or was put on upside-down (Chibnall), or even back to front. 235 For Vital, a vassal of Bishop Odo, later enfeoffed in Kent, see, inter alios, Brooks and Walker, pp. 8, 193 n. 23.


lxxii

INTRODUCTION

the Normans, few English casualties can be named.236 And the English excuse for defeat, that the army was under strength237 would seem, in view of Harold's forced march from Stamford Bridge, to have some substance. William of Malmesbury wrote in the 1120s that Harold had suffered desertions after the battle because he had not shared out the booty, had then received few reinforcements on the march to Hastings, and so was left with little more than mercenary and stipendiary `knights'.238 By this he presumably meant that the king and his brothers had only their household contingents reinforced by those shire-thegns who joined their standards on the march. The Bayeux Tapestry shows but one unprotected archer lurking among the tall and elegant mail-clad and helmeted thegns and housecarls (pl. 63). The English, at least their eÂlite troops, were mounted and some cavalry tactics were open to them. But against the more mobile Viking marauders and invaders they had usually fought defensive battles, dismounted in close formation, ideally creating a `shieldwall'.239 This is what they did at Hastings. Their long two-handed axes were reputed very effective defensive weapons and are featured on the Tapestry, but not mentioned by Guy. A basic thread, however, in his account of the preliminaries to the battle is Harold's determination to attack. This is repeated by William of Poitiers, who considered it the action of a madman, but explicable by his fury at William's devastation of his lands adjacent to the ducal camp.240 The Tapestry's picture of a burning house (pl. 52) may allude to this. Harold, by getting closer to the invader, would force him to 236

Williams, The English, p. 19. Cf. E. van Houts, `The memory of 1066', pp. 170±1. He `fought with the men who were willing to support him', ASC `D'; `fought with him before all the army had come', È'. Cf. John of Worcester, ii. 604: he moved from London when less than half his army had been assembled; he fought before a third of his army had arrived; the English position on the hill was so narrow that many troops deserted 238 and only a few brave men remained with the king. GR i. 422. 239 J. H. Round, `Mr Freeman and the Battle of Hastings', Feudal England, pp. 340±68. For a recent review of English military technology and methods of ®ghting before 1066, with an ample bibliography, see M. Strickland, `Military technology and conquest', ANS xix (1997), 335±82. 240 The author of Vita ádwardi Regis, p. 48, in his interesting character sketch of Harold, defends him expressly against the charge of rashness and claims that he sometimes spent far too long in planning and consultationÐto his disadvantage. OV ii. 170±3, cf. GND ii. 166, when revising GND and GG, inserts an episode in which Harold's mother and brother Gyrth and some friends attempt to persuade the king on his return from Stamford Bridge to London from going immediately to confront the Norman invader. Clearly Harold's conduct of the war against his rivals in 1066 became a matter for debate. 237


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxiii

restrict his excursions. Although both Harold and William were veteran soldiers and, indeed, had campaigned in company in 1064 or 1065, neither had commanded in a classic pitched battle. William had been present at Val-des-Dunes in 1047, and in 1057 had cut up the French rear at Varaville. Harold had campaigned in Wales and Brittany and, merely three weeks before, had smashed the Scandinavian invaders in a poorly described encounter at Stamford Bridge. But none of these was a preparation for a structured engagement.241 It could be, of course, that the battle of Hastings was something less than the set piece imagined by its classically educated recorders. However that may be, a prudent commander at all times, unless certain of his superiority in resources, human and material, and also in tactical position, declines so desperate a gamble as a pitched battle. It was ancient wisdom in the eleventh century that a battle should as a rule be avoided. In the early Middle Ages sieges, skirmishes, ambushes, ravaging, and other small-scale operations were the norm. Guy, however, gives Harold credit for both a strategic and a tactical plan. The king intended to trap William in Hastings by means of stationing a blockading ¯eet off shore and attacking with his army.242 Moreover, as he was a general who preferred to use guile rather than brute forceÐand Guy emphasizes his craftiness by much repetitionÐhe planned to mount, under cover of darkness, a surprise attack on William, presumably while the duke was still in his beachhead camp. This would, indeed, have been a master-stroke.243 And it may well be that Harold had managed to surprise the Vikings at Stamford Bridge. But at nightfall on 13 October the English troops must have been exhausted and, once halted, would have slept like logs. Also, to marshal and direct large forces in the dark, even with a good moon, is an extremely dif®cult operation. Yet Harold had a seasoned and victorious army, as Guy recognizes. He had the initiative and the greater room for manoeuvre. In the event he did not catch the duke in his camp. But he did catch him on the march. Guy states that the battle started before William had time to organize 241 For William as a commander, cf. F. Barlow, `Military society and the art of war', William I and the Norman Conquest (London, 1965), pp. 26±34; J. Gillingham, `William the Bastard at war', Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 141±58. 242 For the English naval power, see Strickland (as above, n. 239), pp. 373±8. 243 OV ii. 172, also takes up this point from GG. True or false, such tactics were plausible and obviously made military sense.


lxxiv

INTRODUCTION

his cavalry; and it would seem that he had initially to send in his infantry unprotected. No contemporary tries to explain William's strategic plans. But his object, possession of the throne, must have required Harold's death, capture, subjection, or expulsion and the ®ghting needed for this. His atrocities against the civilian population, which Guy fully acknowledges and condemns, but excuses as caused by Harold's perjury and done in pursuit of a just cause, were, presumably, intended to draw Harold into a trapÐan engagement far from his own base. William, it may be thought, was in a very dangerous position and had little choice but to march out of Hastings to take his chance in more open country. He had waited on events and now he had to ®ght. Nevertheless, we should not assume that on 13±14 October either Harold or William intended from ®rst to last to ®ght to a ®nish. The king and his brothers, even if mauled, could live to ®ght another day or, preferably, tire or starve the invader out. The duke, if roughly handled, would have been in dire straits, but could possibly have contrived to escape at a cost. Both may have thought in calmer moments that God's verdict should not be irresponsibly or irrevocably invoked. William's army consisted of cavalry and infantry, in unknown proportions, with each nation apparently providing a contingent of both. The footsoldiers are mentioned by all sources, but only in the opening phase of the battle, when they are deployed in front of the squadrons of cavalry. Guy merely speci®es archers (including crossbowmen),244 presumably the most prestigious component of a generally despised arm. John of Worcester lists, besides knights, slingers (fundibalarii), archers and infantry.245 William of Poitiers puts the archers in the front line, with more powerful infantry, protected by hauberks, in the second.246 The Tapestry (pl. 61) likewise shows footsoldiers in the van, all armed with bows. One is protected by a helmet and chainmail; the others seem dressed in padded leather or cloth garments. The one English archer illustrated (pl. 63) has a similar bow but no protective clothing. An infantry unit drawn up in close formation is, as Guy knew, an 244 There is plenty of literature on this subject. Cf. M. & M., p. 25 n. 2 and App. C. Carmen states explicitly (vv. 337±8) that there were crossbowmen among the archers and refers to them again (vv. 81±2). This is accepted by William of Poitiers, GG ii. 16 and OV ii. 172. But none are shown on the Tapestry. It would have been possible to recruit such specialists in 1066, and later William enfeoffed some (ar)balistarii in England: Barlow, William Rufus, p. 126 n. 128, lists ten of these. See also Strickland (as above, n. 239), pp. 355±9. 245 246 John of Worcester, ii. 604. GG ii. 16, p. 126.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxv

easy target for archers. Unless these could be kept at a distance by sorties from the phalanx, the defenders had to accept the punishment until the supply of arrows (which at Hastings could not immediately be replenished from enemy activity) ran out. It would also seem at Hastings that, if they had marched from the camp on foot, they would have been weary. And what they did after failing to make a crucial impression at the very beginning is not recorded. But archers are shown in plenty on the Tapestry towards the end of the battle (pls. 68±71, lower margin); English shields bristle with arrows; Harold may be wounded with one in the head; and it may be that the archers continued, if intermittently, to shoot into the English ranks, possibly, because of the slope, aiming high, and that they played an important part in the ultimate destruction of the English army.247 Whether the Norman cavalry at this time should be described as `heavy' is disputed.248 But, except when the terrain was unsuitable, it was probably the ideal to deploy it in line in preparation for a general charge. This, if properly conducted, was the most awesome feature of the battle®eld: the noise and vibration were terrifying and the weight could be irresistible. The cavalry would normally consist of three divisions. So it was at Troina in Sicily in 1038, when the imperial cavalry, which included a Norman mercenary contingent perhaps 300 strong, charged the enemy position in three battle lines (acies).249 The three divisions could be in extended line or in echelon. If in line, the wings were intended to envelop the enemy. Reserves would normally be held in the rear under the general's immediate command. The supreme commander would seldom, if ever, risk his life at the sharp end. He needed a protected position at the rear, from which, on horseback, he could survey the ®eld and, if necessary beat a hasty retreat. It is, however, doubtful whether William could have mounted a `classic' cavalry charge at Hastings. The battle®eld was uphill, uneven, swampy in parts, especially at the base and on the ¯anks, and probably covered with scrub. Harold's position on the heights was very strong.250 The basic units in William's army would have been conrois, 247

Cf. Cowdrey, `Bayeux Tapestry', p. 62. Strickland (as above, n. 239), p. 360. 249 Cf. Jonathan Shepard, `The uses of the Franks in eleventh-century Byzantium', ANS xv (1993), 275±305, at pp. 282±3. William organized his cavalry in three lines (in tribus ordinibus dispositis), GND ii. 168. That 11th-c. writers seem to use acies (line) and agmen (column) interchangeably, makes interpretation dif®cult. Cf. Chibnall, GG, p. xl. 250 The hill is now not as high as it was in 1066 owing to the levelling required for the building of the abbey. 248


lxxvi

INTRODUCTION

fairly small contingents brought by his feudal vassals and other lords and contractors. When William of Poitiers names some of the soldiers who excelled in the ®ghting he is listing commanders of such squadrons. Some of these units could have been brigaded into larger formations, and there had been ample time for training; but we are given by reporters no indication of a command structure beyond that the duke was in charge of the Normans in the centre, while on one ¯ank were the Bretons and other auxiliaries, and on the other were the French. It is possible that the one division was under Count Alan the Red or his brother Brian;251 but no one wished to publicize these. And it could be that Count Eustace of Boulogne commanded the French, among whom was Robert de Beaumont.252 Eustace, who was highest in rank after the duke and was conspicuous in the ®ghting, may, however, have been, like the duke's half-brothers, Odo of Bayeux and Robert of Mortain, on the Conqueror's `staff'. Certainly the duke, the count and the bishop are shown on the Tapestry acting together at one crucial moment. However that may be, the literary sources assume that the main tactical units were the three cavalry divisions. As for the general charge, the Tapestry shows, as far as it can, the cavalry massed and attacking in various ways with their lances.253 William of Poitiers states expressly that the knights, disdaining to ®ght at a distance, had the courage to ®ght (hand to hand) with their swords.254 It has been doubted whether Norman units, even as small as conrois, could have executed feigned retreats so as to attract undisciplined pursuits, as described by both Guy and William of Poitiers and some of their followers,255 although, when patrols and ambushes were regular features of military operations, such a stratagem might be expected. But, obviously, apologists could thus disguise a real reverse. More generally, it is likely that at Hastings the French combat units 251 D. C. Douglas, `Companions of the Conqueror', History, xxviii (1943), 129±47, at p. 145. 252 GG ii. 19, p. 130, ii. 43, p. 178. Although Robert is called a Norman in GG, was certainly a vassal of the duke and was to have a career in England, he was heir to the count of Meulan in the French Vexin and could have been brigaded with other French troops. 253 There were various techniques for handling the lance. See Jean Flori, Èncore l'usage de la lance . . . La technique du combat chevaleresque vers l'an 1100', Cahiers de civilisation meÂdieÂvale, xxxi (1988), 213±40. The Bayeux Tapestry is used to illustrate: 254 GG ii. 17. pp. 216±20. 255 Brevis relatio, p. 32, reports that the main ducal assault was quickly followed by an attack on a different sector by a column of up to 1,000 Norman knights, who executed a successful feigned retreat. For these tactics, cf. J. M. Carter, Ùne reÂeÂvaluation des interpreÂtations de la fuite simuleÂe d'Hastings', Annales de Normandie, xlv (1955), 27±34.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxvii

were relatively small and the ®ghting consequently disorganized. Conrois could have dealt effectively with isolated English infantry groups. The importance of the victory does not require the battle to have been fought by large armies or according to the drill of military manuals. We may be sure that even the most experienced and disciplined troops engaged could not have taken up the neat geometrical formations shown on modern plans of the battle®eld. 6. The encounter Guy does not indicate the exact site of the battle. Indeed, he does not even name Hastings until the ®ghting is over (v. 597). He mentions that the English emerged from hiding places in the woods (vv. 363±4) and climbed a nearby hill close to a valley and land so uneven as to be uncultivated. It took the Normans by surprise and was a tactical success. William of Poitiers clearly thought that the battle was fought close to the duke's base at Hastings, and was content to repeat Carmen's information about the nature of the site.256 According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, `D' version, the armies clashed àt the hoary apple tree'. John of Worcester placed it nine miles from Hastings.257 The sequences in the Tapestry (pls. 53 ff.) show that the battle was near Hastings and indicate that the site was hilly. Orderic Vitalis claimed that the place was known of yore as senlac,258 which translates the Old English Sandlacu, a sandy brook.259 It is obvious that, as it was uninhabited and uncultivated, it had no proper name. The battle, however, gave it one. It was believed that the abbey church of La Batailge, founded by the Conqueror as atonement for the slaughter, perhaps particularly for the killing of the king, was placed at the very spot where Harold had fallen.260 If so, the battle was fought south of the great medieval forest of Andredesweald, between Caldbec Hill and Telham Hill, by road about 8 miles north-west of Hastings.261 256

257 258 GG ii. 16, p. 128. John of Worcester, ii. 604. OV ii. 172. J. H. Round, `Mr Freeman and the battle of Hastings: the name of ``Senlac'' ', Feudal England, pp. 333±40. Cf. JaÈschke, Wilhelm, p. 9 n. 24. 260 GR, i. 492; Brevis relatio, pp. 30, 32±3. Cf. E. M. Searle, `The abbey of the conquerors: defensive enfeoffment and economic development in Anglo-Norman England', ANS ii (1980), 154±64, at pp. 156±7. 261 Site maps are in Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii (2nd edn, 1875), p. 445; Lemmon, `The campaign', p. 96; R. Allen Brown (from F. H. Baring, from E. James), `The battle of Hastings', ANS iii (1981), 1±21, at pp. 4±5. Freeman wrote on 23 Dec. 1868 to Professor W. B. Dawkins about the march from Hastings to Battle. He had done this walk on the previous day and `found it a weary pull'. He had returned by train: W. R. W. Stephens, The Life and Letters of Edward A. Freeman, 2 vols. (London, 1895), i. 414. 259


lxxviii

INTRODUCTION

3. The Isthmus of the Hastings Peninsula and Battleground From William of JumieÁges262 onwards it was believed that battle was joined àt the third hour' (i.e. about 09.00 hrs, but, perhaps, merely ìn the morning') and that it lasted until nightfall. There would, of course, have been lulls. On Saturday, 14 October (20 Oct. Gregorian) sunrise was about 06.30 and sunset about 17.00 hrs. There 262

GND ii. 168.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxix

is, therefore, no reason why the ®ghting should not have started about nine. As none of the sources comments on the weather, a ®ne autumn day may be assumed.263 According to Guy (vv. 363±414), the English, once clear of the forest, advanced in mass formation. Harold took possession of the hill, reinforced his ¯anks with noblemen (?thegns), planted his standard on the highest point and ordered all other ¯ags to be joined to his.264 The purpose was, presumably, to create a phalanx, and Guy several times refers to it as a `dense wood'. The whole English army dismounted and all the horses were corralled in the rear. Once the troops were in position, the trumpets sounded for battle,265 and the duke led his troops in orderly fashion up the hill. Guy describes the duke's battle formation as three divisions in line, each, apparently, composed of infantry (in the van) and cavalry. He remarks that the French attacked the left, the Bretons the right, while the duke with his Normans fought in the centre. This allows contradictory interpretations;266 and uncertainty over the exact location of the French and Bretons makes it dif®cult to interpret a disastrous episode in the battle and, above all, judge the performance of the several `nations' involved in it. However, Guy's account of the battle is in outline simple and credible. A general and structured attack by the whole ducal army on the English phalanx on the hill is, after ®erce hand-to-hand combat, repulsed. A feigned retreat by French troops successfully attracts an English pursuit and allows both wings of the 263 On 7 Jan. 1881, in a letter to Miss Edith Thompson, Freeman wrote, `What odd things people do ask! Do you remember the painter who wrote to know what kind of weather it was on the day of the great battle, as if I should not have put it into my story if I had known': Stephens, Life and Letters, ii. 216. 264 Brevis relatio, p. 32, is the ®rst literary source to refer to the location of Harold's `standart'. The collection of banners suggests the presence of the contingents of a number of local communities. Cf. J. Campbell, `The late Anglo-Saxon state', Proc. of the British Academy, xxxvii (1994), 39±65, at p. 60. 265 Norman Consuetudines required an attack to be announced by the wearing of the hauberk, the carrying of a ¯ag, and the sounding of the horn/trumpet (cornu): C. H. Haskins, Norman Institutions (New York, 1918), app. D, sect. 4. 266 The verb used for the wings' activity is peto, which has the general meaning of `seeking'. Dawson and M. & M. translated it àttack', which in the context is reasonable. Orlandi, `Recensione', p. 220, however, preferred òccupy' (occupano). As Guy presumably viewed the battle®eld from the standpoint of the duke's headquarters, if the French òccupied' the left and the Bretons the right, their positions are clear enough. But if they attacked the English left and right wingsÐand Guy, v. 374, allowed that the phalanx had ¯anks (latera)Ðtheir position in the ducal army is reversed. Indeed, William of Poitiers, GG ii. 17 (copied by OV ii. 174), puts the Bretons on the left (below, p. lxxx) and also states that Robert de Beaumont was in command of a unit on the right ¯ank (GG ii. 19). For Robert's status, see above, p. lxxvi, n. 252.


lxxx

INTRODUCTION

ducal army to penetrate the weakened phalanx. The English losses are severe; but the many survivors counterattack so strongly that the pretended ¯ight is turned into a headlong rout, and the duke has great dif®culty in keeping the ¯eeing French and Norman troops on the battle®eld. After the recovery, there is a more disorganized phase, in which the duke is personally involved in the ®ghting and sometimes in great danger. Finally, with the death of Harold as darkness falls, all organized English resistance ends. The English losses are put at many thousands. The duke spends the night on the battle®eld while Hugh of Ponthieu pursues the fugitives until daybreak. The few illustrative details Guy inserts are picturesque and serve his purpose: the antics of the juggler Taillefer between the two armies; the unhorsing of the duke, ®rst by Harold's brother Gyrth and then by the son of Helloc, both killed in revenge by the duke's own hand; and the killing of Harold, probably by the joint efforts of the duke, the count of Boulogne, Hugh of Ponthieu, and Gilfard. William of Poitiers follows the poem in general, but revises it heavily in detail.267 He omits some of Guy's material, for instance, Taillefer and, surprisingly, the deaths of Gyrth, the son of Helloc, and even King Harold, but, on balance, contributes more; and he also introduces a largely different set of actors. He has the enormous English army reinforced by Danish units;268 the Normans advance beneath a banner sent by the pope; and the duke is in the centre of the cavalry with his crack troops so that he can direct the battle by signal and voice. But when the archdeacon comes to the course of the battle he substitutes his own pattern. The English ®ght off the infantry and then the cavalry, which attacks with swords, and force the Bretons and all the auxiliaries on the left ¯ank to turn tail. Believing that William had been killed, the whole of the ducal army ¯ees. Most of the English army goes in pursuit. But the duke, by uncovering his face, manages to rally his troops and, by encircling the pursuers, kills some thousands of them. Nevertheless, the English regroup and ®ght bravely against repeated attacks aimed at breaching the shield-wall. Soldiers from Maine, France, Brittany, and Aquitaine, but above all the Normans, prove their mettle. Remembering how earlier they had turned a retreat to their advantage, they twice enjoy the same success 267

GG ii. 17±24. OV ii. 224±6, claimed that King Svein of Denmark's dispatch of a military expedition to England in the autumn of 1069 was partly in revenge for the casualties his men had suffered in Harold's war (con¯ictus). Cf. Williams, The English, p. 35. But William of Poitiers could have been thinking of Anglo-Danish housecarls. 268


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxxi

with feigned ¯ights. The archdeacon then lists some of the participants in the battle, starting with Eustace of Boulogne and including Walter Giffard, and rates the duke the bravest of them all: William had three horses killed under him. By nightfall the English phalanx has been broken. The king and his two brothers are dead. The archdeacon then pointedly contradicts the poet: the duke, far from remaining on the ®eld, goes in pursuit of the fugitives; and the heroism of Hectorides (Hugh of Ponthieu) is replaced by the cowardice of Eustace of Boulogne. The English rally where they are protected by a broken rampart and a labyrinth of ditches. Eustace, with ®fty knights, halts and is only prevented from retreating by William's urgent command; whereupon, while advising the duke against proceeding, he is struck between the shoulders with such a heavy blow that blood gushes from his nose and mouth and he is taken away half-dead by his men. William overcomes the opposition; but in the ®ghting fall some of the most famous Norman warriors. Orderic names Engenulf castellan of Laigle.269 While William of Poitiers embroiders, the Bayeux Tapestry simpli®es the story, yet offers a version of its own (pls. 60±73). It shows the archers and the cavalry attacking the shield-wall and implies that Harold's brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine (both named), were killed in the ®rst phase of the battle. Next, both English and French are killed in an attack on the hill; and Bishop Odo of Bayeux, Eustace of Boulogne and the duke, showing his face, rally the troops. The following scene depicts the death of Harold, which can be interpreted as illustrating Guy's account, but omitting the names of the killers.270 The last pictures on the, now incomplete, Tapestry are of the mounted pursuit of the English survivors, some on foot, some on horseback, while (in the margin) men loot the battle®eld. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contributes no details. These several accounts differ little in broad outline. There can be no doubt that the ducal army suffered, perhaps initially, a great reverse, and that the duke himself managed to rally his troops and mount a series of debilitating attacks on the English phalanx. It is also likely that Harold, if not winning, was at least not losing the battle before he was killed late in the day. But the different versions are not easily reconcilable in detail. On one matter of outstanding interestÐ 269 OV ii. 176. In his interpolation of GND ii. 168, the English make a stand by an ancient rampart (agger), which in some later writers becomes `Malfosse', an immense ditch. 270 See below, pp. lxxxii±lxxxiv.


lxxxii

INTRODUCTION

when was Harold killed?Ðthere is a sharp con¯ict of view. While all sources accept that the battle ended at nightfall when the English troops realized that all their leaders were dead, William of JumieÁges (followed by Orderic) believed that Harold fell during the initial Norman assault on the phalanx and that his two brothers perished later,271 while Carmen and the Tapestry put Harold's death at the very end of the battle. The latter artistically preferable version, leading to a dramatic climax, is, because of this, open to suspicion. It may be that, because of the fog of war, no one really knew. On the related matterÐhow did Harold die?Ðthere is no con¯ict because William of Poitiers and Orderic do not say. According to William of JumieÁges he was `fatally pierced by wounds', probably merely a topos. But both Guy and the librettist try to provide details. The former, who could have been the more explicit, unfortunately used language that can be variously understood.272 Four knights, presumably each with his attendants (conroi), were involved. The better-supported of the interpretations makes these Duke William, Count Eustace of Boulogne, Hugh `the noble heir of Ponthieu' (Hectorides), and Gilfard `known by his father's surname'. The last two also are identi®able persons. Hugh of Ponthieu, Guy I's younger brother, could easily have been his heir.273 Gilfard may be the French baron, Robert (son of) Gilfard, who attests charters of King Philip of France in 1066 and on 7 August 1067 at the siege of Chaumont-surLoire, where Guy also was to be found. Rather later, Robert witnesses charters in England.274 Alternatively, the four are, omitting the duke, Eustace, the (unnamed) noble heir of Ponthieu, Hugh (II of Montfordsur-Risle), and (Walter) Giffard (I, count of Longueville-sur-Scie, not far from the river Bresle, which divides Vimeu from Normandy). Both Hugh and Walter are featured by William of Poitiers as veterans of the battle of Mortemer (1054) and heroes at Hastings.275 According to Guy, the four were the best among those present and each dealt Harold a mortal blow (vv. 537±50). The fourth knight, 271

272 GND ii. 168; OV ii. 176. See above, p. xxxv. See especially, H. Petrie, Monumenta Historica Britannica, p. 866 n.d.; Engels, Dichters (1967), pp. 13±14; M. & M., pp. 117±18; van Houts, `Latin poetry', pp. 54±5. 274 Prou, Recueil, pp. 67±9, no. 24 (cf. p. 269, no. 116); 100±3, no. 34. For the siege of Chaumont, see Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou, ii. 170±6; Jean Dunbabin, `Geoffrey of Chaumont, Thibaud of Blois and William the Conqueror', ANS xvi (1994), 111±12. R. Giffard occurs in two of William I's charters at the end of the 1170s: Regesta, nos. 101, 169. He also witnesses William and Gundreda de Warenne's foundation charter for Lewes priory, c.10786c.Dec. 1081, Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. C. T. Clay, viii (1949), no. 2 and 275 pl. 1. GG i. 31, ii. 22; Davis, `The Carmen', pp. 248±50. 273


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxxiii

Gilfard, hacked off his thigh (coxa, v. 539) and carried the severed limb some distance away. The Tapestry's version, unfortunately in a heavily restored section, has a not dissimilar scenario (pls. 68±72). After a scene which features and names Bishop Odo, the duke and Count Eustace, under the title, `Here the Normans are ®ghting and those who were with Harold have fallen', six knights attack ®ve English thegns standing on a hill, all of whom have arrows sticking in their shields. The scene closes with the enigmatic picture of a bare-headed and unarmoured English soldier held by the hair by an unhorsed Norman knight so that he can be beheaded with his own sword.276 One dead thegn is shown, and archers are featured in the lower margin. Then, under the title, `Here King Harold is killed', appear four knights, one on the left, one in the centre and two on the right, attacking eleven mailed English thegns, standing on the same hill, four of them under a cut-out plastic dragon (wyvern) standard. The ¯anking knights attack with spears, the one in the centre with a sword. Which of the men in the latter scene is Harold has been, and remains, a matter of dispute.277 Four battle casualties are shown, in the usual strip-cartoon fashion, either falling or prostrate: the standard-bearer on the left, two men on the right and one in the centre. It could be thought that the ¯anking casualties are members of the royal bodyguard. This leaves two candidates, one living and one dying. Under the words harold: rex is shown a noble ®gure, holding in his left hand both a decorated shield and a lance, and, with his right, clutching an arrow which could be thought to have wounded him in the head, especially as he must have freed his right hand in order to grasp the arrow. And then, under the words interfectus est, a tumbling man, who has been wielding a two-handed battle-axe, and is, therefore without a shield, is being slashed on his left thigh by the sword of his mounted assailant. The title `King Harold' and the dragon standard can be thought indisputable identi®cations. But this man is on his feet, even if recoiling slightly as he clutches the arrow; and it is the falling man who is indicated by the verb in the title as the royal victim. The dilemma can be avoided only by accepting that the king (like the dragon standard) is shown twice, ®rst in all his majesty, even if wounded by an arrow, and then in his downfall, although this would 276 Cf. D. Bernstein, `The blinding of Harold and the meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry', ANS v (1983), 40±64, at pp. 62±3. 277 Cf. Brooks and Walker, pp. 32±4; Bernstein, `The blinding', pp. 41±2.


lxxxiv

INTRODUCTION

be at variance with the designer's usual reluctance immediately to repeat a character. To elaborate further, by suggesting that the librettist was aware of different versions of the king's death, and showed both, would probably be going too far. But the arrow version may already have been in circulation. It ®rst appears in the Monte Cassino chronicle of Amatus written before 1080.278 In 1099±1102 Baudri of Bourgueil invoked Queen Dido's letalis arundo (Aen. iv. 73) to have Harold perforated by an arrow (v. 463). And William of Malmesbury, writing not much later, says that Harold was killed by an arrow in the brain. It could be that their fatal arrow is an interpretation of the Tapestry or derived from tradition. But William of Malmesbury, who was a great harmonizer, adds that a knight cut off the king's thigh ( femur)279 as he lay on the ground, for which infamy the Conqueror expelled him from his service.280 William of Poitiers's evasion of the topic is of great signi®cance. He either did not believe, or did not like, the versions available to him. His account of the ®nding of Harold's body is also revealing. He states that it was not until the following day that the corpses of the three brothers were discovered and that Harold's, which lacked all adornment (decor), was recognized not by his face but only by certain marks (signa).281 The implication is that the bodies were both dis®gured and despoiled. There could have been no certainty. The standard modern account of the battle had already been established from William of Poitiers and his derivatives when in 1826 the poem arrived on the scene. And there has been little eagerness to revise it, although, given the blatant partiality of the archdeacon, the Norman story cannot be entirely true. The stumbling-block is uncertainty over which account is the more accurate and reliable. Yet, with regard to the most surprising novelty, the butchery of Harold by the duke, Eustace of Boulogne, Hugh of Ponthieu, and Gilfard, which has attracted almost universal scorn, it should be noticed that Guy knew, probably personally, all four. His version could, therefore, be a ¯ight of fancy in order to exalt the 278 AimeÂ du Mont-Cassin, Storia de' normanni, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (Rome, 1935), i. 3, p. 11. 279 Harold was smitten hip and thigh; and it is easier to imagine the removal of a thigh than a hip. Coxa, meaning `hip' in classical Latin, evidently shifted to meaning, or including, `thigh' in medieval Latin; and William of Malmesbury understood it in the latter sense and substituted the more classical femur (see next note). M. & M., p. 37 n. 1, suggested that Guy's coxa might be a euphemism. 280 281 GR i. 456. GG ii. 23, p. 136; ii. 25, pp. 138±40.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxxv

achievements of his kinsman and other French barons whom he admired. Alternatively, it could have been the invention of a vainglorious Hugh or Gilfard when in his cups. But equally well it could be that the Norman chroniclers chose to conceal an episode which might have been considered, by William of Poitiers in particular, as shameful. The divinity which doth hedge a king may well have given some shelter even to the `perjured usurper' Harold. The Conqueror's penitential church which covers the site should not be overlooked. Guy, who probably disliked the Normans and their duke, could have thought that the deed, on balance, was to the honour of his family and friends. 7. The aftermath of the battle After the description of the battle, William of Poitiers continues to revise the poem but becomes increasingly dissatis®ed with its version and turns to some other source or sources of information. According to Guy (vv. 567±96), at daybreak after the battle (Sunday, 15 Oct.), the duke has his own dead buried, but leaves the English corpses, except Harold's, to feed the worms, wolves, dogs and birds.282 And to Harold's burial Guy pays considerable and noteworthy attention. The duke refuses to sell the dismembered corpse to Harold's mother Gytha; instead he entrusts it to a man, identi®ed as Anglo-Norman and Harold's compater, who buried it on a cliff under a pile of stones and a tombstone inscribed with a satirical epithet. After distributing alms to the poor (an immediate penitential act), William assumes the royal title and leaves Hastings. William of Poitiers both embroiders and also, most pointedly, `corrects' this story.283 The corpses of Harold and his two brothers were found side by side. The undertaker is identi®ed as William Malet. The archdeacon justi®es the killing by reciting Harold's `crimes' and claims that his death proved the wrongfulness of his accession to the throne by means of Edward's deathbed bequest. William's was a stupendous victory. Improving on the Greeks and Romans, he had subjected all the English towns on a single day, between the third hour and evening, with Norman troops and only minimal help from elsewhere. The conqueror could have immediately 282 The Normans ®rst looted the English corpses. GND, ii. 170. Lemmon, `The campaign', p. 115, reckoned that in such a battle each side would have lost about 30% of its strength. 283 GG ii. 25±6. Cf. Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 119 n. 9.


lxxxvi

INTRODUCTION

ascended the royal throne, put a crown on his head, distributed all the riches of the kingdom as booty to his knights, executed some of the magnates, and exiled others, but instead he chose to be merciful and even allowed the English to bury their dead. The signi®cance of Harold's tumulus grave and the associated question whether William succeeded his victim at this point and on his tomb, have interested some historians.284 What is clear is that William of Poitiers drastically revised Guy's more primitive and pagan presentation in order to show his hero as a Christian and civilized prince. But he did not take the whitewashing far enough for Harold's religious foundation at Waltham in Essex. In ¯at contradiction to the Carmen±William of Poitiers±Orderic story, William of Malmesbury, writing in the 1120s, believed that the Conqueror had handed the body over gratis to Gytha, who had then had it buried in her son's convent.285 Waltham itself, after its reform in 1177, produced a completely different version of how it obtained the body.286 It had sent two canons, Osgod Cnoppe and áthelric Childemaister, to accompany Harold's army to Hastings; and these, after the battle, persuaded William to let them have the king's body. But they had to fetch Edith Swanneck, who had been the king's mistress, to identify the despoiled and dis®gured corpse among the heaps of the slain. It was then conveyed to Waltham for burial. There are those who think that a good case can be made for the substantial truth of at least the original Waltham story on the grounds that William would not have refused Harold Christian burial.287 That is as maybe. But whether the body selected by William or Edith was in fact Harold's is a no less insoluble problem. There has also been a more recent claimant to possession of the remains. On 7 April 1954 a large stone cof®n containing some fractured bones, but no skull and apparently only one femur, was excavated under the chancel arch in Bosham church in Sussex; and in 1996 John Pollock claimed that these were the relics of Harold, returned to the `family' church.288 284 Especially, M. & M., pp. xliiif., JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 20±52; and see below, pp. 4, n. 2, 35, n. 5, 45, n. 5. 285 GR ii. 306±7. Cowdrey, `Bayeux Tapestry', p. 60, suggests that this could have been pictured in the lost ending of the Tapestry. 286 The Waltham Chronicle, ed. and trans. L. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (OMT, 1994), pp. 46±56. 287 Cf. Chibnall, ibid., p. xlv. Williams, The English, pp. 129±30, agrees. 288 J. Pollock, Harold: Rex. Is King Harold II buried in Bosham Church? (Penny Royal Publications, 1996).


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxxvii

For William's progress from Hastings to London the literary sources give largely idiosyncratic, and sometimes discordant, accounts. Guy acknowledges that William's army, in order to inspire terror and induce surrender (apart from seeking provisions and spoils) continued to burn and pillage the countryside at least until Christmas (cf. vv. 657±8). Guy also highlights his treatment of some places (vv. 597 ff.). William, after staying a fortnight in his camp at Hastings (i.e. until 30 Oct.), marches to Dover, which surrenders, but suffers the loss of many houses, emptied to provide billets for a Norman garrison. Whereupon Canterbury and some other places submit and send tribute. William stays at Dover a month (i.e. until the end of November). Winchester, a city held by the widowed queen (Edith) in dower, likewise acknowledges the conqueror and pays tribute. He then marches to London; and to its siege, which was followed by the coronation (i.e. a period of some three weeks) Guy devotes 118 lines (vv. 635±752). It is in the walled and turreted city that the English attempt to make a stand against the invader; and the poet gives some account of the history and importance of the place and adjacent Westminster. The leading citizen is Ansgar, a man crippled by war wounds; and William, after besetting the walls and erecting a siege-engine, conducts crafty and successful negotiations for the city's surrender. Ansgar is probably to be identi®ed with Esgar the Staller; and the whole of this episode is unique apart from a possible preÂcis by Baudri of Bourgueil (vv. 529±50). Guy must have got the information, true or false, from someone with London connections, possibly a cleric of St Paul's cathedral or a monk of Westminster abbey. William of JumieÁges takes the duke-king direct from Hastings to Wallingford in Berkshire, where he crossed the Thames and pitched camp. When an advance guard (milites precursores) entered the city, presumably across the River Fleet and by Fleet Street through Ludgate in the middle of the western stretch of the city wall, it encountered a large force of `rebels' determined to expel the intruders. But after the English troops had been heavily defeated, the citizens submitted and gave hostages.289 London archaeologists, having discovered some `Saxon' burials on the foreshore of the now underground Fleet, date this `battle' 20 December and locate it at the junction of Cheapside and the Folkmoot, just to the north of St 289

GND ii. 170.


lxxxviii

INTRODUCTION

Paul's. This forgotten battle, they claim, was almost as important as Hastings.290 William of Poitiers, however,291 believed that the duke, after burying the Norman dead and leaving a garrison at Hastings under a strong commander, identi®ed by Orderic as Humphrey de Tilleul, the brother-in-law of Hugh de Grandmesnil,292 immediately marched to Romney, which he punished for the massacre of some of his strayed invasion force, and thence to Dover, where he indemni®ed citizens whose houses had been torched by his soldiers and where many of his knights went down with dysentery from eating fresh meat and drinking water. After Canterbury had submitted he himself fell seriously ill when encamped nearby, but pushed on towards London. The archdeacon's version of the events at London diverges even further from Guy's.293 The leaders of the opposition to William were Archbishop Stigand and the sons of Earl álfgar of Mercia (i.e. Earls Edwin and Morkere), who had elected Edgar átheling as king. William camped nearby, perhaps near Southwark, the suburb at the south end of the old wooden London Bridge. The city had been reinforced by many soldiers, and William sent 500 knights against an English sortie (?across the bridge), repulsed it, massacred its rearguard, and set (?Southwark) on ®re. He then continued his march upstream, crossed the Thames at Wallingford, where Stigand submitted and abjured Edgar átheling, and, as he approached London (from the west or north-west) received the submission of the city's of®cials. Orderic preferred this to William of JumieÁges's account, but treated it cursorily.294 English writers told another story. ASC `D' has `Count William', after a wait at Hastings, ravage all regions on his march to Berkhamstead, in Hertfordshire, north of London, while Archbishop Ealdred of York and the citizens of London wanted to have Edgar Cild as king. But these, together with Earls Edwin and Morkere and all the leading citizens of London, submitted at Berkhamstead and gave hostages and swore oaths. John of Worcester elaborated this version.295 On his progress William laid waste Sussex, Kent, Hampshire, Middlesex, and Hertfordshire and allowed his troops to continue plundering even after the surrender at Berkhamstead. 290 291 293 295

J. Harlow, The Sunday Times, 29 Dec. 1996. 292 GG ii. 27±8. OV ii. 220. 294 GG ii. 28±9. OV ii. 180±2. John of Worcester, ii. 604±6.


HISTORICAL VALUE

lxxxix

On the other hand, William of Malmesbury, writing in the 1120s, made the duke's progress from Hastings to London remarkably paci®c, triumphant, and `regal', culminating in a warm welcome in the city.296 The Norman and English versions can easily be con¯ated and produce an account which is more factual and comprehensive than Guy's, whose more limited contribution can be accommodated and is not necessarily complete ®ction. But it probably misrepresents William's military strategy. The duke, by conducting a destructive encircling march, accepted that he could not take London by direct assault. It was intimidationÐwhich Guy does acknowledgeÐwhich led to the submission of the demoralized surviving English leaders. Guy's and William of Poitiers's accounts converge with their treatment of the duke's coronation, and here again the archdeacon's version seems to be a revision of the poem. Carmen (vv. 753±835) goes straight from the surrender of London to the preparations for the coronation in Westminster Abbey on 25 December.297 For the assumption of the crown he has earned and the change of his title from duke to king, William ordered new regalia (crown, sceptre, and rod) to be made; and the precious stones which adorned this (imaginary) diadem are listed. The coronation rites, up to the unction, where the text breaks off, are described; and the participants, including two metropolitans of equal rank, a Norman bishop and the precentor, who conducts the service, are mentioned. William of Poitiers concludes his story of the submission of London with the English bishops and other nobles begging the Conqueror to take the crown since they were accustomed to serving a king.298 William, however, consults some of his men and expresses his doubts: the situation was confused, the kingdom not yet conquered; he would prefer paci®cation to a coronation. Moreover, if God should grant him the honour he would like his wife to be crowned with himÐand so on. But his advisersÐand a speech by Aimeri IV, viscount of Thouars in Poitou, is reportedÐinsist that it was the unanimous wish of the army. So William orders a castle to be built in London and preparations made for the coronation while he waits outside. On the appointed day, the archbishop of York and the bishop of Coutances ask the congregation if they accept William as 296 297 298

GR i. 460. See also above, pp. xxxvi±xxxviii. GG ii. 28±30, pp. 148±50.


xc

INTRODUCTION

king; but the noisy assent is misinterpreted by the armed and mounted guards posted outside the abbey who set ®re to some houses. The clergy, however, proceed with the ceremony (which is not described). William is crowned, not by Stigand, who has been anathematized by the pope, but by the archbishop of York, a man of unimpeachable integrity. William has gained the throne by grant of the succession, con®rmed by the oath of the English (i.e. in 1051), and by right of conquest. He had been crowned at the wish of the English magnates and was closely related to Edward (the Confessor). Orderic Vitalis, whose narrative is based on the archdeacon's, inserts here his praise of William's book and his mention of Guy's poem.299 The poet's order of service is, as has already been noticed,300 not only ®ctional but also truncated by the loss of some of the text. It seems impossible, on codicological evidence, to calculate the extent of the loss; and it could be no more than the ®nal pentameter.301 That William of Poitiers omits the liturgy and Baudri of Bourgueil the whole ceremony (we do not know how the Tapestry ended) suggests dissatisfaction with Guy's version. The archdeacon's identi®cation of the consecrator remains contentious; but his supplementary detail, the building of a castle in London and the ®re-raising by the Norman soldiers guarding the coronation, seems likely enough. And the arson, as derogatory to the Normans, points to the poet. But the poem may simply have ®nished, as JaÈschke has suggested,302 with no more than the completion of the ceremonyÐthe imposition of the crown and the delivery of the sceptre and rod, as foreshadowed in the text (vv. 783, 793±4). The coronation, with, perhaps, a short epilogue, would seem to be the logical end of the work. 8. Conclusions On the basis of the foregoing analysis of the near-contemporary descriptions of the Norman invasion, it seems fair to conclude that all are variations on a common literary theme. Each has its peculiarities due to its individual bias, purpose, artistic treatment, points of reference, and, no doubt, errors. And so it has been ever since. It has also been shown that the fons et origo of the whole family is Carmen. If Guy of Amiens had not written his poem, the story would 299 300 301 302

OV ii. 184±6. See above, p. xxxvi f. Above, p. xx. JaÈschke, Wilhelm, pp. 15±16.


HISTORICAL VALUE

xci

probably have been quite different. This does not mean that Carmen necessarily provides the best or most accurate account. There can be no simple and assured verdict on the question of the overall trustworthiness of the poem as an historical source. But, as the Urtext, it deserves proper attention and the utmost respect.


4. The opening and ending of Carmen, BibliotheÁque Royale, Brussels, nos. 10615±10719, fo. 227v, bottom half of column 2, and fo. 230v, middle section of column 2


SIGLA Brussels, BibliotheÁque Royale de Belgique Albert Ier, 10615±729, fos. 227v±230v B Brussels, BibliotheÁque Royale de Belgique Albert Ier, 9799±809, fo. 142v ed. the present editor eds. consensus of previous editors Engels L. J. Engels, Ònce more: the Carmen de Hastingae proelio', ANS ii (1979), 3±18, at pp. 16±17 n. 59 Hall J. B. Hall, `Critical notes on three medieval Latin texts: Carmen de Hastingae Proelio', Studi medievali, 3rd ser., xxi (1980), 899±916, at pp. 903±7 M. & M. The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens, ed. Catherine Morton and Hope Muntz (OMT, 1972) Michel F. Michel, Chroniques anglo-normandes, iii (Rouen, 1840), pp. 1±38 Orlandi 1 G. Orlandi, review of M. & M. in Studi medievali, 3rd ser., xiii (1972), 196±222 Orlandi 2 id., `Some afterthoughts on the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio', in Media Latinitas: A Collection of Essays to Mark the Occasion of the Retirement of L. J. Engels, ed. R. I. A. Nip et al. (Instrumenta Patristica, xxviii, Turnhout, 1996), pp. 117±27 Petrie Monumenta historica Britannica, ed. H. Petrie and J. Sharpe (London, 1848), pp. 856±72 A


d:/3barlow/barltxt.3d ± 9/7/99 ± 8:36 ± vk/mp

CARMEN DE HASTINGAE PROELIO

TEXT AND TRANSLATION


hCARMEN DE HASTINGAE PROELIOj hprooemiumj

Quem probitas celebrat, sapientia munit et ornat, Erigit et decorat, Lhanfrancumj Whidoj1 salutat.

f. 227v

Cum studiis clarus uidearis lucifer ortus Et tenebras pellis radiis dum lumina spargis, Per mare nec fragilis set sis tutissima nauis, Te precor ad portum carmen deducere nostrum; Inuidie uentisa agitari nec paciaris, Nec Boree ¯atum timeat, set litus amenum Remige te carpat, ne lesum rupe labescat. Sis iudex illi iustus, de moreb magistri Quod minus est addens et quod super, obsecro, radens.2 Nullus, credo, sibi sub te tutore nocebit; Sic tuus incipiat ®eri meus iste libellus, Vt careat uiciis et laudibus ampli®cetur. Euitare uolens dispendia desidiose Mentis et ingenii, placeant cum carmina multis, Carminibus studuic Normannica bella3 reponi. Elegi potius leuibus cantare Camenis4 Ingenium mentis uanis quam subdere curis. Cum sit et egregium describere gesta potentum, Finibus occiduis que gessit regia proles Willelmus, titulis commisi posteritatis. Nam sibi sublatum regnum uirtute redemit Et uictor patrios extendit trans mare ®nes: Ergo decet memorare suum per secula factum.

f. 228r

a

AB 1 2

uentis eds.; mentis A; mentis or meritis (with alteration) B c studii B For L. and W., see above, pp. xiv ., xxv. The ®rst eleven verses are leonine with monosyllabic rhyme.

b

5

10

15

20

25

more eds., morte


hprologuej

To L., renowned for his virtue, and protected, armed, embellished and exalted by wisdom, W. sends greetings.1 Since, great scholar, like the risen Morning Star you dispel the darkness and spread light by your rays, and are not a frail, but a safe ship for carrying my poem to port, do not allow it, I beseech you, to be shaken by the winds of envy or frightened by Boreas' blasts or dashed on a rock and sink, but, with you as steersman, let it reach a friendly shore. Judge it justly; and, I beg, like a schoolmaster, supply what it might lack and erase any excess.2 No one, I believe, with you as tutor, will come to grief. May, therefore, this little work of mine begin to become yours, so that it may be freed from errors and enhanced by virtues. Wanting to avoid wasting my time and talents in idleness, I decided, since poetry is so popular, to write some verses about the Norman Conquest,3 and, instead of putting my mind to worthless business, to sing in light measures.4 Also, as it is praiseworthy to write of the deeds of mighty men, I have entrusted to the tablets of posterity the deeds which that royal ospring, William, performed on the world's western rim. For manfully he recovered a kingdom of which he had been deprived, and by his victory extended the boundaries of his ancestral lands across the seaÐa deed worthy to be remembered for ever.

3 The plural noun, as often in verse and frequently in Carmen, is used, for metrical reasons, instead of the singular. 4 Davis, `The Carmen', p. 256, following E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. W. R. Trask (London, 1953), p. 430, interpreted this as `to write a secular poem'. And, he thought, as it is contrasted with `devoting his genius to vain causes (or, worthless business) ', it points away from episcopal authorship.


4


hcarmenj

1

Iusticie cultor, patrie pax, hostibus hostis, Tutor et ecclesie, rex benedicte, uale! Amodo torpentes decet euigilare Camenas Et calamos alacres reddere laude tua. Mutasti comitis regali nomine nomen2 Quod tibi nobilitas contulit et probitas; Iulius alter,3 enim, cuius renouando triumphum Erenem gentem cogis amare iugum. Innumerus terre populus, nec per®da nautis Equora, nec litus saxa nociua ferens, Incumbens hyemis nec te deterruit horror, Quin ab auis peteres regna relicta tibi. Posteritate4 fauet tibi ius, legis quoque summa; Ergo tibi terror omnis ademptusa erat. Tempore set longo te trans freta ducere classes Tempestas prohibet imber et assiduus. Dum prestolaris uentorum prosperitatem Et mare turbatum cogit abire retro, Eurus et equoreas crispabat ¯atibusb undas. Tunc tibi planctus erat spesque negata uie;5 Tuque, uelis nolis,c tandem tua litora linquens, Nauigium uertis litus ad alterius. Portus ab antiquis Vimaci6 fertur haberi; Que uallat portum Somana nomen aque. Docta nimis bello gens est per cuncta ®deled Fluctiuagis prebens sepius hospicium.7 d

a adeptus B ? emend to ®delis Michel

b

¯uctibus B

c

30

35

40

45

50

nolis added in a second hand A

1 There is no break in the MSS. But elegiac couplets replace hexameters. Moreover, the poet now addresses the `blessed king' and maintains this style for some 115 lines. It is, however, awkward that in the opening couplet, in contrast to the ®rst lines of the preface, where L. is greeted, the king is bidden farewell (uale). This, however, may simply signify the change of subject, the partitio or divisio of the rhetoriciansÐor uale may have been used for the metrically impossible salue. M. & M. translated it `Hail!' 2 The change of title is repeated in vv. 595±6 and 756, and was, or became, a topos. Cf. Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 51±2. The problem is, at what point did William actually become king? See above, p. lxxxvi. 3 The likening of William to Julius Caesar (see also vv. 351±4) was taken up and developed in GG, and became a topos. See above, p. lvii. 4 The text, as Orlandi, `Recensione', p. 219, observed, does not make sense even if posteritas could be understood as referring to the succession of Harold. The desired sense is


THE SONG OF THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS

hthe

5

poemj1

Fare thee well, blessed king, guardian of justice, giver of peace to the fatherland, a foe to its foes and the protector of its church, for now must the sleeping Muses be aroused and my pen move swiftly to your praise. You changed your rank from count to king,2 a title which your noble birth and virtue earned. For, another Caesar,3 by repeating his triumph you compel an unbridled people to love the yoke. Neither the dense population of the land, nor a sea treacherous to sailors, nor a dangerous rock-bound coast, nor the looming horror of winter deterred you from seeking a kingdom bequeathed you by your forebears. Since your hereditary right4 and every law were in your favour, you were relieved of all fear. But for a long time tempest and continuous rain prevented your ¯eet from sailing across the Channel. While you waited for a favourable wind, the rough sea compelled you to turn back, and the east wind curled the ocean's waves with its blasts.5 You were in despair when all hope of sailing was denied you. But, in the end, whether you liked it or not, you left your own shore and directed your ships towards the coast of a neighbour. The port of Vimeu, which the river Somme enfolds, is said to have been known to the ancients.6 Its inhabitants, although well skilled in warfare, more often provide true hospitality to seafarers.7 Above the `hereditary right' (through Edward's mother, Emma, the daughter of Count Richard I, William's great-grandfather), which, although disputable, all the Conqueror's apologists stressed. Cf. below, v. 37, and GG i. 14, 41, etc. But it seems never to have been suggested that Edward, instead of the bastard William, should succeed to Normandy in 1035. 5 According to GG ii. 6, William assembled his ¯eet in the mouth of the river Dives (Calvados) while it awaited a south wind (Nothus). But it was eventually driven by a west wind (Zephyrus) to Saint-Valery and suered loss of ships and personnel on the way. It is dicult to see how Carmen's east wind (Eurus) would have prevented the ¯eet sailing north to England. But poets are careless of these distinctions. Below, vv. 59±60, however, at Saint-Valery the south wind (Auster) is favourable and the north wind (Boreas) unfavourable. Chibnall, GG, pp. xxv ., thinks, reasonably enough, that the expeditionary force's initial delay was caused less by adverse weather than by the time needed for the mobilization and training of William's army. 6 For Saint-Valery and Vimeu, see above, pp. xxxi, xlii f. The relics of St Valery were restored to the church from Normandy c.981: AASS, April, i. 23±4. King Richard I of England sacked Saint-Valery in 1197 and had the reliquary taken to Normandy, but restored it with the truce with France in 1199: Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. W. Stubbs (RS), iv (1871), 19. And in 1651 the visitors of the Congregation of Saint-Maur inspected all reliquaries of saints and found, inter alia, the head, three teeth, and a number of bones of St Valery, all of which were replaced in the reliquary: AASS, April, i. 15±16. 7 If Michel's suggested amendment to ®delis is accepted, it would translate as: Ìts people, although well skilled in warfare, are always trustworthy and usually hospitable to seafarers.'


6


Desuper est castrum quoddam Sancti Walarici.a Hic tibi longa fuit dicilisque mora, Nam ter quinque dies complesti ®nibus illis, Exspectans summi iudicis auxilium. Ecclesiam sancti deuota mente frequentans, Illi pura1 dabas, ingeminando preces. Inspicis et templi gallus qua uertitur aura: Auster si spirat, letus abinde redis; Si subito Boreas Austrum diuertit et arcet, Eusis lacrimis ¯etibus ora rigas. Desolatus eras; frigus faciebat et imber Et polus obtectus nubibus et pluuiis. Set pater omnipotens, in quo tibi spem posuisti, Tempora qui fecit, temperat, atque regit, Qui palmo celum, terram, mare ponderat equo; b 2 Cui proprium constat omnibus esse locis Presentem, precibus dedit et calcabile Petro Equor sub pedibus,3 compaciendo sibi, Velle tuum tandem pius ut Deus est miseratus, Pro uotoque4 tibi suppeditauit opus. Expulit a celo nubes et ab equore uentos, Frigora dissoluit, purgat et imbre polum. Incaluit tellus, nimio perfusa calore, Et Phebus solito clarior emicuit. Festa dies Michaelis erat celebranda per orbem, Cum pro uelle tibi cuncta Deus tribuit. Protinus una fuit mens omnibus, equa uoluntas, Iam bene pacato credere se pelago. Quamquam diuersi tamen adsunt leti®cati; Nec mora; quisque suum currit ad ocium. Sublimant alii malos; aliique laborant Erectis malis addere uela super. Plurima cogit equosc equitum pars scandere naues; Altera festinat arma locare sua. Haut secus inuadit classis loca turba pedestris Turba columbarum quam sua tectad petit. O quantus subito fragor illinc ortus habetur, Cum naute remos, arma petunt equites! Hinc5 resonando tube uarios dant mille boatus, Fistula cum calamis et ®dibus cythara,

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90


7


port stands the town of Saint-Valery. Here you had a long and troublesome delay, spending a fortnight in that territory waiting for succour from the Supreme Judge. You visited the saint's church often and devoutly, with sighs and prayers making pure oerings to him.1 You looked to see by what wind the church's weathercock was turned. If it was from the south, you departed happily. But if, on a sudden, the north wind interrupted and held it at bay, tears streamed down your cheeks. You were forsaken. It was cold and wet and the sky was hidden by clouds and rain. But Almighty God, on whom you rested your hopes, he who created, marks out and directs the seasons, who weighs the heavens, the earth and the sea in the hollow of his just hand,2 who is always in all places, and who in his compassion gave Peter in return for his prayers a calm sea on which he could walk,3 that same gracious God at last took pity on you and your desires and, in return for your vow,4 furnished you abundantly with the means. He drove the clouds from the sky and the winds from the sea; he dispelled the cold and cleansed the heavens of rain. The earth became warm, bathed in great heat; and the sun shone with unusual brilliance. The festival of St Michael [29 Sept.] was about to be celebrated throughout the world when God granted you everything according to your desires. Immediately all were of one mind and purposeÐto entrust themselves to the sea, now calm at last. Although dispersed, all arrive rejoicing, and run instantly to take up position. Some step the masts, others then hoist the sails. Many force the knights' horses to clamber on to the ships. The rest hasten to stow their arms. Like a ¯ock of doves seeking their lofts, the throngs of infantry rush to take their places on the boats. O what a great noise suddenly erupts from that place as the sailors seek their oars, the knights their arms! Then5 a thousand trumpets sound, and resound, their various calls. There are pipes a

Walarici B; Walaraci A, the third a struck through ? by second hand eque A. B ends here; in A there is a wider spacing between vv. 65±6 and 66±7 d A, ? = aequos ? corrected from recta A

b

equo ed., c equos

1 Hall, `Critical notes', p. 905, has suggested iura. But pura in the sense of unencumbered gifts can stand. See also below, n. 4. 2 3 Cf. Isa. 40: 12. Matt. 14: 28±9. 4 William's vow (cf. also below, v. 656), according to a document of about 1300 preserved among the deeds of Takeley priory near Dunmow in Essex, led to his foundation of that convent on 19 Oct. 1068 as a cell of Saint-Valery. `Willelmus ac etiam Gwydo de Reymecurt, baro suus, dederunt die predicta elemosinam suam ecclesie memorate, ex voto et promissione debita in transfretatione facta conqueste Anglicane', H. E. Salter, Facsimiles of Early Charters in Oxford Muniment Rooms (Oxford, 1929), no. 27 and n.; VCH, Essex, ii. 199. Guy de Raimbeaucurt, near Douai (Nord), to the east of Saint-Valery, was Domesday lord of Chipping Warden in Northants: I. J. Sanders, English Baronies (Oxford, 1960), 5 Dawson's translation starts here. p. 33.


8 rb

f. 228


Timpana taurinis implent mugitibus auras, Alternant modulos cymbala clara suos.1 Terra tremit; celumque pauet; miratur et equor. Quadrupedes fugiunt, piscis auisque simul. Quippe decem decies, decies et milia quinque Diuersis feriunt uocibus astra poli. Set tu templa petis sancti supra memorati, Muneribusque datis, curris adirea ratem. Clangendoque tuba, reliquis ut littora linquant Precipis, et pelagi tucius alta petant.2 Hactenus ad®xe soluuntur littore puppes, Equor et intratur agmine composito. Iam breuiata dies, iam sol deuexus abibat, Cum tua preripuit preuia nauis iter. Nox ubi ceca polum tenebrosis occupat umbris, Et negat obsequium Cinthia tecta tibi, Imples non aliter facibus rutilantibus undas Sydera quam celum, sole ruente, replent. Quot fuerant naues, totidem tu lumina spargis; h* * * * *j3 Imposite malis permulta luce laterne Tramite directo per mare uela regunt. Set ueritus ne dampna tuis nox inferat atra, Ventus et aduerso ¯amine turbet aquas, Sistere curua iubes compellat ut anchora puppes; In medio pelagi litus adesse facis. Ponere uela mones, exspectans mane futurum, Vt lassata nimis gens habeat requiem. At postquam terris rutilans Aurora refulsit Et Phebus radios sparsit in orbe suos, Precipis ire uiam, committere carbasa uentis; Precipis ut soluat anchora ®xa rates. Tertia telluri supereminet hora diei Cum mare postponens litora tuta tenes.4 E celo fulgens, extenso crine, cometes Anglis fatatum nunciat excidium.5 Debita terra tibi, pauidis nudata colonis, Leta sinu placido teque tuosque capit. Rex Heraldus enim sceleratus ad ultima terre Fratris ad exicium per®da tela parat;

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130



9

with their reeds and zithers with their strings; drums bellow like bulls; and the loud cymbals chime in.1 The earth shakes; the heavens quake; the ocean is amazed. Beasts ¯ee, and likewise birds and ®sh, for one hundred and ®fty thousand dierent voices make the welkin ring. But you seek the church of [St Valery] and, after making gifts, hurry back to go on board. By a trumpet's call you command all other vessels to leave the shore and make for the deep sea in safety.2 The ships cast o their moorings and put out to sea in orderly formation. The day was already closing in, the setting sun departing, when your ship raced ahead and took the lead. When dark night covers the sky with its shades and the hidden moon denies you her aid, you ®ll the ocean with glowing torches just as the stars ®ll up the heavens once the sun has set. You scatter light from every ship. h* * *j3 The lanterns on the masts with their strong beams of light direct the ships on a straight course over the sea. But you, fearful that the dark night could harm your men or an adverse wind should stir up the waves, order the ships to heave to, held by their crooked anchors; and thus you create a harbour on the open sea. You also bid them, while waiting for the dawn, to strike sail, so that the exhausted crews should get some rest. But once the rosy dawn had brightened the land and the sun had irradiated the circle of the earth, you ordered a start, the ships to set sail and anchors aweigh. When you left the sea behind and seized a safe beachhead,4 the third hour of the day was rising over the earth and a blazing comet with outstretched tail informed the English of their destined ruin.5 The land owed to you, stripped of her terri®ed inhabitants, joyfully welcomed you and yours into her tender bosom. For the wicked king Harold was preparing his treacherous weapons for the destruction of his brother in the remotest reaches of the realm. a 1

adire eds.; adite A

Cf. Venantius Fortunatus, ii. 9. 57 .: MGH, Auct. Antiqu., iv. 39. For the Channel crossing, see above, pp. lxiii±lxix. A pentameter is missing in the MS. 4 For the landing at Pevensey, see above, pp. lxviii f. 5 Halley's comet, visible from 24 April in England, disappeared in mid July: see above, p. xxvii, n. 54. 2 3


10


Non modicam regni partem nam frater adeptus, Tecta dabat ¯ammis et gladiis populum. Marte sub opposito currens Heraldus in hostes, Non timuit fratris tradere membra neci.1 Alter in alterutrum plus quam ciuile peregit Bellum, set uictor (proh dolor!) ipse fuit. Inuidus ille Cain fratris caput amputat ense, Et caput et corpus sic sepeliuit humo. Hec tibi preuidit qui debita regna subegit: Criminis infesti quatinus ultor eas.2 Littora custodis,a metuens amittere naues, Menibus et munis, castraque ponis ibi. Diruta que fuerant dudum castella reformas; Ponis custodes ut tueantur ea.3 Non multo spacio, tua gens, set pace potita, Inuadit terram, uastat et igne cremat.4 Nec mirum, regem quia te plebs stulta negabat; Ergo perit iuste, uadit et ad nichilum. Ex Anglis unus, latitans sub rupe marina, Cernit ut eusas innumeras acies, Et quod agri fulgent pleni radiantibus armis, Vulcano ¯ammis depopulante domos, Per®die gentem ferro bachante perire, Quasque dabant lacrimas cede patrum pueri, Scandere currit equum, festinat dicere regi. Rex redit a bello premia leta ferens; Nuncius occurrit; que fert hocb ordine pandit: `Rex, tibi pro certo nuncia dira fero. Dux Normannorum, cum Gallis atque Britannis, Inuasit terram, uastat et igne cremat.5 Milia si queris, tibi dicere nemo ualebit: Quotc mare fert pisces, tot sibi sunt equites;

f. 228v

c

a custodis eds.; custod- [= custodit] A quot eds.; quod A

b

135

140

145

150

155

160

que fert hoc eds.; quam fert hec A (?)

1 Harold defeated the invasion forces of his brother Tostig, the banished former earl of Northumbria, and Harold Hardrada, king of Norway, in a poorly described battle at Stamford Bridge on the river Derwent (E. Riding, Yorks) on 25 Sept. Both enemy leaders were killed. v. 135 is an allusion to Lucan, Bellum ciuile i. 1; cf. Statius, Thebais xi. 127 . 2 These verses are puzzling. The general sense seems to be that God, who had given William victory at Hastings, had set up Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge so that some



11

This brother, having occupied no small part of the land, was setting houses on ®re and putting people to the sword; and Harold, hastening with an army to meet the foe, did not shrink from delivering his brother's limbs to death.1 Each waged against the other a worse than civil war. But the victor, alas, was Harold. This envious Cain cut o his brother's head with his sword and then buried head and trunk in the earth. He who subjected the realm which was owed to you ordained all these things so that you would go to avenge that violent crime.2 Guarding the shore and fearing to lose your ships, you protect them with ramparts and pitch camp there. You repair the remnants of earlier forti®cations and set guards to protect them.3 With peace, indeed, but little ground acquired, your men go out and devastate and burn the land4Ðbehaviour which, since the stupid people reject you as king, is not to be wondered at. It is entirely just that they should perish and come to naught. When one of the English, hiding under a rock by the sea, saw the countless ranks of men spreading out, the ®elds glittering with the mass of shining weapons, Vulcan driving with his ¯ames people from their homes, a per®dious race falling by the raging swords, and what tears the children shed at the slaughter of their parents, he ran to mount his horse and hastened to inform the king. Harold was returning from battle laden with great booty. The messenger came up with him and told him his story. Ò king! I bring for certain dreadful news. The duke of the Normans has invaded the land with French and Breton troops. He is destroying it and setting it on ®re.5 If you ask how many thousands of them there are, no one can tell. He has as many knights as there are ®shes in the sea. of William's rivals should be eliminated and that William should then avenge Tostig. But in the Bible story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4: 8±16), although God punished Cain by exile, he expressly protected him from a vengeful death. 3 The Roman perimeter walls with their ¯anking bastions are still impressive. There was, therefore, according to A. J. Taylor, in a personal communication, an immense readymade forti®ed base just waiting for occupation and requiring no immediate improvements. In fact no early Norman earthworks overlying the Roman levels have ever been found by archaeologists. Castle-building started at Hastings, not Pevensey, and the poet may have confused the two. There was an exchange of letters between M. & M. and Taylor in Aug.± Sept. 1972 on the translation of diruta in v. 143. Taylor wanted `dilapidated' or `ruined'. M. & M. stuck to the more active `dismantled' (i.e. by Harold). Moreover, they suggested that the destroyed castella, which William repaired, were wooden forts erected by Harold for the defence of the coast. Cf. also D. Greenway, Àuthority, convention and observation in Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum', ANS xviii (1996), 105±21 at p. 109. 4 5 Cf. below, v. 160. Cf. above, v. 146.


12


Et ueluti stellas celi numerare nequires, Eius sic acies nec numerarea uales. Captiuos ducit pueros, captasque puellas,1 Insuper et uiduas, et simul omne pecus.' Rusticus hec retulit. Rex contra sibilat illi; Quamuis hec timeat, uelle tamen simulat. Aduocat ipse duces, comites,2 terreque potentes; Verbis, ut fertur, talibus alloquitur: `Milicie pars summa mee, magnatibus orta, Solus non bello uincere cui pudor est,3 Nothicab quos misit per te superauimus hostes, Et per te nostrum strauimus equiuocum.4 Nutriit et c proprio matris d queme lacte papilla. Tu mihi presidium, murus, et auxilium, Audisti nostrum quod gens Normannica regnum Intrauit; predans, pauperat, exspoliat. Hoc Willelmus hagitj,f qui te sibi subdere querit. Nomen habet magnum; cor tamen est pauidum; Est uafer et cupidus nimiumque superciliosus; Nec nouit pacem nec retinere ®dem. Si possit, leuiter5 molitur tollere nostra, Set Deus omnipotens non erit hoc paciens. Quantus erit luctus, quantus dolor et pudor ingens, Regni quanta lues, quam tenebrosa dies, Si quod querit habet, si regni sceptra tenebit. Hoc omnes fugiant uiuere qui cupiunt.' His ita prolatis, querit responsa suorum; Scrutantur taciti dicere quid ualeant. Nascitur extimplo clamor qui perculit astra, Et uox communis omnibus una fuit: `Bella magis cupimus quam sub iuga colla reponi Alterius regis, uel magis inde mori.' Exultans fatuus rex grates reddidit illis; Insuper hoc unum consilium retulit: `Primum legatos decet ut mittamus ad illum, Illi qui dicant si placet ut redeat. a

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

b c numerare eds.; numerale A ? emend to Nordica Hall Nutriit et Hall, 2 d matris Petrie; matruÅ (= matrum) A (®nal letter Orlandi ; Nutuit A; Nutriuit Petrie e f smudged) quem Petrie; quam A agit eds., om. A



13

And just as you cannot count the stars in the heavens, so you cannot count his men. He has taken captive boys and girls,1 even widows, and also all the cattle.' These were the tidings the peasant gave, and the king hissed contemptuously in reply. Although he really feared the news, he feigned to welcome it. He summoned his captains and comrades,2 and the great men of his realm, and is said to have made them the following speech. `Pick of my army, nobly born, for whom there is no shame save to prevail without ®ghting,3 with your help I have defeated the forces sent by Norway and with your help laid low my namesake4 and him whom my mother's breasts nourished with her own milk. You, my guard, my defence and help, you have heard that the Normans have invaded, and devastate, impoverish and despoil our kingdom. It is William who does this, who seeks to subject you to his rule. He has great renown, but a fearful heart. He is cunning, avaricious, and most arrogant. He does not know how to keep treaties or his knightly word. He would, if he could, try without compunction5 to rob us of all we possess. But God Almighty will not suer this. What lamentation, what grief, how great the shame, what misfortune for the kingdom there'll be, how dark the day, if he gets what he seeks, if he should wield the sceptre of this realm! Let all who wish to live shun this.' At the end of his speech he asked them what they thought. Silent at ®rst while they searched for words, suddenly a great shout went up that shook the stars. With one voice they cried, `We would rather ®ght than put our necks under the yoke of another kingÐindeed, we would rather die.' Rejoicing, the foolish king thanked his men, and then added this one proposal. `But ®rst, as is proper, let us send envoys to him to ask him to return home. If he wishes to enter into a treaty of 1 Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 125, suggests `nuptasque puellas', meaning `wives and girls'. But the sentence balances well as it stands. 2 Cf. below, v. 801. Duces, comites can mean dukes and counts, but that maybe is going too far. 3 Cf. Lucan, Bellum ciuile, i. 145 (of Caesar). 4 Harold had just defeated his namesake (Harold Hardrada) and his brother (Tostig) at Stamford Bridge: cf. Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward, p. 88. A copula with v. 175, as M. & M. noticed, is needed; and they suggested that a couplet is missing. But, although v. 175 is obviously corrupt (as is 179), Hall's suggested emendation, with which Orlandi agreed, will serve. 5 As Orlandi, `Recensione', p. 205, remarked, `leuiter' goes with `tollere', and the adverb means the thoughtlessness or capriciousness of youth. The charge is repeated in v. 217 and refuted by William in v. 231. Cf. v. 693.


14


Paci®cum si uult nobiscum fedus inire, Vestro consilio, non ego reiciam. Sin aliter, non sponte sua mea littora linquet. Desinat hoc quod agit, trans freta regna petat.'1 Equo consultu maiorum necne minorum Prouidus eloquio monachus eligitur Exploret qui castra ducis, qui credita caute Verba sibi referat. Regis ab imperio Accelerauit iter, pedibus transuectus equinis, Sub tunica nigra uerba uerenda gerens. Dux erat in castris;2 intrans, hec monachus inquit: Èst opus ut nostre sic ualeas patrie. Rex et primates regni quoque iura tenentes3 Precipiunt dicto quod cicius redeas. Mirantur super his de te que fama reportat, Quod sine rea regnum ducis ad excidium. Captiuos reddas et quicquid ui rapuisti. Indulget si uis cetera dampna tibi: Etati parcit; morum parcit leuitati; b Olim que fuerat parcit amicicie. Si contradicis, uel si sua reddere tardas, Bella tibi mandat; ergo decet caueas. Miliciam uix ipse suam populumque cohercet; Gens est que nullum nouit habere modum. Nam, Dominum testor, bis sex sibi milia centum Sunt pugnatorum, prelia qui siciunt.'4 Talibus obiectis, mutata leonis imago. Pondus uirtutum, miles et intrepidus, Dux, ¯occipendens quicquid sibi uana cuculla Attulerat, fatuas approbat esse minas. `Verba tui regis', dixit, `non sunt sapientis.5 Nil latitare procul poterit. Hoc sapiat: Excessi puerum, leuiter nec regna petiui, Defunctis patribus, debita iure mihi.6 Fedus amicicie nostre dissoluit inique, Dum tenet iniuste que mea iure forent. Quod monet, ut redeam, furor est, demencia summa; Tempus enim prohibet, et uia non facilis.

f. 228vb

a

re M. & M., te A

b

leuitati eds. (cf. v. 183), lenitati A

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

235



15

peace with us, I myself, after taking your advice, will not reject it. But if he won't, he will not leave my shores of his own accord. Let him abandon his scheme and return to his own mainland kingdom.'1 On the advice of both the senior and lower ranks of his army, an eloquent monk was chosen to reconnoitre the duke's camp and carefully bring back the answer to the message entrusted to him. On the king's orders he hastened on horseback, carrying the threatening words hidden beneath his black cloak. The duke was in his camp.2 The monk entered and spoke these words. `You must bid farewell to this land of ours. The king and also the magnates who have authority in the kingdom3 order you to leave immediately. They are astonished at what rumour reports of youÐthat, without good reason, you are bringing the kingdom to ruin. Release the prisoners and whatever else you have taken by force. If you want, the king condones all other injuries, for he takes into account your age, your callowness, and the friendship which once existed. But if you refuse this oer, or delay making restitution, he declares war upon you. So you had better take care. He himself can only just hold his army and people back, for it is a race which knows not how to keep within bounds. And, as the Lord is my witness, he has twelve hundred thousand warriors who are thirsting for battle.'4 At these reproaches the lion was transformed. The duke, a fearless knight and full of valour, cared not a rap for what the foolish monk had said and showed that the threats were empty. `The words of your king', he said, àre not those of a wise man.5 In no way will he be able to skulk at a distance from me. Let him know this: I am no longer a boy; nor have I lightly attacked a kingdom to which I was entitled on the death of my forebears.6 It is he who has wrongfully violated our peace-treaty by taking unjustly what should rightly be mine. To order me to leave is insanity, the height of madness, for the sea passage is hazardous and the 1

As Dawson; or, as M. & M., `let him look for kingdoms beyond the sea'. GG ii. 11±12, expands this episode. 3 A hexameter-ending repeated below, vv. 543 and 615, and never of the clearest meaning. 4 This ®gure, like that in v. 96, can be variously interpreted; but, as they are merely rhetorical, no version reveals Guy's view of the actual size of Harold's army. For a discussion of the number of troops which could in fact be mobilized at this time (perhaps up to 14,000 thegns together with the household retainers of the king and the earls), see Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 169±76. 5 The duke answers Harold's charges, above, vv. 210±24, one by one. Especially he denies that he has broken their peace treaty and is wantonly invading. He is simply attempting to enforce his just and legal rights. 6 Guy consistently presents William's claim that he was Edward's rightful heir and had been deprived of the kingdom by Harold's unlawful usurpation. His assertion that the duke should have succeeded his ancestors must allude to William's remote kinship with Edward, for which see above, p. 4 n. 4. 2


16


Inmerito quamuis committere bella minetur, In Domino ®dens, gens mea non refugit.1 Nescit quea furtiua mihi periuria2 fecit, Nec penitus recolit quod meus ipse fuit? Si periura manus nondum dampnata resultat, Diuino tamen est iam rea iudicio. Si querit pacem, si uult delicta fateri, Indulgens culpe parcere promtus ero. Terram quam pridem tenuit pater,3 hanc sibi reddam, Vt meus ante fuit, si meus esse uelit.' Monachus accelerat reditum. Dux preparat arma; Heraldi mentem nouerat atque dolum. Admonet, in¯ammat, confortans corda suorum: `Francia quos genuit, nobilitate cluens, Belligeri sine felle uiri, famosa iuuentus, Quos Deus elegit uel quibus ipse fauet,4 Fama uolat quorum per climata quatuor orbis Inuictusque manens milicie titulus: Gensque Britannorum, quorum decus extat in armis, Tellus ni fugiat, est fuga nulla quibus: Viribus illustres Cenomanni, gloria quorum Bello monstratur per probitatis opem:5 Apulus et Calaber, Siculus quibus incola seruit,b 6 Normanni faciles actibus egregiis: Falsus et infamis periurus rex et adulter7 Molitur nobis tendit et insidias. Eius enim mos est non ui set uincere fraude, Spondendoque ®dem porrigit ore necem. Ergo cauere decet ne decipiamur ab illo, Ni simus risus, ludus et in populo. Mandamus uobis quapropter castra tueri, Irruat in castris ne malus ille latro. Set cras, si dignum uobis uideatur et equum, Contra quem misit uana referre mihi Reddere legatum pro uerbis uerba paratum Illi mittamus, qui minimum timeat.

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

a b quod, corrected to ? qua (for que) A incola or accola seruit Orlandi 2; iacula seruit A; iacula feruunt M. & M.; ac Iuba seruit Holford-Strevens



17

season forbidding. Although he threatens, unjustly, to make war, my men, trusting in the Lord, will not retreat.1 Is he not aware of the oath made to me and covertly forsworn? Does he not in his heart remember that he was my vassal?2 If his perjured hand does not yet recoil condemned, it has already been found guilty by the judgement of God. If he seeks peace and wants to confess his crimes, I will be indulgent and promptly overlook his faults. I will grant him the lands which formerly his father held if he is willing to be, as before, my vassal.'3 The monk hastened back. The duke prepared to arm, for he knew Harold's intention and guile. To hearten his men he incited and in¯amed them with these words. `You warriors whom France, renowned for its nobility, has bred, soldiers without malice, famed youth chosen and beloved by God,4 whose enduring renown as invincible in war ¯ies through the four quarters of the world; you nation of Bretons who excel in arms and for whom, unless the earth itself should ¯ee, there is no such thing as ¯ight; you illustrious men of Maine, who glory in battle with the help of your valour;5 you Normans, accustomed to heroic deeds, and to whom the Apulians, Calabrians, and Sicilians are slaves:6 I tell you all that this false, infamous, and perjured king, this adulterer,7 is attempting to lay snares for us. It is his wont to conquer not by force but by deceit, and, while pledging his faith with his lips, to hand out death. We must therefore take care not to be deceived by him lest we become a laughing-stock and a joke among his people. We order you, therefore, to guard well the camp lest that wicked robber should break in. But tomorrow, if you think it right and just, let us send, in answer to him he sent with empty words to us, an envoy to him, one without fear of him and ready to return word for 1

But cf. below, vv. 441±4. A reference, presumably, to the oath òf Bayeux'. Cf. GG i. 42; BT, pl. 28; Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 220±9. 3 Harold would revert to being earl of Wessex and Kent. 4 The special relationship between the Franks and God is a topos. 5 A phrase repeated in v. 334. For the conduct of a knight of Le Mans in the battle, see below, vv. 485±94. 6 For this important crux, see above, p. xxxix. Several scholars have attempted to correct this metrically imperfect line and at the same time allow it to make good historical sense. It is tempting to model it on Ralf of Diss's motto. 7 Harold, who had had a longstanding relationship with Edith Swanneck, had married in 1066 Edith, sister of Earls Edwin and Morkere. But Guy may have been thinking of Harold's alleged promise to marry a daughter of Duke William. 2


18


Monachus est nobis quo non moderancior alter, Et nulli cedens rethoris ocio, Signifer insignis, ni regula sacra negaret; Si uobis placeat, hic mea dicta ferat.'1 Dixit, et est actum; compleuit et actio dictum. Monachus accitur,a nec mora, carpit iter.

275

Interea, sedesb fuscate fraudis et heres, Nocte sub obscura, furis in arte uigens, Rex acies armare iubet, ducis atque latenter Mandat ut inuadant agmina si ualeant. Estimat inuigiles prosternere fraudibus hostes; Fallere dum querit, fallitur atque ruit, Dux quia,c directo legato, peruigil extat;d Eius et ingenio conscius artis erat. Diuertens legatus iter per deuia terre, Nescius accessit rex ubi furta facit. `Pro merito, de parte ducis, rex', inquit, àueto, Quem non ex equo cogis inire malum. Hoc quia perplures testantur, et asserit idem, Assensu populi, consilio procerum, Etguardus quod rex ut ei succederet heres Annuit et fecit, teque fauente sibi. Anulus est illi testis concessus et ensis,2 Que per te nosti missa fuisse sibi. Est igitur seruanda ®des, iurata teneri, Nexibus atque sacris dextera stricta manus. Ergo decet uideas ne te periuria ledant, Et iurata tene, saluus ut esse queas.' Heraldus,e uultu distorto, colla retorquens, Legato dixit, `Vade retro, stolide! Iudice cras Domino regni, pars iusta patebit:f Diuidet ex equo sacra manus Domini.' Ille retro gressum uertens per deuia rursum, A quo missus erat huic maledicta3 refert. Imperiale decus, dux, pax et gloria regni, Preuius incedens ante suas acies,

f. 229r

b accitur Engels, Orlandi 2; accitus A fedes A (?) e estat corrected to extat A Heraldus eds.; Herardus A patebit A

280

285

290

295

300

305

a

d

c

f

qui aÁ A patebat corrected to



19

word. There is a monk here who is second to none in reasonableness and yields to none in rhetoric, who would be a notable standard-bearer if his monastic rule did not forbid it. If it please you, let him convey my words.'1 The duke proposed and it was done: the plan was put into action. The monk was summoned and immediately set o. Meanwhile the king, the abode and inheritor of blackest deceit, skilled in the robber's craft, under cover of darkness secretly ordered his troops to arm and, if they could, attack the duke's army. He thought that, using guile, he could destroy the enemy when o its guard. But while he sought to deceive, he was himself deceived and destroyed, because the duke, after sending the envoy, remained fully on the alert. He was completely aware of the other's skill. The envoy, using byways, came to where the unsuspecting king was engaged in his stealthy deeds. He said, `Fitting greetings, O king, from the duke, whom you are forcing unjustly to do wrong. And this is so, because, as very many bear witnessÐand the duke himself maintainsÐKing Edward with the assent of his people and the advice of his nobles, promised and decreed that William should be his heir; and you supported him. The ring and sword granted him, and, as you know, sent to him through you, stand witness to this.2 You must, therefore, keep faith and observe your oaths. Your right hand is bound by sacred bonds. You should ensure that your perjury does you no harm. Observe your oaths if you want to be saved.' Harold, twisting his neck and scowling, replied, `Get you behind me, you fool! Tomorrow it will be seen by the judgement of the Lord of the kingdom which party has right on its side, for the sacred hand of the Lord will make a just award.' The envoy, returning by the same paths as before, reported these impieties3 to him who had sent him. The dukeÐthe ornament of the empire, the peace and glory of the kingdomÐput himself in front of his 1 For the messenger, identi®ed in GG ii. 12, pp. 120±1, as a monk of FeÂcamp, and by Dawson as probably a resident of Rye, a FeÂcamp manor, see above, p. lxx. 2 This investiture is not noticed elsewhere, even in GG or BT. If Harold's mission to the Continent in 1064/5 (Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 220±9) was to renew a promise made by Edward to William, he would, most likely, have taken some signi®cant tokens. The ring and sword were the ®rst two of the ®ve coronation regalia. 3 Maledicta need be no more than insults. But two of the impieties may be Harold's echoing Jesus's words to Peter, Mark 8: 33, `Vade retro me Satana', and Sarah's words to Abraham, Gen. 16: 5, Ìudicet Dominus inter me et te'.


20


Aggregat et strictim compellit adirea quirites,1 Et faciles hasta conglomerare facit. Legati facies natiuo cassa rubore, Pallor et ostendit proxima bella fore. Dux ait, Èst ubi rex?' `Non longe', monachus inquit. Dixit in aure sibi, `Signa uidere potes. Plurima uerba fero que censeo non referenda;2 Illa tamen dicam que reticere nocet: Ex inprouiso sperat te fallere posse; Per mare, per terram, prelia magna parat. In mare quingentas fertur misisse carinas, Vt nostri reditus prepediatur iter.3 Quo graditur siluas plani4 deducit ad esse,b Et per que transit ¯umina sicca facit. Fors numerum metuis?c Numerus set uiribus expers Plurimusd a minimo sepe repulsus abit.5 Est sibi milicies unctis depexa capillis, Feminei iuuenes, Martis in arte pigri.6 Et quot sunt, ouibus totidem sunt equiparandi, Vte uulpes pauidi fulguris ad sonitum.7 Nobilium memor esto patrum, dux magne, tuorum, Et quod fecit auus quodque pater, facias: Normannos proauus superauit, auusque Britannos, Anglorum genitor sub iuga colla dedit. Et tu, quid facies, nisi quod, maiora parando, Succedas illis per probitatis opem?'8 Paulo conticuit, faciens et se remoratum. Armatas acies ordinat imperio. Premisit pedites committere bella sagittis Et balistantes inserit in medio Quatinus in®gant uolitancia uultibus arma, Vulneribusque datis, ora retro faciant.9

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

a

abire A; adire makes better sense (Hall). For the confusion of the relevant particles, see b c ad esse Orlandi 1; adesse A metuis ed., metues A Orlandi 2, p. 125 d e plurimus eds.; pluribus A Vt A; Vel M. & M. 1 The duke, who was attempting to deploy his column of marching troops into a battle-line, would hardly have compelled the knights to `fall back', as M. & M. thought. Dawson's, `compelled the less warlike to depart' is imaginative. The authorial or textual confusion of abire and adire is frequent. Guy's use of quirites for milites (see also v. 341) is remarkably early. 2 A cryptic remark, but possibly a reference to Harold's `blasphemies'.



21

1

troops, called up the knights, ordered them to advance in close array and with his lance mustered his willing men. The envoy's face, pallid and robbed of its natural ruddiness, showed that the battle was about to begin. `Where is the king?', the duke asked. `Not far o', the envoy replied, and whispered in his ear, `You can see his standards. I have much information which I do not think I ought to repeat.2 But I will tell you what it would be harmful to suppress. Harold hopes to be able to catch you unawares. He is preparing for a great oensive on both land and sea. He is reported to have sent ®ve hundred ships to obstruct our passage home.3 Where he marches he reduces the forest to bare land and the rivers he crosses dry up.4 Perhaps you fear the numbers? But a multitude without great strength is often forced back by a smaller number.5 Harold's troops, with their combed and anointed hair, are nancy-boys, reluctant warriors.6 And, many though they be, they are like as many sheep, as fearful as foxes at the sound of thunder.7 Remember your noble ancestors, great duke, and do what your grandfather and father did. Your great-grandfather overcame the Normans and your grandfather the Bretons, while your father put the necks of the English under his yoke. And you, what will you do but, with the aid of your great valour, surpass them by attempting even greater deeds?'8 Holding himself back, hWilliamj was silent for a moment, then deployed his troops, who were already under arms. He put in front the infantry to attack with arrows, and set crossbowmen in their midst so that ¯ying weapons should hit the enemy in the face. These troops, after they had in¯icted wounds, would then withdraw.9 3 Hastings was probably the most important port on the south coast, and, as one of the Cinque Ports, was required to provide a quota of ships for the royal navy. For Harold's naval preparations in the summer to meet the threat of an invasion, and the disbandment and misfortunes of that ¯eet in September, see above, p. lxiii. It is not known whether an operational unit was in fact reformed in October. 4 White, `Hastings', pp. 37 n. g, 39 n. j, pointed out that planum has the technical sense of untimbered land, open country. Orlandi, `Recensione', pp. 218±19, by splitting adesse established the proper understanding of this verse. Cf. GG ii. 16, ìn eius transitu ¯umina 5 epotata, siluas in planum reductas'. Cf. Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris, iii. 26. 6 GG ii. 44 relates that when the Conqueror returned to Normandy and celebrated Easter 1067 at FeÂcamp abbey, there was amazement at the appearance of the Englishmen in his suite, `the long-haired inhabitants of the western world . . . as beautiful as young girls.' 7 Although various emendations to these lines have been suggested, the transmitted text seems to make sense. 8 For `per probitatis opem', cf. above, v. 258. For the whole passage, see above, pp. xxxviii f. 9 Although it was usual to have considerably more infantry (serjeants) than cavalry in an army, the footsoldiers, as socially inferior (cf. below, v. 356), soon disappear from the narrative. Archers, however, are strongly featured later in the lower margin of BT (pls. 68± 71). For the infantry, see above, pp. lxxiv f.


22

f. 229rb


Ordine post pedites sperat stabilire quirites, Occursu belli set sibi non licuit:1 Haut procul hostiles cuneos nam cernit adesse, Et plenum telis irradiare nemus. Mars deus o belli,2 gladiis qui sceptra coherces, Corpora cui iuuenum sanguinolenta placent Et cruor eusus permulta cede uirorum, Quis tibi tunc animus, quanta cupidoa mali, Cum medius seuas acies miscereb iubebas! Quo pocius nullum te iuuat excidium Ex quo Pompeium superauit Iulius armis, Et Romana sibi menia subripuit, Compulit atque metu Nili transire per amnem,c 3 Nulla reor cedes tam tibi grata fuit. Nec iuuenile decus nec te reuerenda senectus, Nec peditum uilis et miseranda manus, Flectere nec ualuit te nobilitudo parentum, Quin ageres quicquid mens tua torua cupit. Cecatos miseros radiantia trudis in arma, Et ueluti ludum cogis adire necem. Quid moror in uerbis cum iam furor extat in armis? Exple uelle tuum, Mars,d age mortis opus! Ex inprouiso diudit silua cohortes, Et nemoris latebris agmina prosiliunt. Mons silue uicinus erat uicinaque uallis, Et non cultus ager asperitate sui. Anglis ut mos est, densatim progredientes, Hec loca preripiunt Martis ad ocium. Nescia gens belli solamina spernit equorum, Viribus et ®dens, heret humo pedibus; Et decus esse mori summum diiudicat armis Sub iuga ne tellus transeat alterius. Ascendit montem rex bellaturus in hostem, Nobilibusque uiris munit e utrumque latus. In summo montis uexillum uertice ®xit, Agique iubet cetera signa sibi.4 Omnes descendunt et equos post terga relinquunt; Axique solo, bella ciere f tubis.5 Dux, humilis Dominumque timens, moderantius agmen Ducit, et audacter ardua montis adit.

345

350

355

360

365

370

375

380



23

He had intended to station the cavalry in line behind them, but was prevented from doing so by the onset of the battle,1 for he could see enemy units not far away and the whole forest glittering with spears. O Mars, god of war,2 who punishes kingdoms with swords and rejoices in the bloody corpses of the young and men's gore spilled in mass slaughter: how great then was your ardour, how strong your thirst for evil, when, standing in the midst, you ordered the savage ranks to join battle! No carnage delighted you more since Julius Caesar overcame Pompey in war, deprived him of Rome and compelled him in fear to cross the river Nile.3 No bloodshed, I think, gave you greater joy. Neither the beauty of youth, nor the reverence due to old age, nor the mean and pitiful throng of infantry, nor nobility of birth could de¯ect you from doing whatever your savage mind desired. You forced those deluded wretches into shining mail and sent them to death as though to a game. But why do I toy with words when already Fury appears in arms? Do what you will, O Mars. Do the work of death! Suddenly the forest spewed out its cohorts; and columns of men stormed out of their hiding-places in the woods. Near the forest was a hill and a valley and land too rough to be tilled. The English, as was their custom, advanced in mass formation and seized this position on which to ®ght. For that people, unskilled in the art of war, spurn the assistance of horses: trusting in their strength they stand fast on foot. And they consider it the greatest honour to die in battle to prevent their country falling under the yoke of another. To prepare for the encounter the king mounted the hill, defended his ¯anks with noblemen, planted his standard on the summit, and ordered all other banners to be joined to his.4 They all dismounted and left their horses in the rear. Once in position, they had the trumpets sound their calls to battle.5 The duke, humble and God-fearing, had his men under better control as he led them fearlessly to mount the steep hill. The infantry d

a b c cupido eds.; cupiendo A miscere eds. (cf. v. 381); miserere A annem A e f Mars eds.; marÇ A munit eds.; munus A ciere eds.; sciere A

1 This admission that the duke was unable to deploy his cavalry in line (in ordine) behind the infantry, suggests that the battle was disorderly. Yet later (v. 413) it is stated that the French attacked the left and the Bretons the right, which implies that some sort of 2 Cf. Statius, Theb. vii. 628 . line was achieved. 3 Following the battle of Pharsalus in 48 bc. For the river Nile, cf. below, v. 759. 4 Cf. J. Campbell's remarks on local communities and their banners in `The late AngloSaxon state', p. 60. 5 For the trumpet-call to battle, see above, p. lxxix, n. 265.


24


Prelia precurrunt pedites miscere sagittis; Quadratis iaculis scuta nihil faciunt. Festinant parmas galeati iungere parmis; Erectis astis hostis uterque furit. Vt canibus lassatus aper stans dente tuetur Oreque spumoso reicit arma pati, Non hostem metuit nec tela minancia mortem, Sic plebs Angligena dimicat inpauida. Interea,1 dubio pendent dum prelia Marte, Emineta et telis mortis amara lues, Histrio, cor audax nimium quem nobilitabat, Agmina precedens innumerosa ducis, Hortatur Gallos uerbis et territat Anglos, Alte proiciens ludit et ense suo. Anglorum quidam, cum de tot milibus unum Ludentem gladio cernit abire procul, Milicie cordis tactus feruore decenti, Viuere postponens, prosilit ire mori. Incisor-ferri mimus cognomine dictus, Vt fuerat captus, pungit equum stimulis. Angligene scutum telo transfoditb acuto; Corpore prostrato distulit ense caput. Lumina conuertens sociis hec gaudia profert, Belli principium monstrat et esse suum. Omnes letantur, Dominum pariter uenerantur;2 Exultant ictus quod prior extat eis, Et tremor et feruor per corda uirilia currunt, Festinantque simul iungere scuta uiri. Inuadunt3 primi peditum cetus pharetrati, Eminus et iaculis corpora trahiciunt. Et balistantes clipeos, ad grandinis instar, Dissoluunt, quaciunt ictibus innumeris. Set leuam Galli, dextram peciere Britanni; Dux cum Normannis dimicat in medio.4 Anglorum stat ®xa solo densissima turba, Tela dat et telis et gladiosc gladiis. Spiritibus nequeunt frustrata cadauera sterni, Nec cedunt uiuis corpora militibus.

385

390

395

400

405

410

415



25

go ahead to join battle with arrows. Against quarrels shields are not secure. Helmeted soldiers rush to crash shields against shields. And both sides rage with brandished spears. Just as a wild boar, wearied by the hounds and at bay, protects itself with its tusks and with foaming jaws refuses to submit to the weapons, fearing neither the enemy nor the spears that threaten death, so the English phalanx ®ghts on unafraid. Meanwhile,1 with the result hanging in the balance and the bitter calamity of death by wounds still there, a juggler, whom a brave heart ennobled, putting himself in front of the duke's innumerable army, with his words encourages the French and terri®es the English, while he played by throwing his sword high in the air. When one Englishman saw a single knight, just one out of thousands, juggling with his sword and riding away, ®red by the ardour of a true soldier and abandoning life, he dashed out to meet his death. The juggler, who was named Taillefer, when he was attacked spurred on his horse and pierced the Englishman's shield with his sharp lance. He then with his sword removed the head from the prostrate body, and, turning to face his comrades, displayed this object of joy and showed that the opening move of the battle was his. They all rejoice and together supplicate the Lord.2 They exult that the ®rst blow was theirs. Both excitement and passion run through their manly breasts, and they all hasten to engage in the ®ght. First3 the infantry units, furnished with quivers, attack, and from afar trans®x bodies with their darts. Crossbowmen, with a shower of blows like a storm of hail, strike and destroy shields. The French attacked the left and the Bretons the right, while the duke with his Normans ®ght in the centre.4 The serried mass of the English stands rooted to the ground. They meet javelin with javelin, sword with sword. Bodies bereft of life are unable to fall. Nor do the dead make a

? for Imminet Hall, but Orlandi2 doubts; cf. below, v. 702 c transfudit A gladios eds.; gladio A 1

b

transfodit Orlandi 2;

For the episode, see above, pp. xxxiii f. It is not clear when exactly it occurred. M. & M. suggested that this is a reference to the Norman battle-cry, `Dex aõÈe' (`May God help'); but this follows ill on letantur. 3 The narrative resumes, with some repetitions, from v. 388. 4 For the composition of the wings, see above, p. lxxix, n. 266. See further, below, p. 27, n. 4. 2


26


Omne cadauer enim, uita licet euacuatum, Stat uelut illesum, possidet atque locum. Nec penetrare ualent spissum nemus1 Angligenarum, Ni tribuat uires uiribus ingenium. Artibus instructi, Franci, bellare periti, Ac si deuicti fraude fugam simulant. Rustica letatur gens,2 et superasse putabat; Post tergum nudis insequitur gladiis. Amotis sanis, labuntur dilacerati, Siluaque spissa prius rarior ecitur. Conspicit3 ut campum cornu tenuare sinistrum, Intrandi dextrum quod uia larga patet, Perdere dispersos uariatis cladibus hostes Laxatis frenis certata utrumque prius. Quique fugam simulant instantibus ora retorquent;b Constrictos cogunt uertere dorsa neci.c Pars ibi magna perit; pars et densata resistit; Milia namque decem sunt ibi passa necem. Vt pereunt mites bachante leone bidentes, Sic compulsa mori gens maledicta ruit. Plurima que superest bello parsd acrior instat, Et sibi sublatos pro nichilo reputat. Anglorum populus, numero superante, repellit Hostes, uique retro compulit ora dari. Et fuga ®cta prius ®t tunc uirtute coacta. Normanni fugiunt; dorsa tegunt clipei.4 Dux, ubi perspexit e quod gens sua uicta recedit, Occurrens illi signa ferendo manu, Increpat et cedit; retinet, constringit et hasta. Iratus, galea nudat et ipse caput.5

f. 229v

a b certat eds.; cretat A retorquent eds.; retorquant A d second hand A corrected from pars bello A (cf. v. 610) Engels 1

e

420

425

430

435

440

445

c line inserted by ? emend to prospexit

This conceit is repeated below, vv. 428, 530. As Orlandi suggested, `Some afterthoughts', pp. 220±1, rustica gens is equivalent to nescia gens belli (v. 369), the opposite to the French, who are artibus instructi, bellare periti (v. 423). 3 Dawson, probably, and M. & M., certainly, by making rustica gens the subject of conspicit, identi®ed the two wings as English. But this, as Orlandi perceived, `Some afterthoughts', pp. 220±1, is nonsense. The subject is cornu sinistrum/dextrum of the ducal army. This interpretation allows better, if not perfect, sense to be made of a passage which 2



27

space for the living, for every corpse, although lifeless, stands as though unharmed and keeps its place. Nor would the attackers have been able to penetrate the dense forest1 of the English had not invention reinforced their strength. The French, versed in stratagems, skilled in the arts of war, cunningly pretend to ¯ee as though they had been defeated. The rustic folk2 rejoice, thinking that they have conquered, and pursue them with naked swords. With the removal of the able-bodied, the corpses fall, and the once thick wood is thinned. When the left wing hof the ducal armyj3 sees that the ®eld of battle is being cleared, and the right wing that a large breach has been opened up, both wings give free rein and strive to be the ®rst to destroy the dispersed enemy in scattered encounters, while those who simulated ¯ight turn upon their pursuers and, holding them in check, force them to ¯ee from death. A large part of these perished there; but some, packed even closer than before, ®ght on. Truly ten thousand there were killed. As fall the gentle sheep before the ravening lion, so the accursed race is forced to rush on to death. Most, however, of those who survived the ®ghting fought on even more keenly, and counted their losses as nothing. The English, superior in numbers, beat back the foe and forcibly compel them to ¯ee. Thus a ¯ight which had started as a sham became one dictated by the enemy's strength. The Normans turn tail; their shields protect their backs.4 When the duke saw that his people were beaten and in retreat, he rode up; and, signalling with his hand, rebukes and strikes them, and restrains and checks them with his lance. In his anger he himself removed his helmet from his head.5 To the Normans he showed a has always caused diculty. The vocabulary would seem to owe something here to Caesar, Bell. civ. iii. 89. 4 Guy does not give an entirely clear account of the several stages of the battle. It would seem that the initial assault on the English phalanx was repulsed. So the duke resorted to a ruse. Some of his troops, unfortunately referred to indierently as French or Normans, feigned ¯ight. As, later, Guy gives the two wings of the ducal army roles in this phase, the decoy ¯ight, which the English pursuers turned into a real retreat, may have been mounted largely by Normans from the centre. GG ii. 17, however, would have none of this. After the failure of the initial attack on the hill, the Bretons, both infantry and cavalry, and the other auxiliaries on the left ¯ank ¯ee in terror and almost the whole of the ducal line yields. The Normans believe that their duke has been killed. William of Poitiers accepts that this was a most serious, although not shameful, reverse. The BT (pls. 54±67) shows a general attack on the phalanx followed by the death of Harold's brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine, and many casualties on both sides. For fuller treatment, see above, pp. lxxix±lxxxii. 5 This incident is accepted by all: cf. GG ii. 18, BT, pl. 68. On the Tapestry Odo of Bayeux encourages the troops, William raises his helmet and Eustace of Boulogne, carrying a banner, points to the duke.


28


Vultum Normannis dat, uerba precantia Gallis. Dixit, `Quo fugitis? Quo iuuat ire mori? Que fueras uictrix, pateris cur uicta uideri Regnis terrarum Gallia nobilior? Non homines set oues fugitis, frustraque timetis; Illud quod facitis dedecus est nimium. Est mare post tergum; maris est iter ad remeandum Pergraue,a quod uobis tempus et aura negat. Ad patriam reditus grauis est, grauis et uia longa; Hic uobis nullum restat et eugium. Vincere certetis, solum si uiuere uultis.' Dixit, et extimplo serpit ad ora pudor; Terga retro faciunt; uultus uertuntur in hostes. Dux, ut erat princeps, primus et ille ferit; Post illum reliqui feriunt, ad corda reuersi;1 Vires assumunt reiciendo metum. Vt stipule ¯ammis pereunt spirantibus auris, Sic a Francigenis, Anglica turba, ruis. Ante ducis faciem tremefactum labitur agmen, Mollis cera ¯uit ignis ut a facie. Abstracto gladio, galeas et scuta recidit; Illius et sonipes corpora multa ferit.b 2 Heraldi frater, non territus ore leonis, Nomine Gernt,3 regis traduce progenitus, Librando telum celeri uolitante lacerto Eminus emisso cuspide, corpus equi Vulnerat, atque ducem peditem bellare coegit. Set, pedes eectus, dimicat et melius: Nam uelox iuuenem sequitur ueluti leo frendens. Membratim perimens, hec sibi uerba dedit: Àccipe promeritam nostri de parte coronam;4 Si periit sonipes, hanc tibi reddo pedes.' Dixit et ad bellum conuertit protinus actum, Obstat et oppositis uiribus Herculeis. Hos truncos facit, hos mutilos; hos deuorat ense; Perplures animas mittit et ad tenebras. a Per mare corrected to Per graue A Orlandi 2

b

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

ferit Michel, Orlandi1; fac' A; muta facit



29

furious face; to the French he made entreaties. `Where are you o to?' he cried. `Where do you want to die? France, the noblest of the earth's kingdoms, how could you, when you had been the victors, allow yourself to appear the vanquished? It is not from men but from sheep that you run. Your fear is mistaken. What you are doing is the most shameful disgrace. Behind you lies the sea. To return by sea is hard when both the wind and the weather are against you. Hard it is to return home, hard and long the way. There's no escape road for you here. If you want merely to live you must strive to conquer.' At the end of this harangue shame spread over their cheeks and they turned their faces, not their backs, to the enemy. The duke, as he was the leader, struck the ®rst blow. The others, returning to their senses,1 struck next. Throwing o their fear they take on strength. Just as stubble is consumed when the wind fans the ¯ames, so, you English throng, you fall to the French. At the sight of the duke the enemy trembles and falls away, like soft wax ¯owing from the face of the ®re. Drawing his sword, he cleaves helmets and shields and even his charger strikes many a corpse.2 Harold's brother, Gyrth,3 born of royal stock, was not frightened by the lion's face. Brandishing his spear, he hurls it from afar with his quick strong arm, and it wounds the duke's mount, forcing him to ®ght on foot. But, dismounted, he ®ghts even better, for swiftly, like a roaring lion, he follows the youth and, tearing him limb from limb, exclaims, `Take this trophy you have won from us. Since my steed has perished, as a footman I give you this trophy back.'4 From speech, he turned his eorts straightway to the battle and withstood his opponents with the strength of a Hercules. Some he beheaded, some he dismembered, and some he devoured with his sword. Many were the souls he dispatched straight to hell. 1 Although Ad corda reuersi can be taken with v. 464, the general sense would not be changed. 2 Most editors have thought the line corrupt, and F. Michel in 1840 and Orlandi, `Recensione', p. 215, have suggested ferit (`strikes') for facit (`makes'). Dawson, indeed, translated, ànd his charger striketh full many a corse'. In 1996, however, Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 126, oered instead muta for multa, a possible echo of Ovid, Met. xi. 736. 3 Gyrth, born c.1032, earl of East Anglia in 1057 and seemingly closer to Tostig than Harold until at least 1061, in 1066, however, may have been with Harold at the battle of Stamford Bridge: The Waltham Chronicle, ed. L. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (OMT, 1994), p. 46. According to OV ii. 170±2, he joined with his mother Gytha at London in pleading with Harold not to go on to Hastings. He, who had taken no oath to William, would take over the command against the Norman. For dierent accounts of his death, see above, p. xxxiv. 4 As Orlandi, `Recensione', p. 221, has explained, William is mockingly awarding Gyrth the palms of victory which, had he killed the duke, he would richly have deserved.


30


Per medias strages equitem dum prospicit ire Ex Cenomannoruma progenitum genere,1 Infecto gladio cerebro uel sanguinis unda Innuit ut ueniat et sibi subueniat. Ille timens cedem negat illi ferre salutem, Nam pauitatb mortem ceu lepus ante canem. Dux, memor ut miles, subito se uertit ad illum Per nasum galee concitus accipiens, Vultum telluri, plantas ad sydera uoluit;2 Sic sibic concessum scandere currit equum. O celi rector, nostri pius ac miserator, Nutu diuino qui regis omne quod est, Quas patitur clades Anglorum turma superstes! Occidit hic pietas, regnat et impietas; Vita perit; mors seua furit, bachatur et ensis; Nullus ibi parcit, Mars ubi sceptra regit.d Postquam factus eques dux est, mox acrius hostes Vulnerat, aggreditur, fulminat, insequitur. Vincere dum certat, dum campum cede cruentat, Filius Hellocis,3 uir celer et facilis, Insidiando, ducem tractabat ®ne grauari; Set, misso iaculo, traditur e ictus equo. Corruit in terram; pedes est dux, plenus et ira. Quomodo se teneat cogitat, aut quid agat, Nam binis miratur equis priuatus haberi. Heret in hoc paulo, set nihil esse putat; Censet enim, uirtute sibi fortuna fauebit, Subueniet uotis et sine fraude suis. Ergo sui mors iurat equi, si dextra manebit, Non sine uindicta transiet absque mora. Auctorem sceleris, multos inter latitantem Longe perspiciens, perdere currit eum. Inpulsu dextre duro mucronis et ictu Ilia precidens, uiscera fudit humi. At comes Eustachius,4 generosis patribus ortus,f Septus bellantum multiplici cuneo,

f. 229vb

a

485

490

495

500

505

510

515

520

b corrected by expunction from Cenonmannorum A pauitat eds.; pauitem A d e sibi eds.; tibi A ? emend to gerit Hall; cf. below, v. 564 ? emend to f patribus eds.; partibus ortis (corrected to ortus) A truditur Michel c



31

When he saw riding amid the carnage a knight who hailed from Maine,1 he signalled to him with his sword, which was de®led by brains and streams of blood, to come to his aid. But the knight, fearing to die, refused to help. For, like a hare before the hounds, he was frightened of death. But the duke, like a mindful knight, turned sharply towards him, and, infuriated, seized the nasal of his helmet, pulled him to the ground head over heels, and speedily mounted the horse thus presented to him.2 O ruler of heaven, our gracious and merciful Lord Who rules by divine will everything that is, what calamities do the surviving English troops endure! Here pity goes down and pitilessness reigns. Life is destroyed, cruel death rages and the sword runs wild. Where Mars holds sway, no man spares another. When the duke was again in the saddle, he attacked, wounded, struck like lightning and pursued the enemy even more ®ercely than before. While he strove to conquer, while he bloodied the ®eld of battle with the gore of the slain, the son of Hellox,3 a quick and ready man, lay in wait intending that the duke should meet his end. But when he threw a spear the blow fell on the horse. The duke crashed to the ground, on foot once again, and ®lled with rage. He wondered how he could protect himself, what he should do, for he was astounded that he had suered the loss of two horses. He hesitated for a moment over this, and then thought it no matter, for he reckoned that, if he acted with courage, Fortune would smile upon him, and, without deceit, grant him all his desires. And so he swore that, if his right hand did not fail, the death of his horse would not go unavenged for long. When he spied the criminal hiding among a crowd some distance away, he ran to attack him. With a hard thrust of his right hand and his weapon's sharp point, he pierced his groin and spilt his entrails on the ground. Then Count Eustace,4 scion of a noble dynasty, accompanied by a large escort of soldiers, 1 William of Poitiers, GG ii. 19, as well as Guy, states that men from Maine took part in the battle. Jean Dunbabin, `Georey de Chaumont, Thibaud of Blois and William the Conqueror', ANS xvi (1994), 101±16, at pp. 111±12, suggests that Georey, lord of Chaumont-sur-Loire, fought at Hastings. 2 This sentence has provoked much editorial comment and many suggestions. But it makes good sense. The duke, unlike the cowardly knight, is a knight who knows what to do (memor means `mindful', `resourceful', or `vengeful'), and does it. 3 Hellox/Helloc/Elloc and his son have not been identi®ed. Cf. Wace, vv. 8809±14. For the episode, see above, pp. xxxiv f. 4 The ®rst appearance of the important Eustace II, count of Boulogne (1047±88), accompanied by his conroi, and the ®rst of William's commanders to be named. For the signi®cance of his prominence in the story, see above, pp. xxvi, xxxii f.


32


Ad ducis auxilium festinat primus haberi; Eciturque pedes dux ut abiret eques. Miles erat quidam comitis, nutritus ab illo, Fecerat ut domino, fecit et ille sibi. Talibus auspiciis, comes et dux associati Quo magis arma micant, bella simul repetunt.a Amborum gladiis campus rarescit ab Anglis, De¯uit et numerus, nutat et atteritur. Corruit apposita ceu silua minuta securi, Sic nemus Angligenum1 ducitur ad nihilum. Iam ferme campum uictrix eecta regebat, Iam spolium belli Gallia leta petit,2 Cum dux prospexit regem super ardua montis Acriter instantes dilacerare suos, Aduocat Eustachium; linquens ibi prelia Francis, Oppressis ualidum contulit auxilium.3 Alter ut Hectorides, Pontiui nobilis heres Hos comitatur Hugo, promtus in ocio; Quartus Gilfardus, patris a cognomine dictus:4 Regis ad exicium quatuor arma ferunt. Ast alii plures; aliis sunt hi meliores. Si quis in hoc dubitat, actio uera probat: Per nimias cedes nam bellica iura tenentes5 Heraldum coguntb pergere carnis iter. Per clipeum primus dissoluens cuspide pectus, Euso madidatc sanguinis imbre solum; Tegmine sub galee caput amputat ense secundus; Et telo uentris tertius exta rigat; Abscidit coxam quartus; procul egit ademptam:6 Taliter occisum terra cadauer habet. Fama uolans `Heraldus obit!' per prelia sparsit; Mitigat extimplo corda superba timor. Bella negant Angli. Veniam poscunt superati. Viuere disi, terga dedere neci. Dux ibi per numerum duo milia misit ad orcum, Exceptis aliis milibus innumeris. Vesper erat; iam cardo diem uoluebat ad umbras, Victorem fecit cum Deus esse ducem.d Solum deuictis nox et fuga profuit Anglis Densi per latebras et tegimen nemoris.

525

530

535

540

545

550

555

560



33

hastened to be the ®rst to give him aid. He dismounted so that the duke could get away in the saddle. And then one of Eustace's household knights did for his lord what the count had done for his. After these auspicious events the count and duke return together to ®ght where the weapons gleamed the most. By their two swords they clear the battle®eld of English troops. A good number desert, hesitate and are destroyed. Just as a wood, when the axe is applied, is chopped to pieces, so the English forest1 was reduced to nothing. When France was almost mistress of the ®eld of battle and was already seeking the spoils of war,2 the duke caught sight of the king on the top of the hill ®ercely cutting down those who were attacking him. He called up Eustace and, leaving there the French to continue the ®ght, brought enormous relief to those under attack.3 With these two went Hugh, the noble heir of Ponthieu, like a scion of Actor ready to do his duty. The fourth was Gilfard, known by his father's surname.4 These four bore arms to kill the king. Others indeed were there; but these were better than the rest. If anyone doubts this, what they did proves it true, for in accordance with the rules of war5 they compelled Harold by many blows to go the way of all ¯esh. The ®rst of the four, piercing the king's shield and chest with his lance, drenched the ground with a gushing stream of blood. The second with his sword cut o his head below the protection of his helm. The third lique®ed his entrails with his spear. And the fourth cut o his thigh and carried it some distance away.6 The earth held the body they had in these ways destroyed. The report `Harold is dead' ¯ew throughout the battle®eld and fear then softened brave hearts. The English refuse to ®ght. Defeated, they ask for quarter; despairing of life, they ¯ee from death. In this place the duke dispatched two thousand to Hades besides thousands more beyond counting. It was evening. The day was already swinging to night when God granted victory to the duke. And only darkness and ¯ight through the thickets and coverts of the dense forest saved the a repetunt eds.; repetimus or repetimur A c madidat eds.; macidat A cogit A 1

d

b Heraldum cogunt ed.; Heraldus necem corrected to ducem A

Cf. above, vv. 421, 428. For the plundering of the corpses, cf. BT, pl. 71, lower margin. 3 For the killers of Harold, see above, lxxxii±lxxxv; for Hugh, see also above, pp. xxxv, xlv, l. 4 Note this early inheritance of a byname. 5 Cf. vv. 211, 615. M. & M., pp. 34±5 n. 4, argued that here the phrase means, `the rightful victors'. But is it an early reference to the laws of chivalry? 6 Cf. Malmesbury, GR i. 456. 2


34


Inter defunctos noctem pausando peregit Victor, et exspectat lucifer ut redeat. Peruigil Hectorides1 sequitur cedendo fugaces; Mars sibi tela gerit; mors sociata furit. Duxit ad usque diem uario certamine noctem; Nec somno premitur, somnia nec patitur. Illuxit postquam Phebi clarissima lampas Et mundum furuis expiat a tenebris, Lustrauit campum, tollens et cesa suorum Corpora, dux terre condidit in gremio. Vermibus atque lupis, auibus canibusque uoranda Deserit Anglorum corpora strata solo.2 Heraldi corpus collegit dilaceratum, Collectum texit sindone purpurea; Detulit et secum, repetens sua castra marina, Expleat ut solitas funeris exequias. Heraldi mater,3 nimio constricta dolore, Misit ad usque ducem, postulat et precibus, Orbate misere natis tribus, et uiduate, Pro tribus, uniusa reddat ut ossa sibi, Si placet aut corpus puro preponderet auro. Set dux iratus prorsus utrumque negat, Iurans quod pocius presentis littora portus Illi committet, aggere sub lapidum. Ergo uelut fuerat testatus, rupis in alto Precepit claudi uertice corpus humi. Extimplo quidam, partim Normannus et Anglus, Compater Heraldi,4 iussa libenter agit. Corpus enim regis cito sustulit et sepeliuit; Imponens lapidem, scripsit et in titulo: `Per mandata ducis rex hic Heralde quiescis, Vt custos maneas littoris et pelagi.'

f. 230r

Dux, cum gente sua, plangens super ossa sepulta, Pauperibus Christi munera distribuit. Nomine postposito ducis, et sic rege locato, Hinc regale sibi nomen adeptus abit.5 a 1

565

570

575

580

585

590

595

unius eds.; unis A

Cf. above, v. 537, where it is applied to Hugh, the noble heir of Ponthieu. On each occasion he is awarded an approving epithet. M. & M., presumably in¯uenced by GG ii.



35

defeated English. The conqueror spent the night resting among the dead, waiting for dawn to return. But Actor's scion, ever vigilant,1 pursued and killed the fugitives. Mars bore his arms; death raged at his side. Until the true dawn, he spent the night in encounters of every kind, neither weighed down by sleep nor allowing himself to dream. After the brilliant lamp of Phoebus had shone forth and cleansed the world of its gloomy shades, the duke surveyed the battle®eld, and, removing his own dead, had them buried in the bosom of the earth. But the bodies of the English that strewed the ground he left to be eaten by worms and wolves, by birds and dogs.2 He assembled Harold's mangled body, wrapped it in purple linen and took it with him when he returned to his seaside camp in order to perform the usual funeral rites. When Harold's mother,3 in the toils of overwhelming grief, sent to the duke and prayed him to surrender to her, an unhappy widow now bereft of three sons, the bones of the one in place of the threeÐor, if he preferred, he could weigh the body against pure goldÐthe duke, enraged, refused both requests on the spot, swearing he would sooner put him in charge of the shore of that very portÐunder a heap of stones. Therefore, just as he had sworn, he ordered the body to be buried on the summit of a cli. In a short time a relation of Harold, a man part English, part Norman,4 gladly carried out the command. He quickly took and buried the king's body under a tombstone with the inscription, `You rest here, King Harold, by order of the duke, so that you may still be guardian of the shore and sea.' The duke, sorrowing with his Normans over the buried bones, distributed alms to Christ's poor. And with the king thus entombed, he renounced the title of duke, assumed the royal style5 and left the place. 24, where Eustace of Boulogne and the duke pursue the fugitives, and Eustace is cowardly, identi®es him here as Eustace. 2 Cf. the revisions in GG ii. 26, which are entirely favourable to the duke. 3 Gytha, sister-in-law of King Cnut and widow of Godwin earl of Wessex. 4 According to GG ii. 25, this was William Malet. Both his ancestry and his relationship to Harold are unknown. For the latest and most thorough investigation, see C. R. Hart, `William Malet and his family', ANS xix (1997), 123±65. Katharine Keats-Rohan is another working on this family. The caput of the Malets' Norman honour was Graville-Sainte-Honorine at the mouth of the Seine. William I was made sheri of Yorkshire and castellan of York probably in Feb. 1069, but was captured at York by Danish invaders in the autumn. Besides his large Yorkshire honour, he (and/or his son Robert) were well endowed in East Anglia, with the caput at Eye in Suolk. William died in 1070±1, not long after his release from captivity. Where King Harold was buried is uncertain. See above, pp. lxxxv f. 5 The change of title at this time is pointedly denied by GG ii. 26. And cf. below, v. 756. The matter is important, for once William became king the period of `public war' ended and he could regard all those who continued to resist him as rebels. Dawson ended his translation here.


36


Hastinge portus castris ter quinque diebus Mansit, et ad Doueram uertit abinde uiam.1 Nec medium complerata iter cum territus illi Occurrit populus, promtus b in obsequio, Obtulit et claues castri,c portasque reclusas Testatur, simulans uelle subesse sibi. Est ibi mons altus, strictum mare, litus opacum.2 Hinc hostes cicius Anglica regna petunt. Set castrum Douere, pendens a uertice montis, Hostes reiciens, litora tuta facit. Clauibus acceptis, rex intrans menia castri Precipit Angligenis euacuare domos. Hos introduxit per quos sibi regna subegit, Vnumquemque suum misitd ad hospicium. Ilico peruasit terror uicinia castri, Vrbes et burgos, oppida queque replens. Nobilior reliquis urbs Cantorberiae dicta, Missis legatis, prima tributa tulit.3 Post, alie plures nimium sua iura tenentes f 4 Regi sponte sua munera grata ferunt. Et ueluti musce stimulo famis exagitate Vlcera densatim plena cruore petunt, Vndique sic Angli regi currunt famulari. Pergit muneribus nec uacuata manus; Omnes dona ferunt et sub iuga colla reponunt; Flexis poplitibus, oscula dant pedibus. Per spacium mensis cum gente perendinat illic; Post, alio uadit castra locare sibi.5 Guincestram misit; mandat primatibus urbis, Vt faciunt alii, ferre tributa sibi.6 Hanc regina tenet regis de dote prioris Hetguardi, qua re dedecus esse putat Sic sibi g concessam si uadit tollere sedem. Solum uectigal postulat atque ®dem. Vna primates regine consuluerunt, Illaque, concedens, ferre petita iubet.

600

605

610

615

620

625

630

a b complerat eds.; comperat A prom(p)tus Hall (cf. v. 538); partus A; ? pronus c d Orlandi 1 castri eds.; castris A corrected from misit suum A; cf. v. e f Cantorberia eds.; Cantorbeia A tenentes M. & M. (cf. vv. 211, 439 g 543); timentes A, Orlandi 1; tuentes Hall sibi eds.; tibi A



37

He remained encamped at the port of Hastings for a fortnight, and then set o for Dover.1 He had not got half way when its terri®ed inhabitants came to meet him, ready to surrender. They oer him the keys of the town, declare that the gates are open, and profess that they want to submit to him. There are there a high hill, narrow Straits, and a shaded beach.2 From here enemies can most easily attack the English realm. But the town of Dover, hanging from the summit of the hill, repels enemies and protects the shore. After the king had accepted the keys, he entered the walled town, ordered the English out of their homes, brought in the men who had conquered the kingdom for him, and sent each to his own lodgings. Immediately terror spread out beyond the town to all neighbouring cities, boroughs, and places. Canterbury, a city considered the noblest of them all, sent envoys and was the ®rst to pay tribute.3 Afterwards many more, holding ®rmly to their own rights,4 of their own accord and in gratitude made gifts to the king. And just as hungry ¯ies attack in swarms wounds brimming with blood, so from all sides the English rush to dance attendance on the king. Nor do they come with hands empty of gifts. All bring presents, bow their necks to the yoke and, on bended knees, kiss his feet. He and his army stayed there a month. Then he moved his camp elsewhere.5 He sent to Winchester and ordered the city fathers to pay him tribute just like other places.6 As the queen held this city in dower from the former King Edward, he thought it dishonourable to dispossess her of a residence thus obtained: he required only a rent and fealty. Together the elders took thought for the queen; and she, submissive, ordered that the demands should be met. So both sides 1 According to GG ii. 27, he punished the port of Romney en route. For the events at Dover, cf. ibid. 2 Cf. Matthew Arnold's poem, `Dover Beach', ad ®n.: Ànd we are here as on a darkling plain'. 3 GG ii. 28, mentions the submission of Canterbury. 4 Several `corrections' of iura tenentes have been suggested. But cf. vv. 211, 543. The sense here seems to be that cities paid to be left alone with their rights intact. 5 According to GG ii. 28, this was at Fracta Turris (broken tower), near Canterbury, which has not been identi®ed. Chibnall, GG p. 145 n. 2, hazards Faversham. And there he suered a grave illness but refused to rest. 6 This Winchester episode is unique. William of Poitiers, GG ii. 8, claimed that Edith was Harold's enemy and a supporter of William. She certainly made a pro®table submission to the Conqueror. Cf. P. Staord, Queen Emma and Queen Edith (Oxford, 1997), p. 275.


38

f. 230rb


Taliter et regis precepto spirat uterque, Nam domine pariter et sua dona ferunt. Rex sic pacatus tentoria ®xa resoluit; Quo populosa nitet Londonaa uertit iter.1 Vrbs est ampla nimis, peruersis plena colonis, Et regni reliquis dicior est opibus. A leua muris, a dextrab ¯umine tuta,2 Hostes nec metuit nec pauet arte capi. Hanc bello superata petit gens improba, sperans Viuere per longum libera tempus in hac. Set quia pernimius terror uallauerat omnes, Vndique planctus erat meror et impaciens, Vna postremum rectores atque potentes3 Tali consilio consuluere sibi: Scilicet ut puerum natum de traduce regis4 Inc regem sacrent, ne sine rege forent. Autumat insipiens uulgus se posse tueri Regali solo nomine, non opere. In statuam regis puer est electus ab illis, Cuius presidium contulit exicium. Sparsit fama uolans quod habet Londoniad regem, Gaudet et Anglorum qui superest populus. Interea, regni totum qui querit habere, Et, uotis compos,5 cui fauet omnipotens, Hostili gladio, que nec uastauerat igne, Vie non ingenio uindicat imperio. Comperit ut factum fatuis quod non erat equum, Prescripte muros urbis adire iubet. Paruit extimplo celeri uelocius aura Agmen belligerum castra locare sibi. Densatis castris a leua menia cinxit, Et bellis hostes esse dedit uigiles. Dimidie f leuge spacio distabat ab urbe Regia regalis, aula decora nimis,

635

640

645

650

655

660

665

a b Londona for Londonia (v. 653) because of the metre dextra Orlandi 1 (cf. vv. c d 413, 777, 803±4); dextris A corrected in second hand from Hi A Londonia e f Vi Hall, Orlandi 2 (cf. v. 695); Vt A dimidiaeË corrected eds.; Landonia A by expunction A 1 The account of the duke's dealings with London in GG ii. 28, is both shorter and rather dierent. See also above, pp. lxxxvi f.



39

assented to the king's order; and both the queen's and their own gifts were conveyed to him. Satis®ed, the king struck camp and directed his steps to where teeming London shines bright.1 It is a most spacious city, full of evil inhabitants, and richer than anywhere else in the kingdom. Protected on the left by walls and on the right by the river,2 it fears neither armies nor capture by guile. The obstinate men who had been defeated in battle had made their way to London in the hope of being able to live there in freedom for a long time. But, because they were surrounded by so much terror, with everywhere lamentation and unbearable sorrow, ®nally the governors and magnates3 in consultation thought it advisable to consecrate as king a boy of the royal lineage4 lest they remain without a ruler. For the foolish mob thought that they could be protected solely by the name, not by the power, of a king. The boy is elected by them to be the image of a king; and his protection produced ruin. But the report ¯ew around that London had a king and the English survivors rejoiced. Meanwhile the man who sought possession of the whole realm and, for the Almighty looked favourably upon him, had had his wishes granted,5 brought under his rule, not by his wits but by main force, all those parts which he had not devastated by his destructive sword and ®re. When he learnt what had been done in London contrary to justice and by fools, he ordered his troops to approach the walls of the city. And immediately, swifter than the wind, a column of soldiers arrived to take up position. He then surrounded the walls on the left side with encampments, set close together, and ordered his men to be ready for battle. Half a league away from the royal city is the royal palace, a most handsome building, said to have been called by its ancient inhabitants 2

Viewing the city with William and his army from the west. A writ of King Edward is addressed to bishop álfweard (1035±44), Wulfgar `my portreeve' (? sheri), and all the citizens of London, in order to protect the privileges of `my men in the guild of English cnihtas'. Here is, presumably, the urban patriciate of the previous generation. Cf. C. Brooke and G. Keir, The History of London (London, 1975), pp. 96±8, 191±3. 4 Edgar átheling, the son of Edward `the Exile' and great-grandson of King áthelred. For him see Barlow, Edward the Confessor, pp. 217±18, 241, 351; William Rufus, pp. 264±6 and passim. According to ASC `D', the election of Edgar Cild was supported by Archbishop Ealdred of York, who was in the city, and by Earls Edwin and Morkere. 5 Compos uotisÐ`having obtained his vows' or `having grati®ed his wishes', probably goes with the main subject, the Conqueror, and not with God: cf. above, vv. 70±1. Michel would emend to uoti. 3


40


Fertur ab antiquis que Guest uocitata colonis; Post, Petri nomen auxit ab ecclesia.1 Prouidus hanc sedem sibi rex elegit ad edem, Que sibi complacuit iure nec inmerito: Nam ueluti patrum testantur gesta priorum, Ex solito reges hic diadema ferunt.2 Edi®cat moles,3 ueruecis cornua ferro Fabricat et talpas, urbis ad excidium. Intonat inde minas, penas et bella minatur, Iurans quod, licitum si sibi sit spacium, Menia dissoluet, turres equabit harenis,a Elatam turremb destruet aggerie.c 4 Talibus auditis, ciues pauor atterit urbis, Occupat, exagitat, torquet et excruciat. Intus erat quidam contractus debilitate Renum sicque pedum segnis, ab ocio Vulnera pro patria quoniamd numerosa recepit.5 Lectica uehitur, mobilitate carens; Omnibus ille tamen primatibus imperat urbis, Eius et auxilio publica res6 agitur. Huic per legatum clam rex pociora reuelat, Secretime poscens quatinus his faueat: Solum rex uocitetur, ait, set commoda regni Vt iubet Ansgardus subdita cuncta regat. Ille quidem cautus caute legata recepit, Cordis et occulto condidit in thalamo. Natu maiores, omni leuitate repulsa,7 Aggregat, et uerbis talibus alloquitur: Ègregii fratres, tum ui, tum sepius arte8Ð Est ubi nunc sensus uester? Et actus ubi?

670

675

680

685

690

695

a b h inserted by same hand A turrem eds.; turre A; elata turre Orlandi 1, elatam terre c aggerie A; ? emend to aggeries Orlandi 1, aggeriem Hall, ? Hall, ? Orlandi 2 d e Orlandi 2 quoniam eds.; quia non A secretim eds.; secrete Michel, secreti A 1 St Peter's Westminster is about 112 miles from St Paul's cathedral. For Edward's church at Westminster, see Barlow, ed., The Life of King Edward, pp. 60±70. Edward died in his palace or hall at Westminster: ibid., pp. 116±24, and it is featured in several of his legends, ibid., pp. xxxviii n. 107, 100, 102±6. The hall was rebuilt by William Rufus, Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 371±2, and still exists. For a map of Westminster Abbey, the palace, and the environs in the later Middle Ages, see B. F. Harvey, Living and Dying in England 1100±1540: The Monastic Experience (Oxford, 1993), p. xvii. The map shows that the palace was a late arrival in comparison to the church.



41

`West', a name afterwards extended from the `minster' of St Peter's.1 The king, with an eye to the future, chose this as his residence. It attracted him not without justi®cation for, as is proved by the deeds of earlier rulers, kings were accustomed to wear their crown there.2 To overthrow the city he built siege-engines3 and made battering-rams with horns of iron as well as machines for mining. Then he thundered forth menaces and threatened punishment and war. He vowed that, given the chance, he would raze the walls, level the bastions to the ground, and reduce the proud tower to rubble.4 At these words fear invades and grips the citizens, disturbing, tormenting and excruciating them. In the city was a man, crippled by kidney trouble and hampered in his walk because he had suered many wounds while serving his country.5 As he lacked mobility he was carried in a litter; but it was he who ruled over the city fathers and it was with his help that the city's business6 was done. To this man the king, through an envoy, covertly unveiled another way out, and secretly asked him to view it with favour. He said he wanted only the title of king: all the aairs of the kingdom he would direct just as Ansgar ordered them to be done. But Ansgar, a prudent man, received the oer cautiously and kept it concealed in the secret chamber of his heart. He assembled the city fathers, men past the giddiness of youth,7 and addressed them in words such as these. `Worshipful brethren, sometimes we have to act with force, but more often by diplomacy.8 To which do you incline now? What should 2 Cf. M. Biddle, `Seasonal festivals and residence: Winchester, Westminster and Gloucester in the tenth to twelfth centuries', ANS viii (1986), 51±72, at pp. 51±2; E. Mason, `The site of king-making and consecration', The Church and Sovereignty c.590± 1918, Essays in Honour of Michael Wilks, ed. D. Wood, Studies in Church History, subsidia ix (Oxford, 1991), 57±76. 3 Moles (and cf. v. 699) must represent an artillery-piece such as a mangonel, a giant catapult. 4 The high tower threatened with destruction has worried M. & M., Orlandi, and Hall. The last suggested, hesitantly, correcting to èlatam terre destruet aggeriem', i.e. the destruction of an earth rampart. Orlandi, `Some afterthoughts', p. 124, thinks that the last word must be left to London archaeologists. But surely it is no more than a rhetorical exercise: a picture of a walled and turreted city under siege. 5 Called Ansgard in v. 690 and subsequently, presumably Esgar (or Esger) the staller. This man with a Scandinavian name was one of Edward's court ocials, termed steward (procurator) of the king's hall in a suspect royal charter for Waltham abbey dated 1062. See Barlow, Edward the Confessor, index, s.v.; Williams, The English, p. 87. 6 Commoda patrie appears in v. 784. 7 The levity of youth is a topos in the poem. Cf. above, v. 183 and n. 8 Cf. above, v. 658.


42


Cernitis oppressos ualido certamine muros Et circumseptos cladibus innumeris. Molis et erecte transcendit machina turres, Ictibus et lapiduma menia scissa ruunt. Casibus a multis, ex omni parte ruina Eminet,b et nostra corda timore labant; Atque manus populi, nimio percussac pauore, Vrbis ad auxilium segniter arma mouet. Nosque foris uastat gladius, pauor angit et intus, Et nullum nobis presidium superest. Ergo, precor, uobis si spes est ulla salutis, Quatinus addatis uiribus ingenium; Est quia precipuum, si uis succumbat in actum,d Quod uirtute nequit, ®at ut ingenio. Est igitur nobis super hoc prudenter agendum, Et pariter sanum querere consilium. Censeo quapropter, si uobis constat honestum, Hostes dum lateant omnia que patimur, Actutume docilis noster legatus ut hosti Mittatur, uerbis fallere qui satagat: Seruicium simulet nec non et federa pacis, Et dextras dextre subdere, si iubeat.'

f. 230v

Omnibus hoc placuit; dicto uelocius implent. Mittitur ad regem uir racione capax Ordine qui retulit, decorans sermone faceto, Vtile fraternum, non secus ac proprium. Set quia uix patula teneatur compede uulpes, Fallitur a rege fallere quem uoluit; Namque palam laudat rex, atque latenter ineptat Quicquid ab Ansgardo nuncius attulerat. Obcecat donis stolidum, uerbisque fefellit, Premia promittens innumerosa sibi. Ille, retro rutilo gradiens honeratus ab auro, A quibus est missus talia dicta refert: `Rex uobis pacem dicit profertque salutem; Vestris mandatis paret et absque dolis. Set Dominum testor, cui rerum seruit imago,1 Post Dauid regem nescit habere parem.

700

705

710

715

720

725

730


43


we do? You see the walls assailed by powerful assaults and encompassed by countless disasters. The siege-engine that has been erected overtops the bastions. The walls, split by the blows of its rocks, are falling down. From the many breaches ruin threatens on every side. Our hearts quake with fear. The military forces of the country, panic-stricken, are slow to take up arms in aid of the city. And so, destroyed by the sword without and corroded by fear within, no help is left to us. Therefore, if you still have any hope of deliverance, I pray you add ingenuity to violence. For it is best, if force fails in its action, that what cannot be done by force should be done by ingenuity. We should, therefore, act in this matter with prudence and likewise look for a sensible plan. Accordingly I think, if it seems proper to you, that while all we suer is hidden from the enemy, we should send immediately to him a persuasive envoy who will try to trick him with words. Let him make a feigned oer of subjection and also of a peace-treaty and even put hand in hand if the enemy should so require.' This suggestion pleased them all, and they immediately carried it out. A skilful pleader was sent to the king. Adorning his speech with many a ®ne word, he expressed in orderly manner what would be advantageous both to his brethren and himself. But because a fox cannot be trapped by an obvious snare, the king whom he had sought to deceive, deceived him. For while the king approved in public the proposals the envoy had brought from Ansgar, in private he ridiculed them. He blinded the fool with gifts, and, promising him immense rewards, deceived him with words. The envoy returned laden with red gold and reported to those who had sent him in words such as these. `The king sends you a message of peace and wishes you well. He agrees to your demands, and this without guile. For, and I call on the Lord as witness, the Lord to whom the very image of things1 is subject: he has not seen the equal of such a king since David. King William is a lapidum eds.; palidum A perculsa Orlandi 2 (cf. v. 191) eds.; Acutum A 1

Cf. Hebr. 10: 1.

b d

? for imminet Hall (cf. v. 390) ? emend to actu Hall, actum A

e

c ? for Actutum


44


Pulchrior est sole, sapientior et Salomone; Promptior est Magno, largior et Carolo.1 Contulit Eguardus quod rex donum sibi regni Monstrat et ad®rmat, uosque probasse refert. Hoc igitur superest, ultra si uiuere uultis, Debita cum manibus reddere iura sibi.'2 Annuit hoc uulgus, iustum probat esse senatus,3 Et puerum regem cetus uterque negat. Vultibus in terra de¯exis, regis ad aulam Cum puero pergunt agmine composito. Reddere per claues urbem, sedare furorem Oblato querunt munere cum manibus. Nouit ut aduentum, factus rex obuius illis Cum puero reliquis oscula grata dedit. Culpas indulsit, gratanter dona recepit, Et sic susceptos tractat honori®ce. Per ®deia speciem proprium commendat honorem, Et iuramentis per®da corda ligat.4 Cristi natalis, nostre spes una salutis, Quam mundus celebrat, proxima lux aderat; In qua promeritam disponit ferre coronam, Et ducis abiecto nomine, rex ®eri.5 Auro uel gemmis iubet ut sibi nobile stemma Illud quod deceat, ®at ab arti®ce. Misit Arabs aurum, gemmas a ¯umine Nilus; Grecia prudentem dirigit arte fabrum Qui Salomoniacum, uix deterior Salomone, Miri®cum fecit et diadema decens.6 Principio, frontis medium carbunculus ornat; Post hincb iacinctus lucifer insequitur; Tercius auri®co resplendet in orbe topazon; Saphirus quartum ditat honore gradum; Sardonicus quintus regales obsidet aures; Cui calcedonius ordine sextus adit;c a

774)

®d'i A; M. & M., corr. to ®di: either makes sense c adit eds.; abit A

b

735

740

745

750

755

760

765

? emend to huic Engels (cf. v.

1 Gnaeus Pompeius, 106±48 bc, called Magnus after 81; Charles the Great, Charlemagne, king of the French, Roman Emperor, 800±14. 2 i.e. by doing homage; cf. v. 718.



45

more beautiful than the sun, wiser than Solomon, readier than Pompey, and more bountiful than Charles.1 He points out and arms that King Edward granted him the kingdom and alleges that you approved. Therefore, if you wish to survive, only one course is open to you: restore to him by your hands his lawful rights.'2 The people agree to this, the council3 approves it as just, and both renounce the boy king. With heads bowed to the ground, they proceed with the boy in an orderly procession to the royal hall, seeking to surrender the city by its keys and to appease wrath by making a gift with their hands. When the king heard of their coming he went to meet them and bestowed joyful kisses on the boy and the others. He pardoned their crimes, gratefully accepted their gifts, and thus treated with honour those whom he had taken under his protection. By a show of good faith he boosts his own repute, and binds treacherous hearts by oaths.4 The day was approaching on which the world celebrates the nativity of Christ [25 Dec.], our only hope of salvation, the festival on which he intended to wear the crown he deserved, and, discarding the title of duke, to be made king.5 He ordered that a noble crown, one that was ®tting, should be fashioned out of gold and precious stones by a craftsman. Arabia sent gold, the Nile gems from the river, and Greece dispatched a skilled arti®cer, one scarcely inferior to Solomon, who made a marvellous and be®tting crown, similar to Solomon's.6 First a central ruby adorns the forehead. A shining jacinth follows. Third, a topaz is resplendent in the golden crown. A sapphire richly embellishes the fourth place. A sardonyx is ®fth and rests above the royal ear, followed, sixth in order, by a chalcedony. 3 By senatus (cf. below, vv. 789, 815), Guy simply means a governing body (e.g. a council or the witan). 4 This harks back to v. 724: there is mutual deceit. Note the word-play: Per ®dei/ per®da. 5 This is discordant with vv. 595±6, and is accepted by GG ii. 29, where the duke's reluctance is stressed and a debate on the subject reported. Cf. further, J. C. Nelson, `The rites of the Conqueror', ANS iv (1982), 117±32, at pp. 117±18. 6 Solomon's crown is mentioned in S. of S. 3: 11, but is not specially featured in Matt. 6: 29, Luke 12: 27, where he is arrayed in all his glory. The twelve gemstones are based ultimately on Exod. 28: 17±21; 39: 10±13; Ezek. 28: 13; and Rev. 21: 19±20. Cf. also, `Marbod', De duodecim lapidibus (PL clxxi. 1772). See further F. de MeÂly, Les Lapidaires de Ã ge, 3 vols (Paris, 1896, 1902); P. Studer and Joan Evans, Anglol'AntiquiteÂ et du Moyen A Norman Lapidaries (Paris, 1924); Evans and Mary Sargeantson, English Medieval Lapidaries (EETS, os, no. 190; London, 1933). K. Leyser, Èngland and the Empire in the twelfth century', Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 5th ser., x (1960), 61±83, at p. 65, thought that this crown, `made by a Greek, with its arc and twelve pearls, resembled that of Otto the Great, the crown of the empire par excellence'.


46


Septimus est iaspis, procul a quo pellitur hostis; Sardius octauus igniuomus rutilat. Figitur in nona sella lux crisolitana;a Tuque, berille, locum clari®cas decimum; Vndecimum uiridis numerum smaragdus adinplet; Huic quoque crisoprassus fert duodenusb opem. Verticis in summo stat margarita suprema, Que sibi subpositosc luce replet lapides, In cuius dextra leua quoque parte locata Est ametisti lux, cui color est geminus. Ethereus ueluti propulsis nubibus axis Insitus ignitis syderibus rutilat, Aurea luci¯uis distincta corona lapillis Vndique sic renitetd lumine clari®co. Sceptrum cum uirga componit post diadema, Commoda que pariter signi®cant patrie; Nam sceptro tumide regni moderantur habene, Dispersos uirga colligit ac reuocat. Tempore disposito quo rex sacrandus habetur,1 Terre magnates et populosa manus, Ponti®cale decus, uenerabilis atque senatus Vndique conueniunt regis ad ocium. Ex his eligitur presul celeberrimus unus,2 Moribus insignis et probitate cluens, Qui regem sacret, simul et sacrando coronet, Et regale caput stemmate nobilitet.e Illius imperio, solito de more priorum, Bini ponuntur magni®care Deum.3 Ordo cucullatus, clerus cum ponti®cali Nobilitate, petunt templa beata Petri: Anteferendo cruces sequitur processio cleri; Post clerum pergit ponti®cale decus. Rex, multa comitumque ducum uallante caterua, Vltimus incedit cum strepitu populi. Illius et dextram sustentat metropolita; Ad leuam graditur alter honore pari.4 Taliter ecclesiam laudes modulando5 requirit Rex, et regalem ducitur ad cathedram.

f. 230vb

a

crisolitana eds.; crisomana or crisontana A

b

770

775

780

785

790

795

800

805

duodenus eds.; dudenus A



47

Seventh is a jasper, from which the devil is driven far. Eighth, a red sard spews out ¯ames. In the ninth place sits a radiant chrysolite. And you, beryl, illuminate the tenth. A green emerald ®lls the eleventh. And the twelfth, a chrysoprase, also adds to the vert. Above them all, at the apex, is placed a pearl which sets the lower gems ablaze. And on its right and left gleam two amethysts of matching hue. Just as, with clouds dispersed, the sky is aglow, studded with brilliant stars, so the golden crown, picked out with sparkling gems, glitters on every side with dazzling rays. After the crown, the smith created a sceptre and rod, which alike portend the well-being of the realm. For by the sceptre uprisings in the kingdom are controlled and the rod gathers and con®nes those men that stray. At the time appointed for the king's coronation,1 the magnates of the realm, the people, the dignitaries of the church, and the venerable witan assemble from all sides for the royal ceremony. From these, to consecrate and at the same time to crown the king, by ennobling the king's head with a coronet, was chosen the most celebrated of the bishops, a man of distinction, renowned for his goodness.2 By his order the procession to magnify the Lord3 was organized, according to the usual and ancient custom, in double ®le. The monastic order and the clergy with their prelates make for the church of St Peter. Crosses are borne before the procession of the clergy; and after the clergy follows the episcopal order. The king, escorted by a great concourse of counts and dukes and the applause of the people, comes last. A metropolitan bishop holds his right hand and another of the same rank walks on his left.4 In this manner, to the chanting of the Laudes,5 the king seeks the church and is conducted to the royal throne. When the Laudes were c e

subpositos eds.; subposito corr. to ? subpositio A nobilitet eds.; nobilitate A 1

d

renitet eds.; retinet A

For the coronation, see above, pp. lxxxix f. For senatus, cf. above, v. 741 and n. Ealdred, archbishop of York, according to GG ii. 30. For the consecrator, see above, p. xxxvii. 3 Or, as Hall, p. 907, suggests, more speci®cally, to chant the Magni®cat. 4 For the implied presence of Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, and their equal status, see above, pp. xxxvii f., lxxxix f. 5 For Carmen's coronation ordo, see above, pp. xxxvi f. H. E. J. Cowdrey, `The AngloNorman Laudes regiae', Viator, xii (1981), 37±78, at 50 ., doubts the inclusion of laudes, which, he believes, were ®rst used in England at Queen Matilda's coronation in 1068 (probably attended by Guy). 2


48


Laudibus expletis, turba reticente canora, Indixit pacem1 cantor et ut sileant. Conticuit clerus; compescuit ora senatus; Non est auditus ullus ab ore sonus. Normannus quidam presul2 mox pulpita scandens, Famosis Gallis talia uerba dedit: Òblatus uobis si rex placet, edite nobis, Arbitrio uestri nam decet hoc ®eri.' Concessit populus, clerus fauet atque senatus; Quod sermone nequit, innuit et manibus. Sermo peroratur post illum metropolite; Hec eadem lingua protulit Angligena. Spirat utraquea manus;3 laudat; spondet famulari; Annuit ex toto corde subesse sibi. Conuertens sanctam se summus presul ad aram, Ante suam regem constituit faciem; Ad se ponti®ces accitos congregat omnes, Et cum rege simul membra dedere solo. Inchoat incentor stans rectus Kyrieleison; Sanctorum pariter poscit habere preces.4 b Postquam Sanctorum sitc Letania peracta, Presule cum summo ponti®calis honor Erigitur, solo prostrato rege relicto. Incentor siluit; omnis et ordo tacet. Summus et antistes populo precepit ut oret; Incipit et proprium5 protinus ocium. Collectam dixit; regem de puluere tollit; Crismate diuso regis et ipse caput Vnxit, et in regem regali more sacrauit. h*

*

*

* *j

810

815

820

825

830

835

6

a b utroque M. & M.; utraque A (cf. above v. 633) hSedj postquam M. & M., to remedy the verse because of their scansion of letania; Orlandi1 considers the insertion c unnecessary sit eds.; ®t A



49

®nished and the melodious throng was still, the precentor declared peace1 and ordered that all should be silent. The clergy was quiet, the witan uttered no word. Not a sound came from any mouth. A Norman bishop2 then mounted the pulpit and spoke thus to the famous men of France. Ìf the king now presented to you meets with your approval, declare it to us, for this matter should be done according to your will.' The people allow it, and the clergy and witan approve, showing by their hands what they could not express in words. The metropolitan follows with an identical speech in English. The congregation gives assent to both,3 hails the king and pledges service. It promises subjection with all its heart. The archbishop then turned towards the holy altar and set the king to face him. He summoned all the prelates to join him and, together with the king, they all prostrate themselves. The precentor, standing, starts the Kyrie eleison and also invokes the intercession of the saints.4 After the Litany of Saints, the bishops, together with the archbishop, stand up, leaving only the king lying prone. When the precentor ceased chanting, the whole congregation falls silent. The archbishop tells the people to pray and starts the oce proper to the occasion.5 He recites the Collect, raises the king from the dust, anoints the king's head with the chrism he pours out, and consecrates him king according to the royal rites. . . . . . .6

1 Cf. above, v. 731. It is probably too early in the service for this to be the occasion for the kiss of peace (pax). 2 According to GG ii. 30, the bishop of Coutances, i.e. Georey de Mowbray (1049±93), for whom see R. Foreville, GG p. 182, n. 2. 3 Or, leaving the text unchanged, `Both components (of the congregation) gave assent . . .'; cf. JaÈschke, Wilhelm, p. 36, n. 231. This was the àcclamation', which, according to GG ii. 30, caused the nervous Norman guards on the abbey to set ®re to the environs. For the àcclamation', see Janet L. Nelson, `The rites of the Conqueror', ANS iv (1982), 117± 32, at pp. 122±3. 4 For the litany, see Cowdrey, `The Anglo-Norman Laudes regiae', p. 44 n. 22. 5 The `proper' is the part of the Eucharist and Oce which changes according to the festival or ecclesiastical season: hence here the proper for Christmas Day. 6 At least a pentameter is missing. For a discussion of how the original ended, see above, pp. xx, xc.


d:/3barlow/ind.3d ± 9/7/99 ± 8:42 ± sh/mp

INDEX Medieval persons are indexed under their ®rst name. Abbreviations: abp = archbishop; bp = bishop; ct = count; ctess = countess; d. = daughter; GT = genealogical table (p. xliv); k. = king; s. = son Abbeville-sur-Somme (Somme) xxxi n., xliii, lxi Achilles xxxii Actorides, see Hectorides Adela, ctess of Blois lx Adela, d. of Robert II, the Pious, k. of France GT, xvii Adelaide of Normandy, ctess of Ponthieu GT, xlv, xlix; her d. Adelaide GT, xlv Adelvie, ctess of Boulogne GT, xliii, xlv, xlix álfweard, bp of London 39 n. Aeneas xxxii n. áthelred, the Unready, k. of England GT, lxi áthelric Childemaister, Waltham canon lxxxvi Africa xxxix Aimeri IV, viscount of Thouars lxxxix Alan the Red, ct of Brittany lxxvi Alexander II, pope lxxx Alfred, ñtheling lxii Amatus, AimeÂ du Mont-Cassin, Storia de' normanni lxxxiv Amiens, cathedral xlvii, lxi Anderida (Sussex) lxiv, lxix, 10 n. 3 Andredesweald (Sussex) lxxvii Anglo-Saxon Chronicle lv, lxiii, lxv, lxxvii, lxxxviii Anjou, county of xlix Ansgar (Ansgard), London citizen (?Esgar the Staller) xxiii f., xxxvi, lxxxvii, 40±2 Apulians xxxix, 16 Aquitanians lxxx Arabia 44 archers lxxiv f., lxxxiii, 20, 24 army, Harold's lxxi ff., lxxx, 20; William's lxv f., lxxiv±lxxvii; see also archers; cavalry; conrois; crossbowmen; hauberk; horses; infantry Arnulf II, ct of Boulogne GT Arques, ct of, see William Astiensis Poeta, Nouus Auianus xx

Aumale (Seine-Maritime) xlix Baldwin I, ct of Boulogne GT, xliii Baldwin V, ct of Flanders xvii, xl, l, lii Bar¯eur (Manche) lxvii Battle Abbey (Sussex) lxxvii, lxxxv; conference at (1979) xxviii Baudri of Bourgueil xvi, xix, xxxvi, lix f., lxxxiv, lxxxvii, xc Bayeux (Calvados) l; bp of, see Odo; òath of' lii, lxiii f., 16 Bayeux Tapestry xvi, xix, xxvi, xxxi, lv, lxii f., lxxi, lxxvii, lxxxi, lxxxiii f. Beurain-sur-Canche (Pas-de-Calais) xxxi, lii BenoõÃt de Sainte-Maure xxxiv Berkhamstead (Herts.) lxxxviii Bernard II, lord of Saint-Valery xxxi n. Bertha of Aumale, ctess of Ponthieu GT, xlix Bonneville-sur-Touques (Calvados), Harold's oath at lxii Bosham (Sussex) lxxxvi Boulogne, cts of, see GT Brevis relatio lv Brian of Brittany lxxvi Brittany, Bretons xxiii, xxxix, lvii, lxii, lxx, lxxvi, lxxix f., 10, 16, 23 n., 24 Brown, R. Allen xxviii, liv n. Calabrians xxxix, 16 Canterbury lxxxvii, 36; St Augustine's abbey lviii Carmen de Hastingae proelio, the MSS xiii f., xix ff.; their discovery xiii; their authorship xiv ff., xxiv±xl; their date xviii, xxv, xxix, xl ff.; printed text v, xiii ff.; subject-matter xxi±xxiv, xli f. cavalry lxxiv ff. Chanson de Roland xxvii, xxxii n., liv Charlemagne xxiv, 44 Chaumont-sur-Loire (Loir-et-Cher, siege of (1067) ) lxxxii


52

INDEX

Chibnall, Marjorie vi Cnut, k. of England lxi conrois lxxv f. Corbie (Somme), abbey xlvii f. Coutances, bp of, see Geoffrey de Mowbray crossbowmen lxvi, lxxiv f., 20, 24 crown, William's lxxxix, 44±7 David, k. of Israel 42 Davis, R. H. C. vi, xxv, xxviii, xxxiv Dawkins, Prof. W. B. lxxviii n. Dawson, Charles xvi, xxxii, xxxv Denmark, Danish troops lxxx Dido, queen lxxxiv Dives, river (Calvados) lxii, lxvii, 5 n. Douglas, David C. liv n. Dover (Kent) xl f., lxxxvii f., 36; St Martin's lvi n. Dreux (Drogo), bp of TheÂrouanne xlvi Drogo, ct of the Vexin GT, xlvii, li drums 8 DuÈbner, Friedrich xiv Duchesne, AndreÂ xiii Dudo of Saint-Quentin lv Ealdred, abp of York xxxvii f., lxxxviii ff., 39 n., 47 n., 48 Edgar átheling (Cild) xxiii, xxxvi, lxxxviii, 38, 44 Edith, k. Edward's queen GT, li, lxiv, lxxxvii, 36 Edith, k. Harold's queen GT, 17 n. 7 Edith Swanneck lxxxvi, 17 n. 7 Edward `the Confessor', k. of England GT, xlix, li, lxiii, 5 n., 40 n.; his grant of the succession to William xxi, lxi f., 18, 36, 44 Edwin, earl of Mercia lxxxviii, 17 n. 7, 39 n. Emma, queen of áthelred and Cnut GT, lxi, 5 n. Engels, L. J. xxviii f., xxx Engenulf, castellan of Laigle xxii, lxxxi Enguerrand, abt of Saint-Riquier xlvi f. Enguerrand I, ct of Ponthieu GT, xlii f., xlv f. Enguerrand II, ct of Ponthieu GT, xliii, xlix, 1 Ermoldus Nigellus xlvii n. Esgar the Staller, see Ansgar Eustace I, ct of Boulogne GT Eustace II, ct of Boulogne GT, xxii, xxvi,

xxix, xxxii f., xxxv, xl ff., xlix f., lii; at Hastings lxxvi, lxxx ff., 30, 32 Eye (Suffolk) honour of 35 n. Falaise (Calvados) li Falco of Benevento lvii n. FeÂcamp abbey (Seine-Maritime) lxviii; monk of xxxviii, lxx f., 18 ¯ags, battle standards lxxi, lxxix, lxxxiii, 20, 22 Forest-l'Abbaye (Somme) xliii, xlvi Foreville, Raymonde xxviii Fracta Turris (? Faversham, Kent) 36 France, French troops xxiii, lxx, lxxvi, lxxix f., 10, 16, 23 n., 24, 26, 28, 32 Freeman, E. A. xv, liv n. Fulbert, bp of Chartres xlvi Fulk, abt of Forest l'Abbaye GT, xliii, xlv ff. Fulk II, bp of Amiens GT, xlvii, li Fuller, J. F. C. liv n. Gaimar's L'Estoire des Engleis xxxiv Geoffrey de Mowbray, bp of Coutances xxxvii, lxxi, lxxxix, 48 Geoffrey, lord of Chaumont-sur-Loire 31 n. Gervase, abp of Reims xlviii Gervin I, abt of Saint-Riquier xviii, li Ghent, St Bavo xx n.; St Peter's lii Giffard, Gilfard xxii, xxvi, lxxxii f., lxxxiv f., 32; see also Robert; Walter Gilbert, ct of Brionne xliii Giles, J. A. xiii n., xiv f. Gisla, d. of Hugh Capet xliii Gnaeus Pompeius (`Magnus'), see Pompey Godgifu, ctess of the Vexin GT, xlvii, li Godwin, earl of Wessex GT, l, lii, lxii Graville-Sainte-Honorine (SeineMaritime) 35 n. Greece 44 Grestain (Eure), abbey lxviii Guy, abt of Forest-l'Abbaye xlvi Guy, bp of Amiens xiii ff., xvii f., xlii±liii Guy I, ct of Ponthieu GT, xix, xxxi f., xlv, xxlvii, l, lii, lxi f. Guy, ct of Saint-Pol xx, xlvii Guy de Raimbeaucurt 7 n. Gyrth Godwineson GT, xxii, xxxiv, li f., lxxii n., lxxx f., lxxxiv f., 27 n., 29 Gytha, earl Godwin's wife xxii, lxxii n., lxxxv f., 12, 29 n., 34


INDEX Hall, J. B. xxi Halley's comet xxiv, xxvii n., lxiv, 8 Hardy, T. D. xv Hariulf of Saint-Riquier xviii, xlii ff. Harold Godwineson, earl of Wessex, k. of England GT; his illegal claim and succession to the throne xxi, lxi; in Flanders lii; in Ponthieu-Normandy xxxi, lii, lxi f.; his defences against invasion lxii f.; at Stamford Bridge 8± 10; from Stamford Bridge to Hastings 10±14, 18; at Hastings lxxii f., lxxvi± lxxxv, 18±32; his death xxxv, lxxvii, lxxxi±lxxxv, 32; his burial lxxxv f., 34; on the Bayeux Tapestry lix Harold Hardrada, k. of Norway xxii, lv, lxiii f., 10 n., 12 Hastings (Sussex) xli, lxiii, lxxi, lxxxvii, 11 n. 3; Senlac, battle of xxi, liii±lxxxv, 20±34; the feigned ¯ight lxxvi f., lxxix f., 26±8 hauberk lix, lxxix n. Havelock xxxiv Hector xxxii Hectorides xxxii, lxxxi f., 32, 34 Helinand, bp of Laon, abp of Reims li Helloc, Hellox, son of xxii, xxxiv f., lxxx, 30 Henry I, k. of France GT, xlvii, xlix, l f. Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum xxxiv Herluin, knight xliii n. horses lxvi, lxxix, 6, 22, 30 Hugh, advocate of Saint-Riquier GT, xliii Hugh Capet, k. of France GT, xliii, xlix Hugh de Grandmesnil lxxxviii Hugh II of Montfort-sur-Risle (Eure) xxxv, lxxxii Hugh II, ct of Ponthieu GT, xliii, xlv, l Hugh, noble heir of Ponthieu, Hectorides GT, xxii f., xxvi f., xxix, xxxii, xxxv, xl, xlv, l, lxxx, lxxxiv f., 32±4 Humphrey de Tilleul lxxxviii infrantry lxvi, lxxiv f., 22, 24 Ingelran, archdeacon of Soissons or Meaux xxv n. Italians xxxix JaÈschke, Wilhelm xxviii John of Worcester lxiii, lxxvii, lxxxviii Judith of Flanders lii n., liii Judith, w. of Earl Waltheof GT, xlv n.

53

Julius Caesar lxvi, 4, 22; De bello ciuili, De bello Gallico liv knights lxvi, 20 and passim KoÈrner, Sten xxviii Kues, nr Trier/TreÁves, hospital of xx Kyrie eleison 48 Lambert, ct of Lens GT, xlv, xlix Lanfranc, abt of Caen, abp of Canterbury xiv, xviii, xxi, xxv, xxx, 2 lanterns 8 lapidaries 45 n. Lappenberg, J. M. liv n. laudes 46 Lemmon, C. H. liv n. Leofwine Godwineson GT, xxxiv, lxxxi, lxxxiv f., 27 n. LieÁge, Saint-Jacques xx Lille (Nord), siege of (1054) xlv n. Lisieux (Calvados), church of lvi Litany of Saints 48 Littleton, George liv n. London, siege of xv, xxiii, xxxv f., lxxxvii ff., 38±42; its surrender 44; its high tower 40; Fleet St lxxxvii; London Bridge lxxxviii Lot, Ferdinand xv Lucan xxvi M. & M., see Morton and Muntz Maine, cowardly knight of xxii, 30; men of xxxix, lxxx, 16, 31 n. malfosse lxxxi n. Mandeville, family xxxvi Mantes, ct of, see Walter III Maseres, Francis xiii Matilda of Boulogne, k. Stephen's queen xli Matilda of Flanders, k. William I's queen GT, xvii f., xxx, lxxxix, 47 n. Mel®, treaty of (1059) xxxix Meulan, ct of lxxvi n. Michel, Francisque xiii n., xiv Mora, William I's ship lxiv, 8 Morkere, earl of Northumbria lxxxviii, 17 n. 7, 39 n. Mortemer (Seine-Maritime) battle of (1054) l Morton and Muntz (Catherine Morton and Hope Muntz) v f., xxviii, xxxii


54

INDEX

navy, Harold's lxiii, 20; William's lxiv ff., 8 Nicholas Cusanus, cardinal xx Nicholas II, pope xxxix Nile, river 22, 44 Norman troops at Hastings xxiii, xxxix, lxxiv ff., lxxx, 16, 24, 26 Norway, Norwegians 12 Odo, bp of Bayeux xxii, xxvi, lvi n., lviii, lix, lxiii f., lxxi, lxxvi, lxxxi, lxxxiii Odo, ct of Champagne GT, xlv, xlix Â laÂfr Cuaran Sigtryggson xxxiv n. O Oman, C. W. C. liv Orderic Vitalis xiii f., xvi f., xxxvi, lv f., lxxvii, lxxxii, lxxxviii, xc Orlandi, G. xxi, xxxix, xlvi Osgod Cnoppe, canon of Waltham lxxxvi Oudenburg (Belgium), St Peter's xlii Ovid xlvii papal banner lxxx Patroclus xxxii Pertz, G. H. xiii ff. Peter, St 6 Petrie, Henry xiii n., xiv f. Pevensey (Sussex) lxiii ff. Pharsalus, battle of (48 bc) 23 n. Philip I, k. of France GT, xxxvii, xlvii, xlix, l, lxxxii Poitiers (Vienne) lvi Pollock, John lxxxvi Pompey xxiv, 22, 44 Ponthieu, county of xxx±xxxii, xlii±liii, lvii; cts of, see Enguerrand, I, II, Guy I, Hugh I, II; noble heir of, see Hugh PreÂaux (Eure) lvi Ralf of Diss (Diceto) xxxix, 17 n. 6 Ralf de Gael li Ralf Guader li Ralf earl of Hereford GT, li Ralf IV, lord of Valois, CreÂpy, Vexin and Amiens xl n. Ralph, abt of Battle lv Reginald, advocate of Saint-Valery xxxi n. relics on which Harold swore lxxi Remigius, bp of Dorchester xxxvii Richard I, k. of England 5 n. 6 Richard I, ct of Normandy GT, 5 n. Richard II, duke of Normandy GT Richarius, St xlvi Robert of Beaumont lxxvi

Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy xxxiii, xxxviii n., xli, 38 n. Robert ®tzWimarch lxxi Robert Giffard xl Robert Guiscard xxxix Robert, ct of Mortain xxii, lix, lxv, lxxvi Robert I, duke of Normandy GT, xliii Robert II, the Pious, k. of France GT, xvii Robert of Torigni-sur-Vire (Manche) xix, xxv f. Roger II, k. of Sicily xxxix Roland, see Chanson Romans lvii, lx, lxxxv, 22; see also Julius Caesar, Pompey, Trajan's column Romney (Kent) lxiv, lxviii, lxxxviii Round, J. H. xv f., liv Rye (Sussex) 19 n. Saint-Aubin-sur-Scie (Seine-Maritime), battle of (1053) xlv n., xlix f. Saint-Evroult, see Orderic Saint-Omer, St-Bertin's abbey xx n., xxvii Saint-Pol, ct of, see Guy Saint-Riquier, abbey (Somme) xx, xlii f., xlvi, li St-Valery-sur-Somme (Somme) xxxi, lxi± lxiii, lxvii, 5±8 Samson, Breton monk xvii n. Sandwich (Kent) lxiii Satira in Mettenses xx, xxix Searle, Eleanor xxviii Senlac battle of lxxvii; see also Hastings sergeants lxvi Sharpe, J. xiii n., xiv `Ship list' lxv f.; ships, see navy Sicilians xxxix, 16 Sigebert of Gembloux xiv Solomon, k. of Israel xxiv, 44 Somme, river 4 Southwark (Surrey) lxxxviii Spatz, W. liv n. squires lxvi Stamford Bridge (Yorks., E. Rid.) battle of (1066) xxii, lxiii, lxxii f., 8±10, 29 n. standards, see ¯ags Statius xvii, xxvi, xlvii Stephen of Aumale xlv n. Stephen ®tzAirard lxiv n. Stephen, k. of England xli Stigand, abp of Canterbury xxxvii f., lxxxviii ff., 47 n. Svein, k. of Denmark lxxx n.


INDEX Swegn Godwineson lii n. Taillefer xxii, xxxiii f., lxxx, 24 Takeley (Essex), priory 7 n. Taylor, Arnold J. vi, 11 n. 3 Theobald III, ct of Blois l Theodulf of OrleÂans xlvii n. Thierry, J. N. Augustin xiii n., xiv f. Thompson, Miss Edith lxxviii Thorpe, Benjamin liv n. Tostig Godwineson GT, xxii, lii f., lv, lxiii f., 8±10 Trajan's column, Rome lix Trier, abbey of St Eucharius-Matthias xix f. Troina (Sicily), battle of (1038) lxxv Trojan war xxxii trumpets lxxix, 6, 8, 22 Turner, Sharon liv n. Turnus xxxii n. Val-des-Dunes (Calvados), battle of (1047) lxxiii Van Houts, Elisabeth M. C. xxviii, xxx Varaville (Calvados), skirmish at (1057) lxxiii Vimeu xxxi, lxi, 4 Virgil xvii, xxvi, xlvii Vita ádwardi Regis xxvii, lix Vital, knight lxxi Wace xvi, xxxiv, lxv Waleran of Ponthieu GT, xlv Wallingford (Berks.) lxxxvii f. Walter Giffard I, ct of Longueville-surScie (Seine-Maritime) xxxv, lxxxi f. Walter III, ct of Mantes GT, xlix, li Waltham (Essex) college lxxxvi Waltheof, earl GT, xlv n. Warenne, William and Gundrada of lxxxii n.

55

Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, duke of lxvi Westminster (London), abbey lxxxvii, lxxxix f., 40, 46±8; precentor of lxxxix, 49; hall 38±40 White, G. H. xxviii, xxxii, xxxiv White Ship lxvi Wickham, William xiv Wight, Isle of lxii, lxvii William the Conqueror, I, k. of England: his claim to the kingdom xxi, lxi f., lxx, 14±16, 18; his alliances when duke xlix; his invasion lxiii±lxx, 4±8; the Pevensey±Hastings beachhead 8±20; his victory at Hastings 20±34; his assumption of the royal title lxxxv f., lxxxix, 4 n. 2, 34, 44, 45 n. 5; from Hastings to London lxxxvii ff., 36±8; at Dover lxxxvi, 36; the siege of London lxxxvii ff., 38±42; his new crown xxxvi, lxxxix, 44±6; his coronation at Westminster xxxvi ff., xxxix f., 46±8 William II, Rufus, k. of England xxxviii f., xli, 40 n. William ®tzOsbern lxiv William ®tzWimarch lxiv William (Calculus) of JumieÁges xvi, xix, lv ff., lxii, lxxviii, lxxxii, lxxvii William Malet lxxxv, 34 William of Malmesbury lv, lxxxiv, lxxxix William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux xv f., xvii±xix, xxv f., xxix f., xxxiii ff., xlii, lv±lviii, lxv, lxx, lxxvii, lxxxiv f., lxxxviii ff. William of Talou, ct of Arques GT, xlix f. Winchester, surrenders to William lxxxvii, 36 Wissant (Pas-de-Calais) xviii Wulfgar, portreeve of London 39 n. York, abp of, see Ealdred


The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens (Oxford Medieval Texts)

Carmen

The Oxford History of Medieval Europe

The Oxford Book of Medieval Latin Verse

The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe

The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe

The Fortune of Carmen Navarro

Carmen

The Fortune of Carmen Navarro

CARMEN

Carmen

Carmen

Carmen

Carmen

Carmen

Philosophical Texts (Oxford Philosophical Texts)

El Jubileo de Carmen Balcells

The Life of Bishop Wilfrid

The Soul of a Bishop

Simple Models of Magnetism (Oxford Graduate Texts)

Soul Of A Bishop

El Jubileo de Carmen Balcells

Soul of A Bishop

Vita Edwardi Secundi: The Life of Edward the Second (Oxford Medieval Texts)

Supersymmetry (Oxford Graduate Texts)

Supersymmetry (Oxford Graduate Texts)

The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts: Volume 3, Mind and Knowledge (The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts)

The Bishop

Guy of Warwick: Icon and Ancestor (Studies in Medieval Romance)

The Bishop

The Bishop

The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens (Oxford Medieval Texts)

Carmen

The Oxford History of Medieval Europe

The Oxford Book of Medieval Latin Verse

The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe

The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe

The Fortune of Carmen Navarro

Carmen

The Fortune of Carmen Navarro

CARMEN

Carmen

Carmen

Carmen

Carmen

Carmen

Philosophical Texts (Oxford Philosophical Texts)

El Jubileo de Carmen Balcells

The Life of Bishop Wilfrid

The Soul of a Bishop

Simple Models of Magnetism (Oxford Graduate Texts)

Soul Of A Bishop

El Jubileo de Carmen Balcells

Soul of A Bishop

Vita Edwardi Secundi: The Life of Edward the Second (Oxford Medieval Texts)

Supersymmetry (Oxford Graduate Texts)

Supersymmetry (Oxford Graduate Texts)

The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts: Volume 3, Mind and Knowledge (The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts)

The Bishop

Guy of Warwick: Icon and Ancestor (Studies in Medieval Romance)

The Bishop

The Bishop

Recommend Documents