APPENDIX A WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR AND THE SELECTION OFWILLIAM FITZ RIVALLON AS ABBOT OF SAINT-FLORENT OF SAUMUR,JUNE 28,1070 n this appendix I elaborate on the possibility evoked earlier (pp. 30--31) that I William the Conqueror had a personal role in William fitz Rivallon's entry into the monastery of Saint-Florent and his selection as abbot in 1070. Though sparing in detail the successive stages in William fitz Rivallon's conversion to monasticism and selection as abbot are factually documented, as summarized earlier (pp. 23-24). His parents had not destined him for the monastic life from childhood as often happened in the aristocracy. Instead he chose this way of life after already having accepted the succession to his father as secular lord of Dol, and he changed his mind very soon thereafter (prior to 1066). His nomination as abbot in 1070, when thirty or less, came at a very early age, and his novitiate of five years or less prior to accepting the abba­ rial office was exceptionally short. Moreover his nomination almost immediately after the death of his predecessor, only eleven days later, suggests that his succession had been arranged in advance. Not mentioned earlier but also striking is the silence of historians of the time about the circumstances of William's selection. Whereas they name distinguished personalities from outside the monastery, the abbots ofMarmoutiers and the counts of Anjou, who had exercised a decisive voice in the selection of earlier abbots of Saint-Florent, 1 in William fitz Rivallon's case, they say nothing other than that he took the office. 2 The two modern historians who have had occasion to examine the subject have been struck by the apparent absence of those who had traditionally controlled the elections and have proposed other explanations. W Ziezulewicz attributes William's selection to his wealth and personal" contacts among Breton and Norman nobility," and to the success of the monastic community of Saint-Florent in breaking away from the dominance of the abbey of Marmoutiers. 3 H. Guillotel speculates that it was William's association with early stages of the Gregorian reform movement in Anjou which brought about his selection. 4 Both of these explanations 104 WAS THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY MADE IN FRANCE? seem reasonable, particularly Guillotel's, but, like the one made here, they cannot be confirmed by contemporary sources. Nonetheless the suggestion that William the Conqueror encouraged William fitz Rivallon to dedicate himself to a monastic career, with a commitment to arrange his election as abbot, does help to explain several features in the latter's life between ca. 1065 and ca. 1070, as just outlined earlier. Even though his brothers reported that he turned to the monastic life under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, William's abrupt decision could also have been influenced by the Conqueror's promise to advance him to the prestigious office of abbot. Then one might suspect that the intervention of a great personage such as the king of England could have been deci­ sive in bringing about his selection as abbot in 1070.While it is conceivable that a youthful and inexperienced novice could have shown enough talent and dedication in only five years of monastic life to persuade his elders to chose him as abbot at the age of thirty or less, it seems more reasonable to credit his election to the interven­ tion of a distinguished outsider such as the king of England. And, as argued earlier, his election only eleven days after his predecessor's death hints at something pre­ arranged from the outside by someone other than the young monk himself. Two different considerations would seem to stand out as the principle objections to this hypothesis, and the first of these is the silence of the two contemporaries who recorded William's selection in 1070 but made no mention of any Norman inter­ vention. The lack of any detail whatsoever could mean that these historians had no information about what happened, or chose, for one reason or another, to suppress it. Though their silence casts doubt on a Norman intervention it does not rule it out. A more weighty objection asks how the duke of Normandy could have inter­ fered in the territory of the counts of Anjou, something for which there was no precedent from the past. 0. Guillot's 1972 study of the eleventh-century counts of Anjou may help to answer these questions. In his analysis of the role of the counts ofAnjou in abbatial elections during that century, Guillot found that the success of what he calls a pre-Gregorian reform movement with the Angevin church, and championed by papal legate Hildebrand (later Pope Gregory VII) at a council in Tours in 1054, had the effect oflimiting the ability of the counts ofAnjou to control elections as they had done in the past (see summary earlier, pp. 24-25). Then in the decade of the 1060s a familial struggle between Fulk Rechin and Geoffrey the Bearded for the comitial office weakened its authority and led to their abandonment of further attempts to control abbatial elections in their county. 5 At precisely the same time period their Norman counterpart, William the Conqueror, was pursuing a very different policy from that of the Angevin counts. Viewing monasteries as valuable sources of support for his rule, he encouraged monastic expansion in Normandy and involved himself directly in the selection of abbots. While exercising authority in secular matters, that is, landed endowments, he respected the pre-Gregorian insistence on the monks' spiritual liberties in their internal religious life and thus won the support of the papacy. 6 In the case of Saint-Florent William could have profited from the withdrawal of the count of Anjou from abbatial elections, as well as from the political confusion there, and have persuaded the monks to accept his tutelage and select his candidate for the abbatial office. Not a Norman, or an outsider he was trying to thrust upon them, but a APPENDIX A 105 member of their own monastic community. His reasons for favoring William fitz Rivallon are obvious: here was a proven ally from the critical Breton frontier region, and one who through his family ties would have a voice in future elections of the archbishop of Dol. And by promising to respect their religious liberties William could well have won their acceptance.7 Why William the Conqueror might have had an interest in Saint-Florent of Saumur in the 1060s can be clarified by a glance at the Norman duke's relation with the counts of Anjou during the two previous decades. From early in his reign one of his major concerns was to protect his vulnerable southern frontier from Angevin expansionist moves into that county under count Geoffrey Martel. After Geoffrey's death in 1060 the Norman duke reversed the earlier trend and directed a Norman expansion to the south, culminating in the conquest of Maine in 1063, thus placing Normans on theAngevin frontier. 8 The conditions existing in Anjou in the later 1060s, governmental confusion and disorder, the Norman advance from the north, and differing attitudes of those in power regarding secular participation in the choice of abbots, all mean that an intervention by William the Conqueror in William fitz Rivallon's selection in June 1070 is not implausible. What would have amounted to an alliance between the Angevin abbey and the English king could have seemed advantageous to him in that it would enable him to extend his influence into that region as well as bringing him the support of a growing and influential religious house. At a time of political unrest in Anjou the Saint-Florent monks and William fitz Rivallon could have welcomed the support of an able ruler who guaranteed their religious freedom, as well as envi­ sioning future benefits under the patronage of the recently crowned king, conqueror of England. APPENDIXB COULD QUEEN MATHILDA HAVE COMMISSIONED THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY? n the course oflooking for an explanation for Queen Mathilda's gift of a golden I chalice to the abbey ofSaint-Florent sometime prior to 1083 (her date of death), I commented (see p. 36) that there is a remote chance the she herself was the person who ordered the Bayeux Tapestry. The evidence for this comes not from the charter referring to the chalice but from the author of the Historia Sancti Florentii who in a curious passage tells about a certain queen from overseas who ordered two famous tapestries from the abbey. Though it is extremely unlikely, the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely that this sentence refers to Mathilda's commissioning of the famous tapestry. Because this possibility is so remote I have made no further reference to it in developing the hypothesis central to this book. However, the prevailing belief until the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that Mathilda was somehow asso­ ciated with the tapestry makes this new evidence sufficiently fascinating as to justifY presenting it here in an appendix. Everything hinges on the interpretation of a single sentence in the HSF which I have already discussed at length in the first part of this book (see pp. 13-15). This is the anonymous author's report at the end of his list of outstanding hangings, carpets, vestments, and the like at the abbey in the time of Abbot Robert (985-1011) that, "Due etiam praecipua tapetae a transmarinis partibus a quadam regina directa sunt" (seep. 10). I have given my reasons (seep. 14) for translating this as "Two outstanding tapestries were commissioned by a certain queen from over­ seas;' and for my argument that the queen in question was most likely Emma, wife ofKingAethelred I from 1002 to 1015 (seep.