Orderic Vitalis and Rober of Bellême

The Norman monastic chronicler Orderic Vitalis's treatment of Robert of Bellême, the twelfth-century Anglo-Norman magnate and overmighty subject of the English kings, William II and Henry I, is discussed and compared with evidence from other sources. A contrast is drawn between Orderic's eagerness to portray Robert as a villain and his apparent acceptance of the misdemeanors of Henry I, who is presented favourably because of the period of relative peace following Henry's deposition in 1106 of his brother, the Norman duke, Robert Curthose. Orderic downplays the work of Henry's predecessors, Robert Curthose and William II, and in Robert of Bellême creates a counterweight to his picture of the just king Henry I. His negative assessment of all Robert's actions therefore needs to be adjusted and it is suggested that other modern interpretations based on his work may need similar re-examination and revision.     

The Anglo-Norman succession debate of II26: Prelude to Stephen's anarchy

On 1 January 1127 Henry 1 made his magnates and prelates swear to accept his daughter Maud as heiress to England and Normandy. In the months prior to the oathtaking, certain identifiable curiales ～ Robert earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and David king of Scots - seem to have been supporting Maud's candidacy. Others, including Roger bishop of Salisbury and his kinsmen, appear to have opposed her and perhaps to have supported Henry's nephew, William Clito, as heir.The factions resurfaced at Henry's death in December 1135. William Clito having died in the meantime, Roger of Salisbury became one of Stephen of Blois' earliest and strongest supporters. Maud's former friends, Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count, were temporarily immobilized by a violent break between Henry and Maud in the closing months of Henry's reign, but they, along with King David, subsequently became Maud's most active and consistent champions.The two factions differed neither in socioeconomic background nor in ideology. It was not a question of old baronial families on one side and newly-risen curiales on the other, but simply of differing personal allegiances originating in the divisions among Henry's courtiers in 1126.     

St Anselm and the English investiture controversy reconsidered

The Investiture Controversy in England has generally been viewed as a two-sided contest between king and pope. But in reality the struggle was between three parties — king, pope, and primate. St Anselm, devoted to his duties as God's steward of his office and its privileges, worked against both King Henry I and Pope Paschal II to bring into reality his idea of the proper status of the primate of all Britain. Anselm had a vision of a political model which he conceived as God's ‘right order’ in England, and all his efforts were directed toward fulfilling this vision.The Investiture Contest may be divided into two parts. The first phase began when Anselm was thwarted by Henry I's duplicity in the archbishop's attempt to force the king to accept the decrees of Rome at the height of a political crisis. Anselm may have seen these decrees as beneficial to the Canterbury primacy. From 1101 to 1103, Anselm wavered between supporting either party completely, meanwhile securing from Paschal all the most important privileges for the primacy of Canterbury. Each time Paschal refused to grant a dispensation for Henry, as Anselm requested, he granted Anselm a privilege for the primacy. Thus Anselm's vision of the primate as almost a patriarch of another world, nearly independent of the pope, was fulfilled by 1103.At this point, Anselm abandoned his vacillation between king and pope, and worked seemingly on behalf of Paschal, but in reality on behalf of the Canterbury primacy. During this second phase, Anselm's political adroitness becomes clear by a correlation, never before made, between the church-state controversy and Henry's campaign to conquer Normandy. By careful maneuvering and skilful propaganda, Anselm forced Henry to choose between submitting to the investiture decree or failing in his attempt to conquer Normandy. At the settlement, a compromise was worked out, Henry conceding on investitures, and Paschal conceding on homage. But investiture was only secondary to Anselm. He ended the dispute not when Henry submitted on investitures, but only when he had gained from Henry concessions which made the primate almost a co-ruler with the king, as his political vision demanded. Only after a public reconcilliation with his archbishop did Henry feel free to complete the Norman campaign.Thus the Investiture Controversy was a three-way struggle. Both king and pope compromised, each giving up some of their goals. But Anselm emerged from the contest having won nearly all his political objectives.     

The reputation of a Norman king in Angevin Naples

It is not surprising to find that the city and rulers of Naples appear in the Decameron, for Boccaccio was trained as a merchant in Naples. Sicily was also visited by Florentine merchants and Boccaccio's tales of Sicilian history range from the near-present back to the reign of the Norman King William II, who died in 1189, a figure already associated with ‘good times’ in Naples and Sicily. In one story Boccaccio describes members of William's family, real and fictitious, and weaves romance around the voyage of an African princess to Granada under this king's guarantee of protection. This tale appears to derive from real events in about 1180, when William assured the safety of the daughter of an Almohad ruler; in token of gratitude, and to gain other concrete advantages, the Almohads at last made peace with the Sicilian king. Popular legends circulating in southern Italy were clearly avialable to Boccaccio, while writers of romance often located fictitious events in Sicily, an exotic part of the Latin world.     

The coronation charter of 1100: a postponement of decision. What did not happen in Henry I's reign

The charter issued by Henry I on his coronation in 1100 has been regarded since Stubb's time as a prefigurement of Magna Carta, since it restricted the rights of the monarch. It has also been seen as a cunning political manoeuvre designed to strengthen the shaky position of Henry I during the tense days and months following the death of William Rufus. The present article does not set out to undermine either of these two positions. The charter played a part in the discussions between the king, the Church and the barons in 1135, 1154 and 1213. There was no such discussion in 1100 when the charter was formulated. At that earlier date the role of the monarch was predominant, as it had been since 1066. As yet the Church and the barons had no active part to play.     

Robert,earl of Gloucester,and the daughter of Zelophehad

Robert, earl of Gloucester, the leader of Mathilda's party in England during Stephen's reign, has a good press because the main source for his activities is his admirer, William of Malmesbury. This article re-assesses Robert's role and character by concentrating on chroniclers other than Malmesbury and on charter evidence. It finds, by these methods, that Earl Robert may have been in some ways an attractive man, but that he was also a practised curialist, a ruthless factionalist, a plunderer of church lands, and a man who made acquisition of his neighbours' lands one of his main objects. New evidence is presented to account for his behaviour in the crucial months at the end of 1135 and beginning of 1136 when Stephen made himself king. Robert is found to have had little choice but to cross to England because his lands in the southern Marches were under threat from a Welsh rising. His alienation from Stephen in the next few years is traced to a failure at court against his rivals, the Beaumont group. His subsequent private war against the Beaumonts in Dorset and Worcestershire is further evidence against Malmesbury 's portrayal of him as a man of pure principle. conduct of the war against Stephen after 1139 can be shown to have had serious flaws. The result was a rebellion against him by his own sons and the repudiation of his methods (if not his acquisitions) by his successor Earl William. Evidence is presented that Earl William sparked off the movement amongst the magnates to draw up private treaties to contain the Anarchy. In view of all this, it is not surprising to find indications that Earl Robert lacked any real commitment to the claims of his half-sister, the empress.     

The growth of secure inheritance in Anglo-Norman England

The following paper traces the crystallization of inheritance custom in England from 1086 to 1154. Inheritance of baronial estates has long been considered by historians to have been tenuous in the reigns of William the Conqueror and his sons, but by dating instances of forfeiture, escheat and other forms of disinheritance, and by comparing these dates with those of political turmoil, it can be shown that the custom became fairly secure and regular in the latter half of the reign of Henry I, only to be disrupted in the civil wars of Stephen's reign.     

Richard of Cornwall's candidature for the German throne and the christmas 1256 parliament at Westminster

Some months after the death of the German king William of Holland in 1256, Richard of Cornwall, with obvious help from King Henry III (but not initially with the support of the pope), decided to enter the contest for the German throne. His methods, including the use of his funds on a large scale, are well known, but Richard and Henry also contrived to deceive the English magnates about their plans. They told the barons at a meeting at the end of the year 1256 that Richard had already been elected king (which was manifestly untrue) and that only their consent was missing. This was a device to foil the expected resistance by the magnates, who were already opposing Henry's increasingly costly Sicilian adventure.     

The growth of secure inheritance in Anglo-Norman England

The following paper traces the crystallization of inheritance custom in England from 1086 to 1154. Inheritance of baronial estates has long been considered by historians to have been tenuous in the reigns of William the Conqueror and his sons, but by dating instances of forfeiture, escheat and other forms of disinheritance, and by comparing these dates with those of political turmoil, it can be shown that the custom became fairly secure and regular in the latter half of the reign of Henry I, only to be disrupted in the civil wars of Stephen's reign.     

Negotiating episcopal support in the Merovingian kingdom of Reims (ad 561–75)

Minimal scholarly attention has been paid to the ecclesiastical policies of King Sigibert I of Reims (r. 561–75). An examination of Sigibert's policies suggests the lengths to which the king went to attract and maintain episcopal allies in strategic and politically divided civitates. While Gregory of Tours in his Decem Libri Historiarum blamed Sigibert's death on his stubborn refusal to heed episcopal counsel, the bishop of Tours recognized that the king of Reims was not consistently hostile to the church and its bishops, and saw the circumstances of Sigibert's untimely death as ultimately tragic.     

The Anglo-Norman succession debate of II26: Prelude to Stephen's anarchy

On 1 January 1127 Henry 1 made his magnates and prelates swear to accept his daughter Maud as heiress to England and Normandy. In the months prior to the oathtaking, certain identifiable curiales ～ Robert earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and David king of Scots - seem to have been supporting Maud's candidacy. Others, including Roger bishop of Salisbury and his kinsmen, appear to have opposed her and perhaps to have supported Henry's nephew, William Clito, as heir. The factions resurfaced at Henry's death in December 1135. William Clito having died in the meantime, Roger of Salisbury became one of Stephen of Blois' earliest and strongest supporters. Maud's former friends, Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count, were temporarily immobilized by a violent break between Henry and Maud in the closing months of Henry's reign, but they, along with King David, subsequently became Maud's most active and consistent champions. The two factions differed neither in socioeconomic background nor in ideology. It was not a question of old baronial families on one side and newly-risen curiales on the other, but simply of differing personal allegiances originating in the divisions among Henry's courtiers in 1126.     

St Anselm and the English investiture controversy reconsidered

The Investiture Controversy in England has generally been viewed as a two-sided contest between king and pope. But in reality the struggle was between three parties — king, pope, and primate. St Anselm, devoted to his duties as God's steward of his office and its privileges, worked against both King Henry I and Pope Paschal II to bring into reality his idea of the proper status of the primate of all Britain. Anselm had a vision of a political model which he conceived as God's ‘right order’ in England, and all his efforts were directed toward fulfilling this vision.The Investiture Contest may be divided into two parts. The first phase began when Anselm was thwarted by Henry I's duplicity in the archbishop's attempt to force the king to accept the decrees of Rome at the height of a political crisis. Anselm may have seen these decrees as beneficial to the Canterbury primacy. From 1101 to 1103, Anselm wavered between supporting either party completely, meanwhile securing from Paschal all the most important privileges for the primacy of Canterbury. Each time Paschal refused to grant a dispensation for Henry, as Anselm requested, he granted Anselm a privilege for the primacy. Thus Anselm's vision of the primate as almost a patriarch of another world, nearly independent of the pope, was fulfilled by 1103.At this point, Anselm abandoned his vacillation between king and pope, and worked seemingly on behalf of Paschal, but in reality on behalf of the Canterbury primacy. During this second phase, Anselm's political adroitness becomes clear by a correlation, never before made, between the church-state controversy and Henry's campaign to conquer Normandy. By careful maneuvering and skilful propaganda, Anselm forced Henry to choose between submitting to the investiture decree or failing in his attempt to conquer Normandy. At the settlement, a compromise was worked out, Henry conceding on investitures, and Paschal conceding on homage. But investiture was only secondary to Anselm. He ended the dispute not when Henry submitted on investitures, but only when he had gained from Henry concessions which made the primate almost a co-ruler with the king, as his political vision demanded. Only after a public reconcilliation with his archbishop did Henry feel free to complete the Norman campaign.Thus the Investiture Controversy was a three-way struggle. Both king and pope compromised, each giving up some of their goals. But Anselm emerged from the contest having won nearly all his political objectives.     

King Stephen,the English church,and a female mystic: Christina of Markyate's Vita as a neglected source for the council of Winchester (August 1139) and its aftermath

One of the central reasons for the disintegration of royal authority (sometimes called ‘the Anarchy’) during the reign of King Stephen of England is generally thought to have been his troubled relationship with the English church. The king was summoned to appear before the legate in England, Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester (who was also Stephen's brother), at a church council called for Winchester on 29 August 1139, in order to show cause for his conduct in arresting several prominent bishops and in confiscating their property. Several major chroniclers discuss the events leading up to and occurring at the council of Winchester, especially William of Malmesbury in his Historia novella and the anonymous Gesta Stephani. The versions of events contained in these sources are not entirely consistent. The present paper examines yet another recounting of the events of the council, seldom appreciated by historians of twelfth-century England, presented in the Vita of Christina of Markyate (c.1096/98–c.1155/66), composed by an anonymous monk of St Albans between 1140 and 1146. Christina was close to the abbot of St Albans, Geoffrey de Gorham, who was probably the patron of the Vita and who quite likely attended the Winchester council and apparently became involved in its aftermath. These events are recorded in some detail in the Vita, presenting us with a vivid recounting of the council and the immediate consequences thereof. The narrative of the Vita contains a somewhat different picture of the personalities and occurrences surrounding the Winchester council than we encounter in the chronicles. The current essay compares the Vita to the standard accounts. We argue that the Vita may be the earliest and possibly most reliable source for the events of the council. Moreover, if we privilege the report of the Vita, the council becomes an especially significant moment in the breakdown of relations between Stephen and the English church.     

King Stephen,the English church,and a female mystic: Christina of Markyate's Vita as a neglected source for the council of Winchester (August 1139) and its aftermath

One of the central reasons for the disintegration of royal authority (sometimes called ‘the Anarchy’) during the reign of King Stephen of England is generally thought to have been his troubled relationship with the English church. The king was summoned to appear before the legate in England, Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester (who was also Stephen's brother), at a church council called for Winchester on 29 August 1139, in order to show cause for his conduct in arresting several prominent bishops and in confiscating their property. Several major chroniclers discuss the events leading up to and occurring at the council of Winchester, especially William of Malmesbury in his Historia novella and the anonymous Gesta Stephani. The versions of events contained in these sources are not entirely consistent. The present paper examines yet another recounting of the events of the council, seldom appreciated by historians of twelfth-century England, presented in the Vita of Christina of Markyate (c.1096/98–c.1155/66), composed by an anonymous monk of St Albans between 1140 and 1146. Christina was close to the abbot of St Albans, Geoffrey de Gorham, who was probably the patron of the Vita and who quite likely attended the Winchester council and apparently became involved in its aftermath. These events are recorded in some detail in the Vita, presenting us with a vivid recounting of the council and the immediate consequences thereof. The narrative of the Vita contains a somewhat different picture of the personalities and occurrences surrounding the Winchester council than we encounter in the chronicles. The current essay compares the Vita to the standard accounts. We argue that the Vita may be the earliest and possibly most reliable source for the events of the council. Moreover, if we privilege the report of the Vita, the council becomes an especially significant moment in the breakdown of relations between Stephen and the English church.     

The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A ‘Byzantine’ history?

In the last 150 years of scholarship, opinions have always differed as to just who William of Apulia was, and for which audience his epic poem the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi (completed c. 1099) was written. Many have felt that the work is not only pro-Norman, but vehemently anti-Byzantine. This article reconsiders the arguments about William’s poem. Firstly, William seems to have particularly identified with those who exhibited a marked respect for, and association with, the eastern empire. Secondly, it will be suggested that not only did William know Greek ― not an uncommon phenomenon in southern Italy ― but that he may well have drawn on sources written in that language, perhaps even the same material used by his near contemporaries Michael Attaleiates and John Skylitzes. Thirdly, despite the fact that observers normally emphasise William’s preference for the image of muliebres Byzantines, it is argued that the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi actually underscores their virtus.     

Toward a reappraisal of William the Great,duke of Aquitaine (995–1030)

William, duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou, has won a glowing reputation from historians for his personal piety and his active support of religious reform. Scholars have given him the sobriquet ‘the Great’, and he is traditionally regarded as one of those overmighty subjects whose fame and power eclipsed their less accomplished Capetian contemporaries. As count and duke, however, William clearly had responsibilities that went beyond support of the Church. In the present study an effort has been made to examine the more secular aspects of William's career to see if, in fact, he justly deserves to be considered one of the outstanding figures of the early eleventh century.     

Simon de Montfort,Earl of Leicester,and the utility of sanctity in thirteenth-century England

Almost immediately after his death, Simon de Montfort, the leader of the Barons' Revolt against Henry III, was revered as a saint. Despite the received historical opinion that his cult was local, furtive, and brief, it actually received support throughout England, from the noble and clerical ranks as well as from the peasantry, and lasted into the reign of Edward I. The manifestations of Earl Simon's cult reveal that his revolt was popular as well as noble, that even illegal cults could be profitable for their home shrines, in this case the abbey of Evesham, and that sanctifying a rebel leader was an effective way of justifying both the continuation of a revolt and sympathy for the defeated rebels, in this case the Disinherited. On the hagiographical level, Montfort's cult shows the incredibly rich diversity of expression of devotion in medieval cults, and the more practical concerns with advertisement and profit. On the political level, the cult proves once again that the king did not control all means of political discourse. The merger of political and religious authority, the importance of which has been often demonstrated in studies of the king's touch and the laudes ceremonials, affected rebel leaders as well as kings.     

William of Malmesbury's Carolingian sources

In his great history of England, the Gesta regum Anglorum, completed in 1125, William of Malmesbury included digressions on continental affairs. One of these, on the Merovingian and Carolingian monarchs, provides an interesting study of William's historical method. His Frankish sources are difficult to identify, but we are helped by the survival of the late twelfth-century English MS. Oxford, Bodleian Library Lat. class d.39. This book contains, inter alia, a collection of chronicles and short pieces on Frankish history. We attempt to show that it was copied from a MS. made by or for William, and that his own notes were recopied into its margins. Moreover, it seems probable that he himself compiled the collection of chronicles in it. This discovery enables us to identify most of William's Frankish materials, to draw important conclusions about his manipulation of them, and so advance our knowledge of twelfth-century historiography generally.