© 2017 Benjamin W. Comshaw-Arnold All Rights Reserved

Home , Battle of Stamford (918), Eadmer, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Guthred, Henry of Huntingdon, John of Worcester

BENJAMIN W. COMSHAW-ARNOLD

MEMORIES OF A CONQUEST

THE NORMAN CONQUEST IN TWELFTH-CENTURY MEMORY

A Thesis

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

Benjamin W. Comshaw-Arnold

August, 2017

MEMORIES OF A CONQUEST

THE NORMAN CONQUEST IN TWELFTH-CENTURY MEMORY

Benjamin W. Comshaw-Arnold

Thesis

Approved: Accepted:

______Advisor Dean of the College Dr. Constance Bouchard Dr. John Green

______Co-Advisor or Faculty Reader Interim Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Michael Graham Dr. Chand Midha

______Department Chair or School Director Date Dr. Martin Wainwright

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my intellectual debts to those whose comments, guidance, support, and critiques made this thesis possible. First, I would like to thank Dr. Gina

Martino for her insight regarding the perceptions of ethnicity by the subjects of this study. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Michael Graham for his guidance and critiques, which helped me organize my research and strengthen my argument. Last, I would like to thank Dr. Constance Brittain Bouchard for her continual guidance, critiques, and advice over the last two years. Her support and tutelage were necessary for any academic success I may claim, and for that I will always be in her debt.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………...1

II. HISTORIOGRAPHY ……………...... 8

Memory Studies ……..….……………………..….………………………………8

The Norman Conquest ….……………………..….…………………………..…10

Twelfth-Century Authors ……………………..….……………………………...18

III. MEMORIES ……………... ………………………………………………………... 27

Patterns ………………………………………………………………………….. 27

William of Jumièges ……………………………………………………………. 29

William of Poitiers ………………………………………………………..……..42

Eadmer of Canterbury .………………………………………………………….. 51

Simeon of Durham …..………………………………………………………….. 59

Orderic Vitalis ……….………………………………………………………….. 73

Henry of Huntingdon ..………………………………………………………….. 82

William of Malmesbury ..……………………………………………………….. 95

John of Worcester ……...………………………………………………………106

William of Newburgh .………………………………………………………....115

IV. CONCLUSION …..….……………………………………………….…………….122

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……….……………………………………………………………..127

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Norman Conquest of England (1066) was a common historic topic for twelfth-century authors, who recorded the past as they wanted it to be remembered in gestae. As a genre of historic writing, the gesta allows authors to alter the presentation of the past in order to reshape history in a way that fit their generational needs. The focus of this study is a sampling of the gestae of the long twelfth century (in this case roughly

1050-1200), which includes works by such Norman, English, and Anglo-Norman authors as William of Jumièges (c. 1000-1070), William of Poitiers (c. 1020-1090), Eadmer of

Canterbury (c. 1060-1126), Simeon of Durham (c. 1060-1129), Orderic Vitalis (c. 1075-

1142), Henry of Huntingdon (c. 1088-1157), William of Malmesbury (c. 1095-1143),

John of Worcester (d. 1140), and William of Newburgh (c. 1136-1198).1 Although other historians often cite these authors for historic information, the present study is concerned with the twelfth century and the authors themselves rather than the accuracy of their narrative. The differences in their portrayals of the past provide insight into what each

1 Many of these sources, as they appear in print, have translations juxtaposed to the original Latin transcription. When this is the case, I focus solely on the Latin text. In addition, for consistency, I use modern equivalents for names and places unless such is not available, in which case I use names as they appear in the Latin text, in italics.

deemed important as well as how they viewed their own place in Anglo-Norman history.

Many of the twelfth century authors provide different portrayals of the Conquest, despite their use of common sources, such as William of Jumièges’ Gesta Normannorum Ducum.

The differences, often in the form of omissions and augmentations, provide insight into what these writers considered significant to preserve in memory and reflect their views on society as well as identity.

Each author of this study presents the Norman Conquest and the surrounding history in a slightly different manner, which is typical for the genre of gesta writing. The differences in depictions provide insight into what each deemed important to commit to historic memory and served a greater purpose for contemporary audiences. These changes are significant in the lessons that each author wanted to teach his audience. In addition, they also reveal many of the factors that inform each author’s identity and understanding of ethnicity. Although gestae usually manipulate history to influence contemporary thought or behavior, the unique approach that each gesta author of this study takes to his portrayal of various historic characters reveals aspects of his own worldview and suggests a trend in how English ethnicity was perceived.

William of Jumièges, who lived as a monk in Normandy during the Norman

Conquest, is the first author of this study to commit the Conquest to historic memory. His

Gesta Normannorum Ducum was primarily intended to provide a justification for Duke

William II (c. 1028-1087) as Duke of the Normans, although the Norman Conquest created a need for his justification to also extend to William’s right to be king. Later,

Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Toringi (c. 1110-1186) edited copies of this gesta.

Orderic’s sections reiterated the points of his own book, the Historia Ecclesiastica, and

Robert’s additions reflect his perspective of ethnicity that is common among other later twelfth century authors. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum reveals William of Jumièges’ identity as one who favored the Norman people and suggests that God did as well. This gesta is useful for understanding how William wanted his reader to remember the

Conquest and how he framed his identity as a Christian Norman.

Another Norman monk, William of Poitiers, who was a contemporary to William of Jumièges, wrote the second major gesta of this study. His Gesta Guillelmi tells the story of Duke William II’s experiences during the Conquest and reign. William’s writing reveals aspects of his identity, as his depictions of King William I suggests that the

Normans were a unique people who had God’s support. When considered simultaneously, the writings of William of Jumièges and William of Poitiers suggest a trend in regard to how they view ethnicity. Christianity serves as a means by which

William of Poitiers justifies his interpretation of the greatness of ethnic Normans.

Eadmer of Canterbury was an English monk who was born just before the

Conquest. His Historia Novorum in Anglia commits his perspective of the Normans and

English to historic memory. In a manner similar to that of the previous two authors,

Eadmer places a great significance on ethnicity in his writing. Eadmer, unlikeWilliam of

Jumièges and William of Poitiers, creates a positive image of the English in history.

Christianity provides a lens through which Eadmer understands and rationalizes history.

He defends his perception of the greatness of Anglo-Saxons against an image of wicked

Normans, whose reign in England he attributes to the sins of the English.

Simeon of Durham, an English monk, wrote both a history of his church, the

Libellus de Exordio Atque Procursu Istius, Hoc Est Dunhelmensis Ecclesie, and a more

general history, his Historia Regum. In both books, his language and tone reveal his preference for English heritage. He uses Christianity to explain why the Conquest could happen, as a response to English sins, and how the Normans were not successful in killing all the English after King William I was crowned. Although Christianity appears to be the most important aspect of his identity through his writing, his preferential treatment of many characters in English history suggest a strong identification with the

English as an ethnic group. He depicts King William I and the Normans as villains throughout much of his writing, which suggests his strong preference for the English and disdain for the Normans. The way that Simeon wants his audience to remember the

Conquest reflects his own identification as an English monk.

Orderic Vitalis, a Norman monk of mixed Anglo-Saxon and Norman parentage, presents a different account of the Norman Conquest than Simeon in his Historia

Ecclesiastica. His portrayal of the Normans in history is almost exclusively positive, closer mirroring the writing of William of Jumièges than that of Eadmer of Canterbury.

Orderic self-identified in his writing as English, although his idea of what it means to be

English is different from the previous two authors. To Orderic, to be English is simply to be born in England and have the interests of the English people at heart. This is well represented in the character of King Henry I (c. 1068-1135), who Orderic writes about as if he were an Englishman, despite his clear Norman parentage. Orderic’s identity is greatly influenced by Christianity, which affected the way that he presented history in his writing. God plays an active role in Orderic’s writing in favor of those kings who best support the English people and give to churches. As a whole, Orderic’s Historia

Ecclesiastica suggests that the Norman and English cultures were beginning to merge to

create a new kind of English culture, although this process was ongoing during his lifetime.

The Historia Anglorum of Archdeadon Henry of Huntingdon takes a slightly different approach to the history of the Norman Conquest, as he explains the Conquest in terms of divine intervention. His book provides religious justifications for the Conquest, suggesting that it was necessary in order to correct the errors of English churches and religious practices. His identity was primarily informed by his religion, although he also recognized an ethnic component. The way that Henry presents the Normans and English suggests that ethnicity was less significant for him than it had been for preceding authors.

Henry depicts the Norman and English people as distinct initially, although neither side is completely without flaw. After introducing the character of King Henry I, the tone that

Henry of Huntingdon takes in terms of ethnicity shifts slightly, because he considers the king to be English despite his Norman heritage. His presentation of England during King

Henry I’s lifetime reveals aspects of how Henry of Huntingdon framed his understanding of ethnicity. The distinction between English and Norman ethnic groups and cultures becomes more blurred as the Historia Anglorum comes to a close.

English and Norman cultures continue to blend in the Gesta Regum Anglorum of

William of Malmesbury, an English monk whose perspective on identity reflects a larger trend of identification and cultural blending of the twelfth century. In his book, William presents the Norman Conquest in a way that focuses less on ethnicity and more on the quality of individual characters. William shows the English and Norman people to be separate while narrating the history of the Norman Conquest. Once Henry becomes king, in much the same manner as Henry of Huntingdon’s writing, William’s depiction of

ethnic groups loses definition and Normans and English merge in his writing into a single new English ethnicity. Due to his own mixed English and Norman parentage, William identified with Henry as a new kind of Englishman, that is, as an Anglo-Norman.

Another English monk, John of Worcester, suggests a pattern of identification similar to that of William of Malmesbury in his Chronicon. His depiction of history presents English and Norman affairs as entirely separate until the Normans invade

England. The English are the protagonists of John’s history. Kings William I and II are bad kings in John’s narrative, as they are Normans and do not care about the English people. John depicts King Henry I as an English king, unlike his brother and father. His birth and favor of the English, as is noted through his giving to English churches and his reinstitution of the laws of King Edward the Confessor (r. 1042-1066), make him English despite his Norman parentage. The Chronicon reinforces the pattern of the later authors of this study viewing the Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultures as merging and blending in a way that creates a new English ethnicity.

The presentation of history in William of Newburgh’s Historia Regum

Anglicarum suggests that he identified as a Christian monk more than with any ethnicity.

His goal in writing was to justify the claims of Empress Matilda (c. 1102-1167) and her eldest son, King Henry II, to the English throne, so the Norman Conquest appears in his writing as a matter-of-fact narration with a predominant sense of neutrality. William considers the Conquest to be necessary but not particularly good or bad. Throughout his writing, William implies that the Norman and English people were or became the same essential ethnic group, which finishes the pattern that began in part with Orderic’s writing and became more pronounced over time.

This study focuses on the historic writing of the many gesta authors of the long twelfth century and how their depictions of the Norman Conquest reflect their constructions of identity. While the practical application of this study may appear initially limited, it is useful because it illustrates patterns of self-identification that become apparent in the ways that the authors of this study describe history. Some authors make implications about the significance of ethnicity while others overlook it in favor of

Christianity. Christianity, which is a common identity among all the gesta authors of this study, serves as a foundation upon which each author’s identity is formed. Ethnic preferences direct the writing of each author, even though the ways in which each author understands and constructs the idea of ethnicity changes over time. These differences in identification suggest a trend in the way that people understood the changing concept of ethnicity in England following the Norman Conquest.

CHAPTER II

HISTORIOGRAPHY

Memory Studies

The study of memory in history allows scholars to learn new information from sources that have otherwise been disregarded for inaccuracies, biases, or general overuse.

Patrick Geary’s Phantoms of Remembrance was among the first publications to apply this style of interpretation to medieval history.2 Geary explains that the common image of the tenth century as an orderless period is due to the descriptions of eleventh-century sources.

These sources used the past to create a better image of the present by comparison. Their augmentations of history formed memories that may not necessarily have been accurate, but served a definite function for the writers own present. Since Geary’s publication, many scholars have applied the study of memory to the Middle Ages. Elizabeh van

Houts’ Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe emphasizes Geary’s point about women as keepers of familial memory while also suggesting a link between oral and written

2 Patrick J. Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). Memory studies shares some principles with the study of invented traditions. For the first major publication to question traditions, see: Eric J. Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

memory.3 Constance Bouchard uses memory studies to provide reevaluations of traditional sources in her Rewriting Saints and Ancestors.4 She sheds new light on French family and church history in the early and high Middle Ages by reading many of the traditional sources with the potential of contemporary usage in mind. The 2000 publication of The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Yitzhak Hen and

Matthew Innes, includes essays from multiple scholars, who applied the study of memory to many aspects of the early Middle Ages.5 The topics in his book range from the formation of identity to the interpretation of ideologies and illustrates the potential of memory studies in medieval history. Rosamond McKitterick’s Perceptions of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, first published in 2006, examines the ways in which Carolingians constructed and interpreted their own past in the eighth and ninth centuries.6

The study of memory for medieval history, as introduced by Geary, is particularly useful when studying the genre of gesta writing. Bouchard suggests in a 2009 Speculum article that gesta writing allows an author to reimagine the past in a way that gives it new significance for the author’s present.7 This is significant in forming the premise of this current study. Alterations to the past, as gesta authors make, reveal more than simply lessons about their individual presents. In the course of changing the memory of the past,

3 Elizabeth van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900-1200 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999).

4 Constance Brittain Bouchard, Rewriting Saints and Ancestors: Memory and Forgetting in France, 500-1200 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014).

5 Yitzhak Hen and Matthew Innes, eds., The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

6 Rosamond McKitterick, Perceptions of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006).

7 Constance Bouchard, "Episcopal "Gesta" and the Creation of a Useful Past in Ninth-Century Auxerre," Speculum 84, no. 1 (2009): 1-4.

by omission or augmentation, an author often reveals his opinions on history that reflect his own identity. Any author’s changes to history reveal what that author deemed important for his own contemporary audience. This is the fundamental overlap of memory and gesta as a genre.

The Norman Conquest

This study focuses on the Norman Conquest in memory and says less about the

Conquest itself and more about those authors who commit it to historic memory through their writing. As one of the most studied topics of medieval English history, the Norman

Conquest has a rich historiographic tradition. No scholars have yet written about the

Conquest from the viewpoint of the twelfth century in regard to the formation of twelfth- century identities. For that reason, this section will present some of the traditional historiography for the Conquest without unnecessary depth.

Historians began writing about the Norman Conquest shortly after 1066 and have continued to revisit and reevaluate the topic since then. It was a common topic for

English historians throughout the Middle Ages, and sometimes piqued the interest of continental historians. Many medieval authors wrote about the Conquest, including all those of this study and others such as Robert Wace (c. 1110-1174), whose Roman de Rou serves a similar function as the gestae of this study, as well as Andrew Horn (c. 1275-

1328), whose Liber Horn presents fables and history side-by-side.8 The Liber Horn found

8 Robert Wace, Wace "Roman de Rou.", ed. Josef Maria. Weissberg (Sternberg: Albrecht, 1909). Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Thelma S. Fenster, and Delbert W. Russell, Vernacular Literary Theory from the French of Medieval England: Texts and Translations, c.1120-c.1450 (Woodbrige, Suffolk, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2016). The former is a published version of Wace’s Roman de Rou and the latter includes some of

new purpose during the British conflicts of the seventeenth century. Edward Griffin II (d.

1652) reprinted an edition of the Liber Horn in 1642 based both the Cambridge archival copy and a personal copy of Francis Tate (1560-1616).9 This edition received a reprint and full translation into English in 1646, which was the first to suggest that the English were put under the yoke of the Normans, which was added to Horn’s work in order to create a negative image of English royalty as Norman oppressors, specifically in relation to King Charles I (1600-1649).10 The popularity of the English reprint of Horn’s work warranted continuous reprints until the Seldon Society reunited it with the original fourteenth-century edition in a compilation first published in 1895, which included an extensive introduction by legal historian Frederic William Maitland (1850-1906).11

In the nineteenth century, historians sought to answer whether or not the Norman

Conquest was ultimately good or bad for England. Thomas Carlyle, in his 1865 publication, History of Friedrich II of Prussia, proposed that the Norman Conquest was good because it was necessary for the unification of England.12 In 1867, Edward Freeman argued in his extensive and extremely influential Whig history book, The History of the

Norman Conquest of England, that the Conquest was initially bad because it inhibited

Andrew Horn’s work, with excellent literary commentary. For extant copy of the Liber Horn, see: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, Parker Library, CCCC MS 258.

9 Henry Robert Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland (Oxford: Bibliographical Soc., 1968), 86.

10 Andrew Horne and Anthony Fitzherbert, The Booke Called, The Mirrour of Justices: Made by Andrevv Horne. With the Book, Called, The Diversity of Courts, and Their Jurisdictions. Both Translated Out of the Old French into the English Tongue, trans. W[illiam] H[ughs], ed. Matthew Walbancke (Imprinted at London: For Matthew Walbancke. at Graies Inne gate., 1646).

11 Andrew Horne, The Mirror of Justices, ed. W. J. Whittaker and Frederic William Maitland (London: B. Quaritch, 1895).

12 Thomas Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of Prussia (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1865).

progress, although ultimately did not having lasting effects on Anglo-Saxons.13 John

Horace Round challenged Freeman’s view of the Conquest in his 1895 book, Feudal

England.14 Round suggested that the changes the Normans made in England, especially in regard to the implementation of feudalism, were quick and revolutionary.15 Maitland suggests in his 1895 book, The History of English Law Before the Times of Edward I, that the study of English law should focus on the uses of laws in context rather than focus on the ramifications of those laws in the present.16 His argument implies that Freeman and

Round were focusing too much on the lasting effects of the Conquest on progress, and marks the beginning of a major shift away from Whig history.

During the twentieth century, scholars began to approach the Norman Conquest from different perspectives as more sources became available in print and methodologies changed in the field of history. Initially, much of the scholarship engaged the monumental publications of Freeman, Round, or Maitland. Charles Homer Haskins’ 1918 publication, Norman Institutions, supported Round’s theory of feudalism by examining similarities between Norman and English knighthood.17 Haskins found that the ways that

13 Edward A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England: Its Causes and Results (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867).

14 John Horace Round, Feudal England: Historical Studies on the xith and xiith Centuries (Classic Reprint) (S.l.: FORGOTTEN BOOKS, 2015). This edition is a modern reprint of the original text.

15 The notion of feudalism has been refuted by many twentieth and twenty-first century historians due to the lack of source evidence that any such construct actually existed in practice and for its lack of precision for understanding medieval history. See: Elizabeth A. R. Brown. "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe." The American Historical Review 79, no. 4 (1974): 1063- 1088; Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: the Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford: Clarendon press, 1996); and Susan Reynolds, ed., The Middle Ages Without Feudalism: Essays in Criticism and Comparison on the Medieval West (Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2012).

16 Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Times of Edward I (Cambridge, 1895).

17 Charles Homer Haskins, Norman Institutions (Michigan: Gale Momll Print, 2010).

knights were brought into service was the same in Normandy before the Conquest as it was in post-Conquest England. In 1933, Charles Petit-Dutaillis published La monarchie féodale en France et en Angleterre, in which he attributed much of the lasting success of the English monarchy to Norman institutions and customs.18 His writing reaffirms

Freeman’s thesis. Later, Frank Stenton’s Anglo-Saxon England, which was originally published in 1943, described the Norman Conquest in great detail and suggests that

Round’s thesis was entirely valid.19 Marjory Hollings suggested otherwise in her 1948 article in The English Historical Review, in which she showed continuity between the thegn holding of pre-Conquest England and the post-Conquest knight fee.20 This continuity, and the continued use of the five-hide unit after the Conquest, implies a lack of revolution. Round’s thesis received new support from Sidney Painter, whose 1951 publication, The Rise of Feudal Monarchies, suggested that enough changed after the

Norman Conquest to still consider it revolutionary.21

Frank Barlow challenged the Round thesis in his 1955 book, The Feudal Kingdom of England, in which he suggested that the historic sources do not support a theory of revolutionary change immediately following the Norman Conquest.22 Eric John devoted a chapter of his 1960 publication, Land Tenure in Early England, to refuting the Round

18 Charles Petit-Dutaillis, La monarchie féodale en France et en Angleterre: Xe-XIIIe siècle (Paris: A. Michel, 1933).

19 Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971).

20 Marjory Hollings, "The Survival of the Five Hide Unit in the Western Midlands," The English Historical Review LXIII, no. CCXLIX (1948):453-487.

21 Sidney Painter, The Rise of the Feudal Monarchies (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1951).

22 Frank Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England: 1042-1216 (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1955).

thesis.23 He suggested that Hollings’ conclusion about the continuity of the five-hide unit fit what his own sources indicated. C. Warren Hollister’s 1961 article on English feudalism challenged the conclusions of continuity that Hollings and John each proposed, on the basis that their sources were too restricted in scope to properly represent all of

England.24 Hollister suggested that Round’s thesis was only partially correct, since the

Conquest did not entirely replace Anglo-Saxon systems of socio-political organization with feudalism. Michael Powicke suggested in his 1962 book, Military Obligation in

Medieval England, that feudal knight service after the Conquest owed much to the legacy of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd.25 Powicke’s theory of continuity supports the conclusions of

Hollings and John.

The theories of Round, Hollister, and Powicke continued to spark debate on the

Norman Conquest through the latter half of the twentieth century. Two years after

Powicke’s publication, David Douglas offered support for Hollister’s conclusion in his book, William the Conqueror: the Norman Impact Upon England.26 His writing also implied that William was ultimately responsible for instituting feudalism in England.

Reginald Brown’s 1969 publication, The Normans and the Norman Conquest, suggested that scholars such as Powicke give too much credit to the pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxons.27

23 Eric John, Land Tenure in Early England, 1960.

24 C. Warren Hollister, "The Norman Conquest and the Genesis of English Feudalism." The American Historical Review 66, no. 3 (1961): 641-63.

25 Michael R. Powicke, Military Obligation in Medieval England: A Study in Liberty and Duty (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 29-32.

26 David C. Douglas, William the Conqueror: the Norman Impact Upon England (Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press, 2005).

27 Reginald Allen Brown, The Normans and the Norman Conquest (London: Constable, 1969).

He argued that the Anglo-Saxons did not provide as much of a basis for feudal knight service as Powicke suggested.28 After Elizabeth Brown noted the flaws of utilizing the traditional notion of feudalism in her 1974 article, “The Tyranny of a Construct,” historians began to direct their attention away from such questions as how the Norman

Conquest affected feudalism in England.29

Renewed scholarly interest beginning in the 1980s brought new perspectives and approaches to the history of the Norman Conquest. Reginald Allen Brown’s 1981 edition of the Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies was among the first publications to reevaluate the Conquest.30 This book contains essays by such historians as Elizabeth van Houts, Eleanor Searle, and Ann Williams, and represents a newer trend in historiography of moving away from looking at the Conquest in terms of either progress or revolution. In 1982, David Bates published Normandy Before 1066, in which he filled in the historiographic gaps of Normandy’s pre-Conquest history and suggested that Normandy was not built on a Scandanavian state model, but was instead modeled after the Carolingian state despite the collapse of the Carolingian Empire.31

Eleanor Searle met his thesis with resistance in 1988. Her publication of Predatory

Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power suggests that Normans largely kept their

Norse identities and did not immediately adopt Frankish cultures and customs, as the area that became Normandy lacked the developed institutions that Bates assumed the French

28 Ibid., 4-7.

29 Elizabeth A. R. Brown. "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe." The American Historical Review 79, no. 4 (1974): 1063-1088.

30 Reginald Allen Brown, ed., Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, III, 1980 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1981).

31 David Bates, Normandy Before 1066 (London: Longman, 1982).

already had operating there.32 The debate between Bates and Searle provides background for Norman history that complements and is essential for creating the history of the

Norman Conquest.

Multiple publications in the latter half of the 1990s addressed the repercussions of the Norman Conquest. Ann Williams presents the Norman Conquest from the perspective of lesser English lords in her The English and the Norman Conquest, first published in

1995.33 She argues that, since other scholars have already established how the great lords faired in England after the Conquest, it is now necessary to look at the greater picture to best understand the social ramifications of the Conquest. In 1997, Hollister published

Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-century Renaissance, which contains essays by Hollister, Cassandra Potts, John Gillingham, Judith Green, Robin Fleming, and

David Crouch.34 The essays of this book suggest uniqueness to the Anglo-Norman culture that resulted from the Conquest and lasted through the twelfth century. Although the contributors discuss twelfth-century Anglo-Norman culture, they do not note how people living in the twelfth century came to terms with and framed this new culture.

Hugh Thomas’ 2003 publication, The English and the Normans addresses this issue to some extent.35 Thomas suggests that there was a strong sense of what it meant to be

English or Norman before the Conquest, but afterwards England endured a period of

32 Eleanor Searle, Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power, 840-1066 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).

33 Ann Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000), 1-5.

34 C. Warren Hollister, ed., Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-century Renaissance: Proceedings of the Borchard Conference of Anglo-Norman History, 1995 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1997).

35 Hugh M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, 1066-c.1220 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

reflection during which a new sense of what it meant to be English began to appear, which modern scholars call Anglo-Norman. The strength of this book lies in Thomas’ use of many varieties of source, ranging from legal sources to romances, to show patterns over time. His time span of 1066-1220 and his wide array of sources limit his ability to adequately convey the opinions and thoughts of eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth-century contemporaries, however, making his book primarily useful for noting trends.

The Norman Conquest has not lost appeal, despite the mass of scholarship that has been produced since 1066. David Crouch’s 2007 publication, The Normans, presents the Norman Conquest as a series of royal biographies, documenting the lives of Anglo-

Norman kings and their involvement in both France and England.36 The image of the

Conquest as an event that affected England and France is part of the focus of Richard

Huscroft’s 2009 publication, The Norman Conquest.37 His book is in a sense a revision of the traditional narrative of the Norman Conquest. Huscroft argues that the Conquest had greater consequences outside of England, in Scotland, Ireland, and France, than twentieth-century historians suggested. New methodologies and approaches to history change the ways in which the Conquest is examined and portrayed. Until this current study, no scholars have studied in depth twelfth-century perceptions of the past, as preserved in their gestae, in relation to the formation of identity and how the presentation of these constructions were intended to affect a target audience.

36 David Crouch, The Normans: The History of a Dynasty (Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 2007).

37 Richard Huscroft, The Norman Conquest: a New Introduction (Harlow, England: Pearson/Longman, 2009).

Twelfth-Century Authors

The authors of this study have received limited independent attention from the larger scope of Anglo-Norman historiography. Although many scholars of the Norman

Conquest utilize the same sources as this study, the individualized focus here sets them apart and retells history from the perspectives of the authors of the long twelfth century.

This section shall briefly introduce many of those scholarly books that precede this study to further differentiate what has been done before from my own study. These books provide much of the necessary historic and contextual foundation that allows the present study to focus exclusively on the medieval voices.

Richard Southern’s Saint Anselm and his Biographer is the earliest book to give any major consideration to the writing of any of the authors of this study.38 His book draws on many sources, including the Vita Anselmi and Historia Novorum in Anglia of

Eadmer of Canterbury, to provide details of the lives of Anselm and, to a lesser extent,

Eadmer. Although Anselm is his focus, his treatment of Eadmer’s writing is significant for this study. Southern is interested in finding historic accuracy in Eadmer’s Historia

Novorum in Anglia.39 He sees Eadmer’s passionate description of the rivalry between

Canterbury and York as a “weakness” rather than an opportunity to learn.40 Southern’s description of Eadmer’s writing hints at greater interpretations of his work but does not

38 R. W. Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer: a Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059- c.1130 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966).

39 Ibid., 300-301.

40 Ibid., 304.

provide them. Instead of engaging with Eadmer’s writing fully, Southern chooses to fall back on the traditional narrative to provide context.

In 1981, Ralph Davis and John Wallace-Hadrill published The Wiring of History in the Middle Ages, in which many scholars contributed essays that covered the writing of history across Europe during the Middle Ages.41 The essays by Ralph Davis, Martin

Brett, and Peter Carter are significant for this study. Davis evaluates the Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers for historic accuracy and literary technique.42 Although his essay overlooks the alterations that William makes to the narrative of history in favor of accuracy, his essay is valuable for its description of the extant manuscripts of this gesta.43

Brett’s essay focuses on John of Worcester and presents necessary background information on his writing and relation to Florence of Worcester.44 Much like Davis, however, Brett criticizes John for his research and historic compilation skills.45 Carter focuses on William of Malmesbury’s writing on the virtues and miracles of the Virgin

Mary. He claims William is a “myth-maker” because where he lacked historic source material, he augmented his presentation of the past with rumors.46. Carter attributes

William’s changes of history to his “over-confidence as a historian.”47 This overlooks the

41 Ralph Henry Carless Davis and John Michael Wallace-Hadrill, eds., The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).

42 Ibid., 73-83.

43 Ibid., 93-98.

44 Ibid., 101-124.

45 Ibid., 125.

46 Ibid., 141-142.

47 Ibid., 163.

potential to learn what William deemed important through his alteration of the historic narrative in favor of criticizing his approach to historic accuracy.

Rodney Thomson’s William of Malmesbury, first published in 1987, provides a major summary of the titular William’s life and work as an author.48 The first part of this book serves as a biography with particular attention given to describing all the work that

William penned.49 In terms of his depictions of the past, Thomson argues against Carter, suggesting that William was more than capable of providing criticism to his sourcebase.50

Thomson criticizes William for his presentation of his contemporary present, which he

“mythologizes.”51 Again, as in Carter’s essay, William’s accuracy of his depiction of the present is questioned. Thomson’s evaluation of William’s life and career is otherwise valuable as a biography. He provides examples of William’s handwriting and complements this study with complete evaluations of William’s lesser-known writings in an appendix.52 Thomson provides an in-depth overview of William’s life, although

William of Malmesbury would benefit from greater inclusion of William’s Gesta Regum

Anglorum, which is strangely absent despite its scope and significance.

William of Malmesbury and Eadmer of Canterbury are two of the many subjects of Arthur G. Rigg’s A History of Anglo-Latin Literature.53 Rigg focuses on the depiction of Anglo-Norman royalty by medieval historians from the eleventh through the fifteenth

48 Rodney Malcom Thomson, William of Malmesbury (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1987, 2003).

49 Ibid., 3-4, 14.

50 Ibid., 23.

51 Ibid., 25.

52 Ibid., 113-114, 202.

53 Arthur G. Rigg, A History of Anglo-Latin Literature: 1066-1422 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

century. Unlike Thomson, Carter, and Southern, Rigg is more concerned with the literary traditions than with history, although historic accuracy is not overlooked.54 The goal of A

History of Anglo-Latin Literature is to provide an introductory analysis to post-1066

English Latin writing. For this purpose, Rigg primarily examines the literary influences of authors such as Eadmer of Canterbury, William of Malmesbury, and Henry of

Huntingdon.55 The varying depictions of the histories of each are outside the scope and purpose of his book.

Jean Blacker suggests in her 1994 publication, The Faces of Time, that the writing of twelfth-century authors has additional use outside of merely describing history.56 She uses the writings of William of Malmesbury, Orderic Vitalis, and other French authors, including Gaimar and Wace, to support her thesis. In the case of William of Malmesbury,

Blacker suggests that he used stories to suit his own vision of history, which she then explains is for storytelling as an aid to memory and a means of abridging sources.57 She mistakes the potential of these alterations of history for simple ways of committing the narrative to memory. In the case of Orderic Vitalis, Blacker suggests that his augmentations were useful to either “get back” at nobles who would likely not read his work or teach a lesson to those who would.58 Although Blacker does not criticize these medieval writers for inaccuracies, she is still limited by her approach.

54 Ibid., 6-8.

55 Ibid., 20, 34, 36.

56 Jean Blacker, The Faces of Time: Portrayal of the Past in Old French and Latin Historical Narrative of the Anglo-Norman Regnum (Univ Of Texas Press, 1994).

57 Ibid., 197, 199-200.

58 Ibid., 192.

Monika Otter argues that medieval writers of history used fiction to define their self-images, which illustrates their sense of history and fiction as genres of writing in her

1996 publication, Inventiones.59 She uses the writing of such authors as William of

Malmesbury and William of Newburgh to support her thesis. The idea of gesta as a genre in itself conflicts her premise, as the gesta uses altered memories of the past to make a point about the present. Otter argues that the fictitious past primarily reflects the skill of the writer and his self-designed public image, which is true to an extent, but to read too much into this is to overlook the potential of approaching a gesta with a focus on the study of memory.

Published a year after Otter’s book, Leah Shopkow’s History and Community reevaluates Norman historical writing of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, providing a well-rounded study on Norman historians and the context of their writing.60 Shopkow suggests that Norman historic writing was often the by-product of a crisis, with that writing falling into the category of either a comedy, which dominated the eleventh century, or a tragedy, which was more popular in the twelfth century.61 History and

Community examines the writing of such authors as Dudo of St. Quentin, William of

Jumièges, William of Poitiers, Orderic Vitalis, Robert of Toringi, and William of

Newburgh. Shopkow shows that the eleventh century authors, primarily William of

Jumièges and William of Poitiers, often illustrated responsibilities of Christian rulers and employed God in the historic narrative as the meaning rather than the driving force of

59 Monika Otter, Inventiones: Fiction and Referentiality in Twelfth-century English Historical Writing (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 1.

60 Leah Shopkow, History and Community: Norman Historical Writing in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997).

61 Ibid., 57, 66, 96.

history.62 The eleventh century writing differed greatly from the twelfth in tone. Later authors, such as Orderic and William of Newburgh, employed a less positive tone in their writings and tended to focus on the failings of people to be holy.63 In addition, Shopkow notes that memory and history are often blurred, meaning that the recorded memory in historic writing is often representative of morality.64 History and Community notes many of the ways that historic writing could be read and used, as the Gesta Normannorum

Ducum was in the fourteenth century. Despite this potential, Shopkow tends to focus more on the truth of the writings of the authors rather than how their alterations of history reflect their own worldviews.

John Gillingham’s The English in the Twelfth Century, published in 2000, looks at

Anglo-Norman imperialism, the understanding of identity by Gaimar and Henry of

Huntingdon, and the values of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as they appear in historic writing.65 Parts of his book are informed by Shopkow’s noted potential for twelfth-century authors’ work as reflections of their own opinions and values. Despite his approach, Gillingham uses the study of memory sparingly. In his treatment of Henry of

Huntingdon, Gillingham claims that he considered himself English despite his recognition of the shared ethnic origins of the twelfth-century English and Normans.66

The English in the Twelfth Century is essential for understanding the construction of

62 Ibid., 81, 95.

63 Ibid., 96, 104-105.

64 Ibid., 193-196.

65 John Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2000).

66 Ibid., 140-141.

moral values in the twelfth century. Gillingham primarily overlooks twelfth-century notions of ethnicity and identity on the individual level due to his focus on the larger image of twelfth-century England overall.

One year later, Emily Albu wrote The Normans in their Histories, in which she argues that Norman historic writings revealed the strength of authors’ Norman identities, which deteriorated due to assimilation by the thirteenth century.67 Although Albu writes that she reveals patterns of deceit and cunvulsion that make up the Norman identity, her book is more useful at present for her overview of William of Jumièges’ writing. She describes the tradition of Norman historiography and many of the aspects that form his identity. Albu suggests that ethnicity was less of a factor than Christianity in his identity, although she is still more concerned about whether his facts were accurate than what his alterations of history imply.68

Recently, Orderic Vitalis has entered the spotlight of historic discussion as the subject of the 2016 publication, Orderic Vitalis.69 This book includes essays by many historians and summarizes and evaluates many aspects of Orderic’s life and work.

Elizabeth von Houts begins the book with an essay on Orderic’s background, highlighting a sense of paternal rejection that Orderic conveys in his writing.70 Jenny

Weston’s essay notes the first observation of Orderic’s handwriting by Léopold Delisle in

67 Emily Albu, The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth, and Subversion (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2001), 6, 221.

68 Ibid., 88-105.

69 Charles C. Rozier, Daniel Roach, Giles E. M. Gasper, and Elizabeth Van Hout, eds., Orderic Vitalis: Life, Works and Interpretations (Martlesham: The Boydell Press, 2016).

70 Ibid., 36.

1873, which allowed scholars since to map his work more accurately.71 Charles Rozier suggests in his essay that Orderic’s time as a librarian and a monk and cantor informed his writing of the Historia Ecclesiastica.72 Danial Roach’s essay focuses on Orderic’s ties, as well as those of St. Évroult, to southern Italy and how those ties may have shaped his writing.73 Mark Faulkner observes that due to the language that Orderic uses, it is possible that he lost much of his knowledge of English by attrition.74 Vincent Debiais and

Estelle Ingrand-Varenne co-authored an essay that examines Orderic’s skill as a historian.75 Another essay, by Thomas Roche, suggests that it is not necessary for charters and Orderic’s writing to present the same information, due to the potential of memory studies.76 Although Roche notes the possible uses of Orderic’s writing, he does not provide an in-depth analysis. Emily Albu’s essay compares the tone and presentation of

Orderic’s work with that of Wace, concluding that because of his dark tone, Orderic likely lacked readership.77 In his addition to Orderic Vitalis, Thomas O’Donnel reiterates the potential of Orderic’s writing as a tool for moral instruction.78 Benjamin Pohl’s essay evaluates the way that Orderic framed his role as a historian.79 The final essay, by James

71 Ibid., 37-38.

72 Ibid., 76-77.

73 Ibid., 99.

74 Ibid., 118-119.

75 Ibid., 144.

76 Ibid., 171.

77 Ibid., 246.

78 Ibid., 299-300.

79 Ibid., 315.

Clark, looks at the ways in which people in the fifteenth century and after viewed

Orderic’s work, attesting to the lasting power and influence of his Historia

Ecclesiastica.80

Many scholars have looked to the gesta authors of the long twelfth-century as sources of history, but despite the suggested potential of the study of memory, none have yet given any depth of research to the formation of identity and conceptualizations of ethnicity of these authors. The major concern of the past was whether or not twelfth- century authors were presenting an accurate image of the past. As Geary demonstrated in his Phantoms of Remembrance, this focus on accuracy obscures the potential of a source to allow a glimpse into the world of the author and what he deemed important to commit to memory. Although some publications, including The Faces of Time, The English in the

Twelfth Century, The Normans in their Histories, and Orderic Vitalis use the study of memory to inform their approaches, they do not use it to its fullest extent. This present study seeks to fill in this gap of scholarship.

80 Ibid., 352-353.

CHAPTER III

MEMORIES

Patterns

The authors of this chapter each provide a slightly different account of the

Norman Conquest (1066), with some choosing to omit or augment parts of the historic narrative to stress parts of history that each finds useful for his present. These alterations also reflect the ways in which each author pictured his own place in the world and suggest aspects of personal identity. Christianity informs the foundation of each identity, but as definitions and circumstances change over time, ethnicity gains and loses significance. One may better understand the twelfth century by studying the writing of gesta authors, whose depictions of the past reflect their conceptions of identity and ethnicity rather than a desire to depict an accurate narrative. For this purpose, the historic accuracy of these authors’ gestae is not questioned, as others have done before, in favor of letting the twelfth-century voices be heard.

Each author wrote with an audience of contemporaries in mind, although many works did not permeate the boundaries of the monastery or church in which they were

written until long after the authors’ deaths. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges was well received outside of Jumièges, as attested by the additions by

Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Toringi. Their augmentations to William’s writing suggest a widespread Norman audience. The same applies to William of Poitiers’ Gesta

Guillelmi, which Orderic used as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Orderic utilized Eadmer of Canterbury’s writing to provide background on Anselm’s life and character. Eadmer’s writing was copied in England and spread to Normandy among those interested in Anselm and his career. Simeon of Durham’s writing is harder to trace, as there are no major contemporary citations of his work. In the case of Orderic Vitalis, although he used many of the previous authors’ writing, there is not enough information to show whether his gesta was read outside of his monastery during his life. The writings of Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, and William of

Newburgh reached a wider audience than their authorial predecessors, as is noted by their use of dedications and the citations by contemporaries.

There is a trend among those authors who wrote the majority of their gestae before roughly 1100, such as William of Jumièges, William of Poitiers, Eadmer of

Canterbury, and Simeon of Durham, to either justify or explain the Norman Conquest.

The Norman authors justify it by explaining an inherent greatness and godliness of the

Norman people while the English authors explain it in terms of divine punishment for their sins. Authors who wrote most of their gestae after approximately 1100, such as

Orderic Vitalis, Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, and

William of Newburgh, exhibit different patterns through their depictions of the Conquest.

The concept of English ethnicity was changing over the course of the twelfth century, so

that by the end of the twelfth century, in William of Newburgh’s writing, the Norman

Conquest lost its prior ethnic significance altogether. Each author, from William of

Jumièges to William of Newburgh, presents the Norman Conquest and subsequent related history in a way that reflects what he deemed important to commit to memory and allows the reader a glimpse into the aspects that inform each author’s identity.

William of Jumièges: Gesta Normannorum Ducum

The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges (c. 1000-1070) is the first gesta and work of history to discuss the Norman Conquest of England. Originally, the Gesta Normannorum Ducum covered the history of Norman dukes from Rollo to

Duke William II (also King William I) (c. 1028-1087), as the name implies. This gesta was used as one of the primary sources for the history of the Norman Conquest, which promoted its copying and widespread use in the twelfth century. The original purpose of the ducal history was to justify William’s claim to the Duchy of Normandy. After the

Conquest, however, an additional section was added to include the history of the Norman

Conquest, which is presented in a way that extends the original justification of William’s right to rule Normandy to the Kingdom of England. For William of Jumièges, there are strong ethnic and religious components to his justifications, which reflect his identity as a

Norman monk.

In the majority of extant manuscripts that make up the Gesta Normannorum

Ducum, William of Jumièges’ writing is mixed with that of Orderic Vitalis (c. 1075-

1142) and Robert of Toringi (c. 1110-1186), whose later additions include the history of subsequent Anglo-Norman kings.81 Due to the organization of this study, the contributions of Robert will be noted in this section. Orderic’s contributions, however, echo what he wrote in his own gesta, the Historia Ecclesiastica, and therefore will be excluded from this section. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum is organized into seven books (with an eighth book added later by Orderic), each with a different topic. Since this entire work is dedicated to the long-term justification of William’s claim to the Dukedom of Normandy and Kingdom of England, and since his work is a major source for other gesta authors, all seven original books will be given attention in this study.

William of Jumièges begins the first book of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum with a dedication letter (epistola) to William I, who is described as the “holy, victorious, and orthodox king of the English by the grace of the highest King’s authority.”82

Immediately, William of Jumièges establishes his bias in favor of William, which sets the tone of the rest of his writing. The phrasing used in this exhaltation of the king links

William of Jumièges’ Christian identity with his strong preference for Normans. Much of the pre-Conquest writing of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum is informed by writings by

Dudo of St. Quentin (c. 965-1063). Following the dedication, William of Jumièges writes that he consciously disregards much of Rollo’s history since he believes that Dudo’s

81 For more information on Robert of Toringi and his contributions, see: Elizabeth van Houts, “The Gesta Normannorum Ducum: a Historiy Without an End,” in Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, III, 1980, Reginald Allen Brown, ed. (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1981), 109-115.

82 William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumiè ges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, Edited by Elisabeth Maria Cornelia Van Houts, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 4. “Pio, victorioso atque orthodoxo summi Regis nutu Anglorum regi Willelmo…”

description of Rollo was “clearly flattery.”83 His version of Norman history excludes most of the pre-Christian background of Rollo and his followers to emphasize

Normandy’s Christian history. After acknowledging Dudo’s biases, William then begins his Gesta Normannorum Ducum with a discussion of the circumference and geography of the world as well as a quick overview of (as he understood) the spread of people to

Europe, Asia, and Africa after Noah landed in Scanza (likely Scandinavia) following the

Great Flood.84 The Scandinavian human-origin story likely appealed to the Normans in the middle of the eleventh century due to the fact that Norman identity was at this time influenced by their identification with Danes (Vikings).

In a fashion typical for gestae, the Gesta Normannorum Ducum combines the large-scale history of Europe with the small-scale history of the author’s local monastery,

Jumièges.85 This connection of greater European history with the local history suggests the significance that authors such as William of Jumièges placed on their own place in history. In the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Jumièges is described as being founded in the time of Clovis by Saint Philibert, with the help of Queen Baltilda.86 Whether or not this is historically true, the fact that William is claiming this as his monastery’s inheritance serves to emphasize the importance of tradition and precedence in perceptions of history. This kind of framing is useful when understanding the Gesta Normannorum

83 Ibid., 6. “Plenitus adulatoria.”

84 Ibid., 10- 16. His description of Scanza is similar to that of Jordanes’ De Origine Actibusque Getarum (c. 551), whose geographic description of Scanza suggests that this area is Scandinavia. See also: Jordanes, The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, ed. Charles Christopher Mierow (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1908).

85 William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Vol.1, 18. The Latin text is “Gemeticus,” which either describes the stones found in the area or presents the monastery as a gem of God.

86 Ibid. “Hic nempe Clodovei Francorum regis tempore a beato Philiberto, opitulante regina Baltilde, constructus…”

Ducum as a whole, since such values as tradition and precedence appear in many parts and serve to justify and explain history to the potential eleventh-century readers.

The second book of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum covers the history of the

Danes who become Normans, with particular focus on Rollo and his relation with

England and France. Robert of Toringi inserted at the beginning of this book lines about

Rollo from Dudo’s writing that William of Jumièges omitted, with additional embellishments in favor of the English. He describes Rollo’s contemporary, Athelstan, as the “most Christian king of the English… who was adorned with every title of wealth and was a worthy defender of the church” without whose help Rollo would not have been able to win the land that became Normandy.87 Robert’s addition of the English allows them a significant role in the creation of Normandy and links their history in a mutually positive manner. By the time Robert was editing this gesta, Norman and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity had lost its original sharp distinctions and become a new kind of English culture. Robert’s inclusion of the English in the Gesta Normannorum Ducum blends the historic memories of England and Normandy in a way that reflects his own views on ethnicity rather than those of William of Jumièges.

William of Jumièges’ original writing in this section presents a less capable

England that needed Norman aid. For example, William writes that while Rollo was raiding in France, the English “sent messengers to Rollo, begging him to come immediately to [Athelstan’s] support” against rebels.88 In this way, Rollo and his

87 Ibid., 42. “Rex Anglorum Chrisianissimus, nomine Alstemus, omnium honorum titulis exornatus, scrosancte ecclesie predignus advovatus.”

88 Ibid., 58. “Legati adveniunt deprecatoria verba Rolloni derentes, ut illi quamtocius auxilium ferat.”

supporters become the reason that attackers did not win against the desperate English.

William also uses the character of Rollo to discuss the evil intentions of pagans, as opposed to the implied righteousness of Christians. After Rollo and his band of followers landed in France, “Rollo, appointed as [their] leader, discussed the destruction of Paris with deceitful intention, since, as a pagan at heart, he thirsted like a wolf for Christian blood.”89 By way of this manner of description, William is emphasizing his perception of the evil of non-Christians, even if that manifests in the character of Rollo. Once he converts, however, Rollo’s role in this gesta changes. He becomes the great duke who

“issued a law in the limits of Normandy that forbid any robbery.”90 This image of Rollo as a bad then a good person is an example that William makes to stress the positive qualities of Christianity, the primary informer of his own identity.

William of Jumièges’ writing tells the reader what he considered important for being a Norman in the latter eleventh century. The first major factor is Christianity.

Before he had converted to Christianity, Rollo was almost absent from the Gesta

Normannorum Ducum, despite his necessary role in Norman history. Once Rollo becomes a Christian, he begins to play a more prominent role in this gesta. William also highlights the weakness, as he wants his readers to believe, of the English kingdom. This demonstrates the strength of the Normans while also providing justification for their later subjugation of England.

89 Ibid., 52. “Rollo igitur prelatione potitus de Parisiaca eversione corde versuto cum suis tractans, Christianorum sanguinem paganico instinctu lupino more sitiebat.”

90 Ibid., 68. “Intra Normannicos limites legem stauit, ut nullus assensum preberet furi.”

The third book in the Gesta Normannorum Ducum begins with Rollo’s death and continues through the life and death of his successor, Duke William I (c. 893- 942).91

William of Jumièges presents William I in a positive manner, likely because King

William I was named in honor of the memory of Duke William I, his grandfather’s grandfather. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum introduces Duke William I as one who

“ruled the whole of the Duchy of Normandy with wise governance and strove by his own volition to serve Christ, his king, with all of his heart.”92 The rest of this book continues to build and praise the character of William. William of Jumièges writes that Duke

William I wanted to serve God so much that he even tried to become a monk of

Jumièges. He was only unsuccessful because the “abbot impeded his eagerness by telling him that his son Richard was still too young, which might allow some wicked men to take advantage of in order to cause turbulence in Normandy.”93 By emphasizing the piety of the duke, William of Jumièges creates an example of what a good leader is. In this way, he is both glorifying King William I’s ancestor and drawing attention for the need of rulers to be devout Christians.

The fourth book of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum primarily covers the life and deeds of Duke Richard I (c. 933-996), Duke William I’s successor. William of Jumièges

91 David Douglas suggested in an article from 1946 that the title of duke is anachronistic in regard to rulers of Normandy until the eleventh century. William of Jumièges does not necessarily need to be historically accurate in his portrayal of the past, since that is not his goal of writing. Instead, he focuses on the creation of a positive image of the Normans in order to justify the present. See: David Douglas, "The Earliest Norman Counts," The English Historical Review 61, no. 240 (1946): 130.

92 William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Vol. 1, 76. “Totius monarchiam Normannici ducatus sagaci moderamine regens, inconvulsam Christo regi fidem servare corde ultroneo satagebat.”

93 Ibid., 86-88. “Fecissetque votes satis nisi abbas eius animositati obstitisset, eo quod filius eius Richardus adhuc puerulus esset, verens ne, propter illius imbevillitatem, quorumdam iniquorum molimine patria turbaretur.”

writes that Richard was of noble stock and had so righteous a heart that “if he heard of anything virtuous or prudent, he immediately committed it to memory.”94 In this way, he is suggesting that dukes should consider all the advice they receive. Most of this book is dedicated to depicting the French as treacherous people, by which means William of

Jumièges attempts to depict a clear divide between the French and Norman identities of his contemporaries. King Louis IV (c. 920-954) is shown as a self-serving man who only helps the young Richard I because he has wicked intentions. For example, Louis was advised to “brand the knees of young Richard, keep him under close watch, and impose such heavy taxes on Normandy that in the end the Normans would be forced to return to

Denmark, out of where they had originally erupted.”95 This claim shows the French as malicious and serves as a reminder for the reader of the Danish origins of the Norman people, emphasizing their identification with their Viking ancestors.

By the end of the fourth book of this gesta, the focus shifts from the conflict with the French to the religiosity of Duke Richard I. William of Jumièges writes, “Duke

Richard’s power increased through his many good works.”96 In a similar manner as that used to describe the piety of Duke William I, Richard’s piety is used as a means by which

William of Jumièges is able to tell his reader that Christian devotion is necessary in order to be a good and successful Norman duke. William of Jumièges further tells of how

Richard’s death “brought sadness to the people, but joy to the angels” because of how

94 Ibid., 98. “Si quid probitatis vel prudentie aure captabat, prout tempus dictabat, sagaci memorie protinus committebat.”

95 Ibid., 102. “Ut Ricardum puerum adustis poplitibus gravi custodia artaret gentem Normannicam gravissimis vectigalibus tamdiu affligeret, quoadusque Danamarcham, ex qua erupterat, coacta repeteret.”

96 Ibid., 130. “Cum igitur Richardus multorum bonorum operum polleret incrementis.”

great Richard was as duke.97 This connection between Normans and piety is essential for

William of Jumièges’ identity and therefore is constantly stressed throughout his gesta.

The Gesta Normannorum Ducum highlights positive secular and religious qualities in the character of Duke Richard II (c. 963-1026), who is the initial focus of the fifth book. From the beginning, this Richard is introduced as a duke who, “although he was dedicated to secular life… believed entirely in the universal Christian faith and was benevolent and devoted to the servants of God.”98 William of Jumièges juxtaposes

Richard’s positive qualities with the negative qualities of his brother-in-law, King

Athelred of England (c. 966-1016).99 Athelred sent an army to Normandy in order to

“devastate the land by robbery and fire… capture Duke Richard, with his hands bound behind his back, subjugate all of Normandy, and return to Athelred with [Richard] alive.”100 Even though Athelred orders this brutal attack, he warns his men not to attack

Mont-Saint-Michel, “since such a holy and religious place should not be consumed by fire.”101 William of Jumièges uses this juxtaposition to exemplify the good qualities of

Normans while making the English appear to be wicked.

The contrast of character between Richard and Athelred, serves two purposes.

First, it provides an example of how a ruler should and should not behave. The ordered

97 Ibid., 134. “… Flentibus populis, gaudentibus angelis.”

98 William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Vol. 2, 6. “Et quamuis seculari avtui foret deditus totus tamen fuit fide catholicus, et erga Dei cultures benivolus ac devotus.”

99 For more information about Athelred, see: Ann Williams, Ethelred the Unready: the Ill- counselled King (New York: Hambledon and London, 2003).

100 William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Vol. 2, 12. “Totam Normanniam rapinis et incendiis exterminarent… et Ricardum ducem captum, vinctis post tergum manibus, subiugata sibi patria, vivum suis adducerent conspectibus”

101 Ibid. “Solumodo archangeli Michaelis monti parcerent, ne tante sanctitatis et religionis locum igne concremarent.”

attack on Normandy is an example of this. Although Athelred tells his soldiers to destroy the land as they invade Normandy, he warns them not to attack holy places. The story is useful for William of Jumièges because through it, he tells Duke William II and other

Norman nobles not to attack holy places. The second purpose this story has is to provide justification for the Norman Conquest by creating the image of a historic rivalry between

Normandy and England. The English attempts to take Normandy were ultimately unsuccessful due to the excellent combat skills and leadership of Richard, who also had

God’s favor. Through this story, William of Jumièges suggests that the Normans are invincible against their enemies because of their overall superiority.

Book five ends with Richard’s death and his naming of Richard III (r. 1026-1027) as his heir, where the sixth book continues the story. In this book, Richard, driven by the

Devil and “with the cunning help of some wicked men, incited his brother Robert to rebel against him.”102 By making it the fault of evil counselors and the Devil, William of

Jumièges is absolving Richard and Robert of personal responsibility. This way, both dukes retain their positive roles in Norman history. Since Robert rebelled against his brother, Richard, some may have pointed to this history as the moment where the rightful heir of the Duchy of Normandy was replaced by a usurper. William of Jumièges creates, however, in his story of Richard’s demon-influenced advisors, a justification for the later inheritance of Duke William II.

The seventh book of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum tells of the life and deeds of

Duke William II (King William I), for whom the entire gesta was dedicated. William of

Jumièges tells the reader how “Christ finally firmly established the house of Duke

102 Ibid., 44. “Quorumdam versutia maliuolorum fratrem suum Robertum adversus eum concitans ad rebellandum.”

Robert… bestowing upon him eternal glory, and afterwards promoted his son William to the royal throne after having killed his enemies.”103 This is an obvious justification of

William’s right to rule by means of divine favor. It is especially relevant in the case of

William, who was the illegitimate son of Robert and Herleva of Falaise (c. 1003-1050).104

Due to the nature of William’s birth and his father’s rise to dukedom, he was initially met with some resistance. One noble who rebelled was Thurstan, governor of Hiémois, who hired soldiers “with whom he associated as accomplices for the defense of the fortress of

Falaise, because he did not want to serve the duke.”105 Even after Thurstan’s rebellion was crushed, William faced further strife by his paternal uncle, Malger, whose rebellion resulted in his exile from Normandy. With William putting down these rebellions and establishing his dominance as duke, William of Jumièges then shifts focus to the affairs of England.

King Edward the Confessor (c. 1003-1066) was living with Duke William II when he heard that King Cnut (c. 995-1035) died and his son, Harold (c. 1016-1040), ascended the throne. Edward quickly sailed from Normandy to Southampton, “where he met an innumerable multitude of Englishmen ready to join battle with him.”106 Despite the size of Edward’s army, he was unable to win the kingdom and returned to Normandy.

This story highlights William’s glory after the Conquest, as he was able to do what

103 Ibid., 90. “Quam denique Christus Rodberto duci… domum stabilivit, dum eum palma muneravit perhenni, illiusque filium Willelmum, profligates inimicis, trono postmodum provexit regali.”

104 Ibid., 96. Orderic Vitalis inserts in this section the details of Herleva, whom he calls “concubina.”

105 Ibid., 102. “Quos complices ad muniendum falisse castellum ne inde serviret duci.”

106 Ibid., 104-106. “Ubi innumerabilem Anglorum multitudinem ad sui perniciem se operientem offendit.”

Edward was not, despite the number of his supporters. Alfred, Edward’s brother, then took up arms against Harold with an English earl, named Godwin, “who first welcomed him as a friend but in the same night turned into a traitor like Judas.”107 Having been betrayed, Alfred’s men were beheaded and Alfred died after being blinded. Harold died not long after, although the Gesta Normannorum Ducum does not provide details for his death. Harthacnut (r. 1040-1042) succeeded his brother and invited Edward to come live with him in England, since they shared the same mother. Harthacnut died, however, “in less than two years… leaving Edward as the only heir.”108

William of Jumièges then describes how “duke [William], while in the prime of his flowering youth, began to devote his heart to the worship to God.”109 William of

Jumièges’ praise of Duke William II reflects the pride that he had for the duke and the

Norman people. It also establishes a link between the eventual Norman victory of the

Norman Conquest and a closeness of God, as this gesta describes King Edward the

Confessor’s lack of heirs being “by God’s will.”110 The heirless king sent first Robert,

Archbishop of Canterbury, and later Harold Godwinson, son of the earl that betrayed

Edward’s brother, Alfred, and his brother-in-law to Duke William II in order to proclaim him Edward’s new heir. William of Jumièges tells that “after Harold had stayed with

[William] for a while and had sworn fealty to him about the kingdom, with many oaths

107 Ibid., 106. “Quem idem comes in sua fide suscipiens Iude proditoris vicem implevit in illo nocte sub eadem.”

108 Ibid. “Ipse autem non plenis dubus annis subsistens, exivit hominem, Edwardum tocius regni relinquens heredem.”

109 Ibid., 120. “Duc [Willelmus], iam flore vernans gratissime iuventutis cultum Dei cepit ultroneo corde amplecti.”

110 Ibid., 158. “Etwardus quoque Anglorum res disponente Deo successione prolis careens olim miserat.”

[William] sent him back to [Edward] with many gifts.”111 God’s role in this history emphasizes the greatness of the Norman people.

After Edward died in January of 1066, Harold “quickly seized [Edward’s] kingdom, thus committing perjury against the fealty he swore to the duke.”112 By stressing Harold’s perjury, William of Jumièges provides a justification for the Conquest, as Harold’s oath breaking insulted God. In addition, William of Jumièges tells of a comet that “was visible for fifteen days, which foretold, as many said, a change in some kingdom.”113 These two justifications for William’s invasion of England share divine elements in the ways in which they would typically be interpreted in the eleventh century.

Perjury is an affront to God and whichever saints’ relics one swears upon, and the comet is a sign from God: a powerful omen and symbol.

God continues to play a prominent role in the Gesta Normannorum Ducum as

Duke William II quickly prepared an army and sailed to England. Harold hurried south to meet William with “innumerable multitudes of English soldiers.”114 Soon into the battle,

Harold was slain and the English began to flee, thus recognizing “Christ’s retribution for their unjust murder of Edward’s brother, Alfred.”115 The role of God in William of

Jumièges’ gesta is significant. Christianity is foundational to William’s identity and

111 Ibid., “Quem aliquandiu secum moratum facta fidelitate de regno plurimis sacramentis cum muneribus multis regi remisit.”

112 Ibid., 160. William of Jumièges says Edward died in 1065. “Cuius regnum Heroldus continuo invasit ex fidelitate peieratus quam iuraverat duci.”

113 Ibid., 162. “Per xv noctium spatium illustravit, mutationem, ut asserverunt plurimi, designans alicuius regni.”

114 Ibid., 166. “Contracta Anglorum innumera multitundine.”

115 Ibid., 168-170. “Christo illis vicem reddente ob aluredi, fratris Hetwardi regis, necem ab eis iniuste perpetratam.”

informs his narration of history. By writing that God favored the Normans during the

Conquest, William creates a memory of history in which Normans are the victors due to their piety, which is in turn fundamental to their identity as Normans.

The seventh book of this gesta concludes with William ending minor rebellions and naming his son, Robert, as his successor in Normandy. In the epilogue, William of

Jumièges writes that he had told of Duke William II’s deeds in “truthful and straightforward language.”116 Whether or not he truly believes that what he writes is true, he wants the reader to believe it is. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum, despite its initial purpose in justifying Duke William II’s rise to dukedom, explains how this same duke became king of England. God’s role is significant because it stresses the superiority of the Norman people.

Orderic Vitalis added an eighth book to the Gesta Normannorum Ducum in order to continue this gesta through the lives of Kings William II (Rufus) and Henry I. This book was not originally part of William of Jumièges’ writing. The fact that Orderic made an addition, however, shows the continued use and popularity of the Gesta Normannorum

Ducum after William of Jumièges’s death. The writing and style in this book reflect

Orderic’s understanding of the world and echo what is included in his own writing, the

Historia Ecclesiastica. For this reason, the eighth book of this gesta will not be described in this section.

The Gesta Normannorum Ducum reflects William of Jumièges’ ideas of what it means to be a Norman in the latter half of the eleventh century. In the beginning of his writing, likely before Duke William II became King William I, his writing suggests that

116 Ibid., 182. “Per veritatis tramitem directo sermone prosecutus.”

Normans identified as Christian Danes who settled in northern France. Normandy had a unique identity due to the fact that Normans shared many similarities with French culture, but still retained a memory of their Danish heritage. Christianity plays a foundational role in the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, as eleventh-century Normans were Christians in much the same way as their French neighbors, although William of Jumièges implies that

God always favored ethnic Norman people. Even after the Norman Conquest of England,

William of Jumièges’ framing of Norman identity was that of a powerful and unconquerable people. England did not play into the creation of any form of Anglo-

Norman identity at that time. William of Jumièges instead considers it a prize won by

William through God’s will, effectively reinforcing the link between divine favor and

Norman heritage.

William of Poitiers: Gesta Guillelmi

William of Poitiers (c. 1020-1090) wrote his Gesta Guillelmi to justify King

William I’s ascension of the English throne. 117 According to Orderic Vitalis, William of

Poitiers trained to be a knight before becoming a priest, which may explain his preference for the description of the fighting during the Battle of Hastings.118 The Gesta Guillelmi, as the name implies, primarily covers the life and reign of Duke William II. William of

117 William of Poitiers, The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, Edited by R. H. C. Davis and Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), xxv, xliii. There are no complete manuscripts remaining. Davis and Chibnall believe that Orderic Vitalis had a complete copy of the Gesta Guillelmi, which he used in his Historia Ecclesiastica. The surviving pieces of the Gesta Guillelmi are based on seventeenth century reprints of William’s original writing.

118 William of Poitiers, The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, xv. Additionally, see: R.H.C. Davis, 'William of Poitiers and his history of William the Conqueror', in R.H.C. Davis (ed.), The Writing of history in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern (Oxford, 1981), 84-85.

Poitiers says that his descriptions of the duke are honest since “he is not a poet, and therefore does not add to history with the addition of fiction.”119 He wants his audience to believe that “[he] will purely and simply praise the duke or king, to whom nothing impure was beautiful.”120 In this kind of introduction to his writing on King William I,

William of Poitiers is trying to convince his audience that he is writing an accurate account of history, despite the ample praise he includes for King William I. The language that William of Poitiers uses to describe history provides insight into his view on his own identity as well as his view of Norman history as a whole.

The Gesta Guillelmi, in its extant form, begins with the death of King Cnut and follows Edward the Confessor’s involvement in English affairs until he becomes king.

William of Poitiers provides more detail for the death of Alfred, Edward’s brother, at the command of Earl Godwin. He writes that Alfred’s companions were beheaded and

Alfred’s eyes were put out with a knife that “damaged his brain”, rendering him dead.121

In the Gesta Guillelmi, Godwin was personally responsible for Alfred’s death. This inflates his reputation as the villain of the gesta and creates a situation in which the death of his son, Harold, is morally justified. William of Poitiers directly addresses Godwin in the Gesta Guillelmi, accusing him of being the cause of all the evil that followed Alfred’s death. He exclaims that “by your treachery, you shed the innocent blood of Normans, and

119 William of Poitiers, The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, 28. “Parturire suo pectore bella quae calamo ederentur poetis licebat, atque amplificare utcumque cognita per campos figmentorum divagando.”

120 Ibid. “Nos ducem, sive regem, cui nunquam impure quid fuit pulchrum, pure laudabimus.”

121 Ibid., 4. “Cerebrum violavit mucro.”

accordingly the blood of your men will be shed by the sword of the Normans!”122 In this case, the sword of the Normans refers to Duke William II and his soldiers, who kill

Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings. William of Poitiers had the advantage of hindsight when he wrote this, of course, but for his reader, this serves as a lesson that evildoers will eventually meet a just death. Additionally, it shows William’s clear mental separation of English and Norman ethnicities, with the former lacking the divine favor of the latter.

William of Poitiers describes the ways in which Duke William II consolidated power in Normandy. By fighting rebels, William was able to make “all the conquered

Normans [submit] immediately to [him].”123 These were not the last of his troubles, however, as the French king, William’s former friend, attacked Normandy. When they met in battle, however, William “took care not to engage in battle with his army while the king was present, unless as an absolute last resort.”124 In this way, William of Poitiers is highlighting what he believes are good noble qualities through the character of Duke

William II, who did not want to hurt the king’s reputation despite his betrayal of their friendship. Additionally, depicting William as a flawless example of nobility, William of

Poitiers is creating for his reader a foundation of character in the duke that makes the actions that he later takes during the Norman Conquest seem even more necessary.

When Harthacnut died, Edward was crowned and the English and Normans began to debate the question of his succession. William of Poitiers implies that the potential of

122 Ibid., 6. “Fundis traditione tua immeritum sanguinem Normannorum: fundetur sanguis tuorum pari vice ferro Normannorum!”

123 Ibid., 12. “Normanni superati semel universi colla subdidere domino suo.”

124 Ibid., 18. “Confligere cum eius exercitu, eo praesente, studio quantum necessitudo sinebat extrema cavebat.”

Norman succession was solved relatively quickly after Edward ascended the throne. He writes that “the English, when they deliberated the question [of succession], agreed that

William’s arguments were the best, and acquiesced to the just requests of his envoys to avoid experiencing the might of the Normans.”125 Edward then sent William a message that he was chosen as Edward’s heir, with a son and a grandson of Earl Godwin as hostages of peace. This detail about Edward’s succession makes it seem as though

William is the only choice for succession. Additionally, given Edward’s relation to

Godwin, who was responsible for his brother’s death, the Gesta Guillelmi implies that there is no precedence for Godwin’s son, Harold, to seize Edward’s throne.

This gesta presents Duke William II as a righteous ruler. Even when given the opportunity to “devastate the wealth of the enemy”, William “knows that it is characteristic of wise men to temper victory and that the man who cannot restrain himself when he has the power to take vengeance is not actually powerful.”126 This shows that

William is a fair ruler. It also serves as a contrast for Harold Godwinson, who later is shown as having no restraint as he quickly usurps the throne. This history is presented in a way that reflects what William of Poitiers believes is the superiority of Normans and their values over the English.

William of Poitiers next describes Duke William II’s involvement in battles with the French king, Henry I (c. 1008-1060), before returning to the topic of English succession. In battle, William of Poitiers writes, Henry died “without ever having been

125 Ibid., 18. “Disceptantes etenim Angli deliberatione suis rationibus utilissima consenserunt, legationibus iusta petentibus acquiescere, quam Normannorum vim experiri.”

126 Ibid., 26. “Ad devastandam hostis opulentiam…” “Novit esse prudentium victoriae temperare, atque non statis potentem esse qui semet in potestate ulciscendi continere non possit.”

able to boast of a victory over the Norman duke, William.”127 Despite their rivalry and

William’s apparent great strength, William established peace and friendship with Henry’s son, Philip. William of Poitiers’ gesta makes William into a hero without flaws. In regard to King Edward, he writes that he sent Harold Godwinson, now Edward’s brother-in-law, to the duke in order to “confirm his pledge [of succession] with an oath.”128 On his way to the duke, however, Count Guy I of Ponthieu (d. 1100) captured Harold, causing

William to have to rescue him. After living with William, “Harold swore fealty to him according to the holy rite of Christians”, pledging his support and unending loyalty.129

William of Poitiers writes a long oath for Harold, in which he states he will uphold many promises. This makes his character seem even viler when he commits perjury.

The Gesta Guillelmi addresses Harold directly, in much the same manner that it addressed Godwin previously. William of Poitiers asks him, “With what intent dared you, after this to take William’s inheritance from him and make war on him, when you had with both voice and hand subjected yourself and your people to him by a sacred oath?”130

It is significant for William of Poitiers to stress the perjury of Harold, since it is the most major justification for the Norman Conquest. Oath breaking is serious and can destroy reputations and was seen by many, such as William of Poitiers, as an insult to God. Thus, by insulting God, William is able to become king through divine grace. William of

Poitiers makes a conscious attempt to link the Norman victory at Hastings to the will of

127 Ibid., 56. “Nunquam gloriatus triumpho, quem de Guillelmo Normanno comite retulerit.”

128 Ibid., 68. “Fidem sacramento confirmaturum.”

129 Ibid., 70. “Illic Heraldus ei fidelitatem sancto ritu christianorum iuravit.”

130 Ibid., 76. Paucis igitur te affabimur Heralde. Qua mente post haec Guillelmo haereditatem auferre, bellum inferred, ausus es, vui te gentemque tuam sacrosancto iureiurando subiecisti tua et lingua et manu?”

God, in a similar manner as William of Jumièges. It should be noted that both these authors were writing for King William I, which explains their ample praise.

Much to the surprise of the Normans, King Edward died and Harold Godwinson quickly seized the crown. William of Poitiers refers to him as the “crazy Englishman” who “could not bear to wait for the decision of a public election.”131 Harold, who does not wait for a council’s advice, is depicted negatively. In much the same fashion, Duke

William II does not take the advice of his own council, which advised him that the resources of Normandy were too scarce to undertake an invasion of England. His decision, though, is presented as a reflection of personal strength rather than a flaw.

Furthermore, William of Poitiers suggests that the Normans had divine wisdom and support. He quotes “a man who was well versed in holy learning: to those who live righteously God gives wisdom.”132 The Gesta Guillelmi makes the Norman Conquest appear as a form of holy war, by wise and godly Normans against wicked perjuring

Englishmen.

Before setting sail, Duke William II “forbade all plunder” of the many soldiers who rushed to his support as he prepared to invade England.133 His righteous actions and support from everyone make him appear to be an infallible character. In the Gesta

Guillelmi, William’s piety is paramount to his success in battle. His faith in “the omnipotence of God, which wills no evil and would not allow a just cause to fail” is

131 Ibid., 100. “Vesanus Anglus quid electio publica statueret consulere…”

132 Ibid., 102. “Ait quidam peritus divinorum.” “Pie agentibus Deus dedit sapientiam.”

133 Ibid. “Rapina omni interdicta.”

presented as a matter of necessity for a good ruler.134 To further solidify the idea that

William had God’s support, the Gesta Guillelmi describes how the Normans received a papal banner, “to signify the approval of Saint Peter.”135 With God and Saint Peter’s earthly representative supporting the Normans, the English appear even wickeder, which further justifies the Conquest. This image of great Normans illustrates William of

Poitiers’ identity as a Norman with divine favor, an identity similar to that of William of

Jumièges.

The Battle of Hastings began only after Harold refused William’s offer of peace in return for royal abdication and his offer of single trial by combat. Advancing “under the banner that the pope had sent to him”, William and his troops marched toward

Harold’s soldiers.136 William of Poitiers describes the formation of Norman soldiers, archers, and light and heavy cavalry with detail, which he contrasts with the large size of the English army that “took their stand on the higher ground” because they considered the

Normans more formidable than their last foe, Harold Hardrada.137 By suggesting that the

English take the high ground out of fear, William of Poitiers makes the Normans appear brave and well organized. Once the sides clash, William of Poitiers even refers to the

English as “barbarian”, entirely meant to insult them and contrast them with the noble

Normans.138 The tide of battle changes when the Normans feign flight. The Gesta

134 Ibid., 108. “Quod omnipotentia Dei, nihil volens iniquum, iustam causam cadere non sineret …”

135 Ibid., 104. “Velut suffragium sancti Petri.”

136 Ibid., 126. “Vexillo praevio quod apostolicus transmiserat.”

137 Ibid. “Locum editiorem praeoccupavere.”

138 Ibid., 128. “Barbaricus.”

Guillelmi is carefully constructed so that both retreats on behalf of the Normans are intentional. The Normans were able to break the English battle formations and eventually defeat Harold and his army by “[using] this trick twice with the same result.”139 The description of the battle ends with William’s pity for the fallen, despite William of

Poitiers remarking that it was a just end for a tyrant such as Harold.

After winning the Battle of Hastings, as the Gesta Guillelmi relates, William began to consolidate his control in England. Leaders from Canterbury came to him and swore fealty, and soon after William was in position to be crowned king. He said, though,

“if God granted him this dignity, he wished his wife to be crowned with him.”140

William, by this statement, is shown as being even more righteous than before.

Additionally, William of Poitiers uses this to illustrate the role of God in granting kingships as well as reflecting his views about crowning a king and queen together. Due to the concerns of his advisors, however, William had to be crowned before his wife could arrive in England. William of Poitiers suggests a certain level of humility in the character of King William by writing that he was told to accept the crown rather than patiently wait for it. This is what William of Poitiers believes is proper and appropriate behavior for a king.

In its extant form, the Gesta Guillelmi tells the story of the beginning of King

William I’s reign and ends abruptly mid-sentence. William continues to be a righteous and ideal king in this gesta. William of Poitiers writes, “All of the first acts of [King

139 Ibid., 132. “Bis eo dolo simili eventu usi…”

140 Ibid., 148. “Si Deus ipsi hunc concedit honorem, secum velle coniugem suam coronari.”

William’s] reign were righteous.”141 He even implies that the Norman Conquest was crucial to religious reform in England: an idea that William of Jumièges did not include in his Gesta Normannorum Ducum. William of Poitiers presents King William as a pious ruler who only has the best interests of the Norman and English people in mind. He even compares King William to Caesar, concluding that unlike the Roman general, William

“always acted with foresight and succeeded more by good planning than by chance.”142

Through the language that he uses, it is clear that William of Poitiers understood the

Norman and English people to be entirely separate. King William I was king in one area and duke in another.

The Gesta Guillelmi, as the name suggests, was produced to create a positive image of King William I, which would outlive him and preserve this image of him as a righteous duke. His rule, in Normandy and England, would not be questionable. Despite the missing details of this gesta, surrounding William’s rise to dukedom and the latter part of his reign (as far as William of Poitiers was able to record it), William of Poitiers is still able to create an idealized imagining of King William and the Norman Conquest. He clearly depicts the Normans as divinely favored and distinct from the English. Through the course of his writing, William of Poitiers suggests that a good king is a devout

Christian, giving and humble, as well as a good warrior, able to gain victory over innumerable forces with God’s support. Christianity is the foundation of his eleventh- century Norman identity, but it is not the only factor. The Gesta Guillelmi shows that

141 Ibid., 160. “Omnino proba eius in regnando initia fuere.”

142 Ibid., 172. “Hunc omnino provideum hominem, qui magis optimo consilio quam casu res bene gesserit, recte dices.”

William of Poitiers considered the Normans a unique ethnic group that was made of invincible people who were distinct from their neighbors, despite cultural similarities.

Eadmer of Canterbury: Historia Novorum in Anglia

Eadmer of Canterbury (c. 1060-1126) was born to Anglo-Saxon parents in

Canterbury.143 The few details of his life appear in his own writing. He entered into the

Benedictine monastery of Christ Church at a young age, where he first met Anselm (c.

1033-1109). Anselm became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093, which allowed him and

Eadmer to develop a friendship that would later inspire Eadmer’s writing. Eadmer’s

Historia Novorum in Anglia (hereafter Historia Novorum), finished after Anselm’s death, is his first-hand account of Anselm’s life. It fits into the genre of gesta due to the ways in which Eadmer alters the narrative of history in order to depict the past as he wanted it to be remembered. Eadmer’s Historia Novorum recounts the recent events of his lifetime, specifically those regarding Anselm, teaching lessons and reflecting his personal beliefs throughout. The language that Eadmer uses in his gesta reflects his preference for ethnic

Anglo-Saxons and reveals that Christianity and his personal understanding of English culture as a natural opposition to that of the Normans formed the basis of his identity.

The Historia Norovum is split into six books, with the first four constituting the original text and the last two being later additions by Eadmer. Due to the content, only

143 Eadmer’s name often appears as “Edmer” in his work and the writing of contemporaries. The current spelling of his name reflects the Anglo-Saxon preferences of John Selden, who printed Eadmer’s Historia Novorum in Anglia in the seventeenth century. See: Eadmeri Monachi Cantuariensis Historiae Novorum Sive Sui Saeculi Libri VI, London, 1623. For this study, I retain the spelling of his name as it appears in print for consistency with the scholarship of Richard Southern.

the original four books are considered in this study. In these books, Eadmer presents the

Anglo-Saxon kings of England as amicable characters, while the Norman kings’ reputation relies on how they treat the Diocese of Canterbury and Anselm. Eadmer, through his writing, presents Christianity as the most important aspect of his identity.

Anselm and the many popes during his lifetime are more significant figures than any of the secular leaders in Eadmer’s writing, and reflect Eadmer’s opinions on history. Unlike

William of Jumièges and William of Poitiers, Eadmer favors Anglo-Saxon kings over

Norman kings, although his account does not exclusively make the Normans into antagonists. Eadmer’s goal is simply to create a positive memory of Anselm and whoever supports him.

The first book of the Historia Novorum presents the fundamental background history for Anselm’s life and role in England. Eadmer’s history begins with the “most glorious king Edgar” and his succession.144 The wording in titling Anglo-Saxon kings reflects Eadmer’s pride for his English ancestry. Harold Godwinson’s character is depicted as a victim of Duke William II’s trickery, absolving him from the bad reputation he received in the previous gestae. Although Harold wanted to rescue his brothers in

Normandy, King Edward told him not to, since “[he] knows the duke is not so simple as to be inclined to give them up unless he foresees a means by which he may, by doing so, bring great advantage upon himself.”145 Edward’s character is presented as a wise king whose advice would have saved England from the Norman Conquest. Harold, not

144 Eadmer of Canterbury, Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia,, et Opuscula duo de Vita Sancti Anselmi et Quibusdam Miraculis Ejus, Edited by Martin Rule (Wiesbaden: Kraus Reprint, 1965), 3. “Gloriosissimo rege Eadgaro…”

145 Ibid., 6. “Nec enim ita novi comitem mentis expertem, ut eos aliquatenus velit concedere tibi, si non praescierit in hoc magnum proficuum sui.”

wishing to abandon his brothers, goes to Normandy and is convinced to swear an oath to help William obtain the English throne upon Edward’s death. In this presentation of the same principle narrative from William of Jumièges, Harold is a victim to William’s cunning. Since he swore the oath under duress, it is justifiable that he may later remiss his oath in favor of what the English nobles believe is best for the kingdom. Eadmer thus honors the memory of Edward and Harold in a way that glorifies the English and makes the Normans appear honorless tricksters.

The Historia Novorum continues the story of the Norman Conquest from an

English perspective. In response to the traditional narrative of Harold’s perjury, Eadmer writes, “The French who took part in the [Battle of Hastings] declare that… the victory they gained is truly and without any doubt to be attributed to nothing else than the miraculous intervention of God.”146 By recognizing what the Normans (here called

French) think, Eadmer acknowledges the argument but does not give it credibility. This creates an image of history in which the English are the heroes of the story despite their tragic loss. Much of Eadmer’s writing about the Conquest and the reign of King William

I is devoted to making a positive memory of the English, who appear entirely distinct, ethnically, from the Normans.

Eadmer’s Historia Novorum serves to ameliorate the memory of the English and simultaneously suggest ways that Eadmer framed his own identity. The most significant aspect of his identification is religion, although until the end of the first book, Eadmer focuses primarily on the malicious rule of the Normans in contradiction to the greatness of the pre-Conquest English. Once he introduces Anselm, the tone of the Historia

146 Ibid., 9. “De quo proelio testantur adhuc Franci qui interfuerunt… ut victoria qui potiti sunt vere et absque dubio soli miraculo Dei ascribenda sit.”

Novorum changes. The emphasis shifts from the ethnicity of rulers to the religiosity of kings and their interactions with Anselm. Anselm, whose memory Eadmer seeks to honor through his writing, can do no wrong in the Historia Novorum. Eadmer introduces him as

“a truly good man and an great scholar.”147 This image of Anselm is static throughout the four primary books of the Historia Novorum, and reflects not only Eadmer’s position under Anselm but also his religious belief. To Eadmer, being a good Christian is more significant than ethnicity, as is apparent in the tone that he takes when describing King

William I after introducing Anselm as his friend. There are no more mentions of William being a wicked or malicious king. Instead, Eadmer relates that of “whatever delicacies that were brought to the king, he would send half to the sick Anselm.”148 William’s change of heart is Eadmer’s way of both rationalizing William’s appointment of Anselm as bishop and exemplifying Anselm’s religious greatness.

The rest of the first book of the Historia Novorum follows King William I’s death and the early reign of King William II. Anselm remains the main figure in Eadmer’s narrative, however. Eadmer uses the characters of the king and Anselm to illustrate proper behavior. When William II becomes king, while attempting to continue a tradition of lay investiture, he denies Anselm the position of Archbishop of Canterbury due to

Anselm’s support of the pope. William says “at present neither he nor anyone else shall be archbishop except myself.”149 God makes William sick and he soon after repents and offers promises of peace and goodwill, although these do not last. By using the character

147 Ibid., 23. “Vir equidem bonus et scientia litterarum magnifice pollens.”

148 Ibid., 24. “Quicquid tamen deliciarum regi infirmo deferebatur, ab eo illarum medietas Anselmo infirmanti mittebatur.”

149 Ibid., 30. “”Nec ipse hoc tempore, nec alius quis archiepiscopus erit, me excepto.”

of William as an example, Eadmer is suggesting that a good king is one who is kind to agents of Christianity. The theme of kings arguing with Anselm and later repenting continues through the reign of William II and into that of Henry I.

The second book of the Historia Novorum tells the story of William II’s reign in

England. Eadmer illustrates the conflict between William and Anselm in a manner that stresses the negative qualities of the former and the positive qualities of the latter. One such example is the story of two men of Jewish descent, which Eadmer provides in order to show how William hated divine justice. Eadmer describes how these men (who had nominally converted to Christianity) approached the king and asked for a price in order to officially convert back to Judaism and “to make a long story short, he made the most of them by threats and intimidation, telling them to deny Christ and return to their former error.”150 For Eadmer, who places a great emphasis on Christianity, this is an apparent failure of William as king.

Anselm’s relationship with King William II in Historia Novorum is not complex.

Eadmer depicts William consistently as a foil for Anselm’s character and piety, with the theme of lay investiture providing a background for their interactions. Eadmer writes that when Pope Urban II died (1099) and William heard that the new pope is like Anselm in character, he proclaimed, “By the face of God, if he is like that, he is no good.”151 The feeling of disdain that William feels for Anselm serves multiple purposes in the Historia

Novorum. It explains why Anselm exclaimed that he wanted to relinquish the role of archbishop and shows how he came to travel across Europe to discuss matters of religion

150 Ibid., 99. “Plures ex illia minis et terroribus fractos, abnegato Christo, pristinum errorem suscipere fecit.”

151 Ibid., 116. “Per vultum dei, si talis est non valet.”

and state with the pope. In addition, this conflict serves to justify William II’s death as divine punishment for his sins.

In the third book of the Historia Novorum, Eadmer relates the story of King

William II’s death and introduces King Henry I and his complex relationship with

Anselm.152 When the news of William’s death reached Anselm, despite the ongoing argument of lay investiture, it “came as a great shock to [him] and he was presently so overcome that he wept most bitterly.”153 Through this surprising reaction, Eadmer shows that Anselm still respected the king despite their differences. This shows how immaculate

Anselm was to Eadmer, since he was able to so easily forgive the king with whom he fought over issues of lay investiture. Eadmer is suggesting, through example, that this kind of behavior is an ideal that his reader should strive to emulate. These kinds of lessons continue with Eadmer’s account of the relationship of King Henry I and Anselm, although this relationship is significantly more complex than that of William and Anselm.

At their first meeting, King Henry and Anselm were immediately conflicted.

Henry apologized for not receiving Anselm’s consecration as king and then demanded of him homage for the archbishopric of Canterbury. Anselm accepted the apology but declined the homage, saying, “If my lord the king is willing to accept [the] decrees [of a recent council at Rome] and also promise to observe them, all shall be well between us with firm peace.”154 Henry wanted to keep the right of investiture that he believed he

152 For more information on the life of Anselm and his relationship with Eadmer, see: R. W. Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer: a Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059-c.1130 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966).

153 Eadmer of Canterbury, Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia, 118. “Quo ille vehementi stupore percussus, mox est in acerbissimum fletum concussus.”

154 Ibid., 120. “Si dominus rex ista suscipere et suscepta servare voluerit, bene inter nos et firma pax erit.”

inherited with the throne, which began a legacy of issues that drove Anselm to seek the pope’s advice frequently throughout the third book. Henry continuously held Anselm in high regard despite the contention of investiture. Eadmer stresses the mutual respect of the archbishop and king throughout their investiture arguments in order to show how great both men were and construct the most positive image of each.

The rest of the third book of the Historia Novorum follows the arguments of

Henry and Anselm as they both work to ensure their ideals of investiture are implemented in England. Anselm is consistently depicted as an incredibly pious servant of God, while

Henry’s character is less static. To Eadmer, Henry was a complicated figure. In religious matters, he was not a good king, but when discussing the best interests of the English people, Eadmer presents him in a different light. Eadmer writes that after securing his kingship, Henry married Matilda, the daughter of King Malcolm III of Scotland (c. 1031-

1093) and Margaret, who was a descendant of Anglo-Saxon kings.155 This served to legitimize Henry’s claim to the English throne and that of his descendants by mixing

Norman with Anglo-Saxon royalty. Such an act would have likely appealed to a man such as Eadmer, with Anglo-Saxon parentage and strong opinions on ethnicity.

The fourth book of the Historia Novorum brings an end to the conflict of Henry and Anselm and highlights Anselm’s legacy. Eadmer describes that Henry made peace with Anselm at the right time because, as a sovereign “not so well loved,” this allowed him to avoid both excommunication and rebellion from nobles in Normandy and

England.156 Following this peace, Henry subdued Normandy, which caused many to

155 Ibid., 121.

156 Ibid., 166. “Non adeo amatae.”

declare “that it was in consequence of having made peace with Anselm.”157 After Henry won Normandy and established new laws in England, he and Anselm lived in peace until

Anselm’s death (April, 1109). Henry, who had come to respect Anselm greatly, did not invest bishops after his death. This caused “agents of God to cry out that Anselm was present among them and that although he could not do it while alive, when he was no longer in this world he brought the claims of the church to a successful conclusion.”158

Eadmer concludes his Historia Novorum with an allusion to continued peace under

Henry, whom “many feared more than God.”159 The change in Eadmer’s depiction of

Henry is due to the lessons the king learns from Anselm. Once he accepts what Eadmer believes is the proper role of a king in relation with the institutional church centered in

Rome, Henry’s depiction becomes entirely flattering.

The ways in which Eadmer presents history reflect his values, which inform his personal identity. His preference for Anglo-Saxon ethnicity is second only to his devotion to his mentor and friend, Anselm. Eadmer places proper religious practice above all else, showing that he primarily identifies with his religion and fellow clergymen. When religion is not an issue, however, Eadmer’s presentation of pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon kings and post-Conquest Norman kings suggests that he identified with ethnic Anglo-

Saxons and not Normans. King Henry I was the only Norman king that Eadmer did not present in a negative manner. Although he alludes that some people did not like Henry,

157 Ibid., 184. “Igitur ob pacem quam rex fecerat cum Anselmo hac Victoria eum potitum multi testati sunt.”

158 Ibid., 209. “Et agents domino grates pariter conclamaverunt Anselmum adesse, et quam non poterat in corpore degens, iam mundo absentem, causam ecclesiae suae determinasse.”

159 Ibid., 213. “Rex enim, qui plus Deo a multis timebatur.”

Eadmer ultimately considered him a good king, likely due to his eventual peace with

Anselm, marriage into Anglo-Saxon royalty, and proposal of new laws in England.

The Historia Novorum also serves as a tool by which Eadmer teaches lessons.

These lessons are present in the many stories of Eadmer’s writing of history, ranging from Edward the Confessor’s wisdom and Harold’s pride through William II’s greed and

Anselm’s holiness. These lessons may be condensed into two major thematic concepts.

The first theme is to always consider the advice of counselors, as Edward the Confessor’s advice to Harold may have, as Eadmer suggests, changed either the possibility or outcome of the Norman Conquest. Eadmer’s second theme builds off the first, but with

Anselm as the central figure. Essentially, he is telling his reader to emulate Anselm’s holiness and devotion to the church, while avoiding the actions of foil characters, such as

King William II. This king, due to his greed, lost his life and kingdom. His brother,

Henry, showed piety through peace with Anselm, which allowed him to gain control of

Normandy. These lessons were intended for his early twelfth century audience, when he was writing, and make a moral foundation upon which his version of history is told.

Simeon of Durham: Libellus de Exordio Atque Procursu Istius and Historia Regum

Simeon of Durham (c. 1060-1129) was a monk of Jarrow, a part of the Durham

Priory, in the late eleventh and early twelfth century. Although not much is known about his life, two of his major works survive. These are his Libellus de Exordio Atque

Procursu Istius, Hoc Est Dunhelmensis Ecclesie (hereafter Libellus) and his Historia

Regum. The former has multiple extant copies in British libraries and museums, but the

latter survives in only one manuscript, held at Corpus Christi College in Cambridge.160

Both of these works present English history in a way that glorifies Anglo-Saxons and makes Normans into villains in much the same manner as Eadmer of Canterbury’s

Historia Novorum. The only redeeming action for Norman kings in Simeon’s writing is the support of English churches. Simeon’s books fit into the genre of gesta due to the ways in which history is told. Both writings reflect Simeon’s preference for Anglo-

Saxons and his role as a monk.

Simeon wrote the Libellus in order to describe the history of Durham Church, but by doing so also describes Anglo-Saxon history, Anglo-Norman history, and local history in Northumberland. Simeon presents history through the Libellus as a story in which the

Anglo-Saxon’s play the role of God’s chosen people led by St. Cuthbert. The Historia

Regum tells a similar story to the Libellus, but provides a less restricted scope, opening the story to include continental history and more recent events of Simeon’s life. Despite the broader view of the Historia Regum, only the portrayal of Anglo-Norman history will receive considerable attention in this section. The Historia Regum in its extant form is the work of a copyist, likely from roughly 1164, although any changes that reflect the advantage of writing almost thirty years after Simeon’s death are separate from the main narrative, forming a complementary book that falls outside the scope of this study.161

160 This copy of Simeon’s Historia Regum, likely from the late twelfth century, is the same edition that appears in print beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, with minor changes in spelling.

161 Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, Edited by Thomas Arnold, Vol. 2 (London: Kraus Reprint, 1965), x-xi, 283. The editor, Thomas Arnold, suggests the date of 1164 for this copy for two reasons. First, this history gives King Henry I the designation as the First, which Arnold argues would not have been the case if Simeon died before Henry. Additionally, there is an issue with a date of production in the last paragraph of the Historia Regum, which strongly suggests 1164 as the date the scribe added after copying the original. Arnold suggests that the copyist was John of Hexham (c. 1160- 1209), due to the rubric on the first page of the Historia Regum and the final paragraph in the copyist writes “Explicit

Simeon’s Libellus fits the genre of gesta due to the material and the presentation of Simeon’s writing. Although originally intended to be the story of Durham church, the

Libellus also reflects Simeon’s interpretation of the history of the Norman Conquest and how it affected his local church. Simeon’s Libellus is divided into four books, with two continuations that were added in two different hands and include events that followed

Simeon’s death. For this reason, these continuations will not be considered in this study.162 Divided into four books, the Libellus tells a historic story of St. Cuthbert (c.

634- 687), whose cult was centered on his tomb in Durham. His life, as originally described by Bede, is made slightly more fantastical in the Libellus due to his popularity as a saint and worker of miracles in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This history is primarily borrowed from Bede and is only changed slightly to make Anglo-Saxons into greater heroes than Bede suggests. The third book begins in 995, when the bishopric of

Durham was established and continues through the aftermath of the Conquest. Simeon continues to glorify Anglo-Saxons, but in this book he also begins to also make the

Normans into antagonists. In the fourth book, Simeon recounts the history of King

William I’s death and his son’s succession. Simeon creates an image of history in which

Anglo-Saxon clergymen are essentially the only ones who try to combat Norman wickedness. The Libellus initially defends the memory of great Anglo-Saxon rulers and builds the memory of malicious Normans. By the end of the last book, though, Simeon’s opinion of King William I changes as the king learns to favor Durham.

Historia suavis et sanctae memoriae Symeonis, monachi et praecentoris ecclesiae sancti Cuthberti Dunelmi…” Simply put, it is not logical for a monk to end his writing in honor of memory of himself.

162 Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, Edited by Thomas Arnold. Vol. 1 (London: Kraus Reprint, 1965), xiv-xv.

Simeon begins the first book of his Libellus by admitting that he reluctantly began writing at the behest of his elders in order to record the history of the church of

Durham.163 There are many sections in the first book where Simeon copies Bede verbatim. One such example is in his description of the Anglo-Saxon bishop, Finan, who

“built a church on the island Lindisfarne that was suitable for a bishop’s see.”164 By copying Bede’s writing word for word, Simeon shows that Bede is still significant in twelfth-century Northumberland. Lindisfarne’s history appealed to Durham for three reasons. First, St. Cuthbert, whose tomb and relics were housed in Durham, was active in and became bishop of Lindisfarne during his lifetime. Additionally, the founding of

Durham is attributed to St. Cuthbert, thus establishing a link between these two sees.

Second, Durham and Lindisfarne shared a history as Northumbrians, or at least as inheritors of the legacy of that Anglo-Saxon kingdom. This was a foundational informer of identity among northern English Christians following the Conquest. Third, Lindisfarne is depicted in the Libellus as essentially the cause of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms converting to Christianity. This presentation of Lindisfarne and, by extension of St. Cuthbert,

Durham as a bastion of holiness reflects Simeon’s perception of the role of

Northumberland during his own lifetime. To Simeon, as is evident in his third book,

Northumberland is the main defense against the Normans of English identity and proper religious practice.

163 Simeon of Durham, Libellus de Exordio Atque Procursu Istius, Hoc est Dunhelmensis, Ecclesie: Tract on the Origins and Progress of This the Church of Durham, Edited by D. W. Rollason (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000).

164 Ibid., 28. “In insula Lindisfarnensi fecit ecclesiam sedi episcopali congruam.”

In the second book of the Libellus, Simeon shows the lines of bishop succession from St. Cuthbert and Bede through bishop Ealdhun by 990. Although the bishops are the focus of this book, Simeon also discusses Anglo-Saxon kingship and the eventual unification of England under King Alfred the Great (849- 899) and his successors.

Simeon describes history in a way that elevates St. Cuthbert’s role to that of a guide. He is depicted as a guide to history. Simeon imposes St. Cuthbert into stories where he may not have been necessary to exemplify and solidify his role in English history. One example is in the unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms under Alfred. Simeon writes,

“For after St. Cuthbert had appeared to [Alfred], he added to his father’s kingdom (that is the kingdom of the West Saxons) both the kingdoms of the East Angles and, after

Guthred’s death, that of the Northumbrians.”165 This joins the roles of St. Cuthbert and

Alfred in a manner that makes St. Cuthbert into the active character while Alfred takes a more passive role. Despite this role, Alfred is still honored as a “most pious” king.166 His religious devotion is Simeon’s explanation for his success through St. Cuthbert’s guidance. This exemplifies the complexity of Simeon’s identity as a Christian Anglo-

Saxon from Northumberland in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, when he was writing.

The third book of the Libellus covers the history from 995 through the Norman

Conquest and its aftermath. Simeon begins this book with the story of the founding of

Durham in 995. St. Cuthbert’s body was taken toward Lindisfarne in 995, but the cart by

165 Ibid., 128. “Postquam enim sanctus Cuthbertus ei apparuerat, paterno regno (id est Occidentalium Saxonium), et provinciam Orientalium Anglorum et Northanhymbrorum post Guthredum adiecit.”

166 Ibid. “Piissimus rex Anglorum Elfredus…”

which his coffin was transported stopped and would not move. According to Simeon,

“this fact clearly showed everyone that the saint did not with to be taken back to his former resting place.”167 In that location, the bishop Ealdhun and others quickly worked to clear the forest and build a church out in devotion to Christ and St. Cuthbert. After the church of Durham was established, miracles soon after signified that this was the proper place for St. Cuthbert’s body. Through this story, Simeon is emphasizing the divine founding of his church. This may be an attempt to justify Durham as the site of St.

Cuthbert’s tomb, although the other side of this argument is yet unknown.

Simeon begins his discussion of the Norman Conquest in the third book of the

Libellus with a relatively brief overview of English kings from Cnut through Edward the

Confessor. Continuously, Simeon describes King Edward as “the most pious” in order to draw a contrast with his later depictions of King William I.168 The Libellus presents a different image of Tostig Godwinson than the gestae of William of Jumièges and

William of Poitiers. This is likely in part due to Tostig being Earl of Northumberland, although this is not the only reason for Simeon’s preference. Simeon writes that Tostig, his wife, and their entire household were “very devout and generous toward the church of

St. Cuthbert.”169 The Libellus does not comment on Tostig’s involvement with Harold

Hardrada or the Battle of Stamford Bridge. This omission reflects Simeon’s identification with Northumberland and his desire to preserve in history a positive image of the

Northumbrian people.

167 Ibid., 144. “Quo facto omnibus clarebat, quod ad eum ubi prius fuerat locum se transportari nollet.”

168 Ibid., 170. “Piissimo Eadwardo…”

169 Ibid., 180. “Erga sancti Cuthberti ecclesiam multum devoti extiterant et munifici.”

The Libellus quickly recounts the events of the Norman Conquest, beginning with the death of “the most pious King Edward” on 5 January 1066.170 Before long, Harold

Godwinson was made king and the Norwegians attacked (again, with no mention of

Tostig’s role). Although Harold was able to defeat them, he had to quickly rush to meet the great forces of Normandy where, “in that battle, he fell with almost the entire English army.”171 Simeon does not directly comment on Harold’s death, but his description of what ensues in Durham County suggests that he saw Norman rule in England as unfavorable. From this point on in the Libellus, the role of the Northumbrian people is that of victims of Norman oppression, with St. Cuthbert still ultimately protecting them.

Simeon describes William’s cruelty as he “entered Durham with seven hundred men, [who] acted hostilely to all the homes.”172 This negative portrayal of William is one of the few in any of the gestae of this study. William’s violence does not end with this single event, according to the Libellus, but continues as William later hears of the miracles of St. Cuthbert at Durham while he is marching south from war with King

Malcolm III in Scotland.173 When William asked if the body of St. Cuthbert was at

Durham, “although everyone proclaimed aloud and swore on oath that [the body] was there, [William] refused to believe it” and decided to investigate with a scheme to execute the most noble elderly man of the church to be executed.174 In this situation,

170 Ibid., 182. “Piissimus rex Edwardus…”

171 Ibid. “Sed cum toto pene Anglorum exercitu occubuit.”

172 Ibid. “Intravit ergo Dunhelmum cum septingentis homnibus ubique per domos hostiliter agentibus.”

173 Ibid., 196.

174 Ibid. “Cunctis vociferantibus et iurantibus illud ibi haberi, credere noluit.”

William is depicted as a cruel man who only did not carry out his plan due to a relatively severe illness, which Simeon presents as divine punishment for his actions.

Simeon’s depiction of William changes in the fourth and last book of the Libellus, primarily due to William’s acceptance of St. Cuthbert and his followers. After William

“confirmed by his authority and consent the laws and customs of the saint, as they had been established by the authority of former kings”, he begins to take on a different role.175 Simeon then calls him “the most excellent King William” for his granting of rights and protection to the church of St. Cuthbert.176 This transformation of William reflects Simeon’s idea of what makes a good king. Despite his role as a villain and destroyer of homes in the third book, the fourth book implies that repentance through goodwill for St. Cuthbert forgives William’s prior transgressions against the English.

King William even befriends Durham’s bishop, William, before his eventual death in

September. The fourth book of the Libellus ends with a short story of the friendship of

King William II and Bishop William, who was expelled from England only to return after helping the king win control over a castle in Normandy.

Due to the way in which Simeon writes about history in the Libellus, several deductions can be made about his identity. In a manner expected for a monk, he favors religion over all other aspects of identity. St. Cuthbert and the church of Durham take precedence in his writing, with St. Cuthbert playing an active role in guiding history.

Simeon also highly values English over Norman heritage. Although the topic of the

Libellus is the history of Durham, Simeon writes enough about Kings William and

175 Ibid., 198-200. “Leges quoque et consuetudines ipsius sancti sicut antiqua regum auctoritas stabilierat, ipse quoque suo consensu et et auctoritate confirmavit.”

176 Ibid., 230. “Excellentissimi regis Willelmi.”

William II (Rufus) to adequately reflect his preferences. Initially, the Normans are depicted as antagonists to St. Cuthbert, although this changes once the saint convinces

King William I through miracles to support the church of Durham. After this acceptance of Simeon’s ideal practices of religion, William’s character shifts from one who threatens to kill priests to an excellent supporter of churches. Simeon’s opinion of William and the

Normans is primarily the same in his larger work, the Historia Regum.

Simeon of Durham’s Historia Regum is a gesta that tells of the royal history of

England, from the death of the Ethelbert, King of Kent, in 616 to the reign of King Henry

I of England, roughly by 1130.177 The history before the eleventh century in the Historia

Regum focuses on religious figures and regal succession, with many major events being presented in list form with dates and basic information. This earlier part draws on the writing of Bede, who was a significant influence for Simeon. Once Simeon approaches the topic of the events and kingships of the eleventh century, his pace beings to slow as he approaches the topic of the Norman Conquest. The Historia Regum presents a similar view of history as the Libellus, although in significantly greater detail, and reflects

Simeon’s identity as a northern English Christian.

The beginning point of the Historia Regum was a deliberate choice. In much the same way that William of Jumièges omitted information about pre-Christian Norman ancestors, Simeon’s history begins with the first Christian Anglo-Saxon king. After

Ethelbert’s death, Simeon focuses on kings and religious figures, such as Bishop

177 Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, Edited by Thomas Arnold. Vol. 2 (London: Kraus Reprint, 1965). The last major topic in the Historia Regum is the marriage of King Henry’s daughter, Matilda, to Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou. Although there is a major addition to this gesta that continues it through the Stephen and Matilda Wars (beginning in 1135), the continuation will not be considered in this study due to the date of production and the focus of that writing.

Benedict (c. 628- 690), the first abbot in England.178 This reiterates the significance that

Simeon stressed in his Libellus of his identification as a Christian. It also serves to reinforce Simeon’s local and greater Northumbrian identity, since Benedict founded the

Abbey of Jarrow, which was dedicated “in honor of the most blessed apostle Paul” and was later absorbed into the Priory of Durham.179 Much of the ecclesiastic history of the

Historia Regum follows that of the Libellus, with few notable deviations despite the greater detail.

The Historia Regum presents the Norman Conquest in a similar manner as the

Libellus. Despite the similarities, there are a few differences in presentation. For example,

Simeon describes Tostig’s role in the events preceding the Conquest in more detail, explaining that the Northumbrians expelled him and “when [he] asked to return, they unanimously agreed to refuse his request.”180 Despite the praise of Tostig in the Libellus, the Historia Regum makes him into a character that less represents Northumberland. This is significant for Simeon, who identifies with his Christian Northumbrian kinsmen and cultural heritage.

Harold Godwinson is presented as a good king in the Historia Regum. Simeon describes Harold’s ascension as just, writing “Harold, the son of Earl Godwin, whom the king chose as his successor before his death, was elected to the level of kingship with unanimous votes by all English nobles.”181 There is no doubt that Simeon considers

178 Ibid., 15.

179 Ibid., 17. “In honore sanctissimi Pauli apostolic.”

180 Ibid., 178. “Tostium cum eis pacificare vellent, omnes unanimi consensu contradixerunt.”

181 Ibid., 179. “Haroldus, Godwini ducis filius, quem rex ante suam decessionem regni successorem elegerat, a totius Angliae principibus as regale culmen electus.”

Harold the proper heir after Edward’s death. In response to gesta authors such as William of Jumièges and William of Poitiers, Simeon addresses the Norman opinion of Edward’s succession as well. He summarizes the story of Harold swearing an oath, but attributes it to trickery, concluding, “The Normans want, without doubt, to ascribe their victory to the judgment of God, who punishes… those that commit the crime of perjury.”182 Although

Simeon recognizes this side of the argument, he wants to replace the basic justification of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum with his interpretation of wicked Normans.

The role of King William I differs little between the Libellus and the Historia

Regum. William’s coronation oath reflects Simeon’s ideals of kingship, as he swears to

“defend God and His churches, not subject the people to him but instead to rule the kingdom righteously and keep the laws of the kingdom.”183 This oath serves two purposes in Simeon’s portrayal of history. The first purpose is to create a situation where

William commits perjury against this oath as he attacks Northumberland. Simeon writes,

“William, soon after becoming king, marched an army to Northumberland, hurried to

[Durham], and caused great devastation for the entire winter, killing many men and committing many other atrocities without cessation.”184 By inverting the traditional narrative of the perjury of Harold, Simeon creates a situation in which William’s villainous acts make him the perjurer. This mirrors his depiction of William in the

Libellus, although the Historia Regum includes more detail for smaller acts of violence

182 Ibid., 185. “Normannorum fuit, ut victoria qua potiti sunt, vere et absque dubio Dei judicio sit ascribenda, qui puniendo... scelus perjurii.”

183 Ibid., 182. “Dei ecclesias ac roctores illarum defendere, necnon et cunctum populum sibi subiectum iuste ac regali providential regere, rectam legem statuere et tenere…”

184 Ibid., 188. “Quod ubi regi Willelmo innotuit, exercitu mox congregato in Northymbram efferato, properavit animo, eamque per total hiemem devastare, hominesque trucidare, et multa alia non cessabat agere.”

by Normans in Northumberland, such as the devastation of the monastery of Jarrow.

Despite the additional detail, the emphasis remains the same. Simeon’s history makes

William into the same kind of antagonist that Harold is in the Gesta Normannorum

Ducum and other gestae that follow a similar narrative.

Relations between King William I and the English people do not improve in the

Historia Regum, as they did in the Libellus. Simeon writes that in 1085, prompted by threat of a potential Danish invasion, William “hired armies of soldiers and archers from all over Gaul and brought them and more Normans to England in autumn, and spread them all over England… and charged them with managing the kingdom.”185 Simeon then notes that after winter passes and the rumor of invasion was dispelled, most of the armed men disband, but the newly elevated Norman overlords in England remain. The Historia

Regum describes William’s death quickly, only providing the basic detail of William’s succession and of the churches that received his post-mortem donations.

Simeon depicts King William II in a way that stresses his sins in order to teach his readers lessons. After becoming king, William Rufus makes an oath to the English, promising such actions as “fighting Scottish injustices and opening his forests to all for hunting.”186 Although he does eventually fight King Malcolm of Scotland in

Northumberland and cause his death, the king does not open the royal forests for use by commoners. Simeon writes that due to the sins of his lifetime, it “is no wonder, as people rumor, that [William’s death] was doubtlessly due to the vengeance and power of

185 Ibid., 212. “De tota Gallia solidariis, pedonibus, et sagittariis multis millibus conductis, et nonnullis de Normannia sumptia, autumnali tempore Angliam rediit, et eis per totum regnun divisis… ac regiis praepositis victum praebere mandavit.”

186 Ibid., 215. “Omnem iniustum scottum interdixit, et concessit omnibus silvas suas et venationem.”

Almighty God.”187 The role of the people in this rumor emphasizes the fame of William’s sinfulness. It also serves as a justification and contrast for the reign of his successor and brother, Henry I (c. 1068- 1135).

The rest of the Historia Regum follows the life of King Henry who Simeon depicts as a good and just king. Likely due to seeing the results of Henry’s kingship firsthand, Simeon writes about him with reverence. Henry “freed England of all the evils and injustices of his brother’s kingship, firmly established peace in the entire kingdom…

[and] restored the laws of King Edward [the Confessor].”188 Since Simeon depicted

Edward the Confessor in such a positive way, it is fair to reason that Simeon considered

Henry the first king since Edward’s reign to hold the interests of the English people in mind. Henry is a hero throughout the last fifty pages of the Historia Regum, committing to history an image of Henry as a benevolent English king that other twelfth-century writers, such as Orderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury, share in their own writing.

The Historia Regum ends with Henry arranging his daughter’s marriage to the Angevin

Count Geoffrey, and a quick summary of Henry’s successes.

The wording used in the Historia Regum greatly reflects Simeon of Durham’s historic preferences and identity. For example, Simeon consistently refers to the English nobles of Norman descent as Normans (even second generation Normans), creating a clear distinction between Normans and Englishmen. Simeon gives preference to Anglo-

Saxon kings and King Henry, who is an exception to Simeon’s dislike of Norman kings.

187 Ibid., 231. “Nec mirum, ut populi rumor affirmat, hanc proculdubio magnam Dei esse virtutem et vindictam.”

188 Ibid. “Liberam fecit, ac omnes malae consuetudines et iniustas exactions quibus regnum Angliae iniuste opprimebatur, abstulit, pacem firmam in toto suo regno posuit… legem Regis Eadwardi omnibus in commune reddidit.”

Since Henry supports churches and reinstated the laws of Edward the Confessor, Simeon sees him as the first Norman king of England to have the best interests of the English in mind. The wording used in describing Edward and Henry contrast those for William and

William Rufus. These differences allow the reader a glimpse into Simeon’s worldview.

Simeon identifies strongly with the Northumbrian English and his locality of Durham, while maintaining disdain for Normans (with the exception of Henry).

The Historia Regum and Libellus reflect Simeon’s preference for ethnic Anglo-

Saxons over Normans and exemplify his understanding of the role of Christianity in history. Simeon writes a positive account of Anglo-Saxon kings, including Harold

Godwinson. In opposition to the Gesta Normannorum Ducum and the Gesta Guillelmi,

Simeon makes King William I into the villain. William plays a major role in the ravaging of Northumberland in both of Simeon’s works, which suggests that Simeon wanted this event to be how his and successive generations view the king. The Libellus makes it clear that St. Cuthbert and God have a direct responsibility for guiding history. Although many atrocities happen, such as William threatening to kill the eldest member of Durham’s church, St. Cuthbert continuously watches and protects his chosen resting place in

Durham. The role of the saint reflects his importance to the people of Northumberland and, more specifically, Durham. In Simeon’s writing, St. Cuthbert’s intercession and

God’s guidance allows these gestae to end favorably with the character of King Henry I.

Henry is depicted as the king who brings peace to England after the Norman Conquest and its aftermath violence in Northumberland, as he works to honor English churches and restore the laws of King Edward the Confessor. His role in supporting English churches

earns him favor in Simeon’s presentation of history and displays Simeon’s idetntity as a

Christian first and an Englishman by ethnicity second.

Orderic Vitalis: Historia Ecclesiastica

Orderic Vitalis (c. 1075-1142) was born to an English mother and a Norman father, who sent him to Normandy when he was eleven years old to become a monk of the Abbey of St. Évroul. At this abbey, Orderic wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica, a gesta of thirteen books that describes the history of his abbey, his life, and English and Norman affairs in addition to the larger scope of history as he understood it.189 Orderic’s writing fits into the genre of gesta because of his alterations and augmentations to his historic narrative. These changes show how Orderic felt about current affairs in the twelfth century and reflect his complex identity as both a monk and a person of mixed English and Norman ancestry. In his own words, Orderic was “English-born,” although his depiction of the Normans suggests his ethnic identity was significantly more complex.190

The details of Orderic’s past, including information about his birth, parentage, and role at

St. Évroul, come from his own writing. Orderic grows as he writes the Historia

Ecclesiastica, making the book a measure of his life and a way to understand what he values and how he identifies in a time of varying leadership in Normandy and England.

The Historia Ecclesiastica in its modern form was primarily preserved by its printing in

189 For more information on Orderic’s life, see: Marjorie Chibnall, The World of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002).

190 Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Edited by Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), Vol. 4, 144. “Et Vitalis angligena…”

the middle of the nineteenth century. Marjorie Chibnall, who published and translated volumes of Orderic’s writing by 1980, revitalized interest in Orderic’s writing.191

In his 2001 publication Henry I, Warren Hollister describes Orderic’s Historia

Ecclesiastica as the greatest English social history of the middle ages.192 This is due to the scope of Orderic’s Historia Ecclesiastica, which in its whole covers history from the birth of Christ through 1141, with potential edits made in 1142. The first two books relate

Biblical history and end with an extensive list of popes. In the third through sixth books, meant originally to be the entire Historia Ecclesiastica, Orderic presents the history of the monastery of St. Évroul and places that history in context of the European history of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. The seventh through thirteenth books expand the main scope of this historic narrative to include more details and a greater geographic are of focus. Since much has been written about Orderic’s Historia Ecclesiastica, this study will focus solely on his depiction of the Norman Conquest and related history.193

Orderic Vitalis wrote some additional lines in a surviving copy of William of

Jumièges Gesta Normannorum Ducum. In this writing, Orderic mimics the tone he takes in his own Historia Ecclesiastica and even provides some phrases verbatim. Due to the nature of these copies, it is more efficient and less repetitive to only note Orderic’s presentation of the Norman Conquest in his own books. The fact that Orderic copied

191 Chibnall’s version is the one I use for this study, although I am concerned with the original Latin text rather than her translation. See: Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Edited by Marjorie Chibnall, Vol. 1-6. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980).

192 Warren C. Hollister and Amanda Clark Frost, Henry I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 5.

193 For multiple approaches to and interpretations of Orderic’s writing, see: Charles C. Rozier, Daniel Roach, Giles E. M. Gasper, and Elizabeth Van Hout, eds., Orderic Vitalis: Life, Works and Interpretations (Martlesham: The Boydell Press, 2016).

William of Jumièges’ writing, however, points to its continued use throughout the earlier half of the twelfth century. This also exemplifies the Gesta Normannorum Ducum’s role as one of the primary sources of Norman history for twelfth century authors.

The third, fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth books of the Historia

Ecclesiastica make up the bulk of Orderic’s Anglo-Norman history in regard to the

Norman Conquest. In the third book, Orderic describes the events that preceded the

Conquest as well as the Battle and the character of King William I. Harold, whom

Eadmer of Canterbury and Simeon of Durham presented as a victim to William’s trickery and naïve for disregarding King Edward’s counsel, returns to the depiction given in the

Gesta Normannorum Ducum and the Gesta Guillelmi in Orderic’s writing. Orderic writes, “Harold, son of Earl Godwin, usurped the English throne.”194 This reflects his interpretation of history and his preference for the Normans during the Conquest.

Although Orderic prefers the Normans, he still recognizes their faults. He writes that, due to the sins of the Norman soldiers and Harold’s perjury, “almighty God thus punished countless sinners in both armies in diverse ways.”195 Although Orderic depicts the

Normans as the better side, he does not shy away from acknowledging their affronts to

God. This shows the complexity of Orderic’s identification as a Christian with a preference for Normans over Englishmen, as long as they express piety.

Orderic’s account of history follows the examples of both William of Jumièges and William of Poitiers in regard to the treatment of King William I. At one point,

194 Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Edited by Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), Vol. 2, 134. “Heraldus Godvini comitis filius regnum Anglorum usurpauerat.”

195 Ibid., 176. “Sic omnipotens Deus pridie idus octobris innumeros peccatores utriusque phalangis puniit diversis modis.”

Orderic mentions that William of Poitiers “published a book wonderfully polished in style and mature in judgment,” which is his Gesta Guillelmi.196 Orderic sees the fact that

William of Poitiers was King William I’s chaplain for many years as a positive factor in his account of history for his eyewitness account of history. In regard to his own writing, however, Orderic remarks that he “[looks] to neither victors nor vanquished for the honor of any reward.”197 This suggests that contrary to what Orderic wrote in praise of the

Gesta Guillelmi, he understands that there may have been ulterior motives that led to its creation and stylization.

The fourth book of the Historia Ecclesiastica continues the story of the Norman

Conquest with a complex portrayal of the Normans. Orderic’s tone in the fourth book is a negative one initially. He reminds the reader “the cruelty and perjury of Harold plunged

England into ruin.”198 This is significant in that it is not William’s battle prowess that allowed him to take the English throne, but instead Harold’s wickedness and sins. In this instance, Orderic is emphasizing God’s role in history rather than the might of one ethnic group over another. Orderic also recognizes William’s negative affects on England. He describes him as one who “provided a mournful theme of ruin for the writing of true historians.”199 Orderic does not keep this tone throughout his writing, however, as he attempts to be unbiased in his presentation of history. One such contradictory depiction of

William is of a kind ruler, since he “gave liberal rewards to those [English] knights who

196 Ibid., 184. “Librum polito sermone et magni sensus profunditate praeclarum edidit.”

197 Ibid., 188. “Nullius remunerationis a victoribus seu victis expetens honorificentiam.”

198 Ibid., 190. “Anglia tunc Heraldi sevicia periurioque polluta corruit…”

199 Ibid. “Unde flebile tema de sua ruina piis historiographis ad dictandum tribuit.”

were returning home” after his kingship was secure.200 This complicates the purpose of

Oderic’s writing. Unlike many of the other authors of this study, Orderic is not decisive in his depiction of one side as preferable to the other.

This mixed depiction of the Normans persists throughout the fourth book of the

Historia Ecclesiastica. At times, William is a kind and pious ruler, while at others his armies are the cause of many burdens for the English people. Orderic writes, “King

William was rightly renowned for his reforming zeal.”201 This is especially significant for

Orderic, whose identity as a monk was primarily informed by Christianity. Despite the appeal to religion, the role of the Normans in Orderic’s writing is not static. Rather than blaming the king for the atrocities that followed the Norman Conquest, as Simeon of

Durham does without hesitation, Orderic attributes any major depravities to the Norman soldiers who accompanied the king. In one example, Orderic describes the “injustice and tyranny that the Normans intolerably inflicted upon the English.”202 In this instance,

William is absent, leaving only the Normans under him to take the blame. By utilizing this approach, Orderic is able to describe history without presenting William as the cause for violence and unrest in England.

Orderic resumes the topic of Anglo-Norman history under King William I in his seventh book, in which he describes the king’s death and succession. In Orderic’s writing, William confessed his sins on his deathbed like a good Christian. This is a contradiction to Eadmer’s writing in the Historia Novorum, since his version says that

200 Ibid., 196. “Ibi militibus repatriantibus larga manu stipendia data sunt.”

201 Ibid., 238. “Multimodae honestatis studio in multis rex Guillelmus ladabilis claruit.”

202 Ibid., 218. “Iniuuriis et oppresionibus quibus intolerabiliter Angli affligebantur a Normannis.”

William “is dead, nevertheless, and, it is said, not confessed.”203 Orderic’s correction of the story of William’s confession reflects both his opinion on the king and his religious beliefs. In his depiction of William confessing his sins, Orderic creates a memory in which William is given customary Christian last rites. Whether he actually had the opportunity to confess his sins before death is irrelevant for this instance. Instead, the significance lies in Orderic’s portrayal of William as a pious king.

Orderic wanted his audience to remember the first Norman king of England positively, as a just and pious ruler of England. He writes that William, on his deathbed, delivered a speech in which he noted, “If the Normans are disciplined under a just and firm rule they are men of great valor,” while the opposite is true under a poor leader.204

This is relevant for Orderic’s own lifetime, in which Henry I, whom Orderic considers a great king, replaced William II, whose reign is significantly less positive. Orderic recognizes the mixed popular perception of the late King William I despite his desire to present him as a good king. He writes, “News of the king’s death flew far and wide, bringing joy or sorrow to the hearts of its audience.”205 Although Orderic writes at the end of the seventh book that his telling of history is unbiased, his image of William provides a sharp contrast to that of Eadmer of Canterbury and Simeon of Durham.

William’s image in Orderic’s writing remains positive while any potential negative aspects of the Norman Conquest are attributed to the soldiers and their lack of piety.

203 Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 24-25. “Mortuus est, non tamen, ut dicitur, inconfessus.”

204 Orderic, Historia Ecclesiastica, Vol. 4, 82. “Normanni si bono rigidoque dominatu reguntur strenuissimi sunt.”

205 Ibid., 102. “Fama de morte Regis pernicibus alis volavit, et longe lateque gauidium seu merorem audientium cordibus infudit.”

In the eighth book of the Historia Ecclesiastica, Orderic introduces King William

II and exemplifies his impiety. Orderic describes him as a good military leader but a man who “remained indifferent to God and rarely attended church and divine worship.”206

King William II’s lack of religious devotion is what Orderic uses to justify his eventual death in his tenth book. This also provides a lesson for Orderic’s contemporaries about the virtues of piety, a major informer of Orderic’s identity. Despite the flaws in this

William’s character, Orderic still recognizes him as a good secular king who was able to

“reign securely over the whole of England.”207 Orderic suggests through his writing that it is not enough to be a good secular king. This is evident in his depiction of Henry, eight years before he became king, fighting in Normandy. He won his battles “with the help of

God and his friends,” whereas William’s lack of piety led to his accidental death in

1100.208 In this way, William is an antithesis to Henry, for whom Orderic has the utmost respect.

The story of William’s reign, his death, and Henry’s ascension to the English throne continues in the tenth book of the Historia Ecclesiastica. Orderic continually draws contrasts between these two kings in order to make Henry appear almost immaculate. William was “generous to knights and foreigners” but at the same time, he

“greatly oppressed the poor inhabitants of his kingdom and took by force their wealth to provide to those same strangers.”209 The memory that Orderic preserves through writing

206 Ibid., 110. “… Erga Deum et aecclesiae frequentationem cultumque frigidus extitit.”

207 Ibid., 146. “Guillelmo Rufo per omnes Anglorum regions dominante…”

208 Ibid., 256. “Auxilio Dei suffraguique amicorum optinuit.”

209 Orderic, Historia Ecclesiastica, Vol. 5, 200-202. “Militibus et exteris largus erat, sed paupers incolas regni sui nimis opprimebat, et illis violenter auferebat, quae prodigus advenis tribuebat.”

of King William II is that of an overall poor king. When he died, a council decided that

Henry is better fit to be king than his brother Robert, who was away on crusade. Orderic does not shy away from fully lavishing Henry with praise, writing that Henry “governed the realmcommitted to him by God prudently and well through prosperity and adversity” as one of the most “distinguished rulers in Christendom due to his preservation of peace and justice.”210 Where William’s role in the Historia Ecclesiastica is limited to that of a militant king, Henry’s role is intertwined with God’s will and peace. Henry was so well liked that Norman magnates accepted him over Robert as duke in 1101 without hesitation.

Orderic’s gesta presents Henry as a great king and ally to the church without any major recognition of the issues that Henry had with Anselm, as Eadmer of Canterbury describes in his Historia Novorum. It is in his presentation of this kind of history that

Orderic directly influences the way in which the king is remembered. Orderic reinforces the image of Henry as a great king throughout the rest of the Historia Ecclesiastica, because he wants Henry to be remembered as such. This is due to Henry’s image as the first Norman king of England with the interests of the English in mind. Such a personal image, coupled with Henry’s perceived piety, doubtlessly appealed to Orderic, who self- identifies in his own writing as English-born.

Orderic’s Historia Ecclesiastica is a window into Orderic’s view of the world. He writes that he identifies with the English, although his depiction of history suggests a more complicated sense of identity. Rather than making it an exact ethnic binary of

Normans versus the English, Orderic’s writing suggests a merger of the two people into a

210 Ibid., 294. “Hic inter prospera et adversa regnum sibi divinitus commissum prudenter et commode moderatus est…” “Inter precipuos totius Christianitatis principes optentu pacis et iustisticiar fulgens insignis habitus est.”

blended sense of identity. Before the Conquest, Orderic favors the Normans for their piety, although after the Conquest he is less decisive. King William I is generally a good king in the Historia Ecclesiastica, while William II is not. Henry, whom Orderic depicts as the king who unites the interests of the English and Norman people, especially due to his piety, is Orderic’s example of the perfect mixture of all the primary factors of his own identity. Piety is central to Orderic’s historic preferences, in much the same way as it is for Simeon of Durham and Eadmer of Canterbury, although Orderic’s writing does not present the Norman kings of the English as necessarily ethnically different than the

Anglo-Saxon kings. The way that Orderic writes about the post-Conquest kings of

England makes them appear to be the proper heirs to the kingdom. By removing the question from his narrative, Orderic creates a past in which Normans were destined to reign in England. His historic narrative makes King Henry I’s reign appear almost inevitable as well as favored by God.

Through his writing in the Historia Ecclesiastica, Orderic Vitalis demonstrates the value of piety and the strength of the Norman people. Orderic may identify with the

English due to his birth, but this is likely limited to his presence in Normandy, where he was the only oblate of partial English descent. In his writing of history, Orderic favors the

Normans over the English, but continually reminds his reader of the importance of piety.

His writing presents the past as he wants it to be remembered by his potential audience and suggests modes of behavior through the examples of the Norman kings of England.

Orderic ethnically identified with his perception of the English, which contrasted that of

Eadmer of Canterbury as well as Simeon of Durham. When compared to these two

English authors, Orderic’s English identity appears to be a minor blend of Norman and

English ethnic identities. Although religion plays a dominant role in forming Orderic’s identity, his tendency to present Normans and English among a blurred spectrum rather than as binary antagonists reflects his understanding of what it meant to be of mixed

English and Norman heritage in the earlier half of the twelfth century.

Henry of Huntingdon: Historia Anglorum

Henry of Huntingdon (c. 1088-1157) was the son of a priest in the diocese of

Lincoln, where he eventually became archdeacon of Huntingdon. In his youth, Henry received care and education from Bishop Robert Bloet of Lincoln (c. 1050-1122).

Robert’s successor, Bishop Alexander of Lincoln (d. 1149), noticed Henry’s talent for writing and was the primary patron of Henry’s Historia Anglorum. The Historia

Anglorum fits the genre of gesta in much the same manner as the previous authors of this study, in that while Henry presents history, he adapts the narrative to fit an agenda. His agenda is less tailored to justifying Norman control of England, however, and more focused on providing lessons for his intended audience of nobles during his lifetime.

Henry’s writing also reveals clues that suggest how he framed his identity in England during the earlier half of the twelfth century.

The Historia Anglorum is made of seven books, each with a different chronological focus.211 In the first five books, Henry describes the history of Roman

Britain through the unification of England. The following two books relate Norman

211 Henry of Huntingdon, Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon: Historia Anglorum, Edited by Diana E. Greenway (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1996), ix-xvi. In her preface to the Historia Anglorum, Diana Greenway documents the editions and estimated dates of production. The earliest publication dates to roughly 1129, while subsequent publications follow until 1154. Greenway’s printed edition of Henry’s Historia Anglorum includes

history before and after the Norman Conquest. His historic sources include many of the other authors of this study, which makes his own alterations of the historic narrative more pronounced. The seventh book is based on contemporary sources and Henry’s own eyewitness account. Due to the nature of this study only the sixth and seventh books are considered in depth.

In the prologue to his Historia Anglorum, Henry of Huntingdon praises the subject of history and acknowledges his patron, Bishop Alexander of Lincoln. Henry understands the uses of history more than any of the other authors of this study. In the prologue, Henry writes that history “not only provokes men of the spirit to what is good and deter them from evil, but even encourages worldly men to good deeds and to reduce their wickedness.”212 It is clear that Henry understands the potential of the writing of history in influencing contemporaries. Henry’s writing aims to influence his audience by suggesting behaviors through historic example. By this kind of writing, an informed reader is also able to understand the ways in which Henry framed his own identity as an

English archdeacon with Norman preferences.

The works of such authors as Bede, William of Jumièges, and William of Poitiers inform Henry of Huntingdon’s writing, but his presentation of these influences reflect his morals and understanding of what it meant to be English in the early twelfth century.

Henry does not alter Bede’s historic narrative for the Roman and Anglo-Saxon history of the Historia Anglorum. William of Jumièges’ Gesta Normannorum Ducum and the Gesta

Guillelmi of William of Poitiers inform Henry’s writing of the Norman Conquest. This is evident in the details of the death of King Edward the Confessor’s brother, Alfred, and

212 Ibid., 4. “Non solum spirituals ad bonum accendunt et a malo repellunt, sed etiam seculars ad bona solicitant et in malis minuunt.”

the specific occurrences of the Battle of Hastings. Despite the use of these sources in the

Historia Anglorum, Henry of Huntingdon attempts to present history from a seemingly unbiased perspective. He uses history, such as that of the Norman kings of England, to teach morals to his audience. The ways in which these morals are presented also reflect

Henry of Huntingdon’s understanding of what it meant to be English during his lifetime.

The Historia Anglorum first deviates from its source materials in the sixth book, in which Henry of Huntingdon presents the background of the Norman Conquest. Henry writes that the Anglo-Saxons had strayed significantly from God, who in turn caused the

Danes to attack and the Normans to become politically involved with England. This culminated in King Athelred’s marriage to Emma of Normandy, which Henry claims, served to later “justify the Normans, according to the law of the people, in claiming and gaining possession of England.”213 God is the driving force behind the Norman Conquest in Henry’s writing. Although he presents the Conquest as an inevitable means by which

God punishes the English for their sins, Henry does not make the Normans into flawless heroes. He notes that the English were doomed so that, even if they were able to defend against the attacks of the Danes, “valor would not help them to escape the Normans’ unexpected trick.”214 The trick to which Henry refers is Harold’s oath swearing, to which

Eadmer of Canterbury also refers in his Historia Novorum. By recording this as a trick,

Henry of Huntingdon is suggesting that the Norman claim to the throne was not as absolute as William of Jumièges or William of Poitiers suggested.

213 Ibid., 338. “Angliam iuste secundum ius gentium Normanni et calumpniati sunt et adepti sunt.”

214 Ibid. “Normannorum inprovisam cum fortitudine cautelam non evaderent.”

Henry’s Historia Anglorum presents the history of the Anglo-Saxons and

Normans with significantly less bias than his authorial predecessors. The Anglo-Saxons and Normans both appear to have faults in his writing, which contradicts the writing of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum and the Gesta Guillelmi, among other sources. One such example is his description of whether or not Harold Godwinson was appointed Edward the Confessor’s heir. He writes that Harold “usurped the crown of the kingdom” while

God had long intended to “deliver [the English] up for destruction to the violent and cunning Norman people.”215 Henry’s indecisive approach to this history reflects his desire to re-write the history and remove the biases of his sources. In addition, his desire to not write a favorable history for one side over another suggests that Henry is less concerned with ethnic differences than piety. This in turn suggests that his personal identity was founded in piety as a Christian rather than ethnicity.

The description of the Battle of Hastings in the Historia Anglorum mirrors that of

William of Poitiers’ Gesta Guillelmi. Henry of Huntingdon includes great detail about the singing of songs before battle, Duke William II’s inspirational speech, the use of archers arching arrows to blind the enemy, and the famous feigned retreat. These details are borrowed from the Gesta Guillelmi, suggesting that this book was still widely used in the early twelfth century and that Henry had access to one such copy. In addition, the unaltered stories of the Battle of Hastings show that Henry he did not feel it necessary to change the narrative. This reflects his relatively neutral approach to history, since he lacks incentive to present the English or Normans as better than the other.

215 Ibid., 384. “Haraldus… regni diadema invasit.” “Genti namque Normannorum aspere et callide tradidit eos ad exterminandum.”

Henry places the significance of such stories as the Battle of Hastings in the lessons that his audience can learn from them. He writes that in the last year of King

William I’s reign (1087) “the Normans had fulfilled the just will of the Lord… and it was even disgraceful to be called English.”216 Henry recognizes the ramifications of the

Norman Conquest for the English people, but he rationalizes it by writing it as God’s will. This opposes William of Jumièges’ approach to justification, because while William sought to explain why Duke William II was meant to be king of England, Henry of

Huntingdon is trying to instead make sense of it. He recognizes the flaws of the Normans as well, explaining “the lords of the Normans always, when they have crushed their enemies, since they cannot avoid acting brutally, also crush their own men in war.”217

While the English appear as impious and deserving of punishment in the Historia

Anglorum, the Normans take the role of brutes in war. Henry uses the history of the

Conquest to suggest, “That examples may be taken from the good and caution may be learned from the evil.”218 King William I often exemplified these lessons in Henry’s writing, allowing the audience a singular character from which to learn.

The complex character of King William I in the Historia Anglorum is best understood from the end of the sixth book. Henry lauds William but also notes his flaws.

For his deeds, Henry describes him as “more worthy of praise than any of his

216 Ibid., 402. “Cum Iam Domini iustam voluntatem super Anglorum gentem Normanni complessent… ita etiam ut Anglicum vocari esset obprobrior.”

217 Ibid. “Semperque Normannorum domini, cum hostes contriverint, cum crudeliter non agree nequeant, suos etiam hostiliter conterunt.”

218 Ibid., 404. “Ut a bonis sumantur exempla, et a malis discatur cautela.”

predecessors,” since “he was wise but cunning” and “humble towards God’s servants.”219

In regard to the king’s malicious characteristics, Henry writes that William “deprived bishops and abbots of their possessions and did not spare his own brother, for there was no one who would resist him” due to fear of the king and his power.220 Henry does not leave room for the reader to formulate independent conclusions about the king from his writing. Instead, he explicitly states, “You who read and regard the virtues and vices of so great a man [should] follow the good and turn away from the evil, so as to go by the direct way that leads to the perfect life.”221 By writing in this way, Henry takes charge of the narrative and leaves little room for his audience to misinterpret his purpose of writing.

Henry ultimately presents King William I as a good king, despite his role as a lesson for Henry’s audience. This is evident in his description of the king when his flaws are not being exemplified for a lesson. For example, the sixth book of the Historia

Anglorum ends with a short summary of eleventh century English kings. In this summary,

Harold is “the perjured king… [who reigned] for one incomplete year, but was destroyed through his [own] injustice” while William is “higher than all the preceding [kings],

[shining] gloriously until his twenty-first year.”222 Although Henry presents William as a lesson for his audience through much of the sixth book, at the close of the book he makes

219 Ibid. “Omnibus predecessoribus suis laude dignior fuit.” “Erat autem sapiens sed astutus.” “Erat humilis Deo servientibus.”

220 Ibid. “Episcopos et abates possessionibus suis privaverat, fratri proprio non pepercerat, nec erat qui resisteret.”

221 Ibid., 406. “Vos igitur qui legitis et viri tanti virtutes et vicia videtis, bona sequentes et a malis declinantes, pergite per viam directam que ducit ad vitam perfectam.”

222 Ibid., 410. “Haraldus rex periurus… tamen non pleno quem propria perdidit iniusticia.” “Willelmus omnium predictorum summus xxi anno glorifice splenduit.”

him into the same kind of great king that William of Jumièges and William of Poitiers suggested he was.

The written memory of King William I serves a purpose for Henry of Huntingdon in his own lifetime. Henry wrote editions of the Historia Anglorum during the reign of

King Henry I and subsequent editions amid the wars of succession between Stephen and

Matilda (1139-1153). Through the example of the first Norman king of England, Henry of Huntingdon suggests ideals for the monarch during whose reign each edition of the

Historia Anglorum was published. Such examples of behavior are applicable to anyone even though they hold a more literal significance for someone with power. Henry of

Huntingdon’s depiction of William does not necessarily need to be historically accurate, then, since his role in the Historia Anglorum is that of an example for moral behavior.

In the seventh book of the Historia Anglorum, Henry of Huntingdon presents the reigns and deaths of Kings William II and Henry I. This book, unlike those preceding it, does not rely on older published works. Instead, Henry gets his information from events that he “has either seen for [himself] or heard about from those who did see them.”223 The way that Henry presents the two kings whose lives make up the majority of this book, then, both reflects the ways in which he remembered them and how he wanted them to be remembered by his audience. Since he is not using older sources to inform his approach, he has more liberty to write freely without fear of straying too far from the preceding narratives. The seventh book, then, provides more insight into Henry’s ideal of history.

Henry of Huntingdon’s presentation of the English and Norman people reveals his complex understanding of ethnicity. His presentation of ethnicity in England is similar to

223 Ibid., 412. “Que vel ipsi vidimus, vel ab his qui viderant audivimus, pertractandum est.”

that of Orderic Vitalis. In regard to understanding the social standing of the English after the Conquest, Henry writes, “It has already been made quite clear how the Lord deservedly took away from the English people their safety and honor and commanded that they should no longer exist as a people.”224 His image of the English as a people punished by God for their sins justifies the Norman Conquest and suggests a need for greater piety among the English people. In the seventh book, the Normans also receive a less favorable description. God “began to afflict the Normans themselves, His own avengers, with various disasters” after King William I’s death.225 Most of these disasters are civil unrest from Norman lords in regard to the succession of William II and serve a greater purpose than simply explaining the unrest after William I’s death.

Through this depiction of the Normans losing their God-given favor due to their sins, Henry of Huntingdon is trying to explain how Norman rule in England could deteriorate to the point it did both in the late eleventh century and during his lifetime (in reference to the conflict between Matilda and Stephen). He suggests that the divine favor that the Normans enjoyed momentarily came to an end with King William II’s succession, for his greedy and lustful nature. Additionally, Robert lost God’s favor because, when he was offered the kingdom of Jerusalem, he “refused it on account of the labor involved.”226 Robert would later contend with his brother, King Henry I, for the

English throne, only to lose due to his loss of divine support. The Historia Anglorum presents Henry as the only king since Edward the Confessor to retain God’s favor.

224 Ibid. “Declaratum quidem constat quomodo Dominus salutem et honorem genti Anglorum pro meritis abstulerit, et iam populum non esse iusserit.”

225 Ibid. “Patebit amodo quomodo et ipsos Normannos vindices quidem suos variis cladibus afficere inceperit.”

226 Ibid., 442. “Quod qui causa laboris repudiavit, offenses est in eum Deus.”

The seventh book of the Historia Anglorum emphasizes the sinful nature of King

William II. Henry of Huntingdon writes that in the thirteenth year of his reign (1100),

William “ended his cruel life in a wretched death.”227 The Historia Anglorum retains the traditional narrative of Walter Tirel accidentally shooting the king, although Henry adds that the action “rightly cut him off in the midst of his injustice” because under his rule,

“England was miserably suffocated and could not breathe.”228 William II’s character serves as an example of a bad king. Henry uses his character to explain why many

English bishoprics were denied a bishop and why many people did not like the king. The memory of William II that Henry preserves in the Historia Anglorum is that of a “hated king, most wretched to God and to the people.”229 This portrayal of William is similar to

Orderic’s depiction and serves a similar purpose in exemplifying the positive qualities of his successor, King Henry I.

Henry of Huntingdon presents King Henry I as a great king. In his seventh year as king (1107), Henry established a firm peace in England and Normandy with God’s aid.

When he held his court at Windsor for Easter, “the nobles of both England and

Normandy attended it with fear and trembling” because they remembered how poorly they treated Henry before he was king.230 Despite their fear, Henry did not wrong them at court. The Historia Anglorum further praises King Henry. Henry of Huntingdon explains that “omnipotent God freely gave [King Henry] three gifts: wisdom, victory, and wealth,

227 Ibid., 446. “Vitam crudelem misero fine terminavit.”

228 Ibid., 446-448. “Iure autem in medio iniusticie sue prereptus est.” “Nec respirare poterat Anglia miserabiliter suffocata.”

229 Ibid., 448. “Inuisus namque rex, nequissimus Deo et populo.”

230 Ibid., 454. “In qua proceres Anglie, sim et Normannie, cum timore et remore affuerunt.”

[with which] he prospered in everything, surpassing all his predecessors.”231 Through this description, Henry of Huntingdon suggests only one way in which his audience should remember the king.

Henry of Huntingdon presents King Henry I as a hero for his many victories against rebellious nobles such as Robert of Bellême and the French king. After describing a battle near Rouen between the English and French kings, Henry of Huntingdon writs a poem in which he celebrates King Henry, who has “robbed the French of their proud spirits, for a greater king has overcome the great King Louis in the field of Noyon.”232

Through the description of this victory, among others, Henry of Huntingdon commits

King Henry’s successes to historic memory. The Historia Anglorum further celebrates the

“great king,” Henry, for “pacifying Gaul” and bringing peace to England.233 Henry of

Huntingdon exemplifies the king’s greatness further through his description of the final battle between Kings Henry and Louis. In 1128, after hearing that the French king was supporting his enemy, the count of Flanders, Henry went to France. There, he learned the origin of the French from an educated man, who warned the king that “if [Louis] retained a trace of the prowess of his ancestors, [Henry] would not rest so safely in his kingdom.”234 Despite the warning, Henry succeeded in forcing King Louis to withhold aid to the count of Flanders. Through this example, Henry of Huntingdon shows that

231 Ibid., 456. “Deditque gratis ei tria Dominus omnipotens munera: sapientiam, victoriam, divicias. Quibus ad omnia prosperans, omnes suos antecessors precessit.”

232 Ibid., 464. “Abstulit altos Francigenis animos, Lodoveum namque Nugensi rex regem campo magnum maior superavit.”

233 Ibid., 466. “Rex magnus.” “Omnibus domitis et pacificatis in Gallia.”

234 Ibid., 480. “Qui si probitatis antiquorum vestigial teneret, tam secure in regno eius non quisceres.”

King Henry I was more powerful than the French, despite their legendary strength. This shapes the memories of his audience in favor of a positive memory of King Henry I.

In the Historia Anglorum, it is significant that King Henry I celebrates the birth of his grandsons, Henry (later King Henry II) and Geoffrey, since they represent potential heirs to the kingdom. This is especially relevant because his own sons died while crossing the English Channel in 1120. Henry of Huntingdon explains that the death of the king’s sons was divine punishment. Since they, and their retinue, were “all, or almost all, tainted with sodomy,” God caused them to drown in the English Channel “although the sea was very calm and there was no wind.”235 Through this description, Henry of

Huntingdon is justifying their sudden deaths. He further justifies the eventual succession of King Henry II by writing that King Henry I “stayed in Normandy to rejoice in his grandsons.”236 It is with this side of Henry’s family that Henry of Huntingdon ends his seventh book.

The seventh book of the Historia Anglorum ends with King Henry I’s death and an epitaph that presents him as all but divine. While he was still in Normandy, visiting his family, the king fell ill. Henry of Huntingdon writes that “when all the power of resistance failed, the great king died.”237 Even after his death, Henry of Huntingdon created a positive image by which the king may be remembered. In an epitaph, he claims that King Henry I was more eloquent than Mercury, smarter than Apollo, more commanding than Jupiter, more vigorous than Mars, more cautious than Janus, more

235 Ibid., 466. “Qui omnes, vel fere omnes, sedomitica labe dicebantur.” “Cum mare tranquillissimum ventis careret.”

236 Ibid., 488. “Rex Henricus moratus est in Normannia pro gaudio nepotum suorum.”

237 Ibid., 490. “Cum autem restare vi nulla posset, decessit rex magnus.”

valiant than Hercules, a better fighter than Pallas, and more artistic than Minerva.238 To

Henry of Huntingdon, there was no better king than King Henry I, whose piety earned him success through God’s will.

The presentation of King Henry I reflects aspects of Henry of Huntingdon’s complex identity. Although Henry of Huntingdon was born in England, he was less concerned with ethnicity than he was of piety and peace. In his writing of the English and

Norman people, he often uses the terms English and Norman interchangeably, unless specifically referring to instances where the two fought each other. One such example is his final rubric of the seventh book, in which he writes, “Here ends the seventh book, on the kingdom of the Normans,” even though his book is the Historia Anglorum.239 Henry of Huntingdon does not always distinguish the two ethnicities, especially in relation to the monarch (who was also the duke). Through examples such as the sins of Kings

William I and II, Henry of Huntingdon suggests that piety is more significant than ethnicity. A good king in his opinion is one that is pious and strives for peace. This illustrates his belief that piety is of the utmost significance.

Through his depiction of the Norman Conquest and its aftermath, Henry of

Huntingdon reveals his understanding of the complexity of the nature of what it meant to be English and Norman during the earlier half of the twelfth century. In the sixth book of the Historia Anglorum, Henry shows that there is a clear distinction between Anglo-

Saxons and Normans, which deteriorates by the seventh book. The boundaries between

English and Norman lose definition after King William I ascends the English throne. This

238 Ibid., 492. “Mercurius minor eloquio, vi mentis Apollo, Iupiter imperio, Marsque vigore gemunt. Ianus cautela minor, Alcides probitate, conflictu Pallas, arte Minerva gemunt.”

239 Ibid. “Explicit liber septimus, de regno Normannorum.”

is partly due to the growing emphasis throughout the Historia Anglorum in regard to piety. Authors such as William of Jumièges or Simeon of Durham focus more on the role of Normans in subjugating the English, while Henry Huntingdon tends to use the same history to teach a lesson about piety for his audience. Kings William I and II become examples of good and bad Christian kings for the audience of the Historia Anglorum. In contrast, for his ability to strengthen English and Norman power and exercise piety, King

Henry I’s character is an example of a great Christian king. Henry of Huntingdon overlooks most of the conflict between King Henry I and Anselm, unlike Eadmer of

Canterbury, in order to emphasize his positive qualities (especially his piety).

Henry of Huntingdon witnessed the distinction between the English and Norman people become more complicated over the course of his life. Piety was the only static quality, and informed his identity as well as his ideals. It affected his daily life as archdeacon and explained history in a way that did so without making one ethnicity necessarily better than another. The Historia Anglorum presents history as a series of rewards and punishments dealt by God to those who earn them. Henry of Huntingdon wanted his audience to remember the past in the same way that he understood it. By incorporating his ideals of piety into the historic narrative, Henry attempted to rewrite the past in order to make it reflect his ideals of piety. To him, piety is more significant than any other form of success. In a short epilogue to the seventh book, Heny reiterates this point. He writes, “When you gain [the glory of heaven], you have it and always have it,

[but] when you gain worldly [glory], it will flow away like water from a broken pitcher, and you have nothing.”240

240 Ibid., 498-500. “Hanc cum adeptus fueris habes et semper habes. Mundanam cum adeptus fueris ut aqua vase terebrato defluit et nichil habes.”

William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum

William of Malmesbury (c. 1095-1143) was born in England to a Norman father and an English mother.241 He received his education at Malmesbury Abbey, where he later became a monk. William authored a few books in his lifetime, although none so substantial as his Gesta Regum Anglorum, which fits the genre of gesta due to the nature of the historic narrative and the augmentations that William makes to preserve one specific memory over another. He wrote this gesta around the same time as Henry of

Huntingdon, although for a different purpose. The Gesta Regum Anglorum is William’s attempt to emulate Bede’s fame and success as a historian as well as a means by which

William can justify the claim of Empress Matilda (c. 1102-1167) to the English throne.

His writing narrates the history of the English people from the first Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain to the twelfth century.242 The Gesta Regum Anglorum is organized into five books, with the first book following Bede’s history closely and the latter books drawing from the writings of many of the other authors of this study.

Although the Gesta Regum Anglorum may have been intended for a wide audience, William of Malmesbury dedicated copies to a few specific people of

241 Michael Winterbottom, "William of Malmesbury and the Normans," The Journal of Medieval Latin 20 (2010): 70-77. Richard Southern suggests that his heritage makes him “only half an Englishman.” See: R. W. Southern, Saint Anselm and his Biographer: a Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059-c.1130 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 231-232.

242 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: the History of the English Kings, Edited by Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 14-16. William writes that this is his purpose in his prologue.

significance.243 One copy was dedicated to King David I of Scotland (c. 1084-1153), who was Empress Matilda’s uncle. She also received a dedication of the book, since it was originally intended for her mother, Matilda of Scotland (c. 1080-1118), but she did live to see it finished. The final major dedication was to Earl Robert of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of King Henry I. William of Malmesbury’s choice of recipients and his personalized letters of dedication reveal that he viewed Matilda’s claim to the English throne as more legitimate than that of Stephen (c. 1092-1154).

William of Malmesbury wrote the Gesta Regum Anglorum in order to preserve history as he wanted it to be remembered.244 Through the language used in his writing,

William reveals aspects of his complex identity. While discussing the events of the

Norman Conquest, William presents both sides as distinct ethnic groups. This changes after King Henry I ascends the throne, as William considered him an English king due to the nature of his birth in England, despite his Norman parentage. After introducing Henry in his writing, William’s tone changes in regard to ethnicity. The clear distinctions between the Norman and English people disappear from his writing, suggesting that only one generation after King William I’s reign, the English and Norman people merged culturally enough to blur the lines of distinction. As a monk, William of Malmesbury prefers piety to ethnicity, although his treatment of ethnicity reveals that the notion of what it meant to be English was changing greatly during his lifetime.

243 Ibid., 2-12. Thomson and Winterbottom include copies of William’s letters (epistolae) as a preface to his Gesta Regum Anglorum.

244 For more context of William’s life and his career as a writer, see: Rodney Malcom Thomson, William of Malmesbury (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1987, 2003), 3-13, 36-39.

The first book of the Gesta Regum Anglorum primarily follows Bede’s historic account of Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, with supplemental Anglo-Saxon sources informing the narrative after 731 (the extent of Bede’s chronology). William of

Malmesbury acknowledges Bede’s contribution in the prologue to this book, saying that he “will give a selection from Bede’s work, to whom [he] will often have to refer, touching on a few points and letting the rest go by.”245 This recognition suggests Bede’s continued significance in the twelfth century and builds credibility for William as an author. William embellishes the narrative in regard to the invading Anglo-Saxons, writing, “On their arrival, the English were welcomed by everyone,” because they would fight the invading Scots for the Britons.246 This is a justification for the English coming to dominate the area that would become the Kingdom of England. William further justifies the legitimacy of English monarchs through his description of a letter between

Charlemagne (742-814) and King Offa of Mercia (r. 757-796) that presents them as equals. The letter as it is recorded in the Gesta Regum Anglorum begins, “Charles, by the grace of God, king of the Franks and Lombards and patrician of the Romans, to the venerable Offa, his dearest brother, king of the Mercians.”247 By presenting Offa as an equal to Charlemagne, William is attributing a level of legitimacy to his rule.

The second book of the Gesta Regum Anglorum continues the story of Anglo-

Saxon England, from its unification under the House of Wessex to the events immediately preceding the Norman Conquest. Much of the Anglo-Saxon history that

245 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, 14. “Aliqua ex his quae sepe dicendus Beda dixit deflorabo, pauca perstringens, pluribus valefatiens.”

246 Ibid., 22. “Venientibus igitur Anglis undique occursum.”

247 Ibid., 138. “Karolus, gratia Dei rex Francorum et Longobardorum et patritius Romanorum, viro venerando et fratria carissimo Offae regi Mertiorum…”

William of Malmesbury presents is used to exemplify the glory of the past and explain how the Norman Conquest could happen. He writes that under King Alfred (849-899),

“there were holy men who shone like lights all over England, so that one might think the stars in heaven smiled upon them.”248 By contrast, William suggests that the English in the eleventh century were not as pious as their ancestors, which resulted in the Norman

Conquest as divine punishment. He also suggests, by means of a prophecy, that the

English people will regain their piety and sovereignty under a virtuous king.

William writes that God gave Ælfgifu (fl. 970-1002), the first wife of Æthelred

Unræd (c. 966-1016), a vision that prophesized the Norman Conquest and the eventual success of the English. In the vision, she says that northern people (Normans) “will attack

England,” although they will not permanently take it because “our English people, at a moment when they seem to be most heavily defeated, will drive them out and England will be under its own government and God’s dominion.”249 William writes that the “truth of this prophecy will be made clear to the reader later,” although a reader familiar with history would likely be able to discern his point before clarification.250 The part of the prophecy that says the Normans will not keep England foretells the kingship of King

Henry I. Despite his Norman parentage, he was born in England and married a descendant of Anglo-Saxon royalty, thereby making him an English king in the Gesta

Regum Anglorum. This illustrates William’s perspective on the ethnicity of the nobles of early twelfth-century England: that English and Norman heritage was almost

248 Ibid., 240. “Eo tempore micuerunt per Angliam sanctorum virorum lumina, ut crederes e caelo arridere sidera.”

249 Ibid., 254. “Angliam… impetent… Angli nostri, cum maxime victi videbuntur, eas expellent, eritque sub suo et Dei arbitrio.”

250 Ibid. “Huius vaticinii veritatem lectio posterior patefatiet.”

indistinguishable due to shared customs. The new nobility, that was distinctly Norman under King William I, had given way to a new version of English nobility only a few generations later. William uses the prophecy of Ælfgifu to justify the breakdown of ethnic differences in England after they had been rapidly and firmly established.

In the Gesta Regum Anglorum, William of Malmesbury emphasizes the significance of piety through the examples of King Edward the Confessor (c. 1003-1066) and Harold Godwinson (c. 1022- 1066). William writes that Edward took the English throne and held it for the duration he did because, although he was “a man of simple manner and not well fit to govern, he was nonetheless devoted to God and thus divinely guided.”251 Through this description, William is showing his audience that proper faith in

God is the most significant quality anyone can possess. In regard to Harold Godwinson,

William recognizes that “the English say” that Edward the Confessor may have actually offered Harold the crown on his deathbed, although he is skeptical due to Harold’s questionable loyalty to Edward.252 He also notes Harold’s potential, claiming, “He might have ruled the kingdom well, judging by the way he carried himself with prudence and fortitude, had it come to him lawfully.”253 This potential was squandered when Harold committed perjury, however, which cost him any favor God may have granted otherwise.

Through these two examples, William shows how piety allowed Edward to rule when he was less fit to do so and stopped Harold from ruling when he was likely more capable.

251 Ibid., 348. “Vir propter morum simplicitatem parum imperio idoneus, sed Deo devotus ideoque ab eo directus.”

252 Ibid., 418-420. “Quanvis Angli dicant a rege concessum.”

253 Ibid., 420. “Pro persona quam gerebat regnum prudential et fortitudine gubernaret, si legitime suscepisset.”

Through his description of the Battle of Stamford Bridge (1066), which ends the second book of the Gesta Regum Anglorum, William reveals his respect for the English and notes his loyalty to the Normans. The English, as William presents them, are cunning and strong in the battle. Before the main fighting began, “a single Norwegian, who is recorded to have taken his stand at the entry to the bridge called Stamford Bridge” prevented the English from crossing for many hours.254 One of the king’s bodyguards killed him by throwing a single javelin, which allowed the English to rush past the bridge and kill Harold Hardrada and Tostig Godwinson. William notes that after the battle, many of the Englishmen deserted because Harold Godwinson did not share with them any of the spoils of war, leaving him with a smaller army for the Battle of Hastings. This war serves as an example of the strength of the English, but the victory was not lasting, since it was “God’s hidden and stupendous plan that never again should Englishmen feel together and fight together in defense of their liberties.”255 William suggests “those men seem wrong to [him] who exaggerate the number of the English and diminish their courage” because it brings “discredit on the Normans whom they mean to praise.”256 His description is meant to honor the bravery of the English and the prowess of the Normans, who “have [his] loyalty, both for [his] own origins and for what [he] owes them.”257

Despite his favor for the Normans, William presents the English as worthy opponents.

254 Ibid. “Unus Noricus multa hora interpolavit; siquidem in ingressu pontis qui Stanfordbrigge dicitur consistens.”

255 Ibid., 422. “Levi videlicet belli negotio sed occulto et stupendo Dei consilio, quod numquam postea Angli communi prelio in libertatem spiraverint.”

256 Ibid. “Sed michi videntur errare qui Anglorum numerum accumulant et fortitudinem extenuant, ita Normannos, dum laudere intendunt, infamia respergunt.”

257 Ibid. “Normannorum… Quibus cum pro genere tum pro benefitiis fidem habeo.”

100

William of Malmesbury reveals aspects of his complex identity in the beginning of the third book, in which he notes the ways in which other authors have presented the character of King William I. He claims, “[The Normans] in their enthusiasm have over- praised him… [and the English], inspired by national enmities, have greatly scorned their lord.”258 Such a claim serves to build legitimacy for the Gesta Regum Anglorum, while also alluding to William’s sense of identity. William writes that his narrative will not be biased because he “[has] the blood of both ethnicities in [his] veins.”259 He identifies with the English and Norman people, although his historic narrative suggests a greater preference for Normans. This changes after King Henry I ascends the throne in this gesta, since William of Malmesbury views him as an English king, despite his royal Norman parentage. Such a change in description reflects the merging of ethnicities in England, through the marriage of people and culture, during William’s lifetime.

The Battle of Hastings and the reign of King William I are the primary subjects of the third book of the Gesta Regum Anglorum. William of Malmesbury writes, “God’s hand… protected [Duke William II] so that although [the English] beset him with a hail of missiles, not a drop of his blood was spilled.”260 Although he presents the duke positively in his description of the battle, William of Malmesbury is not decisive on his overall interpretation of the Norman Conquest. He writes, “That was a day of destiny for

258 Ibid., 424. “Illi ad nimias efferati sunt laudes… isti pro gentilibus inimicitiis fedis dominum suum proscidere convitiis.”

259 Ibid. “Ego autem, qui utriusque gentis sanguinem traho, decendi tale temperamentum servabo.”

260 Ibid., 456. “Et proculdubio divina illum mansus protexit, ut nichil sanguinis ex eius corpore hostis hauriret, quamquam illum tot iaculis impteret.”

101

England, a fatal disaster for our dear country as she exchanged old masters for new.”261

William’s inconsistent evaluation of the Conquest is likely due to his mixed loyalties.

William of Malmesbury describes the eleventh-century English and Normans in a way that suggests his complicated understanding of ethnicity. He depicts the English as primarily sinful, due to their lifestyles. One sinful practice was “abhorrent: [as] many

[Englishmen] got their own maids pregnant and, after sating their lust, sold these women to a public brothel.”262 This provides a justification for the Norman Conquest from a religious perspective. The Normans were not without faults, however, as William notes that “[the Norman] people are accustomed to war and hardly know how to live without fighting… [and] if force does not succeed, they are equally ready to corrupt [the enemy] with craft and coin.”263 The saving grace for the Normans in William’s writing is their devotion to God. William states, “The standard of religion, which was dead everywhere in England, has been raised by the arrival [of the Normans]… so [now] every rich man thinks a day wasted if he does not make it better with some great act of generosity.”264

Although neither the English nor the Normans are ideal in William’s gesta, the piety of the Normans make them ultimately better than the English initially, although William notes that many of the habits of both ethnicities merged after some time.

King William I is the subject of much of the third book of the Gesta Regum

Anglorum. William of Malmesbury presents the king as an excellent ruler and a pious

261 Ibid. “Illa fuit dies fatalis Angliae, funestrum excidium dulcis patriae, pro novorum dominorum commutatione.”

262 Ibid., 458. “Abhorrens, quod multi ancillas suas ex se gravidas, ubi libidini satisfecissent, aut ad publicum prosibulum.”

263 Ibid., 460. “Gens militiae assueta et sine bello pene vivere nescia… et ubi vires non successissent, non minus dolo et pecunia corrumpere.” 264 Ibid. “Religionis normam, usquequaque in Anglia emortuam, adventu suo suscitarunt… ita ut sibi perisse diem quisque opulentus existimet quem non aliqua preclara magnificentia illustret.”

102

man with few faults. He writes that the historic example of Caesar in Britain, “perhaps provides some necessary justification for the king’s policy if he was somewhat too harsh towards the English, that he almost found them untrustworthy.”265 This characteristic is what William of Malmesbury uses to explain and justify King William I’s choice in replacing the English with Norman elite where possible. William of Malmesbury explains this as a result of English prejudices rather than Norman preferences. He writes, “He was driven to this, unless I am mistaken, by their firm obstinacy to the king, for the

Normans… have a natural kindliness which predisposes them to foreigners living in their midst.”266 This description of the kindness of the king and the Normans directly contradicts the negative description attributed in the writing of Eadmer of Canterbury and

Simeon of Durham. William of Malmesbury presents King William I as a great king and disregards much of the destruction and conflict that other gestae describe.

In the fourth book of the Gesta Regum Anglorum, William of Malmesbury describes the reign of King William II with mixed interpretation. William of Malmesbury is not consistently positive or negative about King William II’s reign. He claims that during his reign, “knights were free of discipline… [and] softness of the body competing with that of a woman” became standard in the royal court.267 This presentation serves as a justification for the king’s death in favor of his brother, Henry, succeeding him. After

King William II dies, William of Malmesbury writes that he was “incredibly ambitious

265 Ibid., 470. Inde propositum Regis fortassis merito excusatur, si aliquanto durior in Anglos fuerit, quode pene nullum eorum fidelem invenerit.”

266 Ibid. “Exigebat hoc, nisi fallor, indurata in regem pervicatia, cum sint Normanni… in conviventes advenas naturali benignitate proclives.”

267 Ibid., 558-560. “Soluta militari disciplina… mollitie corporis certare cum feminis.”

103

[and], had he been able to complete his allotted span or break through the violence of luck and fight his way above it, he would have been immensely successful.”268 William of Malmesbury wanted his reader to consider King Henry I’s reign as a necessary improvement over that of William II, whose memory he did not want to entirely slander.

The fifth book of the Gesta Regum Anglorum is primarily dedicated to preserving a memory of King Henry I as a great king. William of Malmesbury introduces him as the youngest son of “William the Great” who “alone of all [his] sons was born a prince,

[making] the throne seem destined to be his.”269 His birth in England is significant in the

Gesta Regum Anglorum, since this made him English enough to fulfill Ælfgifu’s prophecy. William of Malmesbury writes about Henry in a way that makes him appear almost immaculate. Even when his brother, Robert, spent the “three thousand marks left to Henry in his father’s will,” he “disregarded it and said nothing” in favor of retaining peace for the English.270 In this kind of situation, William uses the character of Henry to suggest ideal behavior for his audience.

William commits to historic memory in his Gesta Regum Anglorum an image of

Henry that emphasizes his piety. He writes that Henry was “all his life completely free from fleshly lusts, only indulging in the embraces of women… from love of begetting children and not to gratify his passions.”271 Through this description, William is creating

268 Ibid., 576. “Ingentia presumens et ingentia, si pensa Parcarum evoluere vel violentiam fortunae abumpere et eluctari potuisset, facturus.”

269 Ibid., 708. “Willelmi Magni.” “Quod solus omnium filiorum Willelmi natus esset regie, et ei regnum videretur competere.”

270 Ibid., 710-712. “Quae erat trium milium marcarum, in stipendiarios suos absumpsit.” “Taciturna preteriit industria.”

271 Ibid., 744. “Omnium tota vita omnino obscenitatum cupidinearum expers… non effreni voluptate sed gignendae prolis amore mulierum gremio infunderetur.

104

a memory of Henry that explains his illegitimate children while maintaining the king’s pious reputation. This piety is maintained in William’s writing, even where he retells

Eadmer of Canterbury’s story of the conflict over investiture between Henry and Anselm.

William includes letters from Pope Paschal II (r. 1099-1118) to Henry in which the pope recognizes Henry’s earthly right to rule while reminding him of the church’s authority in spiritual matters. The language is mild in comparison to Eadmer’s Historia Novorum.

Paschal’s letters in the Gesta Regum Anglorum praise Henry and reason with him, asking simply “why [he] should deny [Henry] anything that might be in our power to grant to any mortal, seeing as [he] has received from [him] such ample kindness?”272 The maintenance of Henry’s image as a pious ruler is significant for William of Malmesbury, since piety is so great a part of his own identity.

The fifth book of the Gesta Regum Anglorum ends with a dedication to Earl

Robert of Gloucester, praising him as a supporter of literature and justice. Although

William of Malmesbury understands that Robert is unable to claim the throne due to the illegitimate nature of his birth, he recognizes him as the best servant of King Henry I during his lifetime. In an attempt to honor both his patron and his preferred king, William proclaims that Henry “is happy to have such a son.”273 This praise reflects William’s perspective on Robert, whose patronage made his writing possible.

William of Malmesbury reveals his complex understanding of his English identity through the course of his Gesta Regum Anglorum. He presents the English and Norman

272 Ibid., 748. “Cur tibi quicquam negaremus quod cuiquam esset mortalium concedendum, cum benefitia de te ampliora sumpserimus?”

273 Ibid., 800. “Quod se talem filium habere gaudet.”

105

people as separate ethnic groups during his writing on the Norman Conquest. This changes when the Gesta Regum Anglorum describes the reign of King Henry I. William presents Henry as an English king despite his Norman parentage because Henry was born in England, married a descendant of Edward the Confessor, and created laws that favored the English. Through his writing, William suggests that the concept of what made an

Englishman began to change after only a generation of Norman kings. The integration of

Normans and English made a new kind of English, with which William personally identified. William had mixed English and Norman parentage, but he considered himself

English due to his place of birth. His emulation of Bede, to which he admits early in his writing, suggests that he was consciously attempting to create a connection with the

Anglo-Saxon authors that preceded him. This link is strengthened by their shared roles and identity as monks. By the time of William’s death in 1143, the division between

English and Norman ethnicities in England was significantly less defined than it had been only one generation earlier.

John of Worcester: Chronicon

John of Worcester (d. 1140) was an English monk from the Priory of Worcester.

Not much is known about John’s life, although Orderic recorded in his Historia

Ecclesiastica that he saw him work when he visited Worcester. John wrote his

Chronicon, in which he narrates history from Creation through 1140, over the course of his lifetime. The Chronicon fits the genre of gesta due to the way in which John alters his presentation of the historic narrative to make a point. His Chronicon exists in five

106

complete extant manuscripts, with the primary copy being held at Corpus Christi College,

Oxford. Scholars previously thought that this copy was the work of Florence of

Worcester, which has since been a point of contention.274 John’s writing is modeled after the Chronicon of an Irish monk, Marianus Scotus of Mainz (c. 1028-1082), whose writing serves as one of many historic sources for John’s own Chronicon.275 The way that

John presents history in his Chronicon reflects his understanding of his own identity. In the case of the Norman Conquest and subsequent English history, John exclusively presents the English favorably, making the Normans into antagonists.

The language used in the Chronicon reflects John of Worcester’s identity as an

Englishman. John is the only author of this study to use the word “Anglo-Saxon” in his description of pre-Conquest English kings.276 This is most likely done in order to stress a lack of continuity between the Anglo-Saxon English and the Anglo-Norman English immediately following the Conquest. The Anglo-Saxon people have a unique place in the

Chronicon. John is not fond of the Normans, which is apparent from his description of

Rollo’s invasion of France. He records only that “Rollo penetrated into Normandy with his men fifteen days before the calends of December.”277 John gives little additional

274 John of Worcester, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Edited by Patrick MacGurk, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), xvii-xx. MacGurk’s introduction suggests that Florence could not have written it for many reasons, including the convincing fact that Florence died in 1118 and the Chronicon references Eadmer of Canterbury’s Historia Novorum in Anglia, which was finished around 1122. On page 142 of the third volume of MacGurk’s printed edition of John’s work, John briefly records Florence’s death and notes, “Florentius Wigornensis monachus… Huius subtili scientia et studiosi laboris industria preeminent cunctis hec chronicarum chronica.”

275 510. “… Marianus, Hiberniensis probalis Scotus, cuius studio et labore hec cronica precellens est de diversis libris coadunata.”

276 Ibid., 260. “Angulsaxonum rex Ælfredus…”

277 Ibid., 306. “Rollo cum suis Normanniam penetravit, .xv. kalend. Decembris.” By John’s account, this date is 17 November 877.

107

detail for Norman history until his Chronicon relates the events of the Norman Conquest.

His presentation of Anglo-Saxons (and his omission of Normans) in his writing suggests that he wanted his audience to remember the Anglo-Saxons, with whom he identifies, positively.

Although John of Worcester presents much of the same history as authors such as

William of Malmesbury, his description of history serves a different purpose. William presents history in a way that suggests Norman rule in England is inevitable, while John, who favors the English, does not. One example is either author’s depiction of Ælgifu, who prophesized the coming of the Normans and the kingship of Henry I in William of

Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum. In the Chronicon, John describes her only as a wife, since “King Athelred married Emma, called Ælfgifu in Saxon, daughter of Duke

Richard I of the Normans.”278 This suggests that William of Malmesbury’s story of the prophecy was his own fabrication for both entertainment and justification of Henry’s reign.

John of Worcester presents Edward the Confessor as a great king while at the same time minimizing the role of Normans in history. John omits much of Edward’s background, writing only “Edward, son of Athelred, former king of the English, came to

England from Normandy where he had spent many years as an exile.”279 This version of history is quick and simple. It overlooks most of Edward’s time in Normandy and eliminates any allusion to Duke William II, who played a more substantial role in

278 Ibid., 452. “Emmam, Saxonice Ælfgivam votatam, ducis Nortmannorum primi Ricardi filiam, rex Ægelredus duxit uxorem.”

279 Ibid., 532. “Eadwardus, Agelredi quondam Regis Anglorum natus, de Normannia, ubi multis exulabat annis, venit Angliam.”

108

William of Jumièges’ Gesta Normannorum Ducum. John’s tendency to reduce the role of the Normans significantly in his writing makes English affairs appear to the reader entirely distinct and removed from those of Normandy.

The Chronicon does not present Duke William II’s claim to the English throne as viable. John writes that, after Edward, “the glory of the English,” died, the “under-king,

Harold, son of Earl Godwine, whom the king had chosen before his demise as successor to the kingdom, was elected king by all the primates of England.”280 This version of the familiar story does not allow room for contention. There is also no mention of perjury, which makes William’s actions appear to be much more aggressive. In the Chronicon, the Norman Conquest appears as an invasion planned by Duke William, with no explanation explicitly offered. John writes only “William, duke of the Normans, cousin of King Edward, was preparing to come to England with an army.”281 John’s depiction of

William commits to memory an image of the duke as an unjustified attacker whose desire for power drove him to invade.

John provides a justification for the loss of the English army at Hastings that is intended to make the reader sympathetic to the English cause. After King Harold defeated

Harold Hardrada and Tostig Godwinson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, he rushed south to meet William’s forces. John writes that Harold’s army suffered great losses at

Stamford Bridge, so that “the more powerful men from the whole of England had already

280 Ibid., 600. “Subregulus Haroldus, Godwini ducis filius, quem rex ante suam decessionem regni successorem elegerat, a totius Anglie primatibus ad regale culmen electus.”

281 Ibid., 602. “Normannorum comes Willelmus, Eadwardi Regis consobrinus, in Angliam cum exercitu venire parabat.”

109

fallen” by the time he began to march south.282 William’s army, however, seems by contrast unbeatable. He landed at Pevensey “with an innumerable multitudes of horsemen, slingers, archers, and foot-soldiers, for he had brought strong auxiliaries from the whole of Gaul with him.”283 Despite holding his own for most of the duration of the battle, Harold “fell, alas, at dusk.”284 The Chronicon makes Harold’s death into a tragic event that stresses his valiant efforts in battle rather than William’s right to the throne.

The Chronicon presents the events immediately preceding William’s coronation as equally bad for the English. William “laid waste to Sussex, Kent, Hampshire,

Middlesex, and Hertfordshire, and did not cease from burning townships and killing men until he came to the township called Berkhamsted.”285 John of Worcester stresses this violence in an attempt to convince the reader that the Normans were bad people.

Although William made a treaty with some English people before his coronation,

“nonetheless he permitted his army to burn and plunder villages.”286 This image of wicked Normans is stressed in only a few other gestae, including those of Eadmer of

Canterbury and Simeon of Durham, who also favored the English over the Normans.

The character of King William I in the Chronicon serves to illustrate John of

Worcester’s opinion on Normans. He presents William in a way that makes him always

282 Ibid., 604. “Et licet de tota Anglia fortiores quosque preliis in duobus bene sciret iam cecidisse.”

283 Ibid. “Cum innumera multitidine equitum, fundibalariroum, sagittariorum, preditumque advenisse, utpote qui de tota Gallia sibi fortes auxiliaries conduxerat.”

284 Ibid. “Heu, ipsemet cecidit crepusculi tempore.”

285 Ibid., 606. “Suthsaxoniam, Cantiam, Suthamtunensem provinciam, Suthregiam, Middelsaxoniam, Heortfordensem provinciam devastabat et villas cremere hominesque interficere non cessabat donec ad villam que Beorhchamstede nominatur veniret.”

286 Ibid. “Ipse foedus pepigit, et nichilominus exercitui suo villas cremare et rapinas agree permisit.”

110

appear as an enemy to the English. One example is John’s description of William’s coronation promise to uphold justice. This promise does not last long as William’s first act as king in the Chronicon is to “[impose] an unbearable tax upon the English.”287 On the advice of a Norman earl, William orders all the monasteries to be searched and,

“because of his ravaging and violence, the money that the richer English had deposited in them be seized and taken to his treasury.”288 William’s reign is recorded in the Chronicon as a horrible time during which the Normans subjected the English people to harsh policies and unjust treatment. His military actions in Northumberland, war with Scotland, and orders to create the Domesday Book did little to endear William to the English.

John’s depiction of William is typical for those authors who identify with Anglo-Saxons.

King William II is a complicated character in the Chronicon, being at times a good king while still retaining many of his traditionally ascribed vices. John narrates that

“there was great dissension among the chief men of England, and likewise only a small part of the Norman nobility supported King William.”289 The contention among nobles caused a civil war between supporters of either of the first two children of King William

I. King William II made an army “primarily of Englishmen with as many Normans as he could find” and placed “his trust in God’s mercy, for he heard the enemy had a larger force” as he marched to fight Bishop Odo of Bayeux (d. 1097) and his Norman army.290

287 John of Worcester, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Edited by Patrick MacGurk. Vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 4. “Anglis importabile tributum imposuit.”

288 Ibid., 10. “Pecuniam, quam ditiores Angli, propter illius austeritatem et depopulationem, in eis deposuerant, auferi et in erarium suum iussit deferri.”

289 Ibid., 48. “Inter primates Anglie magna orta est discordia, pars etenim nobiliorum Normannorum favebat regi Wilelmo, sed minima.”

290 Ibid., 50. “Congregato vero quantum ad presens poterat Normannorum, sed tamen maxime Anglorum…” “Fretus Dei clementia, qua maior hostium esse audiebat multitudinem…”

111

The bishop of Worcester, Wulfstan, played a significant role in William’s victory against

Odo. He prayed, “Go, my sons, go in peace, go safely with God’s blessings and my own; with trust in God, I assure you that this day the sword will not hurt you, nor will any adversity nor adversary.”291 The Chronicon narrates that God’s support allowed King

William II to win the battle without any losses at all. This story is meant to show John of

Worcester’s reader that faith in God will always triumph. It also serves the purpose of legitimizing William II’s kingship, since God chose him in the battle rather than Odo, who was fighting on behalf of Robert. John is one of the few gesta authors to present this king as one with any support from God. He likely does so because of the role of

Wulfstan, an English bishop from Worcester, where John was a monk.

John of Worcester describes King William II’s death as a matter of course, since it allows Henry to ascend the throne. While hunting with King William II at New Forest,

Walter Tirel carelessly shot him, which “showed without doubt the powerful and miraculous vengeance of God” as retribution for King William I’s laws that restricted

English use of the forest land.292 Although King Henry I did not open the forest to regular

English use, his other actions earned him divine favor. John writes that on the day of his anointing, Henry “freed the church of God, which in his brother’s time was put up for sale, and he removed all the evil customs and unjust exactions by which the English kingdom had wrongly been oppressed.”293 His actions in favor of the English make him a

291 Ibid., 54. “Ite, inquit, filii, ite in pace, ite securi, cum Dei et nostra benedictione. Confidens ego in Domino, spondeo vobis, non hodie nocebit vobis gladius, non quicquam infortunii, non quicquam adversarius.”

292 Ibid., 92. “Hanc proculdubio magnam Dei virtutem esse et vindictam.”

293 Ibid., 94. “Sanctam Dei ecclesiam, que fratris sui tempore vendita et ad firmam erat posita, liberam fecit, ac omnes malas consuetudines et iniustas exactions, quibus regnum Anglie iniuste opprimebatur, abstulit.”

112

great king in John’s Chronicon. In addition to his freeing the church, Henry established peace and “restored the law of King Edward to all in common, with the amendments his father made.”294 John of Worcester considers Henry an English king because of this, in much the same way as William of Malmesbury. Henry is the first king since the Conquest that John stylizes “king of the English.”295 This marks a significant shift in English history to John, since Henry has the best interests of the English people in mind.

The way in which John presents King Henry I reflects his identity as an

Englishman. John considers Henry an ideal king because of his efforts to being peace to

England and Normandy as well as his attempts to restore the laws of King Edward the

Confessor. In the Chronicon, as in William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum,

Henry is presented as an English king rather than a Norman overlord. This is significant because of John’s complex understanding of what it meant to be English in the earlier half of the twelfth century. His writing suggests that in order to be English, one must be born in Englad and have the interests of the English people in mind. Not much is known about John’s parentage. In the Chronicon, Henry is an English king despite having two

Norman parents. Henry’s character suggests that John’s understanding of identity is informed by geography rather than ethnic parentage.

John uses the final parts of the Chronicon to present a narrative that discredits

Stephen’s claim to the English throne in favor of Matilda. He writes that before his death,

Henry ordered all the nobles and bishops present to swear fealty to Matilda, “promising,

294 Ibid. “Legem Regis Eadwardi omnibus in commune reddidit, cum illis emendationibus quibus pater suus illam emendavit.”

295 Ibid., 104-106. “Rex Anglorum Heinricus.” There are many other examples of this title throughout John’s Chronicon. In the case of Kings William I and II, John refers to them as king (rex) but not necessarily as rex anglorum.

113

if she survived her father, to defend the English kingdom on her behalf against everyone unless a son, born from a legitimate union before Henry’s death, should succeed him.”296

John clearly believed in Matilda’s right to the throne over Stephen. The Chronicon states that King Henry promised to not collect the Danegeld in England for seven years, even though “King Stephen, who now reigns, also promised in a royal decree that he would never collect the Danish tribute [even though] we hear that it is now again demanded throughout England by a perjury odious to God.”297 In this way, John instructs the reader to consider Stephen a poor king in comparison to Henry. The Chronicon ends abruptly after describing a delayed potential treaty between Stephen and Matilda.

The Chronicon of John of Worcester is useful for its detail of the conflicts between Stephen and Matilda and for the insight it provides into John’s own identity as an Englishman. Unlike many other twelfth-century authors, John does not focus on piety as a major informer of his identity. Instead, he looks to kingly role models such as Kings

Edward the Confessor and Henry I to construct an understanding of what it means to be

English. To John, an Englishman is someone who was born in England and values other

Englishmen. In this construction of identity, one needs only to honor the Anglo-Saxon heritage of England rather than actually have Anglo-Saxon ancestry. In this manner, the

Chronicon is similar to William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum. The writings of John of Worcester and William of Malmesbury suggest a pattern of change that differentiates them from earlier twelfth-century authors in regard to their

296 Ibid., 166. “… Fide et sacramento spoponderunt filie Regis se totum regnum Anglorum illi contra omnes defensuros, si patrem suum superviveret, nisi de legali coniugio flium qui sibi succederet, adhuc ante obitum suum procrearet.”

297 Ibid., 202. “Hoc etiam rex Stephanus qui nunc imperat in regali decreto suo promisit, Danicum scilicet tributun se nullatenus exacturum. Verum in Deo odibili periurio, auribus hausi tributum per Angliam exigi.”

114

conceptualization of ethnicity in history. Although their worldviews were still informed by the Christian society in which they lived, the writing of both John and William suggests a greater significance for ethnicity than piety in forming their identities. John’s

Chronicon shows that his identity relied on a constructed ideal of English ethnicity built on Anglo-Saxon heritage but not necessarily requiring Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

William of Newburgh: Historia Rerum Anglicarum

William of Newburgh (c. 1136-1198) was born at Bridlington in Yorkshire and received an education at the nearby Augustinian priory of Newburgh, where he became as a canon regular. His largest work, the Historia Rerum Anglicarum, describes English history from 1066 to 1198.298 Unlike Orderic Vitalis, who describes many aspects of his own life in his Historia Ecclesiastica, William provides little insight into his own life.

His only major self-references occur in the long prologue to his writing, where he refers to himself as “William the Small” and notes his birth during the first year of Stephen’s reign.299 The Historia Rerum Anglicarum may not directly tell the reader about much of

William’s life, but his framing of history and the language that he uses gives insight into his identity as a canon and an Englishman living in a time significantly removed from the initial shock of the Norman Conquest.

298 The end-date for his writing suggests his date of death and since no other sources describe his death, this is the closest approximation.

299 William of Newburgh, The History of English Affairs, Eds. P. G. Walsh and M. J. Kennedy, Vol. 1 (Warminster, Wiltshire: Aris & Phillips, 1988), 26, 36. “Willelmi Parvi.” “Stephano… cuius anno primo ego Willelmus servorum Christi minimus… sum natus.”

115

The Historia Rerum Anglicarum is made of five books, each with multiple chapters. There are no extant copies of William’s writing, although a couple early thirteenth-century copies survive from Newburgh, which have been printed and reprinted since the latter half of the sixteenth century.300 The first book is the only one used in this study due to its timeframe of 1066 to 1135. William’s presentation of the Norman

Conquest is quick and factual due to his goal of creating a narrative that describes the reign of King Stephen. The Historia Rerum Anglicarum is heavily informed by William’s identity as a canon, which is apparent through his writing.

In the prologue, William notes his disdain for the Historia Regum Britannie of

Geoffrey of Monmouth (c. 1095-1155). He explains that it is full of historic errors since it

“weaves a laughable [tale] of fiction” to present his greatly augmented account of history that he presentd “as if they were authentic prophecies resting on unshakeable truth.”301

The following section of the Historia Rerum Anglicarum explains how Geoffrey’s logic is flawed. For example, Geoffrey’s book proposes that Merlin’s magic abilities stemmed from his mother’s relations with a demon, which William states goes against “true reasoning and sacred writings.”302 Historical accuracy is William’s other major concern, as he devoted twelve paragraphs to correcting Geoffrey’s narrative of Roman history.

This concern for historic accuracy also serves to build William’s credibility as an author.

300 Ibid., 19. Walsh and Kennedy write that their edition of William’s work is essentially the same as R. Howlett’s publication (that appeared in the Rolls Series, 1884), with minor alterations to punctuation to improve flow. The Rolls Series edition is constructed of two copies from the thirteenth century, since the more-complete copy is missing leaves and the other copy has the equivalent of the missing pages. See also: William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum de Willelmi Parvi de Newburgh (London: English Historical Society, 1856).

301 William of Newburgh, The History of English Affairs, Vol. 1, 28. “Ridicula de eisdem figmenta contexens.” “Tanquam authenticas et immobili veritate subnixas prophetias vulgavit.”

302 Ibid., 28. “Veris rationibus et sacris literis…”

116

William of Newburgh begins his historic narrative with the Norman Conquest and a focus on King William I. The Historia Rerum Anglicarum presents King William I as

“William the Bastard,” a sinful king whose lack of piety was made apparent when he attacked so many innocent people after securing the English throne.303 William of

Newburgh explains the king’s claim to the English throne as either “lust for dominion or an act of avenging an injustice.”304 The Historia Rerum Anglicarum takes a neutral tone to the Conquest and its conflicts. William of Newburgh was not seeking to justify the

Conquest or explain it, but merely to show it in a way that exemplifies the aspects of

King William I’s life that were bad through a Christian perspective. For example, the

Historia Rerum Anglicarum describes the monastery of St. Martin of Battle, which, whenever it rains, “sweats real and seemingly fresh blood… as if it were being openly proclaimed on the very evidence of [the Battle of Hastings] that the voice of all that

Christian blood is still crying out to God from the earth” for retribution against the slaughter of Christians by Christians.305 William of Newburgh does not explicitly state whether or not the Conquest was justified, only that the violence was bad.

The stance that William of Newburgh takes on the Norman Conquest reflects his writing goals. When he begins describing the history of English kings from Stephen to

Richard I (1157-1199), William does not need to explain whether or not the Conquest is justified. Since he was living in a time removed from the Conquest by roughly four generations, Anglo-Saxon and Norman ethnicity was not a major concern for his gesta.

303 Ibid., 36. “Guillelmus cognomento Nothus.”

304 Ibid., 36. “Dominandi libidine vel causa viciscendi iniurias.”

305 Ibid., 40. “Verum sanguinem et quasi recentem exsudat, acsi aperte per ipsam rei evidentiam dicatur quod adhuc vox tanti sanguinis Christiani clamet ad Deum de terra…”

117

William of Newburgh only refers to Kings William I, II, and Henry I as Norman kings of the English in chapter headings and not in the text. This title does not apply to Stephen and subsequent kings in either headings or text. It is not clear whether this stylization is due to Stephen’s loss of Normandy to Matilda or if it is because William of Newburgh considered the first three kings since the Conquest to be somehow more Norman than

Stephen. The fact that ethnicity does not play a major role outside of the chapter headings suggests that, by the time William was writing, the ethnic customs and traditions of both groups in England were blended enough to render the differences immaterial.

William of Newburgh explains that King William II is a sinful man and justifiess

Henry’s succession by further explaining how Robert was a poor governor. The Historia

Rerum Anglicarum presents King William II as “a man without sense and stabilitiy in any of his ways” who “showed no piety to God and oppressed the church.”306 His character provides examples of what William of Newburgh considers bad. Ethnicity does not play a role in this account, as William of Newburgh instead focuses on whether or not King

William II lived up to his Christian standards. In the end of his life, he acted wickedly toward Christians in England and expelled Anselm, while at the same time other princes were fighting for the Holy Land in the east. William of Newburgh makes this comparison to make King William II appear to be an even worse king. The “unhappy circumstances” of William’s death allowed Henry to inherit the throne.307

The Historia Rerum Anglicarum describes Henry as a great king with a few flaws.

He is “the only son born to [King William I] as king rather than as duke,” making him

306 Ibid., 42. “Homo vecors et inconstans in omnibus viis suis: Deo indevotus et ecclesiae gravis.”

307 Ibid., 44. “Guillelmo infeliciter moruo frater Henricus successit.”

118

also the only proper heir to the English throne.308 Henry is not as great in William of

Newburgh’s writing as he is in William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum or in

John of Worcester’s Chronicon. Although William of Newburgh presents Henry favorably overall, he does not mask his lustful behavior as a mere love of children.

Instead, William writes that the king “was endowed with many of the qualities befitting a prince, but he besmirched those qualities especially in his lusting after women.”309

William’s portrayal of the king focuses on his achievements and sins, since those are the aspects of his reign that William found most important to preserve. The desire to make kings into examples that suggest positive behaviors additionally suggests that William was concerned with piety, not issues of ethnicity.

King Stephen is initially a bad king in the Historia Rerum Anglicarum. After

“Henry, the most celebrated king of the English and duke of the Normans,” died,

“Stephen, the count of Boulogne and the king’s nephew on his sister’s side, usurped the kingdom of England.”310 William writes that Stephen broke his oath to support Matilda with a few others and was anointed by Archbishop William of Canterbury. This archbishop “died within the year of his transgression in what is believed to have been a deserved punishment for that perjury.”311 William recognizes that some people may have considered Stephen easier to influence as king if they allowed him to usurp, although he

308 Ibid., 46. “Aliis in ducatu patris natis, solus ipse ex eodem iam rege est ortus.”

309 Ibid., 50. “Multis quae decerent principem bonis ornatus, quae tamen plurimim denigrabat in concupiscentia feminarum.”

310 Ibid. “Clarissimo rege Anglorum et duce Normannorum Henrico.” “Stephanus comes Bononiensis, eius ex sorore nepos, regnum Anglorum invasit.”

311 Ibid., 52. “Archiepiscopus quidem, eiusdem ut creditur preiurii merito, ipso praevaricationis suae anno defecit.”

119

also writes that God did not see it as an honorable act. The image of Stephen as a usurper is significant, since it explains Matilda’s claim to the throne and justifies the eventual reigns of Kings Henry II and Richard I.

William ends the first book of the Historia Rerum Anglicarum with Stephen’s death. Henry invaded England from Normandy and gained support from various nobles,

“for divine favor seemed to smile on him and he was prosperous in all things.”312

William’s writing continuously reinforces an image of Stephen as one who lost God’s favor because of his perjury and usurping the throne. Peace was eventually established between Henry and Stephen as they agreed that Stephen would reign until his death and

Henry would be his successor. After the agreement, Stephen “began to rule as if for the first time, for it was then that he was first cleansed of the stain of tyrannical usurpation, and clad himself in the just garment of a lawful prince.”313 After Stephen died, “England longingly awaited [Henry].”314 William uses this history to show that proper piety results in favorable outcomes, a lesson that reflects his identity as a canon regular.

The Historia Rerum Anglicarum reveals that by the latter half of the twelfth century, ethnicity was not as much of a concern as piety for William of Newburgh. He does not present the Norman Conquest as a conflict of Normans and Anglo-Saxons, but instead as a matter of contention in which both parties involved accuse the other of having a poor claim to the throne. The characters of Kings William I, II, Henry I,

Stephen, and Henry II are examples of proper and improper Christian behavior. William

312 Ibid., 124. “Tanquam favore sibi arridente divino in omnibus prosperabatur.” 313 Ibid., 126. “Quia tunc primo, purgata invasionis tyrannicae macula, legitimi principis iustitiam induit.”

314 Ibid., 132. “Exspectante illum cum desideriis Anglia.”

120

of Newburgh’s presentation of history suggests that, while he recognizes the Norman origins of Anglo-Norman kings, this ethnic heritage is insignificant to history. King

William I’s violence toward Christians commits to history a memory of him as a impious yet powerful king. The reign of King William II provides the greatest number of vices that William of Newburgh uses to exemplify bad characteristics. In contrast to other authors’ depictions of King Henry I, William does not try to hide the king’s lustfulness with imagery of piety. William also makes King Stephen into an example of bad behavior, showing that proper actions and atonements will successfully attract divine favor. The Historia Rerum Anglicarum presents King Henry II as a great king initially whose flaws become more apparent as the gesta progresses. Through William of

Newburgh’s perspective, the only characteristic for any historic figure that is worth celebrating is piety.

Piety is the only major component of William of Newburgh’s identity. Ethnicity does not have any significance beyond denoting heritage in William’s Historia Rerum

Anglicarum, since his writing focuses entirely on the actions of people and the ways in which God punishes or rewards them. This suggests an end to the pattern that was developing with authors such as William of Malmesbury and John of Worcester, in that ethnic differences were blurring in England. The resulting makeup of society was not necessarily English or Norman, but Anglo-Norman in a way that it had not been before.

This trend of blended cultures had completed by the time William of Newburgh was writing. His writing tells the narrative of history in a way that suggests proper Christian modes of behavior, which in turn reflects his own identity as a canon in an England whose cultural composition no longer needed historic justification or explanation.

121

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

Each of the authors of this study provide a slightly different account of the

Norman Conquest and the history surrounding it due to the differences in the ways that each wants history to be remembered. The image of the past is a useful tool by which gesta authors may manipulate their contemporary audiences. This is often used to justify or support a contemporary event, but in the course of altering history through presentation, a gesta author also provides enough implications by which those things that inform his own identity may be assessed. In the cases of William of Jumièges, William of

Poitiers, Eadmer of Canterbury, Simeon of Durham, Orderic Vitalis, Henry of

Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, and William of Newburgh, the image of the Norman Conquest and reigns of the subsequent kings reflect the ways in which each author forms his own identity. Christianity is a common theme among all the writers and forms the foundation upon which each builds a greater identity. Ethnicity is a changing concept throughout the twelfth century, as this study highlights while evaluating the formation of identities.

The works of the gesta authors of this study suggest a few major trends throughout the late eleventh and twelfth century. Earlier gesta authors have stronger

122

ethnic components to their writing while later authors represent a gradual blending of ethnic and cultural heritage through their work. In the case of William of Jumièges,

William of Poitiers, Eadmer of Centerbury, and Simeon of Durham, ethnicity was a major piece of each author’s identity. These authors considered Norman and English to be entirely different ethnicities, which made their depictions of the Norman Conquest either about justifying or explaining the resulting Norman rule in England. Orderic

Vitalis is the first author to show a kind of cultural merging. His writing did separate the

Norman and English people and attempt to justify the Conquest, although his depiction of

King Henry I suggested that a cultural merge was slowly happening during his lifetime.

His presentation of Henry as a great king of the English and an excellent leader overall supports the idea of this slow blending of cultures. Henry of Huntingdon’s writing suggests a similar trend of ethnic blending in England. The language that William of

Malmesbury and John of Worcester use in their historic writing suggests that by the middle of the twelfth century, the Norman and Anglo-Saxon ethnic groups merged sufficiently to form a new English cultural group. This is apparent in their view of the

Norman Conquest, which by the mid-twelfth century had become less about explaining the Conquest and more about the aftermath. William of Newburgh’s presentation of the

Conquest focused on the character of kings and their roles rather than the superiority of one ethnic group over another.

The identities of the gesta authors of this study are formed by their religion and area of abode, which informs their ethnic preferences. Christianity is a constant that each author uses to explain his version of history. Despite the shared geographic locations of many of the authors of this study, the concept of ethnicity is not static. Ethnicity is

123

constructed in different ways throughout the timeframe of this study. The language and phrasing for any given gesta is deliberately chosen to preserve a memory of the past that explains or manipulates the opinions of the present. In the case of the authors of this study, their depictions of the past also provide information that reflects their formation of identity.

The gestae of this study are useful when read from the viewpoint of memory studies. William of Jumièges’ Gesta Normannorum Ducum justifies King William I’s claim to the Duchy of Normandy and the Kingdom of England. Through his writing, it becomes apparent that he identifies strongly with ethnic Normans, who he believes are invincible due to their divine favor. William of Poitiers’ Gesta Guillelmi, as it survives, complements William of Jumièges writing on the superiority of the Normans. These two earliest authors of this study share a time and location, which implies a level of commonality among latter eleventh-century Normans in terms of their formation of identity through constructions of ethnicity and evaluations of religiosity.

Eadmer of Canterbury’s Historia Novorum presents the Conquest in a manner opposite of the first two gestae, focusing on its negative effects. His writing was informed by the conditions of his life as an English monk. Eadmer’s writing preserves anti-Norman and pro-English sentiment in the time immediately after the Conquest.

Simeon of Durham echoes this sentiment in his Libellus and Historia Regum, which reflects his identity as a northern English monk. Unlike Eadmer, who had motivation to present the Conquest as not entirely bad, since it allowed Anselm to take the position of

Archbishop of Canterbury, Simeon lacked a major reason to present the Normans favorably. He notes a clear divide between the violent Normans and the peaceful English.

124

Orderic Vitalis’ Historia Ecclesiastica complicates the seemingly clear divide between Norman and English ethnicities. He notes obvious differences between the

Normans and English during the Norman Conquest, which changes after King Henry I ascends the throne. Henry is the first king since 1066 that Orderic calls an English king, despite his Norman parentage. Orderic self-identifies as English in his writing although his notion of what it meant to be English was not well defined and only nominally set him apart from his contemporaries in Normandy. His presentation of the Conquest highlights the glories of the Normans and creates a need for the Conquest, essentially justifying it.

Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum presents the Norman Conquest as a necessary event that corrected the improper religious practices of the Anglo-Saxon people. His depiction of history is that of devout Normans who defend their honor and spread God’s word to a land whose people strayed from proper piety. Henry’s depiction of history suggests that religion is the primary informant of his identity. In his version of history, only those who act according to proper Christian morals see any success. God’s role in the Historia Anglorum is one of a judge. Through his stylization of history, Henry provides examples for proper modes of behavior.

William of Malmesbury reveals through his Gesta Regum Anglorum that

Christianity forms the basis of his identity as well. His depiction of the English and

Norman people suggests a shift in the way that people in the twelfth-century viewed ethnicity in England. William, much like Orderic, claims King Henry I as an English king by ethnicity, although his only valid claim in that regard was his birthplace in England.

The cultures of the Anglo-Saxons and Normans were blending in William’s lifetime. His

125

Gesta Regum Anglorum captures his opinions on that change through his presentation of history. John of Worcester’s Chronicon conveys a similar perspective as the Gesta

Regum Anglorum. This suggests a trend in identity. As the notion of what it meant to be

English changed in the generations following the Norman Conquest, authors fell back on their identities as Christians to explain or justify history.

William of Newburgh, the last author of this study, suggests a completely new sense of English ethnicity in his Historia Rerum Anglicarum. Christianity informs his identity, as it did for many of the preceding authors, although William embraces to an extent the new English ethnic identity in his writing. He presents the Conquest in a way that notes both the English and Norman arguments for or against it, because it does not matter to him who is right. His outlook on history reflects both his apparent desire for historical accuracy and his understanding that the past is necessary in order to present and explain his present. The English identity that William embraces is built on mixed English and Norman heritage and had a foundation firmy rooted in Christianity.

The gesta authors of this study each present the Norman Conquest in different ways. It is in the presentation of their history that each author reveals aspects of his own identity. These authors augment and omit information in order to present a narrative that serves a purpose in their present. The ways in which identity is formed is one result of this formation of history. When these histories are studied in-depth, trends of identification and patterns of the conceptualization of ethnicity become apparent. The gesta authors of this study provide lessons for their audiences that reflect the feeling of belonging and purpose that each saw for himself and his contemporaries, made apparent by the alteration of the historic memory of the Norman Conquest.

126

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Eadmer of Canterbury. Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia, et Opuscula duo de Vita Sancti Anselmi et Quibusdam Miraculis Ejus. Edited by Martin Rule. Wiesbaden: Kraus Reprint, 1965.

Henry of Huntingdon. Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon: Historia Anglorum. Edited by Diana E. Greenway. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1996.

John of Worcester. The Chronicle of John of Worcester. Edited by Patrick MacGurk. Vol. 2-3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Orderic Vitalis. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. Edited by Marjorie Chibnall. Vol. 1-6. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.

Simeon of Durham. Libellus de Exordio Atque Procursu Istius, Hoc est Dunhelmensis, Ecclesie: Tract on the Origins and Progress of This the Church of Durham. Edited by D. W. Rollason. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.

—. Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia: Historia Regum. Edited by Thomas Arnold. Vol. 1- 2. London: Kraus Reprint, 1965.

William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni. Edited by Elisabeth Maria Cornelia Van Houts. Vol. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

William of Malmesbury. Gesta Regum Anglorum: the History of the English Kings. Edited by Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom. Vol. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999.

William of Newburgh. The History of English Affairs. Edited by P. G. Walsh and M. J. Kennedy. Vol. 1. Warminster, Wiltshire: Aris & Phillips, 1988.

William of Poitiers. The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers. Edited by R. H. C. Davis and Marjorie Chibnall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Secondary Sources:

127

Albu, Emily. The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth, and Subversion. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2001.

Barlow, Frank. The Feudal Kingdom of England: 1042-1216. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1955.

Bates, David. Normandy Before 1066. London: Longman, 1982.

Blacker, Jean. The Faces of Time: Portrayal of the Past in Old French and Latin Historical Narrative of the Anglo-Norman Regnum. Univ Of Texas Press, 1994.

Bouchard, Constance "Episcopal "Gesta" and the Creation of a Useful Past in Ninth- Century Auxerre." Speculum 84, no. 1 (2009): 1-35.

—. Rewriting Saints and Ancestors: Memory and Forgetting in France, 500-1200. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014.

—. Those of My Blood: Constructing Noble Families in Medieval Francia. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.

Brown, Reginald Allen, ed. Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, III, 1980. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1981.

—. The Normans and the Norman Conquest. London: Constable, 1969.

Carlyle, Thomas. History of Friedrich II. of Prussia. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1865.

Chibnall, Marjorie. The Debate on the Norman Conquest. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1999.

—. The World of Orderic Vitalis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.

Crouch, David. The Normans: The History of a Dynasty. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 2007.

Davis, Ralph Henry Carless. The Writing of History in the Middle Ages. 1981.

Davis, Ralph Henry Carless, and John Michael Wallace-Hadrill, eds. The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Douglas, David. "The Earliest Norman Counts." The English Historical Review 61, no. 240 (1946): 130.

128

—. William the Conqueror: the Norman Impact Upon England. Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press, 2005.

Freeman, Edward A. The History of the Norman Conquest of England: Its Causes and Results. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867.

Geary, Patrick J. Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Gillingham, John. The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2000.

Haskins, Charles Homer. Norman Institutions. Michigan: Gale Momll Print, 2010.

Hen, Yitzhak, and Matthew Innes, eds. The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Hobsbawm, Eric J., and Terence Ranger. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Hollings, Marjory. "The Survival of the Five Hide Unit in the Western Midlands." The English Historical Review LXIII, no. CCXLIX (1948): 453-87.

Hollister, C. Warren, ed. Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-century Renaissance: Proceedings of the Borchard Conference of Anglo-Norman History, 1995. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1997.

—. "The Norman Conquest and the Genesis of English Feudalism." The American Historical Review 66, no. 3 (1961): 641-63.

Hollister, C. Warren and Amanda Clark Frost. Henry I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Horne, Andrew. 1642. La somme appelle Mirroir des iustices: vel speculum iusticiariorum, factum per Andream Horne· Hanc legum summam si quis vult iura tenere, perlegat, & sapiens si vult orator haberi: hoc apprenticiis ad barros ebore munus, gratum iuridicis utile mittit opus. Horne mihi cognomen, Andreas est mihi nomen·. London: printed by E[dward]. G[riffin] for Matthew Walbanke and Richard Best and are to be sold at their shops at Grayes Inne Gate.

—. The Mirror of Justices. Edited by W. J. Whittaker and Frederic William Maitland. London: B. Quaritch, 1895.

Horne, Andrew, and Anthony Fitzherbert. The Booke Called, The Mirrour of Justices: Made by Andrevv Horne. With the Book, Called, The Diversity of Courts, and Their Jurisdictions. Both Translated Out of the Old French into the English

129

Tongue. Translated by W[illiam] H[ughs]. Edited by Matthew Walbancke. Imprinted at London: For Matthew Walbancke. at Graies Inne gate., 1646.

Huscroft, Richard. The Norman Conquest: a New Introduction. Harlow, England: Pearson/Longman, 2009.

John, Eric. Land Tenure in Early England. 1960.

Maitland, Frederic William. The History of English Law Before the Times of Edward I. Cambridge, 1895.

McKitterick, Rosamond. Perceptions of the Past in the Early Middle Ages. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006.

Otter, Monika. Inventiones: Fiction and Referentiality in Twelfth-century English Historical Writing. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Painter, Sidney. The Rise of the Feudal Monarchies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1951.

Petit-Dutaillis, Charles. La monarchie féodale en France et en Angleterre: Xe-XIIIe siècle. Paris: A. Michel, 1933.

Plomer, Henry Robert. A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland. Oxford: Bibliographical Soc., 1968.

Powicke, Michael R. Military Obligation in Medieval England: A Study in Liberty and Duty. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Rigg, Arthur G. A History of Anglo-Latin Literature: 1066-1422. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992.

Rozier, Charles C., Daniel Roach, Giles E. M. Gasper, and Elizabeth Van Hout, eds. Orderic Vitalis: Life, Works and Interpretations. Martlesham: The Boydell Press, 2016.

Round, John Horace. Feudal England: Historical Studies on the xith and xiith Centuries (Classic Reprint). S.l.: FORGOTTEN BOOKS, 2015.

Searle, Eleanor. Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power, 840-1066. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Shopkow, Leah. History and Community: Norman Historical Writing in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997.

130

Southern, R. W. Saint Anselm and his Biographer: a Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059-c.1130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Stenton, Frank. Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Thomas, Hugh M. The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, 1066-c.1220. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Thomson, Rodney Malcom. William of Malmesbury. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1987, 2003.

Van Houts, Elisabeth Maria Cornelia. Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900- 1200. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999.

Wace, Robert. Wace "Roman de Rou.". Edited by Josef Maria. Weissberg. Sternberg: Albrecht, 1909.

Williams, Ann. Ethelred the Unready: the Ill-counselled King. New York: Hambledon and London, 2003.

—. The English and the Norman Conquest. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000.

Winterbottom, Michael. "William of Malmesbury and the Normans." The Journal of Medieval Latin 20 (2010): 70-77.

Wogan-Browne, Jocelyn, Thelma S. Fenster, and Delbert W. Russell. Vernacular Literary Theory from the French of Medieval England: Texts and Translations, c.1120-c.1450. Woodbrige, Suffolk, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2016.

131