U nd err? ra^xW-W
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
IN MEMORY
OF
EDWARD SCHUSTER
Date D^^^fl? Boofc
DE^^
JN 2337.H35"''" """"""V "-ibrary
'Jornjan institutions.
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924005754860
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
VOLUME XXIV
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES
I. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade
to the United States of America, 1638-1870.
By W. E. B. DuBois, Ph.D., Editor of
"The Crisis." 8vo. Ji.sonet.
n. The Contest over the Ratification of the
Federal Constitution in Massachusetts.
By S. B. Harding, Fh.D., Professor of Euro-
pean History in Indiana University. 8vo.
ti.tS net.
III. A Critical Study of Nullification in South
Carolina. By D. F. Houston, A.M., LL.D.,
Secretary of Agriculture. 8vo. $1.25 net.
IV. Nominations for Elective Office in the
United States. By Frederick W. Dallinger,
A.M., LL.B., Member of Congress from
Massachusetts. 8vo. $i.soi~net.
V. A Bibliography of British Municipal His-
tory, including Gilds and Parliamentary
Representation. By Charles Gross, Ph.D.,
LL.D., late Gnmey Professor of History
and Political Science in Harvard Univer-
sity. 8vo. $1.50 net
VI. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the
Northwest By Theodore Clarke Smith,
Ph.D., Professor of History in Williams
College. Svo. $i.7S net.
Vn. The Provincial Governor in the English
Colonies of North America. By Evarts
Boutell Greene, Ph.D., Professor of History
in the Univerfflty of Illinois. Svo.
$r.5o net
VIII. The County .Palatine of Durham. A
Study in Constitutional History, By
G. T. Lapsley, Ph.D., Fellow of Trinity Col-
lege, Cambridge. Svo. $3.00 net.
IX. The Anglican Episcopate and the Amer-
ican Colonies. By Arthur Lyon Cross,
Ph.D., Professor of European History in the
University of Michigan. Svo. $2.50 net.
X. The Administration of the American Rev-
olutionary Army. By Louis Clinton Hatch,
Ph.D. Svo. $1.50 net
XI. The Civil Service and the Patronage.
By Carl Russell Fish, Ph.D., Professor of
American History in the University of Wis-
consin. Svo. $2.00 net.
XII. The Development of Freedom of the
Press in Massachusetts. By C. A. Duni-
way, Ph.D., President of Colorado College.
Svo. $1.50 net.
Xni. The Seigniorial System in Canada.
By W. B. Munro, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor
of Municipal Government in Harvard Uni-
versity. Svo. S2.00 net.
XrV. The Frankpledge System. By William
Alfred Morris, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
of English History in the University of Cal-
ifornia. Svo. $1.50 net.
XV. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley. By
Everett Kimball, Ph.D.,Professor of History
in Smith College. Svo. S2.00 net.
XVI. M6moire de Marie Caroline, Reine de
Naples. Edited by Robert Matteson
Johnston, A.M., Assistant Professor of
Modem History in Harvard University.
Svo. $2.00 net
XVn. The Barrington-Bemard Correspon-
dence. Edited by Edward Channing,
Ph.D., McLean Professor of Ancient and
Modem History in Harvard University.
Svo. $2.00 net.
XVni. The Government of the Ottoman
Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Mag-
nificent. By Albert Howe Lybyer, Ph.D.,
Professor of History in the University of
Illinois. Svo. $2.00 net.
Xrx. The Granger Movement By S. J.
Buck, Fh.D., Associate Professor of History
in the University of Miimesota. Svo.
$3.00 net.
XX. Burgage Tenure in Mediaeval England.
By Morley de Wolf Hemmeon, Ph.D., some-
time Austin Teaching Fellow in Harvard
University. Svo. $2.00 net.
XXI. An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs
transacted in the colony of New York from
' 1678 to I7SI- By Peter Wraxall. Edited
with an introduction by Charles Howard
Mcllwain, Ph.D., Professor of History and
Government in Harvard University. Svo.
$2.00 net.
XXII. English Field Systems. By Howard
Levi Gray, Ph.D., Professor of History in
Bryn Mawr College. Svo. $2.75 net.
XXIII. The Second Partition of Poland. By
Robert Howard Lord, Ph.D., Assistant
Professor of History in Harvard .Univer-
sity. Svo. $2.3S net.
XXIV. Norman Institutions. By Charies
Homer Haskins, Ph.D., LittD., LL.D.,
Gurney Professor of History and Political
Science in Harvard University. Svo.
$2.75 net.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A.
NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
BY
CHARLES HOMER HASKINS
GURNEY PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD
OxioKO UNiVEKsm Fkess
I9I8
LIBRARr
or
edwaud sshuster
lW.7f
COPYBIGHT, I918
HAKVAKD UNIVEESITY PRESS
TO THE SPIRIT OF FRANCE
HUMANE UNFLINCHING
CLEAR AND FREE
THESE STUDIES IN FRENCH HISTORY
ARE DEDICATED
PREFACE
The institutions of the duchy of Normandy occupy a unique
place in the history of Europe. They have their local interest,
giving character and distinctness to an important region of
France; they furnished models of orderly and centralized ad-
ministration to the French kings after the conquest of the duchy
by Philip Augustus; and they exerted an influence of the first
importance upon the constitutional and legal development of Eng-
land and the coimtries of English law. Normandy was thus the
channel through which the stream of Frankish and feudal custom
flowed to England; it was the training groxmd where the first
Anglo-Norman king gained his experience as a ruler, and the
source whence his followers drew their ideas of law and govern-
ment; and during nearly a century and a half of personal union
with England it afforded a constant example of parallel develop-
ment. In the larger view the effects of Norman institutions upon
English lands are the most significant, and these naturally possess
the principal interest for English and American students of his-
tory. The following studies were undertaken in the first instance
for the purpose of seeking light on the constitutional develop-
ment of England, and while they necessarily include many mat-
ters which bear on this but indirectly, their original purpose has
detenniaed their scope and character. They begin with the earli-
est trustworthy information respecting the government of Nor-
mandy; they end with the loss of the duchy's originality and
independence.
'A constitutional history of Normandy in this period is, in any
fuU or adequate sense, an impossibility for lack of sufficient in-
formation. Normandy can offer no parallel to the abundance and
continuity of the English public records; however great their
original volume and importance, the documentary sources of
Norman history have suffered sadly from war and revolution and
neglect, until only fragments remain from which to spell out some
VIU PREFACE
chapters of the story, It will be necessary more than once to
revert to this fundamental fact; ^ it is emphasized here as condi-
tioning the nature of this volume. We cannot trace a fuU develop-
ment, but must confine ourselves to such periods and topics as
have left materials for their treatment, and some of these must
await the results of more minute and special study.
The continuity of Norman constitutional development has,
nevertheless, been kept steadily in view, and however frag-
mentary and inadequate the result, it is believed that light has
been thrown upon some of the dark comers of Norman history.
There is here given for the first time a comprehensive description
of the government of Normandy under William the Conqueror,
with special reference to conditions on the eve of the Conquest
of England, and certain new conclusions are suggested respecting
the military, fiscal, and judicial organization of the duchy. The
weakness of the rule of Robert Curthose is made more evident
by a systematic study of his charters. What is said of the govern-
ment of Henry I rests for the most part upon new evidence and
points to new conclusions. The persistence of Norman institu-
tions under Angevin rule is shown, and the parallel development
of England and Normandy imder Henry H is examined. New
facts are brought out respecting the establishment of the jury
under Geoffrey Plantagenet and Henry H, and other points will
be apparent to the special investigator. No attempt has been
made to restate matters already well established, notably by the
masterly researches of Stapleton, Brunner, and Delisle, but care-
ful attention has been paid to their writings as well as to more
recent works, such as those of Valin and Powicke. That the re-
sults of the parallel labors of students of English history, notably
Maitland and Round, have been freely used will be seen from
the frequent recurrence of their names in the notes and the index.
Certain chapters, as indicated in each case, have already appeared
in the American Historical Review and the English Historical Re-
view," by whose permission they are here utilized; but these have
' See especially Appendix A.
» A summary of these articles has been prepared by M. Jean Lesquier for early
publication in the Bulletin de la SocUU des Antiquaires de Normandie. See also my
PREFACE IX
been carefully revised from the sources and considerably expanded
by the use of new matter. Unpublished documents and special
discussions will be found in the appendices, which are supple-
mented by facsimiles of certain charters of special interest. The
documentary pubKcations of the past ten years have reHeved the
volimie of many texts which had been gathered for its purposes,
while the appendices have been further reduced by reason of the
difficulties of collation under present circumstances.
So far as this book contains new results, it rests primarily upon
a systematic exploration of the documentary sources of Norman
history, which in its early stages was made possible by a grant
from the Carnegie Institution of Washington and in its later
months was aided by the Woodbury Lowery Fellowship of Har-
vard University. Begim in 1902, these researches have been
prosecuted under certain inevitable disadvantages of distance
and interruption, and it has been possible to conduct them only
because of the generous and unfailing helpfulness of French
archivists and librarians and the patience and good will of their
assistants. Space forbids a full list of those who have given such
aid, but I must express my special indebtedness to MM. Georges
Besnier, archivist of the Calvados, R.-N. Sauvage, librarian of
Caen, L. Dolbet, late archivist of the Manche, and J.-J. Vernier,
archivist of the Seine-Inflrieure. For access to material in pri-
vate hands my thanks are due to the Marquis de Mathan, at
Saint-Pierre-de-Semilly, to the proprietors of the Benedictine
de F6camp, and, in the days before the Separation Law, to the
abbe L. Deslandes, of Bayeux cathedral, and the episcopal au-
thorities of Seez and Coutances. At Paris I must acknowledge
my constant obligation to the learning and friendship of a dis-
tinguished Norman scholar, M. Henri Omont, of the Bibhoth^que
Nationale, and to those who administer under his direction its
great collections of manuscripts. I owe much to the advice and
encouragement of the late Leopold Delisle, and in continuing his
work M. Elie Berger has generously placed at my disposal the
paper, Qudques probUmes de I'histoire des institutions anglo-normandes, read before
the Congifis du Mill6naire normand (Rouen, 191 1); and my Normans in European
History (Boston, 1915).
X PREFACE
proofs of the second volume of the Recueil des actes de Henri II.
My thanks are also due to MM. Maurice Prou and Ferdinand
Lot of Paris, to Mr, H. W. C. Davis, of Balliol College, Oxford,
to my colleagues Professors Edwin F. Gay and Charles H. Mc-
Ilwain, and particularly to Professor George B. Adams of Yale
University. The Harvard Library has been generous in provid-
ing books of a sort not ordinarily accessible in the United Statfes;
and Mr. George W. Robinson, Secretary of the Graduate School
of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University, has rendered valu-
able assistance in the correction of the proof sheets.
If the book has been over-long in the making, this has not been
without compensations for the author. He has had time to linger
over the great Norman chroniclers with his students and to try
his conclusions in the give and take of seminary discussion. He
has made the personal acquaintance of a number of workers in
the field of Norman history, and has enjoyed several summers of
study and research in some of the pleasant places of the earth.
And as the work comes to a close, the memories which it recalls
are not so much of dusty fonds d' archives or weary journeys on
the Ouest-fitat, as of quiet days of study in provincial collections,
long evenings of reflection by the Ome or the Vire or in the
garden of some cathedral city, and rare afternoons at Chantilly
with L6opold Delisle, now gone the way of the Norman historians
and chancellors on whom he lavished so much labor and learning.
Requiescant a Idborihus suis, opera enim illorum sequuntur illosl
To these historians of an elder day must now be added friends and
students whose end has come recently and all too soon, French,
and English scholars of promise and already of fulfillment, Ameri-
can scholars in the making, martyrs to a common cause which is
higher than scholarship and dearer than life itself. May their
works likewise follow them!
Cambridge, December, 191 7.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PAGE
Normandy under William the Conqueror, 1035-1087 . . 3-61
Importance of early Norman institutions 3
Fragmentary nature of the evidence ... 4
Norman feudalism in 1066 5
The problem of the existence of knights' fees . . ... . 8
The military obligations of the Norman monasteries . . 9
The case of Saint-Evroul 11
Obligations of the bishops: Bayeux and Avranches 14
Other features of feudal tenure ... 19
The military supremacy of the duke . . 22
Sicilian parallels 23
Feudal jurisdiction ... 24
Grants of immunity .... ... 25
Ducal and baronial pleas .... ... 27
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction .30
The council of LUlebonne, 1080 . . ..31
The bishop's ' customs ' . ... 32
The duke's ecclesiastical supremacy ... ■ • ■ 35
The Truce of God . . •• • 37
Restrictions upon private war 38
The duke's revenues ... -39
Evidence of a sj^stem of fiscal administration . 40
Relative superiority of Normandy in finance . .... 44
Local government: the vicomie .... . . . 45
The forests ... . . . 47
Municipal institutions . ... ... .48
The ducal household ... 49
Chapel and chancery 51
The curia as a court of justice .... . . 54
Conditions under William's predecessors 58
Summary 60
CHAPTER II
Normandy under Robert Curthose and William Rutus,
1087-1106 62-84
Robert's lack of governance 62
Losses of the Abbaye aux Dames 63
Evidence of the Consttetudines et vusticie and the council of Rouen . 64
Robert's charters 66
XH CONTENTS
Their character and geographical distribution 70
Their irregularities show the weakness of the administrative system 7 2
Robert's chancellors and scribes: Ralph of Arri, Amulf of Cheques,
and Hugh of Flavigny 74
Scanty evidence of governmental organization 76
William Rufus in Normandy 78
His charters 80
His surviving writs show a stronger government 82
CHAPTER III
The Administration of Normandy under Henry I,
1106-1135 . . 85-122
Interest and difficulty of Henry's reign 85
The conquest of the duchy and the reestablishment of ducal
authority 86
The central court and the duke's justices . ... 88
Examples of their sessions . 89
The justiciar and the seneschal ... 99
Local justices 99
Ducal administration illustrated by writs from Montebourg . . 100
Restrictions on baronial and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 103
Fiscal organization 105
The Norman treasury and the treasiu-ers . 106
Royal clerks and chaplains no
How far had Normandy a distinct administration ? 112
The Co«ifo'<M/Jo dowJM regw and the Norman household . ... 114
Henry's entourage in his closing years ... 120
The esnecca, or royal gaUey .... 121
CHAPTER IV
Normandy under Stephen of Blois and Geoffrey
Plantagenet, 1135-1150 123-iss
The problem of Angevin influence in Normandy 123
King Stephen as ruler of Normandy 124
The conquest of the duchy by Geoffrey 128
He rules for his son Henry 130
Geoffrey's Norman charters 132
His chancellors 136
His preservation of Norman forms 140
His itinerary and followers 143
The ducal curia 146
The itinerant justices and the jury 148
Local officers 150
The Norman church 153
Geoffrey's policy a contmuation of that of Henry I 155
CONTENTS XIU
CHAPTER V
The Government of Normandy tjnder Henry H,
1150-1189 156-195
The position of Normandy in the Plantagenet empire .... 156
The records of Henry's nde in Normandy 157
Henry as duke, 1150-1154 ... 161
First period of his reign as kmg, II 54-1 1 64 163
The Norman justices 164
The local courts 167
The recognitions 169
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction 170
Secondperiodof Henry's reign, 1164-1 189 174
The work of Richard of Ilchester, 1176-1178 174
Comparison of the Norman and English Exchequers 176
The Norman Exchequer as a court . 178
Growth of officialism . . 181
Henry's great court days 183
WiUiam Fitz Ralph as seneschal . .' . 183
The jurisdictions of vicomte and baUU 185
Criminal jurisdiction of the duke 187
Civil procedure 188
Absence of restrictions upon the duke's authority 190
Normandy and England ' 190
Normandy under Richard and John 193
Modem diaracter of the Norman state 195
CHAPTER VI
The Early Norman Jury 196-238
Norman origin of the English jury 196
New evidence for its history 197
Importance of the reigns of Geoffrey and Henry II in its development 198
The Livre noir of Bayeux and its assizes 199
The recovery of the bishop's lands 201
The sworn inquests under Geoffrey 204
Do they presuppose a ducal ordinance ? 209
The Bayeux inquests under Henry II 213
The recognitions for Saint-fitienne of Caen 215
Inquests concerning advowsons 218
The legislation of 1159 219
Other inquests under Geoffrey and Henry II 220
The sworn inquest in ecclesiastical courts 223
Baronial inquests 228
The procedure in Anjou compared 230
XIV CONTENTS
The sworn inquest in the Norman kingdom of SicUy 232
Inquests in England in the early years of Henry II 234
Probable priority of Normandy over England in the matter of
recognitions 237
Conclusion • • • 237
APPENDICES
A. The Documentary Sources of Early Norman History . 241-249
B. The Eaeily Ducal Charters eor Fecamp 250-264
C. The Materials for the Reign oe Robert I 265-276
D. The Consuetvdines et Ivsticie of William the
Conqueror 277-284
E. Unpublished Charters of Robert Curthose 285-292
F. Unpublished Charters of Henry I 293-308
G. The Norman Itinerary of Henry I . 309-320
H. Documents concerning the Norman Courts, 1139-1191 321-328
I. The Early Legislation of Henry H 329-333
J. Norman Assizes, 1176-1193 .... 334-336
K. Documents from the Avranchin . . 337-343
INDEX 347-377
FACSIMILES
1. Charter Hactenus of Richard II for Fecamp, 1006.
2. Charter Quoniam veridica of Richard II for Fdcamp.
3. Charter Propicia of Richard II for Fecamp, io27(?).
4. Charter of Robert I for F6camp (A).
5. Charter of Robert I for Fecamp (B).
6. Forged charter of WiUiam the Conqueror for Fdcamp.
7. (o) Writ of Geoffrey Plantagenet for the lepers of Rouen.
(6) Sealed charter of Geoffrey Plantagenet for Bee, 1149.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A. B. R American Historical Review. New York, 1895- •
B. &.C BiMiotMque de I'JEcok des Charles. Paris, 1839- •
Davis H. W. C. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i.
Oxford, 1913.
Delisle Leopold Delisle, Recueil des actes de Henri II, roi d'Angleterre
et due de Normandie, concernantles promnces franqaises et les
af aires de France, introduction. Paris, 1909.
Delisle-Berger Ditto, tomes i, ii, oeuvre posthume revue et publUe par Mie
Berger. Paris, 1916- .
Delisle, Cartulaire Leopold Delisle, Cartulaire nortnand de Philippe-Auguste,
normand Louis VIII, Saint Louis, et Philippe-le-Hardi, in Memoires
des Antiquaires de Normandie, xvi (1852).
Delisle, S.Sauveur. . . .Ldopold Delisle, Histoire du chdteau et des sires de Saint-
Sauveur-U-Vicomte. Valognes, 1867.
Deville, Analyse £tienne Deville, Analyse d'un ancien cartulaire de Saint-
Etienne de Caen, fivreux, 1905, reprinted from Revue
cathoUque de Normandie, xv.
E. B. R English Historical Review. London, r886- .
B. F Recueil des historiensdesGaulesetdelaFrance. Paris,i738- .
La Roque Gilles-Andrfi de La Roque, Histoire genealogique de la maison
de Harcourt. Paris, 1662.
Le Pr6vost, Eure . . . .Auguste Le Provost, Mimoires et notes pour servir d I' his-
toire du dSpartement de I'Eure. fivreux, 1862-1869.
Livre noir Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesiae Baiocensis {Livre noir), ed.
V. Bourrienne. Paris, 1902-1903.
hot, S.-Wandrille Ferdinand Lot, &tudes critiques sur I'ahbaye de Saint-
Wandrille. Paris, 1913.
M. A. N Mimoires de la Socilti des Antiquaires de Normandie. Caen,
1824- .
M.G. B Monumenta Germaniae Bistorica. Hanover, etc., i826f- .
Neustria Pia Arthur Du Monstier, Neustria Pia seu De omnibus et singulis
Abbatibus et Prioratibus totius Normaniae. Rouen, 1663.
Pollock and Maitland Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederic W. Maitland, The Bis-
tory of English Law before the Time of Edward I. Second
edition, Cambridge, 1898.
Powicke F. M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy. Manchester, 1913.
Round J. Horace Round, Calendar of Documents preserved in France
illustrative of the Bistory of Great Britain and Ireland, i,
918-1206. London, 1899.
Sauvage, Troarn R. N. Sauvage, L'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn. Caen,
191 1 ; and Mimoires des Antiquaires de Normdndie, xxxiv.
Stapleton Thomas Stapleton, Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae sub
Regibus Angliae. London, 1840-1844.
Valin Lucien Valin, Le due de Normandie et sa cour {giz-i2o4).
Paris, 1910.
Vernier J.-J. Vernier, Charles de Vabhaye de Jumihges. Rouen, 1916.
Manuscripts cited without further indication of place are in the Biblioth&que
Nationale.
XV
NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
CHAPTER I
NORMANDY UNDER WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR'
The Anglo-Nonnan state of the twelfth century is one of the most
interesting phenomena in the history of European institutions.
Whether in the extent and cohesion of its territory, in the central-
ized authority of its rulers, or in the precocity and vigor of its
administrative system, whose many-sided activity can still be
traced in writ and roll and exchequer record, the Anglo-Norman
kingdom finds no parallel in the western Europe of its time. More-
over, on its institutional side at least, it was no local or temporary
affair. Themselves the product of a variety of elements — Anglo-
Saxon, Danish, Prankish, not to mention the more immediate
Norman and Angevin — the contemporary influence of Anglo-
Norman institutions extended from Scotland to Sicily, while their
later outgrowths are to be seen in the imitation of Norman prac-
tices by the kings of France, as well as in the whole fabric of
English government.
Of the two sets of institutions which were suddenly brought
into contact in 1066 and continued side by side under the same
rulers for a century and a half, those of Normandy are much the
more obscure. It is not, of course, impUed that investigation of
the Anglo-Saxon period has reached its limits: within twenty
years the labors of Maitland and Liebermann, of Round and Vino-
gradoff — to mention no others — have shown what can be done,
and what remains to be done, by a more scientific study of the
Domesday survey and the legal sources and by a wider view of the
relations of England to the Continent, and we are Ukely to see
further additions to our knowledge in these directions. Still the
* Revised and expanded from A. B. R., xiv. 433-476 (1909), incorporating ako
the special study of knight service in E. H. R., xxii. 636-649 (1907). A summary
was read before the International Congress of the Historical Sciences at Berlin in
August 1908, and before the American Historical Association at Richmond in
December 1908.
4 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
mere mention of these scholars and the sources which are at their
disposal shows the great advantage of England over Normandy,
both before and after the Conquest. It is only natural that the
history of Normandy should generally have been approached, as
in the classic researches of Leopold DeUsle, from the point of view
of France rather than of England, and although it is forty years
since Brunner first showed the way to a broader study of Anglo-
Norman legal history, little has been done to apply his method to
new materials and other problems. The paucity of sources is, of
course, the great obstacle. Normandy has no Domesday and no
dooms. Its earliest law book, the older part of the Tres Ancien
Coutumier, dates from the very end of the twelfth century, and
while there are indications of the existence of a distinctly Norman
body of custom before 1066,^ the only formulation of the law of
the Conqueror's day is a brief statement of certain of the ducal
rights drawn up four years after his death by order of his sons.'
There is almost no contemporary evidence for the tenth century,
when even grants of land were made orally without any written
record,* and although Dudo of Saint-Quentin is useful so far as he
reflects the conditions of his own age, about the year 1000, for the
greater part of the eleventh century we have only narratives put
together twci or three generations later. Our main rehance must
be upon the charters, and even here, such has been the destruction
of Norman records, the body of materials is less than for contem-
porary England or for such adjacent regions as Anjou and Flan-
ders, and is notably small for the earUer part of the Conqueror's
' ' Donavi apud Argentias leuvam iuxta morem patriae nostrae ' : charter of
Robert I for Fecamp, Appendix B, no. 10. ' Consuetudines quoque et servicia
omnia que de terra exeunt secundum morem Normannie ' : Delisle, S.-Sauveur-le-
Vicomte, pieces, no. 24. In 1074 Roger, earl of Hereford, is tried ' secundum leges
Normannorum ': Ordericus Vitalis, ed. Le Prfivost, ii. 264.
' The so-called Consuetttdines et iusticie, Appendix D. On the sources of early
Norman law see now E.-J. Tardif , &ude sur les sources de I'ancien droit normand, i
(Rouen, 1911), who emphasizes the canons of councils as a source of secular law.
* L. Valin, Le due de Normandie, p. 145; Lot, S.-Wandrille, p. Ixi. The criticism
of Dudo has at last been made by H. Frentout, 6tude critique sur Vudon de
S.-Quentin et son histoire des premiers dues normands (Paris, 1916); cf. A. H. R.,
xxii. 432 f. The two principed historians of the later eleventh century, William of
Poitiers and William of Jumifiges, are of slight use for the study of institutions.
On the evidence for the reign of Robert I see Appendix C.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 5
reign.* A large part of this documentary material is still un-
printed and unsifted, and we cannot use it in full security until it
has been collected and tested monastery by monastery, after the
admirable example set by Lot in the case of Saint-Wandrille.
For the present any treatment of early Norman history must be
provisional, and we can never hope to understand the interaction
of Prankish and Scandinavian elements in the tenth century or
/the government of the first dukes." For lack of sufficient earlier
'evidence, the study of Norman institutions must begin about half
a century before the Conquest of England, with the chronicle of
Dudo and the charters of the later years of Richard II. Even for
this period we sliall find the material too fragmentary to yield
conclusions on many points, and we shall need to supplement it
from the more abundant, but still meager, records of the latter
part of William the Conqueror's reign. Ideally what we should
most wish is a picture of Normandy at the moment of the invasion
of England; but as a practical problem we shall find it hard
enough to piece out some account of the govenmient of Nor-
mandy if we use all the sources of the Conqueror's reign, defining
wherever possible the points that can be established as prior to
1066, and those also which are anterior to his accession as duke.
First of all, it is plain that Norman society in 1066 was a
feudal society, and one of the most fully developed feudal soci-
eties in Europe.' Feudalism, however, may mean many different
^ See in general Appendix A. H. W. C. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normanno-
rum, begins with 1066 and includes only a portion of the Norman charters of the
Conqueror; cf. A. H. R., xix. 594-596- The Biblioth6que Nationale possesses (MS.
Lat. n. a. 1243) a collection of copies of William I's charters made by Achille
Deville, which, though far from complete, is of considerable convenience.
' See, however, for this period Tardif, Sttide sur les sources, pp. 7 f., 19-21;
Prentout, Shide sur Dzidon, pp. 415-424. Prentout's Ettide treats in detail the nar-
rative history of the early dukes, which is also sketched in his Essai sur les origines
et lafondation du duche de Normandie (Paris, 1911).
' See J. Flach, Les origines de I'ancienne France, iii. 88, who singles out Nor-
mandy, Flanders, and the county of Barcelona as the earliest feudal states in
France, and assigns the preeminence to Normandy as ' berceau a l'6tat fSodal en
France.' The question of the feudal relation of the Norman dukes to the French
crown lies outside the limits of the present volume. Consult F. Lot, Fiddles ou
vassaux ?, ch. 6; Flach, in Comptes-rendm de I'Academie des Sciences Morales et
Politiques, cbraxi, 138-165 (1914); Prentout, Mude sur Dudon, p. 267 ff.
6 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
things,' and we must seek to determine what specifically feudal
institutions then existed, keeping in mind always those which are
significant with reference to subsequent English developments.
Vassalage and dependent tenure meet us on every hand, and
while there are holdings for life ' and the word allod occurs,
though not always with a very exact technical meaning,'" the
greater part of the land seems to be held by hereditary tenure of
some lord. There are degrees of such tenure, and in some instances
subinfeudation is weU advanced," but it is impossible to say
whether all land was supposed to be held ultimately of the duke.
Some measure of the extent to which feudal ideas had gone in
early Normandy may be got from the iadications of their disin-
tegrating influence upon the Church. Before 1046 a provincial
council prohibits bishops from granting the lands and revenues of
the clergy as benefices to laymen,'^ and the need of such legisla-
tion appears from the case of Bishop Robert of Coutances, who
gave cathedral prebends as fiefs to his relatives." The feudal
relation might be created out of other ecclesiastical rights besides
land, as when the bishop of Bayeux and the bishop of Seez
granted in fee the episcopal consuettidines of several parishes,"
" Cf. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i. 67; G. B. Adams, Anglo-
Saxon Feudalism, mA.H. R., vii. 11-35. Pollock and Maitland's chapter on Nor-
man law, though brief, contains the best accoimt of conditions before the Conquest,
and it is not necessary to repeat what is there said of feudal tenure. M. Rabasse,
Du rlgime desfiefs en Normandie au moyen dge (Paris, 1905), is of no value for the
eariy period and is confused for the later.
' E. g., Collection Moreau, xxi. 8, 9, 25, 30.
" See William's grant to Saint-Julien de Totirs (1063) of the allod of Roncheville
as his vassal Adam had held it: Delisle-Berger, Henri II, no. 137; L.-J. Denis,
Les chartes de S.-Julien de Tours, no. 29. Various instances of alodium in this period
will be found in Lot, S.-Wandrille.
" Infra, pp. 16, 21.
" Council of Rouen (1037-1046), c. 10: Mansi, Concilia, xix. 753; Bessin, Con-
cilia Rotomagensis Provinciae, i. 42.
" Before 1048, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 218. Cf. also in the cartulary of the
chapter of Rouen (MS. Rouen 1193, ff. 31, 54V) the account ' quomodo villa de
Duverent de dominicatu archiepiscopatus exiit ': Archaeological Journal, iii. 6;
Valin, pieces, no. i.
" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 63, 335; Denis, CharUs de S.-Julien de Tours,
no. 24 (1053). Cf. also Ordericus, ii. 26, iii. 473, v. 183; Imbart de la Tour.in Revue
historique, Ixviii. 49.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 7
or the archbishop of Rouen turned an archdeaconry into an
hereditary fief.*'
That the Norman barons before the Conquest held their lands
from the duke by military service has been clearly shown by
Brunner " and the authors of the History of English Law," but it
'' Ordericus, ii. 132; infra, note 17.
" Die Entstehung der Schwtirgerichte, p. 131, note 3. Waitz had declared (Got-
tingen Nachrichten, 1866, p. 95 f.) that we knew nothing of Norman feudal law
before 1066.
" Pollock and Maitland, i. 69-72. Cf. H. Lagouelle, La conception juridique de
la proprieU fonciere dans le tres-ancien droit norntand (Paris, 1902), p. 114 ff. The
following instances may be added to those cited by these authors: A vassal of
Richard the Good makes the following grant to Saint-PSre de Chartres: ' tres
milites concedo cum beneficiis suis qui sic vocantur, Rollo et Angoht et Unbeina,
ut inde persolvant liberum servitium ' (Cartidaire, i. 108; cf. pp. 109, 40, 146, 152).
Robert I confirms to Saint-Wandrille land piurchased ' ab Hugone archidiacono qui
eam ex me tenebat in beneficio,' and ' terram Durandi militis quam prefato abbati
cum servicio filiorum ipsius dedi': Lot, S.-Wandrille, piSces, no. 14. He grants
to F6camp, giving their names, ' quidam homines mei scilicet milites cum omnibus
sibi pertinentibus . . . etiam alios milites': Appendix B, no. 10. Robert also gave
La Croix ' in beneficium cuidam militum suorum nomine Adelelmo ' (Round, Cal-
endar, no. 709), and granted to Mont-Saint-Michel half of Guernsey ' quam quidam
fidelis noster nomine Nigellus in beneficio tenet ' (ibid., no. 705; Delisle, S.-Sauveur,
piSces, no. 9). Richard de Beaufou grants to Saint-Amand ' unum feudum laici c.
acrarum quod Anschitillus presbyter tenet ' {Monasticon, vii. iioi; La Roque, iii.
suppl., 2). For the Conqueror's reign before 1066 see his grant, ca. 1048, of
' terram Atzelini equitis mei,' Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 26 ; his charter of 1063 for Tours
(' equites huius terre qvd servierunt Adam serviant Sancto luliano '), Denis, Chartes
de S.-Julien, no. 29 (= Delisle-Berger, Eenri II, no. 137); Cartulaire de S.-Ymer,
no. i; Livre noir de Bayeux, nos. i, s; Round, Calendar, no. 1109; Pommeraye,
Histoire de S.-Oaen, pp. 424, 460; the grants to Fecamp copied in the Collection
Moreau, xxii. io8v, xxv. 249; the cartulary of Prfiaux (Archives of the Eure, H.
7ri), nos. 301, 320, 429, 439; and the grant to JumiSges by Gislebertus of ' bene-
fitium Alsvillam scilicet quam a predicto meo domino nulitans obtineo ' (original
in the Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure; Vernier, no. 25).
The statements of the chroniclers are in themselves of doubtful value, but taken
in connection with the passages in the charters they offer supplementary evidence of
some interest. Thus Ordericus (ii. 397) says that Fulk, dean of fivreux, ' ex patema
hereditate feudum militis possedit,' and mentions the grant to Saint-£vrouI by an-
other Fulk of ' archidiaconatum quoque quem in feudo ab antecessoribus suis de
archiepiscopo Rotomagensi tenebat ' (ii. 132). In 1056 or 1057 a judgment was
rendered ' in curia S. Ebrulfi ' depriving one of the abbey's knights of 'omnem
feudum quem ipse de S. Ebrulfo tenebat ' (ii. 60). The dealings of Saint-fivroul
with Baudri de Bocquencfi (ii. 74 f.) are also interesting in relation to feudal justice
and service, fealty, and castle guard. Feudal relations are also mentioned in the
Vita aitera Berluini (Mabillon, Acta SS. Ordinis S. Benedicti, vi. a, p, 356).
8 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
has not been established that their military service had been
definitely fixed in amount or assessed against specific pieces of
land, and the problem requires at this point somewhat detailed
examination.
The question whether a system of knights' fees existed in Nor-
mandy before 1066 can best be approached from the side of the
ecclesiastical holdings. In England, Round has called attention
to " the appearance from the earliest period to which our infor-
mation extends of certain quotas of knight service, clearly arbi-
trary in amount, as due from those bishops and abbots who held
by military service "; '^ and he has shown that these quotas were
fixed shortly after the Conquest by the arbitrary act of the king.
In this the Conqueror may have been instituting something new
or may have simply followed previous Norman practice, and it is
from many points of view interesting to compare with the English
inquest of 11 66 the earliest statement of the service due from the
Norman tenants-in-chief, the returns collected by Henry II in
1172.*' In these the service of the ecclesiastical tenants is given
as follows: —
Episcopus Abrincensis debet servicium v militum de Abrincensi, et de
honore Sancti Philiberti v milites.
Episcopus de Costanciis, servicium v militum, et ad suum servicium xiii
milites, [id est debet capere servicixun xiii militum pro exercitu, et similiter
de aliis].
Episcopus Baiocensis, servicium xx miUtimi, et ad suum servicium cxx
milites.
Episcopus Sagiensis, servicium sex militum.
Episcopus Lexoviensis, servicium xx militum, et ad suum servicimn xxx
milites et terciam partem unius miUtis, et preter hec habet x milites in
banleuca Lexoviensi, qui remanent ad custodiendam civitatem donee retro-
bannus summoneatur, et tunc ibunt cum propriis expensis episcopi. Idem
habet ii milites de dono regis Henrici filii Matildis, scilicet in Mesnilio Odonis
et in Corbespina.
Abbas Fiscannensis, serviciimi x militmn, et ad suum servicimn xiii milites
et tres partes unius militis.
Abbas Bernaii, ad suum servicium ii milites.
Abbas Gemeticensis, servicium iii militum, et preter hoc ad suum servi-
cium i militem in Esmalevilla, quem comes Hugo le Bigot ei difforciat.
18 Feudal England, p. 298.
" B. F., X3dii. 693-699; Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 624-645. Those who
made no returns are mentioned at the end; the list mcludes the archbishop of Rouen
and the bishop of fivreux, but no abbot.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR g
Abbas Montis Rothomagi, servicium vi militum et tres partes unius
nuUtis.
Abbas de Monte Sancti Michaelis, servicium vi militum in Abrincensi et
Costanciensi et i militem in Baiocassino, quem faciunt vavassores nisi fuerint
in exercitum.
Abbas Cadomensis, servicium i militis, de feodo de Taillebois.
Abbas Sancti Ebrulfi, servicium ii militum, et preter hoc feodum Rogeri
Gulafre, quod Guillelmus Paganelli habet de rege in vadio, imde dififordat
servicium abbatis.
Abbas Sancti WandregisUi, servicium iiii"' militum.
Abbas Sancti Audoeni de Rothomago, serviciiun vi militum, et ad suum
servicium quatuordecim milites.
Abbas de Bemaio habet de feodo suo ii milites.
Abbas Sancti Dyonisii, serviciimi i militis, de feodo Bemevallis.
Abbatissa de Mosterviller, serviciimi iii militum, et ad suum servicium
V milites et terciam partem unius militis.
The servitia debita of this list are smaller than those of the Eng- .
lish bishops and abbots, and, perhaps for this reason, the group of
five knights is not quite so much in evidence, but the most striking
thing is the small number of monastic foundations which owe mili-
tary service to the duke. If we deduct Saint-Denis, which is not
Norman, and Saint-fitienne of Caen, which is evidently assessed
not as a barony but for a fief which has come into its possession,""
there remain only nine monastic baronies in a land where religious
houses were numerous and closely subjected to the duke's control."*
Upon what principle had these nine been selected ? Not, as we
might expect, because they were the monasteries which had been
fovmded by the dukes, for La Trinit6-du-Mont and Saint-£vroul
were established by the duke's vassals, and such important ducal
foundations as Cerisy, Caen, and Montebourg are not included.
The explanation must be sought in some other direction, and the
most natural one is that of age. None of the nine was established
after 1050; except Saint-fivroul, all are older than the Con-
queror's accession. Jumieges, Fecamp, Mont-Saint-Michel, Saint-
Ouen, and Saint-Wandrille were restored under the early dukes;
Bemai goes back to the reign of Richard II, La Trinite and Monti-
2" Cf. the fief held by Saint-Svroiil in addition to its normal assessment. The
fief of Taillebois does not appear in the early charters enumerating the possessions
of Saint-fitienne. Seven knights' at Grainville were granted to Saint-Ouen between
loss and 1066: Le Provost, Eure, ii. 38.
" Cf. H. Bohmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie, p. 31 f.
lO NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
villiers to that of Robert, while Saint-Denis had held Bemeval
since 968.''' It is true that these are not the only monasteries
which claimed to be earlier than Duke William, but it is not clear
that any of the other abbeys which were independent in 11 72 was
sufficiently organized and endowed at the time of William's acces-
sion to be assigned definite military obligations. Saint-Taurin of
fivreux, which is undoubtedly older, was subjected to Fecamp by
Robert I in exchange for the independence of Montivilliers ; Cerisy ,
though begun in 1032, owed its completion to William; if Saint-
Amand goes back to 1030, which is disputed, its church was not
dedicated till 1078; Pr6aux is barely earlier than Robert's depar-
ture for Jerusalem; Herluin may have founded his monastic com-
mtmity in 1034, but he did not establish it at Bee until some years
later. ^' The list of 11 72 is essentially a list of the oldest monas-
teries of the duchy. If this be the case, it is altogether likely that
the erection of these into baronies owing definite quotas of mili-
tary service took place in this same early period — if not while
they were the only monastic establishments, at least while they
were still the most important ones. Moreover, since the early
years of William's reign were hardly a favorable time for so
marked a manifestation of ducal authority, this step may well
have been taken before the death of Robert the Magnificent,
whether entirely in his reign or partly in that of his predecessors
we have no means of knowing. Then, for some reason which like-
wise escapes us,^^ Saint-£vroul was added after its foundation in
1050, thus completing the list as we have it in 1172."
" It claimed to have received it from Rollo: H. F., ix. 731; cf. Dudo of Saint-
Quentin, ed. Lair, p. 171.
" In the absence of a critical study of the early monastic history of Normandy
the dates of these fomidations are often uncertain. The chief authorities are the
documents in the Gallia Christiana and Neustria Pia; Ordericus, ii. 9 ff., with Le
Provost's notes; Robert of Torigni, ed. Delisle, ii. 184 ff.; and his continuation of
WiUiamof Jumi6ges,bk. vii,c. 22 (ed.Marx, p.2S2). Cf.E.Sackur, Die C/wmocenier,
ii. 41-54; and the monastic histories enumerated in Sauvage, Troarn, pp. xlv-xlix.
" Probably because the lands granted to the abbey already rendered knight
service to the duke. Cf. note 30 below.
« The returns of 11 72 do not cover arrifire vassals. The Norman monasteries
which appear as arriSre tenants in the registers of the French kings in the early
thirteenth century are likewise early foundations. Thus Lire dates from 1046,
Troam from ca. 1050, and CormeUles from ca. 1060. See H. F., xxiii, 6i 7, 705, 714 f .
WILUAM THE CONQUEROR II
This conclusion with respect to the early existence of the
monastic baronies in Normandy may be reached by a different
route by examining the account of the creation of the barony of
Saint-fivroul which has fortunately been preserved in the long
confirmation of that abbey's privileges and possessions grafted by
Henry I in 1128: — ^
Concede etiam eis et cx)nfinno totam villam de Cueleio cum ecclesia et
omnibus pertinentiis eius de donis sepe dictonim Roberti et Hugonis de
Grentemaisnil, que est feodum unius lorice, et aliud feodum lorice de dono
Willelmi Geroiani quod est inter Tolchetam et villam que Villaris dicitur et
appellatur Bauchencaium, de feodo de Mosterol, de quibus predictus Willel-
mus pater mens, cum assensu et volxmtate Theoderici abbatis eiusdem loci
primi post tempora Sancti EbruM et predictorum Roberti et Hugonis de
Grentemaisnil et dicti Willelmi Geroiani avunculi eorvun predicte abbatie
fundatorum, baroniam imam constituit ad servitium suum et heredum
suorum faciendum in exercitibus et aliis negotiis suis per totam Norman-
niam, ita tamen quod Ric. de Cueleio et Baldricus filius Nicholai milites,
quibus memoratus abbas Theodericus Ula duo feoda loricarum in hereditatem
de se tenenda donavit cum assensu dicti W. patris mei, servitiimi Ulud facere
tenebuntur quisque pro feodo suo cum equis et armis et cum expensis suis,
et heredes eonmi, quando abbas S. Ebrulfi a me submonitus fuerit et ipsi
ab abbate, et habebimt rationabiles taUias pro exercitibus et aliis negotiis
meis in Normannia concessas. Si vero de servitio illo defecerint et abbas
submonitionem suam adversus eos probare poterit, in eorum corpora et cat-
alla a me et successoribus meis capietur emenda et abbas relevamenta et
placita habebit et alia iura que habent barones Normannie in f eodis loricarum
suarum. . . . Item de donis Emaudi Geroiani totam terram que est inter
Tolchetam et Carentonam, que est de feodo Escalfoii, quam dedit Theoderi-
cus abbas Baldrico filio Nicholai tenendam de se per servitium unum va-
vassoris, quotiens habere voluerit, cum nemore Baldrici. . . .
As Theodoric was abbot from 1050 to 1057 and William Gere
departed for Italy before 1056,^' it thus appears that Saint-£vroul
was erected into a barony by the duke shortly after its revival and
reendowment in 1050, and in any case not later than 1056. The
abbot's miUtary service was fixed at two knights and assessed
against two of its holdings, Cullei and Bocquenc6, which were
with the duke's consent granted as knights' fees to Richard de
Cullei and Baudri son of Nicholas respectively, Baudri also receiv-
ing a piece of land between Touquette and the Charentonne in
return for a vavassor's service. These statements are in general
" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 204-210.
" Ordericus, ii. 56-63; William of JumiSges, ed. Marx. p. 178.
12 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
accord with what we know from other sources. Two knights are
the quota of Saint-fivroul in the inquest of 1 172 and the later
Norman returns,^* and they are charged against the fiefs of Cullei
and Bocquenc6 in the registers of Philip Augustus.^' Now Cullei
and 'Bocquence as the duke's archer Baudri had held it,'^" as weU
as the land between Touquette and the Charentoime, appear as
possessions of the abbey in Duke William's charters of 1050,'^
where, however, Bocquence is said to have been bought from Er-
naud Gere. The successor of Theodoric, elected in 1059, soon had
trouble with Baudri de Bocquenc6, but after this had been settled
Ordericus declares *tam ipse quam Rodbertus filius eius usque
in hodiemum diem pro terra de Balgenzaio solummodo monachis
militavit.' '^ Toward the end of the eleventh century the son
Robert appears as lord of the honor,*' and a suspicious charter of
the early years of Henry II records the settlement, in favor of
the monks, of a dispute between them and their knight Roger de
Bocquenc6 concerning the services due for a knight's fee at Boc-
quenc6 and ' quadam vavassoria terre que est inter Tolquetam et
Carentonam.' '^ CuUei appears as a knight's fee in a charter of
Henry I, where it is granted to Nigel d'Aubigny.'^
There are-, it is true, some difl&culties with regard to Henry I's
charter of 11 28. Although it was printed by the editors of the
Gallia Christiana 'ex authentico,' the original has disappeared in
the wreck of the abbey's archives; it was not copied into any of
2' H. F., xxiii. 694, 710; supra, p. 9. » H. P., xxiii. 637.
'" If Baudri the archer had held Bocquenc6 as a knight's fee of the duke, we can
easily see why the duke should insist upon the continuance of the military service
when the fief passed into the abbot's control — a possible explanation of the singling
out of Saint-fivroul as the only monastery among the later foundations which was
held to render military service to the duke. There is a discrepancy with respect to
the various Baudris. The Baudri de Bocquenc6 of whom Ordericus speaks was the
son of Baudri the German, not of Nicholas, and Le Provost identifies the grantee of
the abbey's fief with Baudri de Guitry, whose father's name was Nicholas. Orderi-
cus, ii. 75-76, iii. 38, 199, 248, note; Le Pr6vost, Eure, ii. 224 f.; Lot, S.-WandrUle,
nos. 16, 27.
»i Printed in Ordericus, v. 173-180. Cf. ii. 33, 35.
» im., u. 7S. " Ibid., V. 184.
" Archives of the Ome, H. 564; cartulary of Saint-fivroul (MS. Lat. 11055),
no. 21; Round, Calendar, nosi 638, 639; Delisle-Berger, no. 513.
'" Ordericus, v, 200; Round, Calendar, no. 627.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 1 3
the extant cartularies, nor is it mentioned by Ordericus. The
form of dating is exceptional, and the other final clauses are an
obvious imitation of a papal bull. Moreover, it awakens suspicion
to find that all of the witnesses appear in earlier charters for Saint-
fivroul,'* and that one of them, William Bigot, went down in the
White Ship in 11 20.''' On the whole, however, there does not seem
to be sufficient reason for considering the charter a forgery, though
it is quite probable that it has undergone something of the re-
touching of which there are indications in certain charters of
Henry II for Saint-£vroul.'* If we assume that the list of wit-
nesses has been correctly printed, stiU the name of William de Sai
which precedes might easUy have caused the scribe to substitute
William Bigot for his brother Hugh, who is well known in the
charters of the later years of Henry I — a kind of blunder which
may be seen in an original charter of Henry I for Saint-fitienne,
issued two or three years later.'* Imitations of papal forms are
not unparalleled in Norman documents of this period,** and the
issue of the charter in a provincial coimcil is a sufficient explana-
tion of the unusual style of dating. We know from Ordericus that
the abbot of Saint-£vroul was present at the council in which the
charter was granted, and as his monastery was one of the largest
holders of the parish churches and tithes which this council pro-
hibited monasteries from receiving at the hands of laymen,*' it
would be natural for the abbot to secure at once from the king a
detailed enumeration and confirmation of the abbey's possessions,
clothed with aU the formalities which the council could give.
Even if the initial and final clauses be rejected as spurious, the
body of the charter, compared with earlier charters for the same
38 Ordericus, v. 199, 204. ^ Ibid., iv. 418.
'» See Round, Calendar, p. 224, note; Delisle, Henri II, p. 316 f.
39 Archives of the Calvados, H. 1834, no. 13-5 bis; infra, p. 96. Here John,
bishop of Sfiez, appears as Robert between Robert de Sigillo and Robert, earl of
Gloucester.
*" For illustrations from 1131 see Henry's charter for S6ez, Appendix F, no. 11;
the letter of Geoffrey, dean of Rouen, in MartJne and Durand, Thesaurus Anecdo-
torum, i. 380; and a charter of John, bishop of S6ez, in Gallia Christiana, xi. instr.
160. The presence of the papal legate at the council of 11 28 might have had some
influence on the form of Henry's charter.
" Ordericus, iv. 496 f.
14 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
house,*' gives no occasion for suspicion. Such comparison shows
moreover that even if the charter be declared a fabrication, it
contains elements of imquestionable genuineness, while for the
passage printed above concerning the knights' fees there is in-
ternal evidence that it was reproduced from an older document.
The preservation of the names of the original tenants of Cullei
and Bocquence with their obligations expressed in the future
tense, as if Duke WiUiam were still speaking, constitutes an
anachronism which could hardly arise if Henry were making his
own statement of the abbey's service, or if a forger were mak-
ing the statement for him, but would be natural enough if he, or
a later compiler, were incorporating into his charter the Con-
queror's own formulation of the terms on which these knights'
fees were to be held.
If the confirmation of Henry I has thus preserved for us the
original terms of the grant of Cullei and Bocquence, certain of its
phrases acquire special significance. The exact regulation of such
matters as summons and individual liability {quisque pro feodo
suo), the proviso that the service is to be at the vassal's cost, and
the reference to the rights of his other barons in their knights'
fees, all imply that Duke William is dealing with no new or ex-
ceptional arrangements but with an institution which has been
adjusted and defined as the result of considerable experience of
the points which needed guarding. Even if it be held that these
provisions represent only the language of Henry I's day, there is
no reason to suppose that the erection of Saint-fivroul into a
barony was anything unique or in advance of the duke's policy
elsewhere. Indeed, the fact that the abbey had just been restored
and reendowed makes it probable that William was here extend-
ing to Saint-fivroul a system which was already in force in other
ecclesiastical baronies.
That the military obligations of the Norman bishops, all of
whom are expected to make return in 1172, had been fixed quite
as early as those of the abbots is of course altogether likely,*' but
*" Ordericus, v. 173-207; Monastkon, vii. 1079.
" Two knights of the bishop of Lisieux attest a charter as early as the reign of
Richard II: M. A. N., xiii. 11.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR !£
the evidence is somewhat different from that in the case of the
monasteries. The earliest detailed account which has been pre-
served of the tenants and obligations of a great Norman fief, the
Bayeux inquest of 1133,^^ relates to the lands of a bishop, and the
conditions of tenure therein set forth are those which prevailed in
the latter part of the eleventh century. The returns, it is true,
simply state that the inquest was held immediately after the
death of Richard Fitz-Samson, who died in Easter week, 1133,^*
to determine what services were owing to the duke and the bishop
from the bishop's knights and vavassors; but it is clear that this
was part of a comprehensive inquest which covered the whole
extent of the bishop's rights and possessions, and sought to deter-
mine how they had been held in Bishop Odo's time (1050-1097).^'
The matter is thus stated in an early charter of Henry II:
Quoniam ecclesia Baiocensis post mortem Odonis episcopi [tum] per subse-
quentiiim episcopormn impotentiam cum per eorumdem negligentiam et per
venditiones et donationes et commutationes ab ipsis factas fere ad nichilum
redacta erat, ne funditus ecclesia predicta destrueretur provide Hemicus rex,
avus meus, instituit ut iuramento antiquorum hominum qui rem norant
recognoscerentur tenedure iam dicte ecclesia sicut fuerant in tempwre pre-
dict! Odonis, tarn in dominicis quam in feodis militum, vavassorum, et
rusticorum. Ipsius equidem tempore hec omnia iurata sunt et recognita et
sepedicte ecclesie precepto eius resignata et munimine carthe sue, quocunque
modo a possessione ecclesie alienata essent, reddita sunt et confirmata.*'
According to these returns, the bishop owes the duke ten
knights for service to the king of France and twenty for the duke's
own service in Normandy, the proportion being in the first case
one knight for every ten who owe service to the bishop, and in the
second case one knight for every five. Groups of five or multiples
of five make up the greater part of the bishop's own military
force, which according to the proportions just given should be 100
" Printed in M. A. N., viii. 425-431; Bfaiers, Mlmoircs . . . du diocise de
Bayeux, i. 142; and H. F., jcdii. 699-702, which furnishes the best text. Le Pr6-
vost's copy ' sur une copie coUationn6e faite en 1637,' is in MS. Lat. n. a. 1837,
p. 282. A summary of these returns is appended to the Norman returns of 1172:
H. F., xxiii. 699; Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 645-647.
* Ordericus, v. 31.
« Infra, Chapter VI.
*' Livre noir, i. 20, no. 14. See also the writ and charter of Geoffrey, nos. 16, 39,
and the bull of Lucius II, no. 157.
l6 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
knights, but in fact amounts to a long hundred of 120.** These
had plainly been the obligations in the days of Bishop Odo, but
there is no direct intimation that they had been so fixed in the
period of his episcopate which fell before the Conquest. The his-
tory of one of the bishop's honors, however, indicates that its mili-
tary obligations had been fixed even before Odo's day, and it is
safe to assume that the amoimt of the bishop's service to the duke
had been determined at least as early as the amount due to the
bishop from his vassals. The honor in question had formerly
belonged to Grimald, one of the conspirators defeated at Val des
Dunes in 1047, who died a traitor in the duke's prison at Rouen.**
La 1074 William the Conqueror granted to the bishop of Bayeux
in demesne Grimald's forfeited honor, which included Plessis and
certain other lands,
Que omnia olim tenuit supradictus Grimoldxis et de quibus eidem sancte
ecclesie quam supra diximus servivit.'"
What disposal was made of these lands we learn from the inquest
of the bishop's military tenures in 1 133 :
Episcopus vero de eodem feodo fecit septem prebendas at retinuit in
dominium suum maneriiun de Plesseyo cum foresta de Montpinchon. De
reliquo vero honoris Grimoudi habet episcopus servitiimi octo militum cum
terra de Bougeyo et de Dampvou, que fuit de predict© feodo dimidium mili-
tis, quam terram Gmllelmus de Albigneyo tenebat de Grimoudo in maritagio
ciun sorore Grimoudi. De hiis autem militibus servit episcopus regi sicut de
feodis que comes Glocestrie tenet de episcopo.*'
William d'Aubigny, accordingly, must have held Danvou and
Bougy of Grimald, who held them of the bishop, before the trea-
son of 1047, ^ clear example of early subinfeudation. It is entirely
possible that the assessment of half a knight's service by which his
descendants held these lands ^^ was not made until later, but the
language of the inquest indicates that they had been held as half
a knight's fee in Grimald's time, and the fractional amount of the
" It so appears in the returns of 1172, quoted above (p. 8); but the actual re-
turns of 1 133 give only 117!, and the abstract of them in the Red Book 1195.
*» See Wace, ed. Andresen, ii, Unas 4219-4242; and the Bayeux inquest.
'» Liwe noir, no. 3; M. A. N., xxx. 700, from the Uwe blanc of Saint-Florent;
incomplete in Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 65. Cf. Livre noir, no. 155.
" H. F., xxiii. 700, « Ibid., xxiii. 702.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 1 7
service would seem to imply the existence of a knight's fee
which had been divided before or at the time of the grant to
William.
There is also reason for thinking that as early as Grimald's time
the honor owed the service of ten knights. In the inquest of 1133,
as just quoted, the bishop owes service to the duke for the
enfeoffed portion of this honor in the same proportion as the earl
of Gloucester for his holdings, namely, for every ten knights that
the earl holds of the bishop two knights for the duke's own ser-
vice and one knight for the service to the king of France. Such
an arrangement evidently presupposes a group of five knights or
some multiple of five, such as we find in the case of the earl of
Gloucester and the other greater tenants of the bishop, and we
should expect the honor of Plessis, like the earl's honor of fivrecy
and several honors in the later Norman inquests,^' to contain ten
knights' fees. In 1 133, it is true, it furnishes but eight knights, but
these are charged against the portion remaining after the bishop
has created seven prebends and retained the manor of Plessis and
the forest of Montpingon in demesne, so that Grimald's honor
must have supported more than eight knights when it came into
the bishop's hands in 1074. The number may not have been ten,
but it was pretty certainly a multiple of five. Remembering that
this service was the amount due to the bishop and not that due to
the duke, who received only one-fifth of it, we must conclude that
it was assessed when the holder of the honor 'served the church'
of Bayeux, not when the honor was in the duke's hands, so that we
are carried back to Grimald's time or before. If the assessment of
Plessis antedates 1047, so in all probability does that of such other
fiefs of the bishop as can be traced back to the beginning of
William's reign, as, for instance, the honor of Evrecy and the
Suhard fief.'* And if the bishop's groups of five and ten knights
^ E. P., xxiii. 694, 69s, 700.
" See Bishop Hugh's charter of 1035-1037 in the Liwe noir, no. 21; Delisle, 5.-
Sauveur, no. 13. Haimon's fief of fivrecy is also mentioned by Wace, ed. Andresen,
ii, line 4044. See also the witnesses to Bishop Hugh's charter of 1042 for Prfiaux,
Mabillon, Annates, iv. 444. That the bishop had tenants by military service be-
fore 1050 is also apparent from a charter of Bishop Hugh preserved in the Archives
of the Seme-Inffirieure {fonds Jumieges, charters of Rouvray) and printed by Le
Prgvost, Eure, iii. 45; Vernier, no. 8.
1 8 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
go back to so early a time, so, it is altogether likely, does his own
service of twenty knights to the duke.
If the preceding line of inference is valid, the Bayeux inquest is
important, not only in lending support to the conclusions already
reached with regard to the existence of ecclesiastical baronies and
knights' fees before 1066, but also in confirming Roimd's view
that " the Normans were familiar with servitium debitum in terms
of the ten-knight unit when they landed in England." ** Round
seems indeed to consider this point well established, but his only
authority is Wace's accomit of the deliberations of 1066; and,
after the destructive criticism to which Wace, in another con-
nection, has been subjected by him,^^ it is hardly necessary to point
out how little value 'a mere late compiler ' has for the events and
conditions of that year. The Bayeux returns are a better sort of
evidence, and they not only show clearly the prevalence of the
five- and ten-knight unit in Bishop Odo's time, but render it prob-
able that part, if not the whole, of this scheme of tenures is of still
earlier origin. If statements of later chroniclers were to be ac-
cepted as conclusive, we should not overlook a passage in a writer
earlier than Wace, the report in Ordericus of the deathbed speech
of William the Conqueror in which he mentions the assessment of
an arbitrary service of one hundred knights upon Coimt Guy of
Ponthieu, when vassalage was imposed upon him in 1056."
Fortunately the bishopric of Avranches offers evidence which is
still clearer and more direct. In the inquest of 11 72 the bishop
owes five knights for his lands in the Avranchin and five for the
barony of Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle, in the diocese of Lisieux. Now
the barony of Saint-Philbert came to the church of Avranches as
a gift of Bishop John in 1066, being half of his paternal inheritance
from Raoul d'lvry, and in the Conqueror's charter of that year
^^ Feudal England, p. 259 f.
^ Ibid., pp. 399-418. Round admits that in the passage in question the figures
" are far too large, and savor of poetic license " (p. 260, note).
^ ' Widonem vero comitem Baiocis quandiu placuit in carcere habui et post
duos annos hominium ab eo tali tenore recepi ut exinde mihi semper fidelis ex-
isteret et militare servitium ubi iussissem cum centum mUitibus mihi singulis annis
exhiberet ' (Ordericus, iii. 237). Cf. a charter of 1071-1082 confirming the acquisi-
tion by Marmoutier ' de feudo unius militis nomine Serlonis ' (Round, Calendar,
no. 1 211).
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR ig
confirming the gift it appears that this was a fief of five knights
andwas thereafter to be held as such of the bishops of Avranches.**
Evidently the whole had hitherto been an honor of ten knights.
Moreover, by thus fixing the date of the acquisition of this supple-
mentary obligation, we establish as anterior to 1066 the assign-
ment of the service of five knights for the original holdings of the
bishopric in the Avranchin.
Besides defining the amount and distribution of the ordinary
feudal service, the Bayeux returns of 1133 include castle guard,^'
the equipment and service of vavassors, and the aids and reliefs
due to the bishop,*" on all which points, as Guilhiermoz has
shown,*! tjiey yig^jj remarkably early and significant information.
Their importance, especially for the student of contemporary
^' The Conqueror's charter is found in full in a vidimtis in the Archives Na-
tionales, JJ. 71, no. 90; and is printed by Le Prdvost, Ewe, iii. 183, where the date,
which rests also upon internal evidence (comet, dedication of the Abbaye aux
Hommes, signature of Archbishop Maurilius), is incorrectly printed as 1076. E. A.
Pigeon, Le diocese d'Avranches, ii. 660, gives only an extract.
** On castle guard see Round, Calendar, no. 319; Ordericus, ii. 74; and the de-
cisions of Robert of Belleme's court in the Chartrier rouge of Troam (MS. Lat.
10086), f. 180, 182V, i86v. On its appearance in England after the Conquest, see
Round, in Archaeological Journal, lix. 144.
"" On reliefs cf. Round, no. 320. Other early examples of vavassors will be
found in Round, nos. 319, 639; Le Provost, Eure, iii. 467; Revue catholique de Nor-
mandie, x. 49; Neustria Pia, p. 587; Monasticon, vii. 1074; Lot, S.-WandrUle,
no. 38; Bulletin de la SocilU historique de I'Orne, v. 62, 68. The following notice
in the Livre blanc of Saint-Martin of Sfiez (f . 47 of the original) illustrates also other
matters of tenure: ' Cum Willelmus de Daraio anno ab incamatione domini m™".
Ixxx""". octavo ex divinoiuditio nimia corporis infirmitate aggravatus emori time-
ret, . . . donavit quicquid de sua terra dominica Stephanus metearius tenebat et
colebat, et insuper tantum de suo alio dominio sine calumpna quieto quod plenarie
sufficeret ad imam carrucam preter prata de ponte de Roca que ipse etiam donavit,
necnon etiam terra Fulcoun quam predict! monachi a prefato Willelmo in feodo,
nee in feudo ut prius sed in elemosina sicut cetera donavit. Namque affirmando
rectum esse dicebat ut qui suis filiis centum vavassores dimittebat sibi atque mona-
chis cum quibus victurus atque moriturus erat unum saltim ex illis proprie et solute
retineret.' . . .
" Essai sur Vorigine de la noblesse (Paris, 1902), pp. 185, note 34; 187, note 36;
267, note 37; 268, note 40; 275, notes 56, ST, 286, note 90; 292, note 102; 312,
note 164. The earliest mention of reliefs which I have found is in a charter of Roger
de Clera, anterior to 1066, for Saint-Ouen (Collection Moreau, xxii. 118, from the
original; Le Prfivost, Eure, iii. 467): 'nee retinui ex ipsa terra preter les reilies de
vavassoribus,'
20 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
English institutions, is naturally increased when it is seen that the
conditions they describe are those of the latter part of the eleventh
century. As an illustration of this, let us take one of the points in
the history of feudal institutions which most needs clearing up,
the matter of the forty days' service. This was certainly the nor-
mal amoimt in Normandy in the twelfth century, and seems to
have passed thence to the other continental domains of the Plan-
tagenets;^^ but while its prevalence in England has generally been
assumed, it has recently been asserted that even " its theoretic
existence can hardly be proved for England out of any authorita-
tive document." '^ Now the earliest mention, of the forty days'
limit so far noted is fomid in the Bayeux inquest, where it appears
as the regular period for the service due to the king of France as
well as for that owed to the duke within the confines of Nor-
mandy.** The same period is foimd in upper Normandy in a
Saint-Amand charter of the Conqueror's reign, which is also
interesting as bringing out the distinction between complete
equipment and 'plain arms' which appears for the first time
elsewhere *^ in the Bayeux inquest:
Ego Baldricus annuente domino WiEelmo Anglorum rege et Norman-
norum duce clamo quetum sanctimonialibus de Sancto Amando Rothomagi
servicium duorum militum quod quadraginta diebus debent per annum
de feudo Bascheville donee ego vel meus heres reddamus .jdcs. libras Rod-
mesinorum quas Sancto Amando et sanctimonialibus debeo pro sorore mea
Elisabeth que ibi effecta est monacha. Testes sunt GUbertus, Alannus,
Radulfus fil[ius] Heluini, Robertus de Bothes, Ricardus de BoievUla, Wil-
lelmi regis, («<;) Baldrici. Ante hoc vademonium predicti milites sic erant in
servicio parati: imus horum totis armis, alter vero ad plainas armas.*
From still another part of Normandy, between 1070 and 1081,
we have another example of the forty days' limit, this time as
applied to watch and ward. Here, if we may trust the natural
interpretation of the possessive pronoims, we also find the prin-
ciple, later well known, that the forty days' service is at the vas-
<^ Guilhiermoz, p. 275 £. " Pollock and Maitland, i. 254.
"* H. F., xxiii. 699-700.
'^ Guilhiermoz, pp. 185-188.
•» From a vidimus of Philip the Fair of 1313; Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure,
fonds Saint-Amand. The word plainas is badly rubbed, but only the penultimate
letter is uncertain.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 21
sal's expense, but any other service is at the cost of the lord." The
document, which comes from the cartulary of MontrSaint-
Michel,^' contains so many points of interest that it is worth
reprinting in full:
Conventio inter abbaiem et Guilldmum Paginelhim.
Haec carta narrat conventionem Baiocis factam coram regina inter ab-
batem de Monte Sancti Michaelis et GuiUelmum Paginellum. Si Willelmus
Paginellus habet guerram de ilia terra quam rex Anglorum dedit sibi cum
femina sua, conventio est quoniam Hugo de BricaviEa quadraginta diebus
iUi faciet de guarda vel custodia sese septimum de caballaribus ad suum
cibum. Et nepos illius Hugonis similiter faciet si in parage terram suam
tenuerit secundimi hoc quod tenebit. Rursus si GiuUelmus Paginellus ilium
Hugonem submonuerit, cum duobus equitibus eum in sua famUia ad suimi
dbum habuerit vel filium suum, si liber erit de submonitione abbatis. Nee
si[c] eum donnus abbas semper habebit quin Guilleknus Paginellus hoc habeat.
Et ita equidem habebit in sua famUia nepwtem Hugonis et Robertum de
Cantelupo et GuiUelmum Becheth et Ulum qui honorem Scollant habebit.
Et si vindictam vel pladtum habuerit ad faciendum, homines quos tenet de
Sancto Michaele ita habebit quod in sero erunt ad suas domos. Et si homines
sibi deficient de his serviciis que hie simt divisa, rectum sibi facient ad
unam mansionum quas tenet de Sancto Michaele. Auxilium accipiet de
terra quam tenet de Sancto Michaele pro sui corporis captione aut pro sua
terra, si forisfecerit eam erga regem vel abbatem, vel pro filio huius femine de
qua est hereditas si captus fuerit in servitio regis vel abbatis de quo est fedus,
aut pro una sola fiha maritanda quam habet de hac femina. Conventio est
quoniam GiuUelmus PagineUus in terra quam tenet de abbate statuet vmum
hominem apud quern abbas mittet pro submonitionibus quas habet facere
ipse abbas in terra quam GuiUelmus PagineUus tenet de iUo. Qui si bene
submonitiones fecerit et Ule remaneat quem monuerit, abbas suam foris-
facturam inde accipiet. Quod si in Ulo submonitore remanet submonitio,
abbati decern et octo solidos emendabit et abbas postea per suum legatimi
submonitionem suam fecerit. Conventio est quoniam WiUehnus PagineUus
unoquoque anno duodecim quercus ad suum cois accipiet in sUva de Longa
ViUa usque ad aquam que dicitur Ars, nee plus habet aceipere nisi per ab-
batem fecerit. Conventio est quoniam abbas de Monte unoquoque anno
dat UU unum provendarium de cera vel viginti solidos, et est in cois abbatis
dare quale horum maluerit, et hoc pro relevationibus de Cantelupo et pro
pastura de Lalande, si homines de Cantelupo possunt iUam de raisneer in
curia GuUlelmi Faginelli. De Lavidande, quam WUlelmus PagineUus inter-
<" Guilhiermoz, p. 275.
" MS. 210 of the library of Avranches, f. 95; there are also two copies of the
fifteenth century in the remnant of a cartulary of Saint-Pair preserved in the
Archives of the Mzxiche, fonds Mont-Saint-Michel, ff. iv, sv. Printed by Stapleton,
in Archaeologia, xxvii. 27 (1838); Round, Calendar, no. 714. Cf. P. Chesnel, Le
Coteniin et I'Aiiranckin sous les dues de Normandie (Caen, 1912), pp. 211-219.
22 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
rogat in fedo, dum venit in Monte Sancti MichaeKs est in respectu donee
coram rege. Conventio est de septem paribus de honore quern Willelmus
Paginellus tenet de abbate de Monte Sancti Michaelis quoniam submonuerit
illos in sua curia, qui si sponte sua ambulare voluerint ibunt si liberi erunt de
servicio abbatis. Si vero ire noluerint, hoc debet Guillelmus Paginellus de
raisneer in curia abbatis per homines qui sunt de honore quern accepit cum
sua uxore qui illos viderunt in suo servicio per consuetudinem antecessonmi
suorum. Huius cause testes existunt presul Abrincensis Michael, episcopus
Sagiensis Robertus, Rogerius de Montegomerii, Richardvis proconsul, Ro-
gerius de Bellomonte, Hubertus de Ria, Unfredus de Bohon, Hubertus de
Portu, Turgisus de Tracei, Alveredus Malbedenc, Gaufredus de Sai.
The document is not always so explicit as we could wish, but
certain points are fairly clear. We see the Conqueror disposing of
the hand of an heiress who holds an honor of the abbey of Mont-
Saint-Michel, and her husband receiving aids, reliefs, and suit of
court from the men of the honor. The aids are carefuUy defined:
the lord may have an aid for his ransom from captivity or for
redeemiag his forfeited land from the duke or abbot, for marrying
one daughter, or for ransoming his son if captured in the service of
the duke or abbot. The last is noteworthy, suggesting that the aid
for knighting the eldest son may have developed comparatively
late with the growing importance of the institution of knighthood.
The mention of tenure in parage would be important, if it were
more specific, with reference to the parage of Domesday and the
early history of the tenure in Normandy, where it seems to be
otherwise imknown before Henry II.**
In aU these feudal arrangements, the ultimate supremacy of the
duke is clearly recognized. Even under the weak rule of Robert
Curthose a declaration of liege fealty to the bishop of Bayeux con-
tains an express reservation of the ducal rights; '" while the whole
system of assessing knight service is a convincing manifestation of
the duke's power and authority. Moreover, the duke's right of
calling out the general levy of the country in case of invasion
" Cf. Follock and Haitland, ii. 264; Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond,
pp. 145-146; GuilhieTmoz, Origine de la noblesse, p. 214 S.; Round, in Victoria
History of Hampshire, i. 441; G£nestal, Le parage normand (Caen, 191 1); Powicke,
The Loss of Normandy, pp. 98-102.
'" See the elaborate agreement between the bishop and Ranulf, vicomte of the
Bessin, drawn up doubtless shortly after Bishop Odo's return in 1087, in Livre noir,
no. 76; Roimd, no. 1435, The early mention of ' fidelitas ligia ' is noteworthy.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 23
appears clearly in the Bayeux returns, where it is found under the
name of retrobannus, or arriere-ban, by which it is later known;
and it is specifically reserved in one of William's charters for
Saint-Etieime.'i From the care with which his vassals reserve
this obligation as regards their dependents and even their towns-
men/^ it would seem that the duke held the lords responsible for
producing their men when occasion arose." Materials are lacking
for any comparison of this system with the Anglo-Saxon /yr^?, but
it is highly probable that the familiarity of the Norman kings
with the arriere-ban in the duchy made natural that preservation
of thefyrd which is usually set down to dehberate desire to main-
tain Anglo-Saxon popular institutions. It should also be noted
that the ordinance which, a century later, is generally said to have
' recreated and rearmed this ancient force ' of the fyrd,''* the
Assize of Arms of Henry II, is drawn on the same lines as an
earlier assize for Henry's continental dominions.''*
Certain distinctive characteristics of feudal tenure in Nor-
mandy would doubtless stand out more clearly if we could com-
pare them in detail with the feudal arrangements established by
the Norman conquerors of southern Italy and Sicily. Unfortu-
nately, evidence on this point is lacking for the South in the
eleventh century, and while we now know that the substance of
the South-Italian Catalogus baronum''^ belongs to the reign of
King Roger and thus antedates the English cartae of 11 66 as well
'"■ Delisle, Carhdaire normatid, no. 826. Cf. Guilhiermoz, pp. 289-292, where
the text of the Bayeux returns is emended. Wace (ed. Andresen, ii, lines S2osff.)
mentions the calling out of the peasants against the king of France in 1058.
"* Ordericus, iii. 36, 39.
'" Cf. the Worcestershire custom, Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 159.
On the fyrd in general see P. Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century,
p. 22 £F.
" Stubbs, Sdect Charters, eighth edition, p. 154; Constitutional History, i. 632.
" Benedict of Peterborough, i. 269; Guilhiermoz, I. c, pp. 225-227.
'» See the text in Del Re, Cronisti e scrittori sincroni (Naples, 1845), i. 571-
616; and my discussion of its date and contents, E. H. R., xxvi. 655-664 (1911).
A similar conclusion regarding the date was reached independently by Giulio de
Petra: Rendiconti delta R. Accademia di Archeologia di Napoli, 1911, p. 35; Supple-
mento all' opera 'Le Monete delle Due Sicilie,' ed. Cangiati, March-June, 191 2.
Cf. Miss Evelyn Jamison, The Norman Administration of Apidia and Capua
{Papers of the British School at Rome, vi, T913), pp. 258, 338-341'
24 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
as the Norman inquest of 1 172, we are in no position to apply it
to the conditions of an earlier time. The Catalogus baronum, how-
ever, is based upon the fundamental Norman institutions of the
knight's fee, the groups of five and ten knights, and the arriere-
ban, while other evidence shows the existence of the feudal aids
and the forty days' period of service; and these parallelisms are so
close that they can be satisfactorily explained only by treating the
feudalism of the South as an offshoot from the parent stem in
Normandy in the early period of Norman expansion.
Intimately connected with feudal tenure is the matter of feudal
jurisdiction. First of all, there is the jurisdiction which is strictly
feudal, the justice of the feudal lord over his tenants. Robert of
BeU6me has an important court of his barons." The monks of
Saint-Evroul have their court, in which they may declare the for-
feiture of a fief.'' The honor of Ralph Taisson has its barons, who
can be summoned to record against encroachment the title of the
abbey of their lord's foxmdation." The honor which William
Painel holds of the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel has a court of
seven peers, who owe service according to the custom of their
ancestors, and there are also separate courts for his manors.*"
Besides this feudal justice, there is the jurisdiction which is fran-
chlsal, arising from the grant of public rights by the sovereign, the
justice which men will one day say has nothing in common with
the fief. We cannot in the eleventh century draw the line separat-
ing these two sorts of jurisdiction with the sharpness which later
feudal law permits ;*i the justice of the feudal lord may owe some-
" Archives of the Ome, H. 2150; Bry, Histoire du pays et comtS du Perche (Paris,
1620), pp. 82, 103; Round, Calendar, no. 654; Vernier, no. 34.
" Ca. 1056, Ordericus, ii. 60, 75. Cf. Round, no. 713 (Mont-Saint-Michel);
the stipulation of suit of court, supra, p. 22; Chevreux and Vernier, Les archives
de Normandieet de la Seine-InfSrieure (Rouen, 1911), no. 7 (= Round, no. ii6)'
Le Provost, Eure, iii. 209; Vernier, no. 24.
'" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 65 {ca. 1070).
'" Supra, p. 22. The number seven suggests the usual number of the Prankish
scabini from whom the peers of feudal courts seem to have been derived; probably
it is these same seven who owe the military service due from the honor.
*' Cf. Esmein, Corns d'histoire du droit franqais, eleventh edition, p. 293 fif.;
Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 80.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 25
thing to royal grant, and the holder of the franchise may not
always be able to point to the act which created it, yet the
distinction seems thus early Justified by the facts.
We must at the outset give up any attempt to follow the Nor-
man franchises back into Prankish days. Doubtless Norman
churches enjoyed the immunity which all such bodies were sup-
posed to possess under Louis the Pious, ^^ and some had more
specific privileges;*' but the nature and development of the im-
munity is obscure enough in those regions which have preserved
an unbroken series of such grants,** and in Normandy the coming
of the invaders not only made a wide gap in our records, but pro-
duced important changes in the holders of land and probably in
the rights exercised over it. The clearest case of continuity is
furnished by Bemeval-sur-Mer, which .had been a dependency of
-Saint-Denis under the Prankish kings and was confirmed to the
abbey by the first Norman dukes. *^ This confirmation was re-
peated by Richard I in 968 in a charter which grants full immu-
nity and all rights exercised in Bemeval by count or viscovmt,
vicarius or centenarius.^^ When we come to the charters of the
eleventh century, the clause of immunity, though reminiscent of
Prankish models, is shorter and more general. Richard II grants
to Picamp" and Jumi^ges** the possession of their lands "with-
out any disturbance of any secular or judicial authority what-
ever, as property belonging to the demesne fisc," and the same
phrases appear, omitting the reference to the fisc, in his charters
^ H. Bninner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 291.
»» Lot, S.-WandriUe, no. 4; H. F., viii. 650 (Saint-Ouen).
" For the literature of the controversy, see Brunner, I. c, ii. 287 ff.; A. Meister,
Deutsche Verfassungsgeschicht^ (in his Grundriss, 1913), pp. 77-80; G. von Below,
Der deutsche Stoat des Mittdalters (Leipzig, 1914), i. 252-261.
86 Bohmer-Miihlbacher, Regesten der Karolinger, nos. 60 (58), 190 (186); Dudo
of Saint-Quentin, ed. Lair, p. 171.
" H. F., ix. 731; cf. Lot, Les demiers CaroUngiens, p. S7-
" ' Haec omnia . . . concede . . . ut habeant, teneant, et possideant absque
ulla inquietudine cuiuslibet secularis vel iudiciarig potestatis sicuti res ad fiscum
dominicum pertinentes.' Original in Mus6e de la Bfinfidictine at Fficamp, no. 2
ter; Neustria Pta, p. 217. See Appendix B, where the documents relative to the
F€camp immunity are discussed.
88 Cartulary no. 22, f. 7, and vidimus of 1499 and 1529 in Archives of the Seine-
Inf&ieure; Vernier, no. 12 (i. 40).
26 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
for Bemai*' and Saint-Ouen.'" The clause is not found in Rich-
ard's grant to Mont-Saint-Michel, but appears in the charter of
Robert I,'^ who likewise made the sites of Saint-Amand and La
Triait6-du-Mont ' immune from the judicial exaction of his
authority.' ^^ I have found no such clauses in any new grant after
Robert's time, though phrases are common which grant such
protection as is enjoyed by the duke's demesne."
How much, if any, actual authority these vague grants of im-
mimity conveyed, it is impossible to say. Except in the very early
instance of Bemeval, they make no direct grant of fees or jurisdic-
tion, and if they are more than a pious formula, it would seem
that their primary purpose was to assure the duke's protection. It
is altogether likely that, in Normandy as elsewhere, such phrases
persist in documents after they have lost aU real meaning.'* In
any event it must be borne in mind, as one of the few points upon
which there is general agreement, that the Prankish immunity
itself, whatever its ultimate effects in establishing private juris-
dictions, did not create exemption from the authority of the
coimt,'' so that, apart from the question of any devolution of
royal rights to the Norman dukes, they would stiU as counts '*
retain some control of the great religious establishments. That
the clauses of immunity in the charters of the Norman dukes were
not intended as a general grant of the duke's judicial powers is
" Le Prfvost, Eure, i. 285; Neustria Pia, p. 399.
so Pommeraye, Hisioire de S.-Ouen (Rouen, 1662), p. 405; Valin, p. 222.
" ilf. X. iV., xii. Ill (Round, no. 705).
^ Cartulaire de la TrinM-du-Mont de Rvzien, no. i; Monasticon, vii. iioij
Valin, p. 223.
9' Brunner, Schwurgerichte, p. 238 ff . The charter of Richard I for Saint-Taurin
of fivreux is said to have granted ' tantam libertatem in curia Sancti Taurini
quantam suis hominibus in sua curia ' : Bonnin, Cartulaire de Louviers, i. 2, where
we have only a later notice, not the act itself (Prentout, Stude critique sur Dudon de
S.-Quentin, p. xxiv, note).
" E. Stengel, Die ImmunitSts-Urkunden der deutschen Konige (Innsbruck, 1902);
M. Kroell, L'immunitS frangtte (Paris, 1910), p. 303 ff.
" BnameT, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte,n. 166,300,302; G.Seeiiga, Die Bedeufung
der Grundherrschaft (Leipzig, 1903), p. 80 ff.; Kroell, /. c, pp. 217, 249 ff.; Dopsch,
Die Wirthschaftsentwickelung der Karolingerzeit (Weimar, 1912-1913), ii. 958.
" On the use of count as a title of the Norman dukes, see Lappenberg,
Geschichte Englands, ii. 18; Vernier, i. 75; and the charters of Robert I cited in
Appendix C, note 39,
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 27
shown by the practice,'' which appears as early as Richard II, of
granting, sometimes in the very documents which contain the
immunity clause, the ducal consuetudines in specified places. Thus
Richard II's charter to Bernai conveys the duke's consuetudines in
all the villae possessed by the monastery,'* and his charter for
Jumieges grants his customs, here styled constietudines comitatus,
in three places." The term is, of course, a general one, 1°" com-
prising tolls, market rights, and a great variety of rights of ex-
ploitation other than the profits of justice, but it specifically
includes ' laws and forfeitures ' in Richard's grant of the customs
of the Mount to Mont-Saint-Michel,i°i and its jurisdictional con-
tent is more exactly defined in documents to which we shall come
in a moment. We may say provisionally that when the duke
wished to convey jurisdiction, he made a grant of the ducal con-
suetudines, but we can understand what this means only when we
have examined what judicial rights the duke had to grant.
It is commonly asserted by modem writers "^ that the duke of
Normandy was the only feudatory of the French crown who suc-
" This point is overlooked by Valin, p. 223, in his argument from the later in-
terpretation of monastic immunities.
^ Le Provost, Eure, i. 285.
^ ' Ex quibus nostro tempore donavit per nostrum consensum Rotbertus archi-
episcopus frater noster omnes consuetudines que ad comitatum pertinent quas ipse
ex nostro iure possidebat. ... In Vado Fulmerii unum alodarium et omnes con-
suetudines quas ex iure comitatus in onmibus terris ipsius loci tenebam. . . . Pro
quo et nos donavimus omnes consuetudines que ex ipsa terra pertinebant ad nos.'
Cartulary 22 in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, ff. 7-11 ; mdimus of 1499 a°d iS^Q
in same archives; Vemier,no. 12. Cf. iVeMs/rJaPio, p. 323; Delisle-Berger, no. 527;
Monasticon, vii. 1087; Le Prdvost, Eure, ii. 296; and the long and interesting list
of consuetudines of the count of Maine at Ch4teau-du-Loir in Archives historiques du
Maine, vi. 34.
^'"> Cf. Flach, Origines de Vancienne France, i. 203; and notes 109, 163, below.
'" NeustriaPia,p.sy8; M.A. N.,:di.jio; Round, no. 702. Cf. the Conqueror's
charter in Cartidaire de S.-Pere de Chartres, i. 168. On the other hand his charter
for Saint-D&ir mentions ' consuetudinibus et forisfactis ' {Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 203). Undefined ducal grants of consuetudines will be found in Liwe noir,
no. i; Sevue catholique de Normandie, x. 49; La Roque, iii. 26; Cartulaire de Notre-
Dame de Chartres, i. 86; Sauvage, Troarn, p. 349 f.; Collection Moreau, xxi. no
(Saint-Ouen).
'" Brussel, Usage des fiefs (Paris, 1750), i. 253; A. Luchaire, Manuel des institu-
tions fransaises, pp. 24s, 256. Valin, pp. 60, 182-193, also criticizes the current view,
but in too juristic a fashion, overlooking the early evidence cited below, which was
28 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
ceeded in retaining for himself the monopoly of haute justice
throughout his dominions. Now if we mean by haute justice what
the lawyers of the thirteenth century meant, jurisdiction by virtue
of which the duel could be held and penalty of death or mutilation
inflicted, this statement is far from correct, for so-called pleas of
the sword are often held by the duke's vassals "^ and the duel is
waged in their courts."* If, on the other hand, we mean that a
baron could possess such pleas only by virtue of a ducal grant, and
that certain of them were never granted, the statement will prob-
ably hold. For the pleas of the sword in the twelfth century we
have a list drawn up under Henry II, which can be supplemented
by certain chapters of the Tres Ancien Coutumier^"^ and confirmed
by the Exchequer Rolls. This Hst, however, expressly says that
murder belongs " to the duke alone or to those to whom he or his
ancestors have granted it," and it is plain that the same Umitation
is intended to qualify others of the pleas enumerated. The matter
is clearer in the inquest of 109 1, which gives a statement, includ-
ing fewer pleas but professedly incomplete, of the 'customs and
justice ' exercised by William the Conqueror in the duchy. Assault
in the duke's court or on the way to and from it, offenses com-
mitted in the host or within a week of its setting forth or its
return, offenses against pilgrims, and violations of the coinage — ■
these place the offender in the duke's mercy and belong exclu-
sively to his jurisdiction."^ On the other hand, it appears from
the same inquest that there are other offenses, such as attacks on
houses (hainfara), arson, rape, and imwarranted seizure of sure-
ties, jurisdiction over which belongs in some places to the duke
printed in 1908 and 1909. His theory of the late development of ducal sovereignty
has been answered by Powlcke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 80-84.
"s See B. £. C, xiii. 108-109; Stapleton, Magni Rotuli, i, p. xxxiii; and the
texts cited below.
1°* See, for example, the duels held in the court of the abbot of Jumifiges in 1036,
MabiUon, Annates Ordinis S. Benedicii, iv. 519; and in the court of Roger of Beau-
mont, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 202.
"" Ed. Tardif, cc. 70 (inquest), 15, 16, 35, S3, 5&, 59; cf. 67, 69. Cf. Pollock
andMaitland, ii. 455; andinfra, p. 187.
"» Appendix D, cc. 1-3, 12, 13. The protection of the plow by the duke, as we
find it in the Tr6s Ancien Coutumier, likewise goes far back into Norman, if not into
Scandinavian, history. Dudo, ed. Lair, pp. 171-172; Wilda, Strafrecht, p. 245;
council of Rouen, 1096, c. 2.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 29
and in others to his barons; *"' and we find arson, rape, and hain-
fara among the consuetudines which Duke William, in the year of
his marriage, granted to the abbot of Preaux.i"' Similar pleas
were doubtless included in the consuetudines de sanguine granted
by the Conqueror to Bee, which possessed jurisdiction over mur-
der and mayhem among the ' royal hberties ' it enjoyed under
Henry I; 1"° and while there were probably local differences, as in
Anglo-Saxon England, where Domesday shows curious parallels
to the Norman forfeitures,"' it is evidently jurisdiction over
crimes of this sort which is conferred by the ducal grants of con-
suetudines to monasteries. The great lay lords might also have
such customs; indeed the forfeiture of life and limb in baronial
courts is presupposed in the inquest of 1091.'" The coimts of
fivreux and Mortain have blood- justice; "^ the count of Eu has
justice in the himdred of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive over all forfeitures
except the duke's. army and coinage; "' Robert, count of Meulan,
"' Cc. 9, 10.
los Appendix D, p. 279; Valin, pieces, no. z. Kings Robert I and Philip I enu-
merate ' sanguinem, raptum, incendium, homicidium ' among the consuetudines of
Micy: Pfister, Robert le Pieux, no. 68; Prou, Actes de Philippe I, no. 77.
"" ' Predicto monasterio tradidit idem comes Normannie omnes consuetudines
de sanguine et theloneo quas habebat circa ipsum monasterium ' : before 1066, MS.
Lat. 12884, f- 177; rf- E. Porfie, Histoire du Bee, i. 327, 367, 646. The relevant
portion of the charter of Henry I for Bee (Round, Calendar, no. 375) is printed
below in Chapter III, note 21 ; see also the charter on the next page establishing the
jurisdiction of Fecamp over homicide and arson by grant of Henry's predecessors.
Cf . also Robert I's grant of Harfleur ' cum sanguine ' to Montivilliers {Gallia
Christiana, 3d. instr. 326) ; the Conqueror's grant of ' leugam cum sanguine ' to the
monks of Saint-Benoit (Prou and Vidier, Recueil des chartes de S.-Benoit-sur-Loire,
no. 78); and Henry I's charter for Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, where, however, pleas
relating to the army and the coinage are expressly reserved {Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 157). John, abbot of F6camp (ro28-io79), grants a piece of land ' retenta
publica iustitia in consilio nostro ': Collection Moreau, xxi. 25.
"" Cf. Pollock and Maitland, ii. 454; Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond,
pp. 87-88; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. iii ff.
^ C. 8.
™ Count Richard of fivreux (d. 1067) gives ' Deo et Sancto Taurino tres con-
suetudines quas habebat in terra Sancti Taurini, videlicet sanguinem, septeragium
(sesteragium ?), et thelonagium.' ' Little Cartulary' of Saint-Taurin, Archives of
the Eure, H. 793, no. 26. For Mortain see B. E. C, xiii. 108, note.
"' Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 156-158; cf. col. 203. See also Countess Adeliza's
grant of ' omnem vicecomitatum . . . et omnes consuetudines ' to Auchy-Aumale:
Archaeologia, xxvi. 359.
30 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
gives the abbot of Preaux, in Saleme, his " forfeitures which ac-
cording to human law are collected by ancieiit custom from homi-
cides, thieves, and such others as are capitally convicted," and in
another district kainfara, arson, and ullac}^* The privileged area
of the banleuca also existed."'
Whatever view one may hold as to the relative development of
seigniorial jurisdiction on the two sides of the Channel before the
Conquest, there was one field in which England had much to
learn from Normandy, that of ecclesiastical justice. We have the
Conqueror's word for it that in England " the episcopal laws had
not been observed properly nor according to the precepts of the
sacred canons," "^ and it is generally, recognized that we must
seek in Normandy the principles underl3Tng the ordinance sepa-
rating the spiritual and temporal courts which he issued within
ten years of his accession to the Enghsh throne. Of course the
Norman precedents must not be scanned too narrowly without
due regard to the jurisprudence of the Roman Church as a whole,
but it is significant that in this period this jurisprudence came to
England through Norman prelates and Norman manuscripts, as
has been clearly shown in the case of the Pseudo-Isidorian decre-
tals.'" What the Norman practice then was we can in some meas-
ure discern from the canons of the council of Lillebonne, issued
by an assembly of prelates and barons held by William's com-
mand in 1080."' Freeman, it is true, with his splendid indifference
"* Cartidary of Pr6aux (Archives of the Eure, H. 711), nos. 68, 347; MS. Lat.
n. a. igag, no. 250; Le Pr6vost, Eure, iii. g7 (cf. on p. g6 the grant of Roger of
Beaumont); Valin, pieces, no. 4. For vllac see Appendix D, note 16. Tithes of
the baron's forfeitures are frequently granted to monasteries, e. g., Le Prfivost,
Eure, i. 408 (= Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 41); Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. lag.
'" See infra, p. 4g.
"6 Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 485, ii. 440, 531; Stubbs-Davis, Sdect Charters
(igi3), p. gg.
"' See the account of MS. 405 of Trinity College, Cambridge, brought from Bee
to Canterbury by Lanfranc, and its derivatives, in H. Bohmer, Die Falschungen
Erzbischof Lanfranks von Canterbury (Leipzig, igo2), pp. 61-65. Norman copies
of Pseudo-Isidore will be found in MS. Lat. 3856 and MSS. 701-703 at Rouen.
For decretals of Alexander II addressed to the bishop of Coutances, see Jaff6-
IxSwenfeld, nos. 447g, 4480.
"8 Teulet, Layettes du TrUor des Charles, i. 25, no. 22, from an early copy in the
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 31
to such ecclesiastical matters as were not architectural, says that,
apart from the renewal of the Truce of God, this council merely
pronounced " a great number of enactments of the usual kind " ; "'
but when we recall that Henry II began his great struggle with the
church by decreeing that the provisions of the council of Lille-
bonne should be observed,^'"' we shall hardly dismiss so lightly an
authoritative statement of the law of the Conqueror's day on
matters of church and state. Unfortunately, these decrees, while
affording abimdant evidence respecting the existence of a system
of ecclesiastical courts, leave us in the dark on some of the matters
we most need to understand. Besides the enforcement of the
Truce of God, the bishop has cognizance of offenses committed in
churches and churchyards, including the disturbance of worship
and assaults on those going to and from church. He has his fines
from criminous and delinquent clerks and from offending mem-
bers of a clerk's household, and dwellers within the church en-
closure are likewise subject to the ' episcopal laws.' Of the
offenses of laymen from which the bishop has his fine, specific
mention is made of adultery, incest, desertion, divination, as-
saults upon priests or monks, and the burning of their houses. A
fine is also due from those who fail at the ordeal or are excommu-
nicated for resistance to justice. The question throughout is one
of fines to be paid the bishop, and while in secular justice it is a
fairly safe rule that he who has the fines will also have the juris-
diction, it is entirely possible that for certain offenses the bishop
should have had fines from laymen who were convicted in secular
tribunals, just as he had from those who denied their guilt and
failed at the ordeal, and, later, from violators of the Truce of God
convicted in the duke's court."^ It is hardly likely, for example,
that the fine to the bishop was the only penalty for slaying a
clerk.
Archives Nationales attested by the seal of Henry I; Ordericus.ii. 316-323; Bessin,
Concilia Rototnagensis Provinciae, i. 67; Mansi, xx. 555. Cf. Tardif, fyude sur les
sources de I'ancien droit normand, i. 39-43-
"' Norman Conquest, 2d edition, iv. 657.
"° Robert of Torigni, i. 336; see infra, Chapter V, note 83. The importance of
the council is realized by H. W. C. Davis, England under the Normans and Angevins,
pp. 527, 533, but his interpretations of its canons are not always sound.
"• Bessin, Concilia, i. 81; Tris Ancien Coutumier, c. 71; Round, no. 290.
32 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Little is said of the relation of the clerk to lay courts, either in
civil or in criminal matters. With respect to his secular holding
the priest is subject to the court of his lord, although if the ques-
tion concerns the church he can have it brought before his bishop.
Violations of the forest laws by clerks are beyond the sphere of the
bishop's authority, and it would seem from the decree of an
earlier council that a clerk who exposed himself to the blood-feud
could be attacked after due notice to his bishop.^^^ A well known
passage of William of Poitiers indicates that the Conqueror was
in the habit of interfering when the sentence of the court Chris-
tian seemed to him too light, and inflicting discipline on the bishop
or archdeacon as well as on the culprit; '^^ but specific instances
of this sort are lacking. When the archdeacons of the diocese
of Bayeux consult Lanfranc respecting the case of a priest who
had committed homicide in self-defense, the question is not one
of punishment at their hands, but simply how soon, if at all,
the offender can be restored to his priestly fimctions.*''* In an-
other case, before William, archbishop of Rouen, a priest con-
victed of a variety of offenses suffers degradation and the loss of
his benefice. 1^^
Throughout the canons of Lilleboime nms the assertion of the
ultimate authority of the duke. The council attempts no innova-
tion : duke, barons, and bishops are to have the customs and jus-
tice which they have enjoyed under William and his father, but
122 ' Ut etiam clerici arma non ferant nee assaliant vel assaliantur nisi ipsi pro
meruerint, neque etiam tunc nisi facta prodamatione apud episcopum rationabili-
ter ': Council of Lisieux (1064), c. 5, in Journal des savants, 1901, p. 517.
12' Ed. Duchesne, p. 194; Migne, cxlix. 1241. The participation of the duke in
ecclesiastical discipline is also implied in Richard II's charter for Mont-Saint-
Michel: Neusiria Pia, p. 378.
™ Lanfranc, Ep. 62, Migne, cl. 550. Cf. Migne, cxlvii. 266 (1061).
•2' ' Notum sit omnibus quod Gausfredus presbyter de Verliaco ... ad iudicium
utrinque venerunt coram Guillelmo Rotomstgensi archiepiscopo presbyter scilicet
et monachi. . . . Ibi presbyter accusatus atque convictus de multis criminibus tam
per se ipsum perpetratis quam sua consensione per quendam filium suum, videlicet
de furtis, de sacrilegiis, de fomicationibus, et de contaminatione ecclesie sue, cum
se de his nulla posset ratione purgare, ab ordine suo depositus est ab archiepiscopo.
. . . Veniens in curiam regis Anglorum apud castrum Nielfam guerpivit coram
omnibus totum omnino beneficium vel quicquid reclamare poterat ullo modo in
ecclesia nostra de Verliaco. Insuper coram tota ipsa curia iuravit non se quicquam
eorum ultra reclamaturum.' MS. Baluze 77, f. 61, from cartulary of Marmoutier.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 33
the judicial privileges are held by virtue of the duke's concession,
and in case of dispute as to their extent the court of the duke is to
decide.'^^ The bishop's rights over laymen were a matter of cus-
tom, and varied from place to place. In many parishes the char-
ters show that he had, in whole or in part, lost his jurisdiction, for
the episcopal fines and forfeitures were valuable rights, like his
synodal dues and visitation fees,i" and were often granted in fief
to laymen ^^ or handed over to monasteries in the form of exemp-
tion from episcopal consuetudines,^^^ just as ducal consuetiidines
were granted by the duke. Thus Fecamp claimed certain churches
free from the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Rouen,'^" and
by privilege of Archbishop Robert the monks of Saint-Pdre of
Chartres held the church of Fontenay in the Vexin free from bishop
and archdeacon.i''^ Robert I was said to have given Mont-Saint-
Michel the ' episcopal laws ' in half of Guernsey. "^ The abbess
of La Trinite had the fines from episcopal forfeitures in two
parishes of Caen,''' and the abbot of Saint-Etienne had similar
128 So the author of the Acta archiepiscoporum says of William, after the diffi-
culties between the archbishop and the monks of Rouen in 1073 : ' In his omnibus
semper apud ipsum cautum extitit ne quid sibi archiepiscopus quasi sub ecclesiastico
vigore in causis huius ecclesie insolenter arrogaverit.' Mabillon, Vetera Analecta,
p. 226; Gallia Christiana, xi. 35. On the author see Vacandard, in Revtte catholique
de Normandie, iii. 121 £f.
1" On which cf. the protest of the canons of Chartres in H. F., x. 498; and Ful-
bert of Chartres, Epistolae, nos. 48, 1x5 (Migne, cxli. 225, 265).
'^' Supra, notes 12-15. Cf. council of Rouen, 1096, c. 6: ' Nullus laicus habeat
consuetudines episcopales vel iustitiam que pertinet ad curam animarum ' (Orderi-
cus, iii. 473). For England cf. the grant of ' pladta hominum de christianitate ' in
Davis, no. 71.
^'' GalliaChristiana,xi. msti.y.3, 126, 231; Nettstria Pia, pp. sjg, 431; Sauvage,
Troam, p. 356; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, nos. 46, 48; Mus6e des archives dSparte-
mentales, no. 25 (Lessay) ; Bry, Histoire du Perche, p. 70. The following grant of
1053 is more specific: ' aecclesiam Sancte Marie de Berlo et altare et omnes reditus
eorum, decimas scilicet, primitias, sepulturam, sinodalia, circada, et omnes forfac-
turas ad ipsam aecclesiam pertinentes, hoc est: sacrilegium, latrocinium, infrac-
turam cimiterii, et cum omnibus commissis episcopo pertinentibus ' (charter of
William of La Fert6-Mac6, Denis, Charles de S.-Julien de Tours, no. 24; Rewie
catholique, i. 168).
"0 See Appendix B.
1" Cartulaire, ed. Gu6rard, i. 115; Gallia Christiana, viii. instr. 297.
182 Cartulary (MS. Avranches 210), f. io6v.
'" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 71.
34 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
privileges.^'* In such cases the bishop sought to retain the ulti-
mate authority, whose symbol, the administration of the ordeal
at his cathedral church, was specifically reserved to him by the
council of Lillebonne; ^'^ yet two years later the abbot of Saint-
Wandrille established in the duke's court his ancient right to
administer the ordeal in the four parishes subject to his jurisdic-
tion.*'* That the bishop's jurisdiction was comprehensive and
attendance at his court no light matter, appears from the case of
Mont-Saint-Michel: the residents of the Moimt complained of
their frequent smxmions to Avranches as parties or witnesses in
the bishop's court in all matters contra christianitatem, and of the
bishop's refusal to accept excuses in time of invasion or storm, so
that they were constantly being fined or punished on this accoimt;
imtil in 1061 the bishop consented to make the abbot his arch-
deacon for the Moimt, reserving to himself, however, the admin-
istration of the ordeal, the hearing of matrimonial causes, and the
'^ Gallia Christiania, xi. instr. 73; charter of Odo, bishop of BayeiK (copies in
Archives of the Calvados, H. 1825; MS. Fr.n. a. 20218, f. 6): 'Tradoistaquehicde-
termino, videlicet de omnibus in prefatis ecclesiis donubus terris habitatoribus om-
nium forisfacturarum de criminalibus peccatis vel de non criminalibus prodeuntium
pecuniam et de ipsis omnibus habitatoribus de non criminalibus peccatis penitentie
iniunctionem. Addo etiam ut ex ipsis criminalibus peccatis quandocunque in prefatis
ecclesiis domibus terris audiri contigerint ab archidiacono Baiocensi, abbas vel prior
predicti cenobii, non ipse super quo crimen auditum fuerit, moneatur et ibidem ab
utroque disposito termino congruo ac prefixo die conveniant monachus et archidia-
conus et in ipsa parrochia in qua crimen auditum fuerit predictis presentibus in-
quiratiir, inquisito discutiatur, et discusso, si inde iudicium portandum prodierit
vel cognitio peccati potuerit, Baiocensis ecclesia ut decet requiratur vel causa
examinationis vel gratia consequende reconciliationis.' Cf. the similar charter of
Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances (in charter of Archbishop William, copied in Archives
of the Calvados, H. 1825) : ' De his autem omnibus supradictis si placitum contin-
gat, in curia abbatis Cadomi agatur et forisfacturam si contingat abbas habebit.
Si iudicium inde portandiun prodierit, ad Hulmum ut constitutum est requiratur,
vidente archidiacono, et penitentia detur.' Early in the twelfth century Abbot
Eudo ' separavit Robertum Blundum ab uxore sua coram Osberto archidiacono,
qui fuit ibi in loco episcopi Ricardi filii comitis,' bishop of Bayeux (Deville, Analyse,
P- 32)-
"' See the charters quoted in the preceding note, and the arrangement between
the archbishop of Rouen and Bee, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 17. There is a curious
account of the holding of an ordeal at Bayeux before archdeacons, by order of the
duke's court, in Archaeologia, xxvii. 26. William's ordinance separating the tempo-
ral and spiritual courts in England likewise reserves the ordeal for the cathedral.
"« Bessin, Concilia, i. 76; Lot, S.-Wondrille, no. 39 (cf. no. 40).
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 35
imposition of sentence in other cases."' It appears from other
documents that matrimonial matters were an important part of
the work of the courts Christian."*
The duke's assertion of authority over church courts and his
interference, at the council of LiUebonne, in the enforcement of
sacerdotal ceUbacy "' are only one phase of an ecclesiastical
"' ' Cogebantur enim venire Abrmcas ad respondendum de quacunque accusa-
tione contra christianitatem, nee excusare poterat eos mare insurgens nee Britonum
insidiequiapreveniri ac provideri poterant, etita sepe in forifacta et emendationes
episcopales incidebant et sepe iuramentis fatigabantur. . . Episcopus vero pre-
fatus, ut erat animo et genere nobilis, petitioni abbatis annuit et archidiaconum
suum in Monte eum fecit, ita tamen ut quod bene non faceret vel nou posset epis-
copus corrigeret Abrincis et ecclesiastico iuditio terminaret. De coniugiis autem
iUicitis si qui legales testes procederent, apud episcopum audirentur et per sacra-
mentum ipsorum lege dissolveretur quod contra legem presumptum erat. De
criminalibus culpis venirent ad iuditium et sententiam episcopi confessi vel con-
victi coram suo archidiacono, excommunicati ab episcopo ad eius satisfactionem et
absolutionem venirent. Iuditium f erri igniti et aque ferventis Abrincis portaretur.'
MS. Lat. 14832, f. 183V; Migne, cxlvii. 265; Pigeon, Le diocise d'Avranches, ii. 658^
It should be noted that Richard II's charter had granted to the abbot all ducal and
episcopal consuetudines in the Mount, including ' omnes leges omnesque forisfactu-
ras clericorum ac laicorum virorum ac muherum eiusdem biurgi ' in terms which
suggest a later interpolation (Cartulary, f. 2iv; Neustria Pia, p. 378; MabUlon,
Annates, iv. 651. Cf. the description of these liberties in the Roman du Mont-
Saint-Michel, lines 2406 ff.). On the other hand, the statement of the rights of the
bishop of Avranches over the abbeys of his diocese, preserved in a MS. of the twelfth
century in the Vatican (MS. Regina 946, f . 73V) states the matter from the bishop's
point of view: ' Salva est autem episcopo Abrincensi in predicta abbatia in omnibus
canonica iusticia.' See Appendix K.
The agreement of 1061 is of possible interest in relation to the use of sjoiodal
witnesses in Normandy; see Chapter VI, note iig.
"' See the case from Caen cited in note 134, supra; Barret, Cartidaire de Mar-
moutier pour le Perche, no. 18 (109 2-1 100) ; and the notice of the grant by the mcomtes
to Saint-Sauveur of freedom ' ab omnibus pladtis et querelas, videlicet de trevia, de
adulteriis, et de omnibus aliis rebus que pertinent ad christianitatem, ita ut mo-
nachi habeant placita in curia sua onmemque emendacionem ' (Delisle, S.Sauveur,
pieces, no. 46) . The penance imposed by the bishop of S^ez upon the slayer of three
pilgrims to Mont-Saint-Michel illustrates another phase of the bishop's jurisdic-
tion: Lanfranc, Epistolae, no. 9 (Migne, cl. 517). Cf. an agreement of 1084 be-
tween the count of Anjou and the bishop of Angers: L. Halphen, L'Anjou au XI'
siicle, p. 314, no. 242.
^^ H. Bohmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie (Leipzig, 1899),
p. 127 f. On p. 36, note 2, he questions the authenticity, in its present form, of the
canon of LiUebonne (c. 3) which deals with this subject. The last sentence is some-
what perplexing, but it appears in the text as confirmed by Henry I (Teulet, Lay-
ettes, i, no. 22) and may perhaps mean that the judgment of parishioners and the
36 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
supremacy to which the eleventh century affords no parallel.""
A familiar passage of Eadmer >^' assigns a Norman origin to the
customs which the Conqueror established with respect to church
matters in England — control over coimcils and appointments,
necessity of the king's approval for the excommimication of his
barons and for the reception of letters or legates from Rome —
and there is little to add to what is already known concerning his
policy in these respects in Normandy."^ WiUiam was regularly
present at the meetings of church councils, and their decrees were
issued with his sanction. He not only appointed the bishops and
abbots, like the stronger princes of his time, but was able on occa-
sion to secure their deposition. The monasteries were under the
special protection of the duke, and this was so effective as to leave
little room in Normandy for the avoues who play so large a part in
monastic and feudal history elsewhere."' No bishop succeeded in
getting permanent possession of a county or even in acquiring the
full rights of a count in his episcopal city, where the presence of
the vicomte was a constant reminder of the duke's authority and
might, as at Rouen in 1073, even serve to protect the prelate in
time of disturbance."* If we may judge by the case of the see of
penalty prescribed in the preceding clause had been forced by the king upon the
unwilling bishops.
"" "Das landesherrUche Kirchenregiment war hier mithin viel starker entwickelt,
als in den anderen Staaten des Kontinents: " Bohmer, p. 33. The absence of such
control over the bishops was a constant source of weakness to Normandy's powerful
neighbor, the count of Flanders: Lot, 6tndes sur le regne de Hugues Capet, p. 219.
'" Eisioria Novorum, p. 9; Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 520.
1^ Bohmer's discussion is the best. The council of Lisieux of 1064, discovered
and published by Delisle {Journal des savants, 1901, p. 516), should be added to his
list of councils. On the appointment of bishops see also Imbart de la Tour, Les
elections ipiscopales dans I'iglisfi de France (Paris, 1891), pp. 247, 273, 291-294, 455.
"' Brussel, Usage des fiefs, ii. 810; F. Senn, L'institution des avoueries ecd6sias-
iiques en France (Paris, 1903), p. 95 ff.; both of whom insist too absolutely upon the
exclusion of the avouS from early Normandy. See Valin, pp. 85-88; and Sauvage,
Troarn, p. 61. The absence of the vidame is also noteworthy: Senn, L'institu-
tion des vidamies p. 98 f. See, however, below, p. 167.
i« Gallia Christiana, xi. 34; on the date see Vacandard, Revue catholique, iii. 118
(1893). Geoffrey de Montbray had no land in Coutances when he became bishop,
and was obliged to purchase what he needed from the duke: Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 219. The bishop of Lisieux had greater freedom: Stapleton, i, p. cbdx;
H. de Formeville, Histoire de I'ancien ivtchi-comti de Lisieux (Lisieux, 1873), PP-
dxlvii, 315.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 37
Bayeux, "' the bishops lost rather than gained by the anarchy of
the Conqueror's successor, and when bishops appear taking an
important part in secular affairs in the twelfth century, it is as the
agents and justices of the duke and not as his rivals.
One function of the Norman ecclesiastical courts found no
occasion for its exercise in England,"^ namely their enforcement
of the Truce of God. Introduced into Normandy in its Flemish
form early in the Conqueror's reign,"' the Truce was reaffirmed
by councils of 1064 and 1080 and elaborated at the coimcil of
Rouen in 1096. The original penalties were ecclesiastical and their
imposition was the duty of the bishop and his deputies: before
1067 the bishop of Evreux is trying to punish monks for its infrac-
tion;"* under Henry I the bishop's claim to his fine is clearly
recognized; "' and as late as 1233 the bishop of Avranches and his
rural deans assert their immemorial right to hold placita treuge}^"
The duke, however, has likewise an interest in maintaining so
important an adjunct to pubhc order: the council of LiUebonne
provides that the lord of the land shall aid the bishop in coercing
recalcitrant offenders, and, failing his aid, the vicomte of the duke
shall take the matter into his hands; while by 1135 the ptmish-
ment of serious violations has become the function of the ducal
"^ Livre noir, pp. xli, xlii.
"' On the absence of the Truce of God m England, see F. Liebermann, Ueber die
Leges Edwardi Confessoris, p. 59 ff.; Pollock and Maitland, i. 75 f. Their conclu-
sions do not seem to me invaUdated by what Powicke says on the subject {Loss of
Normandy, p. 94), although his general views on the Norman phase of the question
appear sound. Cf. Liebermann, Gesetze, ii. 687 f.
"' Bessin, Concilia, i. 39; Mansi, xix. 597; cf. Gallia Christiana, sd. instr. 202;
Acta Sanctorum, August, iv. 834; Analecta Bollandiana, xxii. 438; M. G. H., Scrip-
tores, viii. 403. On the date of the council, which is not later than 1047 and is prob-
ably of 1042 or 1043, see Tardif, Siude, p. 29 f., where the paraUeUsm with the
Flemish form of the text is overlooked. The latest edition of the Norman ordinance,
that of the M. G. H., Constitutiones et Acta Publica, i. 600, does not pay sufficient
attention to Norman MSS., such as MS. Rouen 1383, f. 9, a MS. of the eleventh
century from JumiSges, or MS. Lat. 1928, f. 173V (used by Bessin). The provisions
of the various councils are analyzed by Tardif, p. 30 ff.
"' Migne, cxliii. 1387. '
"9 Tres Anciln Coutumier, c. 71; Round, no. 290. Cf. Delisle, in B. £. C, xiii.
102.
"° L. Auvray, Registres de GrSgoire IX, no. 1308; Collection Moreau, mclxxxviii.
68.
38 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
court, and the bishop's interest is merely pecuniary."" "As it
appears in the first part of the Tres Ancien Coutumier, the Truce
of God has ahnost become the peace of the duke." "^^
While, however, the ducal authority welcomed such aid in the
diflftcult task of maintaining order, it did not owe its supremacy
to an ecclesiastical principle imported from without; Normandy
was not one of the coimtries where the Landfrieden sprang from
the Gottesfrieden. In the reign of Robert I we see the duke's mes-
senger separating combatants and putting them imder oath to
abide by the decision of his court,"' while their repression of dis-
order and their rigorous administration of justice are the constant
refrain of Dudo's eulogies of the first three dukes."" From the
Conqueror's reign we have his law limiting the blood feud in
1075,"^ and the numerous restrictions upon private war formu-
lated in the Consuetudines et iusticie.^^ According to these no one
was allowed to go out to seek his enemy with hauberk and stand-
ard and soimding horn. Assaults and ambushes were not per-
mitted in the duke's forests, nor could a Joust be made an occasion
for an ambuscade. Captives were not to be taken in a feud, nor
could arms, horses, or property be carried off from a combat.
Burning, plimder, and waste were forbidden in pursuing claims to
land, and, except for open crimes, no one could be condemned to
loss of limb save by judgment of the proper ducal or baronial
court. Moreover castles and strongholds could be built only by
the duke's Hcense and were required to be handed over to him on
demand, and he could also exact hostages as a guarantee of a
baron's loyalty."" Coinage was his,"^ and everything relating
"1 Supra, note 149. "2 Tardif, p. 49.
ii>3 Vita Herluini, in Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vi. 2, p. 348.
'" Ed. Lair, pp. 171, 183, 196, 200 f., 205, 245, 248, 255, 259, 261-264, 266, 268 f.,
272, 280, 290-293. On the nature of their legislation against disorder see Tardif,
&tude, pp. 14-21.
156 Duchesne, p. 1018; see below, Appendix D, note 9. Cf. the restrictions upon
private war in the case of clerks, council of Lisieux, 1064, cc. s, 7 {Journal des
savants, 1901, p. 517). On the Conqueror's early legislation see Tardif, £tude,
p. 31 f. "« Appendix D.
"' Respecting the Conqueror's control over castles compare William of JumiSges
(bk. vii, c. I, ed. Marx, p. 115 f.) on the beginning of his reign with Ordericus (iii.
262) on conditions after his death, "' Appendix D, p. 280.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 39
thereto. There was, we have already seen, a well developed ducal
jurisdiction, and the maintenance of the duke's judicial suprem-
acy was only one form of the persistent assertion of his ultimate
authority over his barons. The extermination of disorder and vio-
lence was doubtless less complete than the Conqueror's panegyrists
would have us believe,i^' but the peace of the duke was already a
fact as well as a theory.
An authority such as the Conqueror wielded in church and state
required a considerable income for its maintenance, and while
there are no fiscal records for Normandy earlier than 1180, it is
possible to trace back to William's time most of the sources of
revenue which appear in detail in the Exchequer Rolls a century
later.i™ The duke had his domains and forests, scattered through-
out the duchy and sometimes of considerable extent, which might
yield a money rent as well as a great variety of payments in kind.
He had his mills, such as the eight ' fiscal mills ' on the Eau de
Robec at Rouen, his salt-pans, his fishing-rights at certain points
on the rivers and on the coast, and his monopoly of the taking of
whales and other ' great fish.' Wreck and treasure-trove were his,
as well as the profits of coinage.'" He had large possessions in
certain towns — he could sell half of Coutances to its bishop '^^ —
in addition to tolls, rights over markets and fairs, and other urban
consuetiidines}^^ Bernagium for his himting dogs was a burden on
159 William of Poitiers, ed. Duchesne, p. 193 (Migne, cxlix. 1240); Ordericus,
ii. 177; Wace, ed. Andresen, lines 5348-5352.
ISO See the classical study of Delisle, Des revenus publics en Normandie au dou-
zUme siecle, in B. t,. C, x. 173-210, 257-289, xi. 400-451, xiii. 97-135. On the
domain of the early dukes, see Prentout, Etude sur Dudon, p. 265.
1^' On the ducal rights over coinage, see Appendix D.
162 Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 219.
"' E. g., in a charter of 1068 for Troam, ' in Falesia totam terram Wesman et
consuetudines eius ad regem pertinentes ': Sauvage, Troam, p. 350. The follow-
ing, relating to Bayeux, is more specific: ' Et ille bene sdt domos infra civitatem et
terram extra civitatem positam semper fuisse quietas ab omni consuetudine
Normannorum principis, scilicet theloneo, gildo, molta molendinorum, et custodia
vigilianim, et dominus predicte terre si faceret adducere vinum suum de Argencis
asset quietus suum carragium apud Cadomum et apud Baiocas ' {Archaeologia,
xxvii. 27). For Caen see H. Legras, Le bourgage de Caen (Paris, 1911), pp. 39-42,
52, 74 fi-
40 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
the land,"* as was also an exaction called gravaria}^^ The fines
and forfeitures of justice and the receipts from feudal dues were
naturally important.
How the revenues of the Norman dukes were collected and ad-
mraistered is a question of great interest, particularly to the stu-
dent of English institutions. Since the days of the Dialogue on the
Exchequer "^ there have not been wanting those who have main-
tained that the English Exchequer was organized on the model of
an earlier Norman institution; and while recent investigations
have traced portions of the Exchequer system back to Anglo-
Saxon times "' and have suggested that an elaborate fiscal system
is more likely to have grown out of the collection of a heavy tax
like Danegeld than out of the more ordinary and miscellaneous
set of revenues which we have just enxunerated,"' the possi-
bility of Norman influence upon the Enghsh Exchequer has by no
means been eliminated from the discussion. The Norman evi-
dence, it is true, is of the most meager sort,'*' the absence of any-
thing like the Domesday survey being the greatest gap; but the
argument from silence is especially dangerous where the destruc-
tion of records has been so great as in Normandy, and it is well to
bear in mind that, save for the accident which has preserved a
single Pipe Roll of Henry I, the existence of the English Excheq-
uer is barely known before Henry II. A ducal treasury appears in
Normandy as early as Richard II, who gives a himdred pounds
from his camera to redeem lands of Saint-Benigne of Dijon,"" and
'" Infra, Appendix D, p. 279; Round, Calendar, no. 2; Monasticon, vii. 1074;
Liber Alius of Le Mans, no. i; charter of William I for Saint-fitienne, Archives of
the Calvados, H. 1830, 2-2 (' quietum ab omni gravaria et bemagio '); charter of
William Rufus for Bee, Davis, Regesta, no. 425 {infra, p. 82).
165 DuCange, Glossarium, under ' gravaria '; Stapleton, i, pp. Ixxxvii, xcvii,
cxxviii, clxxxi; P. de Farcy, Abbayes de I'evichS de Bayeux, Cerisy, p. 81 f. (before
1066); Roimd, Calendar, nos. 117, 1175; B. &. C, xiii. 120-122.
"* Bk. i, c. 4, ed. Hughes, Crump, and Johnson, p. 66.
!«' See especially Round, Commune of London, p. 62 ff.; and R. L. Poole, The
Exchequer in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1912), chs. 2, 3.
"' Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 140.
"° The name exchequer appears in Normandy in a document of ca. 1130:
Round, E. H. R., xiv. 426; infra. Chapter III, note 18. An exchequer roll of 1136
was cited in the eighteenth century, M. A. N., xvi, p. xxx. See below, p. 175.
i'» ' Tactus pater meus divina inspiratione dedit de camera sua predicto Attoni
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 4 1
grants to Fecamp permanently the tithe of his camera."^ The
latter grant, which has come down in the original, is particularly-
interesting, for the duke goes on to define the camera as compris-
ing everything given to him " by reason of the service of any-
thing, whether lands purchased or fines or gifts or any sort of
transaction " — in other words, any extraordinary or occasional
addition to his treasure.^'^ The profits of coinage are separately
reckoned, and the fiscalis census and " what are anciently called
customs " are expressly excluded. It would be rash to attempt to
define too closely the content of the census and the customs, but
the census must at least have covered the returns from the
demesne and forests, and the customs would naturally include
the profits of tolls and markets and justice — altogether much the
sort of thing which was later comprised within the farm of the
vicomte or prevote. The duke plainly knows the difference between
his ordinary and his extraordinary sources of income. So a cen-
tury and a half later we find that returns from the mint and re-
ceipts of the camera are separately accoimted for; the Exchequer
Rolls record only the revenues gathered by the local ofl&cers.
Can we discover in the eleventh century any indication of sys-
tem in the collection of these fixed sources of revenue ? We may
dismiss at the outset, as the report of a later age, Wace's picture
of Richard II shut up in a towef with his vicomtes and prevdts and
centum libras nummorum.' Charter of Robert I, MS. 1656 of the Bibliotheque
Sainte-Genevieve at Paris, p. 46; printed, inaccurately, in Deville, Analyse, p. 34.
Cf. Appendix C, no. 4.
'" ' Concedo jtiam decimas monetg nostrae ex integro et decimas nostrg camerg,
videlicet de omnibus qugcumque michi alicuius rei servitio dabuntur, videlicet aut
emptarum terrarum aut emendarum aut cuiuslibetcumque negotii sive dono
muneris gratis dati excepto fiscali censu et exceptis his quae costumas antiquitus
dicunt. Do et decimas telonei de burgo qui dicitur Cadumus.' Charter of 1027 for
F6camp, Mus6e de la Benedictine, no. 2 ter; Neustria Pia, p. 217; infra, Appendix
B, no. 5. The grant of the toll of Caen shows that tolls are not included in the
receipts of the camera. Cf . the grant by Robert I of ' decimam denariorum suorum '
to the canons of Rouen: Le Provost, Eure, ii. 520.
•" So when Nigel grants Ceaux to Mont-Saint-Michel a pajfment is made to
William I's camera: ' Pro cuius rei concessu dedit prefato GuiUelmo centum et 1*"
libras quas accepit Radulfiis camerarius' (MS. Avranches 210, f. 107); c£. the
cubicularii who are ordered to make a payment from Robert's treasury (William of
Jumifeges, ed. Marx, p. 107) ; and the ministri camere sue who draw up the descrip-
tion of William's treasure in 1087 {De obitu Willelmi, ibid., p, 146).
42 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
going over their accounts; "' but it is nevertheless possible, by
working back from documents of the twelfth century, to reach cer-
tain conclusions with respect to the fiscal system of the Con-
queror's reign. In the first place it is clear that the farm of the
vicomte existed under William I, for we know from a charter of
Henry I that certain fiaced items in the later roUs, to wit twelve
pounds in the farm and twenty shillings in the toll of Argentan
and sixty shillings and tenpence in the toll of Exmes, had been
settled as alms to the canons of Seez by grant of his father and
mother."* Permanent charges of this sort, either in the form of
tithes or of definite amounts, are frequently recorded against the
farms in the Norman rolls of the twelfth century, as in the English
Pipe RoUs of the same period, but whereas in the English rolls
such fixed ahns are of recent creation, ia Normandy they can often
be traced back into the eleventh century. Thus Saint-Wandrille
produced charters of Richard II to secure its title to the tithes of
the toll of Falaise, Exmes, Argentan,"^ and the Hiesmois, of the
mcomtes and tolls of Dieppe and Arques, and of the fair of Caen."*
By grant of the same prince Fecamp received the tithe of the toll
of Caen,'" ajid Jumieges the tithes of the privates of Bayeux and
"' Ed. Andresen, lines 2009-2012. The early form of the passage (William of
Jumieges, ed. Marx, p. 89) speaks merely of ' quarumdam rerum publicarum totius
Neustrie . . . generale placitum.' Cf. E. H. R., xxxi. 151.
1" ' Preterea duodecim libras in firma nostra de Argentomo et viginti et mium
solidos in teloneo eitisdem ville et sexaginta solidos et decern denarios de tdoneo
meo de Oximis, que dederunt pater meus et mater mea ecclesie Sagiensi ad victmn
canonicorum duorum, quod antiquitus in elemosinam statutum fuerat: ' MS.
Alenjon 177, f. 98; MS. Lat. 11058, f. 8. See the charter in full in Appendix F,
no. 11; andd. infra, Chapter III. These items are duly charged in the rolls of 1180
and 1184: Stapleton, i, pp. Ixxxviii, xcvi, cxxxii, 39, 50, 103; Delisle, Henri II, p.
334-
'"■ In the later rolls this has become a fixed rent of 15 pounds: M. A. N., xvi,
p. xii; Delisle, Henri II, p. 334.
i'6 See the charges in Stapleton, i, pp. xcvi, ci, cviii, cxxiii, cxxxii, 39, 30, 57, 68,
90, 103; and the charters in Lot, S.-WandrUle, no. 11 ABCD, who shows their late
origin (pp. Ixxxii f., xcvi f .). Note, however, the grant of the tithe of the markets
of the Hiesmois by Robert I in no. 14.
"' See above, note 171; Stapleton, i, pp. xxiv, c, 56. Saint-Taurin, later a de-
pendency of Fficamp, received from Richard I the tithe of the vicomti of fivreux,
but this passed out of the duke's hands and does not appear in the rolls: ' Little
Cartulary," fE. 57, iisv; Bonnin, Cartidaire de Louviers, i. i; Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 138; Martina and Durand, Thesaurus Anecdotorum, i. 154. The tithe of
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 43
the Bessin.i" The abbey of Cerisy received its tithes, as granted
by Robert I and confimied by the Conqueror in 1042, from the
vicomtes of the Cotentin, Coutances, and Gavray, and from a
number of the ducal forests."' By authority of William I the nuns
of Saint-Amand had the tithe of Barfleur, of Saint- James, and of
the modiatio of Rouen ; 1*" those of La Trinite had two-thirds of the
tithe of the prevdie of Caen; the bishop of Coutances had the tithe
of the toU of Cherbourg, and the canons of Cherbourg the tithe of
the ducal mills in Guernsey.'*' Specific grants make their appear-
ance in the same reign: besides the above mentioned grant to
Seez William gives, before 1066, to the nims of MontiviUiers a
hundred shillings in the prevdte of Caen.'*^ In none of these cases
does the original grant use the word farm, although the duke's
revenues at Barfleur and in the vicomtes of the Cotentin, Cou-
tances, and Gavray are expressly stated to be in money, but it is
altogether likely in view of the charter to Seez that the vicomtes
and prevStes were farmed in the Conqueror's time. This was
almost certainly true in the case of Avranches, from whose farm
of £80 twenty were regularly credited at the Exchequer on ac-
count of the ducal manor of Vains and its appurtenances, which
had been granted by the Conqueror to Saint-Etienne. If the
farm had been established after the date of this grant, it would
have been stated net, instead of recording to no purpose the
deduction for what was no longer a source of ducal income, so
Avranches, granted to the cathedral by Robert I (Pigeon, Le diocese d' Avranches,
ii. 667), does not appear in the rolls, for similar reasons.
"' NeustriaPia,p. 323; Monasticon, ini. loSy; Delisle-Berger, no.527; Staple-
ton, i. 7, 40; Vernier, i. 40, ii. 23.
"' Netisiria Pia, p. 432; Monasticon, vii. 1073; Farcy, Abbayes de V&vichS de
Bayeux, pj 78; Appendix C, no. 3.
"" Monasticon, vii. iioi; Stapleton, i. 37, 40.
"1 Stapleton, i, pp. c, 56, kxxiii, 30, kxvii, 27. The tithe of Moulins {ibid., pp.
cxxxiv, 105) also went back to a grant approved by William before 1066: Cartulaire
de S.-Pere de Chartres, i. 146.
»8« Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 328; Stapleton, i. pp. c, 56. The Conqueror also
assigned against this prtiSti twelve prebends for his hospital at Caen, and similar
charges were made against the prevSti of Bayeux: Stapleton, i, pp. bd, ci; cf.
Henry II's charter for the lepers of Bayeux, Delisle-Berger, no. 689.
The duke's ofiScers also pay tithes and fixed charges granted by his barons on
toUs which have subsequently come into his hands. B.£.C.,x. 178, 196; Stapleton,
i, pp. bdv, cxviii, 8, 14, 17, 82. Cf . Diaiogus de Scaccario, bk. ii, c. 10.
44 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
that we must infer the existence of this farm under the Con-
queror.i*' In any event, in order to make grants of tithes of fixed
amounts, the duke must have been in the habit of dealing with
these local areas as fiscal wholes and not as mere aggregates of
scattered sources of income; the uliit was the vicomte or pr^dti,
and not the individual domain. He can tithe the revenue from
such a district as he can tithe the receipts of his camera. One
other point of interest deserves to be mentioned in connection
with these entries of fixed alms, the fact, namely, that wherever
the matter can be tested, the various fixed charges are entered
under each account in chronological order.i^^ This cannot be
mere chance, nor is it likely that a later exchequer oflicial would
have sufl&cient historical interest to rearrange them chronologi-
cally; it is much more probable that when each grant was made it
was entered, probably on a central record similar to the later
exactory roll. If this is the correct explanation, it follows that
where the list begins with the grants of Richard II and continues
with those of William, i*^ the entries were made as early as the
Conqueror's time. There would be nothing surprising in the exist-
ence of a record of amoimts due and allowances to be made; such
a roll is the natural part of the system of farms and fixed alms
which we have fotmd under the Conqueror, if not of the state of
affairs existing under Richard 11.^^
Whatever weight may be attached to these inferences, it would
seem clear that in the matter of fiscal organization Normandy
was well in advance of neighboring lands such as the county of
Anjou or the royal domain.^*^ The Capetian charters of the
^^ See the inquest of 1171 in Delisle, Benri II, p. 343; and my observations in
E. H. R., xxvi. 327. For the grant of Vains as confirmed by Robert II, see infra,
Appendix E, no. i.
's* Stapleton, i. 7, 30, 38, 39, 50, 56, 68, 70, 90, 97, 103, in; M.A. N., xvi. 109.
'*' E. g., Stapleton, i. 39, 56.
"* Compare the early development of a fiscal system in Flanders: H. Pirenne,
Histoire de Belgique, i. 109.
'" A comparative study of fiscal arrangements in the eleventh century is much
needed. The charters of the Angevin counts are listed by L. Halphen, Le comtS
d'Anjou au XI' sUcle (Paris, 1906); those of Robert I and Henry I by C. Pfister,
&tudes sur k rigne de Robert le Pieux (Paris, 1885), and F. Soehn6e, Catalogue des
actes d'Henri I" (Paris, 1907). The charters of Philip I are now accessible in the
admirable edition of Maurice Prou, Recueil des actes de Philippe I" (Paris, 1908).
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 45
eleventh century, for example, indicate fairly primitive economic
conditions. The kings are liberal in granting lands and exemp-
tions and rights of exploitation, but fixed grants of money are rare
and small in amount, and are nearly always charged against an
individual domain or a specific source of revenue rather than, as in
Normandy, against the receipts from a considerable district. '*»
Whereas the Conqueror's grants give evidence of a considerable
money income, the ruder economy, or Naturalwirthschaft, of the
Capetian kings is shown by the prevalence, well into the twelfth
century, of fixed charges which are paid m kind — the tithe of the
royal cellars and granaries at Auvers and Poissy,'*' two sellers of
salt in the granaries of Perche, fourteen muids of grain in the mills
of Bourges, or twenty muids of wine from the vineyards of Vorges
and Joui."" It is thoroughly characteristic of the condition of
eleventh-century Normandy that the dukes should be sparing in
conferring extensive franchises and rights of exploitation, while
they were generous in permanent grants of money from the
income which their own officers collected.
In local government the distinctive feature of the Norman sys-
tem is the presence of a set of officers who are public officials,
rather than mere domanial agents, and are in charge of adminis-
trative districts of considerable extent. As has been anticipated
in the account of Norman finance, the chief local officer of the
188 The nearest paralleb to the Norman grants among the grants of the Capetian
kings are the gift by Robert I to the church of fitampes of ten sous of ' census de
fisco regali Stampensi ' {H. F., xi. 579; Soehn6e, no. 73), an<J the grant by Henry I
to Saint-Magloire of the tithe of the port of Montreuil, where however the tithe of
the money had already been granted to another monastery and the tithe of beer
to a third: Tax&i, Monuments historiques, no. 262; Soehnde, no. 33.
189 Prou, Philippe I, no. 63; A. Luchaire, Louis VI (Paris, 1890), no. 350.
"0 Cartulaire de Nogent-le-Rotrou, no. 117; Luchaire, Louis VI, nos. 224, 621;
d. nos. SS7, 628, 630. The Norman grants of wine from the modiatio of Rouen are
different, being from the proceeds of a toll (levied on every hundred modii) instead
of from an ordinary storehouse or vineyard. See particularly the Conqueror's
charter (before 1055) giving Saint-Amand ' decimam mee modiationis de Rotho-
mago' (ii«ijj»M J in Archives of the Seine-Inf^rieure); apdcf. £. ^. C, xi. 424; Beau-
r^aire, La VicomU de I'Eau de Rouen (Rouen, 1856), p. 19. For an early Norman
grant in produce, later paid in money, see the gift of Richard II in Le Prdvost,
Ewe, ii, 413; or Stapleton, i, p. cxzxvii.
46 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
eleventh century was the vicomte, and the principal local division
the vicomUP^ The older Prankish areas, pagus,^^^ centena,^^^ and
vicaria,^^^ have not wholly disappeared, and in some cases the
vicaria may have become the vicecomitatus,^^^ but the vicomte is a
far more important personage than the voyer of neighboring
lands,"* and the territory which he rules is considerably larger.
Whether the Norman vicecomes contributed anything more than
his name to the Anglo-Norman sheriff, is a question to which no
satisfactory answer can be given until we know more of the func-
tions of both officials.^'' The vicomte is a military leader, com-
manding the duke's troops and guarding his castles; "* he is
charged with the maintenance of order, and may proclaim the
duke's ban; ''' he collects the ducal revenues for his district, iu-
cludiag the customary dues from the demesne; '""' and he admin-
isters local justice in the duke's name,^" assisting the bishop in the
enforcement of the Truce of God ^"^ and doubtless exercising the
'" The prevalence of the vicomte as the local division appears from the council
of Lillebonne, c. i, as well as from the frequent mention of vicomtes in charters from
all parts of Normandy.
"* See particularly Le Prfivost, Anciennes divisions territoriaies de la Normandie,
in M. A. N., xi. 1-59, reprinted in his Eure, iii. 485-544. Cf. Powicke, Loss of
Normandy, p. 61 ff.
'" M. A. N., XXX. 668; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 158; cf. Valin, p. 97.
•" Stapleton, i, p. Ixxxi; ' extra vieriam Belismi,' charter of Robert of Bell£me,
Archives of the Ome, H. 2150; Denis, Charles de S.-Jtdien de Tours, no. 29.
'" E. Mayer, Deutsche und franzosische Verfassungsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1899),!.
357. Their equivalence is implied in Ordericus, ii. 470; and in a charter of the
vicomte of Mantes in 1117 (Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 57).
•" For Anjou see Halphen, Moyen Age, xv. 297-325.
"' Cf. Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 292, note. On the Anglo-Saxon sheriff
see now W. A. Morris, E. E. R., xxxi. 20-40 (1916).
''' Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pp. 2-3, and pi6ce 34, where N6el the elder holds the
castle of Le Honmie ' quia vicecomes erat eiusdem patrie.'
"' Gallia Christiana, xi. 34; Bessin, Concilia, i. 63 (1073).
Ml Delisle, S.-Sauveur, no. 35; Round, Calendar, nos. 1169, 1170.
'" See the account in Ordericus of the vicomte of Orbec (iii. 371) and particularly
the cases at Neaufle ' in curia Roberti Normannorum comitis . . . coram Guil-
lelmo Ciispino iUius terre vicecomite ' (Le Prfivost, Eure, ii. 506) and ' in curia regis
Anglorum apud castrum Nielfam ' (BibliothSque Nationale, MS. Baluze, 77, t. 61).
William Crispin is also mentioned as vicomte of the Vexin in Migne, Patrologia, cl.
737; and in MS. Tours 1381, f. 25V. See Por€e, Histoire du Bee, i. 178 ff.; J.
Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin (Cambridge, 1911), p. 13 ff.
"" Council of Lillebonne, c. i.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 47
jurisdiction comprised in the consuetiidines mcecomitatusP^ He is
a frequent attendant at the duke's curia, witnessing charters and
taking part in the decision of cases,^"^ and he may be specially-
commissioned to hold a sworn inquest ^"^ or execute the decision
of the court.""' The office might become hereditary, as in the
Bessin and the Cotentin,""' but the annual farm was still due and
the duke's control seems to have been maintained.^"* The evi-
dence is not sufficient to enable us to define the relations between
the vicecomitatus and the prepositura in the eleventh century, but
it seems probable that they were " from the first convertible
names for the same description of jurisdiction, however qualified
in extent," *"' in somewhat the same way as the offices of privdt
and voyer in contemporary Anjou.^^" The scattered prepositi who
appear in the charters ^" are plainly not men of importance, and,
as in the case of the thelonearii "'" and gravarii,^^^ the texts do not
always make it possible to distinguish ducal from baronial agents.
Beyond certain names of foresters,"* we get no light on the
forest administration, but it is evident that the ducal forests are
2<w See above, notes 99, 108, 113.
2" See below, note 280.
*'" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 65.
'"^ Archaeological Journal, iii. 6; Le Provost, Eure, iii. 184.
^'" Stapleton, i, p. Ivii; Lambert, Les anciens vicomtes de Bayeux, in Mlmoires de
la SocUtS d' Agriculture de Bayeux, viii, 233 ff.; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, ch. i; Valin,
p. 97; Chesnel, Le Coientin et I'Avranchin, pp. 1 14-134.
^'" Ordericus implies the removability of the local officials when he says of the
Conqueror, in 1067: ' Optimosque indices et rectores per provincias Neustrie con-
stituit ' (ii. 177).
209 Stapleton, i, p. bd; cf. B. £. C, xi. 402.
2111 Where the prlvSt is the more important of the two but exercises the same
functions as the voyer: Moyen Age, xv. 297 ff . For the Capetian pr^dt see Luchaire,
Institutions monarchiques, i. 209-212, 219-235; Fliche, Le rigne de Philippe I",
pp. 158-162.
™ Le Prfivost, Eure, i. 141, 460, ii. 393; Round, Calendar, no. 713; Cartulaire
de la Trinity de Rouen, nos. 24, 27, 42, 44, 51; Denis, Charles de S.-Julien, no. 29.
212 Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 66; Pommeraye, Histoire de S.-Amand, p. 79;
Cartulaire de la TrinitS, no. 16.
2" Cartulaire de la Triniti, nos. 16, 73, 80; Round, no. 1175; Revue catholique de
Normandie, vii. 432; Stapleton, i, p. clxxxi.
2" Round, nos. 1169, 1175; Cartulaire de la TrinitS, nos. 7, 28, 47, 49, 51, 64, 79;
Le Prfivost, £«re, i. 286, 562; Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 37; M. G. H., Scriptures,
viii. 401; Revue catholique de Normandie, x. 47.
48 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
already extensive and important, and are subject to the special
jurisdiction which goes back to the Prankish forest ban ^^^ and wiU
develop into the forest code of the Anglo-Norman kings. We hear
of pleas of the forest,^!* though we do not know by whom they
were held; such assaults as are lawful elsewhere are forbidden in
the forests,"" and for offenses against the forest law even priests
cannot claim their exemption.'"*
Of municipal institutions before 1066 the surviving evidence is
exceedingly scanty and imsatisfactory. ' The conspiracy which is
called a commune ' came no nearer Normandy than Le Mans,^'*
and the smaU beginnings of less independent forms of urban life
have left few traces indeed. The men of Rouen traded with Lon-
don as early as the reign of Ethelred II,""" and had their own
wharf at Dowgate imder Edward the Confessor; ''"' but we know
nothing of their form of government before the days of Henry II.
Caen is an important ducal town under Richard II, and in the
following half-century lurgi spring up in various parts of the
duchy ,"='" foreshadowing " the grand scheme of burghal coloniza-
tion initiated by the Conqueror's tenants-in-chief " in England.^'
"' Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, ii. 2, p. 316, iv. 128 ff.; Liebermann,
UeberPseudo-CnutsConstiiutionesdeForesta,pp. 17, 19; Th.iEaine,Forestis,mArcMv
fOr Urkundenforschung, ii. 114 ff. (1908); and the searching criticism of C. Petit-
Dutaillis, in B. 6. C, Ixxvi. 97-152 (1915). The view suggested in the text in 1909
has been established and more fully developed byPetit-Dutaillis,i«i origines franco-
normandes de la ' iartt ' anglaise, in Melanges Bimont (Paris, 1913), pp. 59-76;
cf. his translation of Stubbs, ii. 757-849; and Prou in Journal des savants, 1915,
pp. 24T-253, 310-320, 345-354-
"'' Charters of Robert and William for Cerisy, Neustria Pia, p. 431 f. The
count of Mortain also had forest courts: B. &. C, xi. 444.
^" Consuettidiries et iusticie, c. 7.
*'* Council of Lillebonne, c. 8.
^" Luchaire, Les communes fransaises {igii), pp. 225, 228 f., 252; R. Latouche,
Hisioire du comte du Maine pendant le X' et le XI' sUcle (Paris, 1910), pp. 88-95.
^'' Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 232.
'^' E. de Frfiville, Mimoire sur le commerce maritime de Rouen (Rouen, 1857),
i. 90, ii. 12; Round, Calendar, no. 109.
^* See in general G^nestal, La tenure en bourgage (Paris, 1900), especially p.
233 ff.; and for Caen, the excellent study of H. Legtas, Le bourgage de Caen (Paris,
1911), p. 39. Robert I is said to have granted at Caen 'unum burgarium ad
pontum': Appendix B, no. 10 (B). Cf. the ' burgarii Rotomagenses,' ca. 1040,
in Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. i&bis.
"" Bateson, E. H. R., xv. 74.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 49
Already Conneilles has its leges with such definiteness that they
can be granted to the new bourg of Auffai,^''* and the laws of
Breteuil, whatever they may have been at this period, were stiffen-
ing into form for their triimiphal progress through England to the
Welsh border and to Ireland.'^* The privileged area of a league
about a town or castle, the leugata or banletwa, of which we find
traces in Norman England,^^^ is also found in early Normandy.
Robert I grants this privilege at Argences: leuvam iuxta morem
patriae nostrae propter mercatum ipsius Tdllae.^'' Other early ex-
amples are at Cambremer,^^ Cond^,^^* Conches,^^'' and Lisieux.""
The league of Brionne is even said to have been measured out at
Tunbridge with the same rope.'''^
The organization of the ducal household can be sketched only
in provisional fashion until the whole body of contemporary
charters has been collected and their witnesses critically sifted.
In general the history of the Norman curia is parallel to that of
the contemporary Capetian establishment, in which the great
oflScers emerge during the reign of Henry I and become firmly
placed under Philip I.'''' Barely known under Richard II and
^* Ordericus, iii. 42.
^' Mary Bateson, The Laws of Breteuil, in E. H. R., xv-xvi. Her reconstruction
of the laws has been criticized by Hemmeon, Burgage Tenure in Mediaeval England
(Harvard Historical Studies, xx), pp. 166-172.
'''' Domesday, i. sh-g (Kent), 303b (York); charter for Battle Abbey, new
Rjrmer, i. 1, p. 4; cf . Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 281 ; Pollock and
Maitland, i. 583; C. Gross, Gild Merchant, ii. 30; Ramsey Chronicle, pp. 214, 224.
™' Appendix B, no. 10.
"' Livre noir, no. 21 (1036); cf. nos. 39, 43, 44.
"' Neustria Pia, p. 42s. ''" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 128.
^^ Ibid., p. 203; Neustria Pia, p. 385- For later examples see Delisle, ^ude sur
I' agriculture, p. 40 f.; Round, no. 124; Legras, Caen, p. 38.
2S2 Robert of Torigni in William of JumiSges, ed. Marx, p. 289. The leuca Brionie
is mentioned in the Conqueror's charter for Jumieges (Neustria Pia, p. 324; Vernier,
i. 99) and in a grant to Bee (Porfe, Eistoire du Bee, i. 647).
'^ See Luchaire, Institutions monarchigues, i. 160 ff.; and particularly the care-
ful lists in Prou, Actes de Philippe I, pp. cxxxvi-cli; and the discussion in A. Fliche,
Philippe I", pp. 1 1 2-1 20. The preeminence of the four chief officers is not so
clear in Normandy, but L. W. Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward (London,
1907), p. 6, tends to exaggerate the difference between the two courts. Valin,
pp. 141-151, does not treat this subject in any detail. Round, The King's Serjeants
(London, igii); is concerned almost wholly with the later period.
50 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Robert I,^'^ the principal officers of the Norman household are
already established in the early part of the Conqueror's reign, but
they are not yet clearly distinguished from lesser dignitaries of the
same title,^'^ and further study is needed to determine their suc-
cession, fimctions, and relative importance. Ralph of Tancar-
ville the chamberlain,^'* Gerald the seneschal,^" and Hugh of Ivry
the butler ^^^ are familiar figures at William's court; the constable,
'" ' Rotselinus camberarius,' in original of Richard 11 for Saint-Ouen, before
1024 {Musie des archives dlpartementales, no. 2 1) ; ' Roztelinus cubicularius,' Lot, 5.-
Wandrille, no. 12; ' Odo constabularius ' of Richard II, in charter for Jumi^ges in
Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure (Vernier, i. 40); ' Turoldus comitisse Gunnoiis
camerarius,' Cartulaire de la Trinity, no. 4. For the rare indications of household
officers under Robert I, see infra, Appendix C. The mcomtes are more prominent
than the household officers in the charters of these dukes, e. g., Le Pr6vost, Eure,
i. 285.
^" Cf. Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 373, note i ; and Schubert's study of the
imperial household, Mitteilungen des Instituts, xxxiv. 427-501 (1913).
'^^ Round, nos. 73, ig6, 711, 1165-1167; Le Provost, Eure, iii. 468; Denis,
ChartesdeS.-Julien, no. 24; Livre noir de Bayeux, nos. 1,5; Cartulaire de la Trinite,
nos. 7, 38, 39; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 60 f., 68 f., 72, 201, 328; A. Deville,
Essai historique sur S .-Georges-de-Bocherville (Rouen, 1827), p. 62 (' Radulfus
autem meus magister auleque et camere mee princeps ') ; cf . Lot, S.-Wandrille,
no. 14. He appears as late as 1079 according to the Cartulary of Jumieges, no. 22,
f. 22(cf. Vernier, i. 108), and the office passed to his descendants.
For other chamberlains see Davis, Regesta, pp. xxiv-xxvi; and the mention of
Corbuzzo (Cartulaire de la Trinite, no. 75); Robert (Round, no. 87; Gallia Chris-
tiana, xi. instr. 71); and William (jhid., 67, 71).
*" For the various seneschals of this period see Vernon Harcourt, pp. 7-21;
Davis, p. xxiii f.; neither of whom mentions Robert the seneschal, witness to the
foundation charter of Sigy before 1047 (original in Archives of the Seine-Infgrieure,
fonds Saint-Ouen; d'Achery, Spicilegium, iii. 400; Pommeraye, Histoire de S.-
Ouen, p. 460). Examples of two holders of the title in the same document are
Osbem and Ansfred in Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 13; William Fitz Osbem and Gerald
in cartulary of Saint-Ouen (286^), no. 338.
2'' Before 1066: Round, nos. 73, 81, 1167; charter for Jumieges, Vernier, no. 25;
Pommeraye, S.-Amand, pp. 77, 79; Le Prevost, EAtre, i. 149, 562; La Roque, iii.
26; Cartulaire de la Trinity, nos. 38, 39. For later instances, see Davis, p. xxvii;
Round, nos. 91, 93, 421; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 71 f., 329; Sauvage, Troarn,
p. 456; Collection Moreau, xxx. 190V (1071); Cartulaire de la Trinite, no. 47;
Archives of the Seine-Inf&ieure, G. 8739 (1075, issued by the Queen during Wil-
liam's absence in England). Roger of Ivry also was butler: Davis, I. c. Before
1066 we likewise find ' Giraldus pincema ' in a charter of Fficamp (Collection
Moreau, xxii. ro9v); ' Girardus comitis botellarius ' (Prfiaux cartulary, no. 438);
' Gerardus pincemarum magister comitis Willelmi ' {Gallia Christiana, xi. instr.
12; Cartulaire de S.-Pke de Chartres, i. 176).
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 5 1
though mentioned under Robert I, is apparently of less impor-
tance,^'' and the marshal is just traceable.^^" Of lesser men of the
palace the hostiarius is noteworthy.^^i The mention of the cham-
berlain in fiscal matters ^^^ indicates at least one of his functions;
whether the seneschalship of Osbem and his son William had any
connection with their titles of procurator principalis domus, comes
palatii, and magister militum, is an open question.^*' Whatever
the duties of the household officers, they do not seem to have had
any fixed place or order in the ducal charters, where they appear,
if at all, scattered among the other witnesses who sign these none
too regular documents.^**
The clerical element in the household naturally centered in the
duke's chapel, which was the point of departure for the develop-
ment of the secretarial and fiscal sides of the central administra-
tion; but while we have the names of several of William's early
chaplains,^*^ some of whom became bishops in Normandy or in
^" Under Robert I the office was held by Turold, under William by Hugh da
Montfort: infra, p. 275; Davis, p. xxvi.
^^ Davis, p. xxvi f.; Round, in Victoria History of Hampshire, i. 430. Ilbert
the Marshal (Cartzdaire de la Trinite, no. 2) may also have been a ducal officer.
^*i 'Rotgerius hostiarius ' before 1024 (Musee des archives departementales, no. 2 1) ;
' Turoldus hostiarius ' in 1053 (Cartulaire de la Triniti, no. 37) ; ' Theodericus hos-
tiarius' before 1060 (Pigeon, Le diocese d'Awanches, ii. 668) ; ' Rogerius hostiarius '
(Delisle, S.-Sauveur, no. 41).
"^ Supra, note 172.
"^ Vernon Harcourt, pp. ii-is, who, however, argues vainly against William's
having been seneschal. See below, note 289. To say, as this author says (p. 9),
that Osbem " was a mere household officer, procurator and dapifer, not an officer
of state," is to misunderstand the nature of the development.
^** See however a charter of 1066 in Cartulaire de la Trinite, no. 39, attested by
WilUam Fitz Osbem, Gerald the seneschal, Ralph the chamberlain, and Hugh the
butler. Cf. no. 38; Pommeraye, S.-Amand, p. 82; and Mabillon, Annates, v. 593
(1070). See also Round, no. 1167, printed in Bertrand de BroussUlon, La maison
de Laval (Paris, 1895), i. 35, a charter of 1055 which is somewhat suspicious.
2* Theobald, Baldwin (bishop of fivreux in 1066), and Herfast (chancellor after
1068) witness as chaplains an early charter in Round, Calendar, no. 1165; Delisle,
S.-Sauveur, no. 19. Other chaplains before 1066 are Robert {Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 327); Stephen (at Mont-Saint-Michel, in 1054, cartulary of Mont-Saint-
Michel, f. 65? cf. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 159); Gilbert Maminot, later bishop
of Lisieux (Ordericus, ii. 122); and the Bayeux group mentioned in the following
note. Isembert had been chaplain of Robert I before he became abbot of La
Trinitfi: William of JumiSges, ed. Marx, p. 108. For William's later years see
Davis, Regesta, pp. xviii-xxi; and the long list in no. 22 of his calendar (1068).
52 ■ NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
England, very little is known of their secular duties. Certain
churches seem to have been constituted chapelries for the chap-
lains' support,^** so that the office had some degree of continuity,
and the ducal clerks of these days show something of the skill in
acquiring desirable houses and lands which is characteristic of
their successors in the twelfth century.^^' If the Norman dukes
had a chancery, it was doubtless closely connected with the
chapel, so that the absence, save for two charters of Richard 11,''^'
of any mention of a chancellor before 1066 does not preclude the
existence of some sort of a chancery. Chancery and chapel were
not completely differentiated in Frankish days,^*' and at the court
of Philip I the chancellor sometimes attested simply as chap-
lain; ^"' while it should be remembered that the Conqueror's first
chancellor in England, Herfast, had long been his chaplain in
'*' ' Temporibus Ricardi comitis Normaimie et Rotberti.eius filii et Willdmi filii
predicti Rotberti fuit quidam eorum capellanus Baiocis Emaldus nomine, potens
in prediis et domibus infra civitatem et extra civitatem que emerat suo auro atque
suo argento. Quo mortuo tempore WUlelmi Normannorum duds Stephanus nepos
predicti Ernaldi iure hereditario successit in hereditatem sui avunculi dono WiUelmi
Normannorum ducis.' After Stephen's death and a smt in the king's court the
king ■ accepit in suum dominium possessionem Stephani et dedit earn regine, et
regina dedit michi concessu regis domes et duodecim acras terre que iam predixi et
ortos et omnia que habuerat Stephanus de suo alodio, nam alias res eiusdem Stephani
que pertinebant ad ecclesiam Sancti lohannis que erat capella regis dederat iam rex
Thome suo clerico nondum archiepiscopo.' Notice of Rainald the chaplain, MS.
Lat. n. a. 1243, f . 80; MS. Fr. 4899, p. 292; printed in Arckaeologia, xxvii. 26. This
capellaria was later held by Samson (Livre noir, no. 4), doubtless the royal chaplain
of that name who became bishop of Worcester in 1096. Both Samson and his
brother Thomas were canons and treasurers of Bayeux. For other possessions of
Rainald see Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 69, 328 f .; for his later history, Davis, p. xx,
and attestations in Collection Moreau, xxix. 89.
"' Cf. Round, Bernard the King's Scribe, E. H. R., xiv. 417-430.
'*' ' Hugo cancellarius scripsit et subscripsit ': charter for Fficamp, Musfie de la
Benedictine, no. 2 ter; Neustria Pia, p. 215; Appendix B, no. 5. ' Odo cancellarius
scripsit et subscripsit ': charter for Dudo of Saint-Quentin, Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 284; NowieoM traiU de diplomatique, iv. 225, v. 760. The charter of ion for
Saint-Ouen (Pommeraye, Histoire de S.-Ouen, p. 422) which contains the words
' Dudo capellanus composui et scripsi ' is an evident forgery; but an authentic
charter of 1006 for Fecamp (Mus6e, no. i ; Appendix B, no. 2) has ' ego Wide
notarius iussu domni Richardi illustrissimi ducis . . . hoc testamentum scrips!.'
'*' On the whole subject of the Frankish chapel see Liiders, Capella, in Archit
fUr Urkundenforschung, ii. i-ioo; Bresslau, Urkundenlehre^, i. 406 £F.
»"• Prou, Actes de Philippe I, p, Iv,
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 53
Nonnandy,'" where he is called chaplain as late as 1069, appar-
ently after his entrance upon the English chancellorship.''^^ On
the whole, however, under William as under his father, a chancery
seems to have been lacking in fact as well as in name before 1066.
Few of his charters bear a chaplain's, attestation, and only one
mentions its author, a certain * Frater Robertus ' who seems to
have been a monk of Saint-Wandrille.*^' Something remains to be
done in the palaeographical study of the few extant originals, but
in general there is no regularity of type, and local authorship is
indicated by the style of the duke's documents and by the fre-
quency with which he is content to aflSx his signature to the char-
ters of others.^'* There is no trace or mention of a ducal seal.^^^
After the Conquest, the existence of a chancery is well established,
and it seems plain that the English tradition, such as it was,"'
sH Davis, p. xvi.
'^ Round, no. 77, dated 1069, whereas, if we accept the authenticity of no. 22
in Davis, he is chancellor in 1068. So Osmund, chaplain in 1074 (Davis, no. 76),
may have borne the title of chancellor in the preceding year {ibid., no. 70). Davis,
p. xvii, seems to me too rigid in denying the impossibility of such an alternation of
title, which meets us two generations later under Geoffrey Plantagenet (infra,
Chapter IV, p. 137).
'^ ' Ego frater Rodbertusscripsietsubsctipsi': original in MS. Lat. 16738, no. 4;
Lot, S.-WandrUle, no. 20 (1037-1055). Cf. ' Robertus scriptor ' in a charter for
Saint-Amand (Pommeraye, Histoire de S.-Amand, p. 78) ; ' Rodbertus clericus ' in
an early charter for Jumifiges (Vernier, no. 20); 'Godbertus clericus' in Le Prfivost,
Emtc, i. 562 (1063).'
2" For a convincing illustration, see Lot, S.-Wandrille, nos. 30 and 31 (1051),
and the editor's notes. Another example, also an original, is in M. A. N., xxx. 670
(Round, no. nog). On the absence of clear evidence for a Norman chancery be-
fore the Conquest, see Stevenson, in E. H. R., xi. 733, note 5; and compare the
interesting observations of Pirenne on the documents of the counts of Flanders,
M&anges Julien Havet, pp. 733-748.
266 The mention of William's seal in the notice of the foundation of Cherbourg
{Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 229; Revue catholique, a. 47) must be taken with cau-
tion. In any case the date is long after 1035, the year indicated by Stevenson,
E. E. R., xxvii. 4, note, who remarks the absence of any Norman seals anterior to
1066 save the one of Richard II described by the authors of the Nouveau traits,
iv. 226.
^' For the external history of the Anglo-Saxon chancery, see Davis, pp. xi-
xv; for the conditions under which documents were drawn up, Hubert Hall,
Studies in English Official Historical Documents, p. 163 ff. See also Stevenson, in
E. H. R., xi. 731-744. The subject is far from being exhausted; one of the necessary
topics of investigation is the private charters of the period, studied region by region
and monastery by monastery,
54 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
strongly asserted itself. There is no reason for assuming more
than one such bureau for William's dominions, indeed the hy-
pothesis of a ' Norman chancery ' ^*' runs counter to all that we
know of the essentially personal relation of king and chancellor
at this time and for long thereafter; and writs fly in either direc-
tion across the Channel.^^ A regular succession of chancellors can
now be traced,^^' but their documents have yet to be subjected to
the close diplomatic examination which alone can determine the
influence of Anglo-Saxon precedents, the survival of local author-
ship, and the actual processes of the chancery. Until the more
abundant English evidence has been more adequately utilized,
Norman investigation must perforce wait.
Of the curia in the wider sense before 1066 it is likewise impos-'
sible to speak with the definiteness which it deserves as ajn ante-
cedent of the EngKsh curia regis. A comparison of the names of
the witnesses to William's charters does not show any great degree
of fixity in his entourage. The bishops, when present, sign after
the members of the ducal family. Then comes a smaU group of
counts and men of high rank — the coimts of fivreux and Mor-
tain, Roger of Beaumont, Roger of Montgomery, William Fitz
Osbem — followed by household officers, vicomtes, and others.^"
These are the elements which constitute the curia, but their func-
tion is attestation rather than assent, and, except for the few
cases where the charter is expressly declared to be issued in such a
gathering,^*^ it is impossible to say when the primates or proceres
26? Davis uses this ill-advised phrase, p. xviii f. Note the presence of the king's
chancellor Osmund af Bonneville in Davis, no. 70, and, still on the Continent, in
nos. 76 and 114.
^ ' Rex WiUelmus . . . mandavit de Normannia in Angliam episcopo Con-
stantiarum et R. de Oilli per breves suos ': Round, Feudal England, p. 157; cf.
Textus Rofensis, ed. Heame, p. 145. For an example o£ such a writ see Davis, no.
98. A letter from WilUam in England to Matilda in Normandy is assumed in
Delisle, S.-Sauveur, no. 35 (Round, no. 11 70), and one is printed in Revue catholigue,
X. 348 (Round, no. 117s; Davis, no. 161). The writ of summons is mentioned in
Normandy, ca. 1077: 'per me vel per brevem meum abbatem summoneam'
{Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 66; Davis, no. 105).
"" Davis, pp. xvi-xviii.
'" On the curia under Robert I see the analysis of the charters in Appendix C.
On resemblances to the Prankish conventus, Tardif, Stude sur les sources, i. 6.
'" Hariulf, ed. Lot, p. 185; MartSne and Durand, Thesaurus, i. 252; Ordericus,
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 55
have met as an assembly. Beyond the old custom of holding an
assembly at Fecamp at Eastertide,^^^ our knowledge of the duke's
itinerary is too fragmentary to show any such regularity in the
court's meetings as we find in England after the Conquest.^^' The
curia was brought together for purposes of counsel on matters
which ranged from a transfer of relics ^^^ to the invasion of Eng-
land,^^^ and for judicial business. As a judicial body the charters
reveal its activity chiefly in cases concerning a monastery's title
to land 2*^ — for the duke's protection naturally carried with it
access to his court — but it plainly has wider functions growing
out of the judicial supremacy of the duke. It may try barons for
high crimes.^" Disputes respecting the limits of ecclesiastical
and baronial jurisdiction must be brought before it,^^* and it is the
ii. 40. Cf . what Maitland has to say of the ' consent ' of the witan, Domesday Book
and Beyond, pp. 247-252.
262 WiUiam of Jumieges, ed. Marx, p. 340; Lot, Fideles ouvassaux?, p. 262. We
find an Easter court at Fecamp in 1032 (Ordericus, iii. 223) ; 1028 or 1034 (Appendix
B, no. 7); ca. 1056 (Round, no. 1109); 1066 (Le Prfivost, Eure, i. 149); 1067
(Duchesne, Scriptores, p. 211); 1075 (Ordericus, ii. 303); 1083 (MS. Rouen 1193,
f . 3ov) . No place is mentioned in Cartulaire de la TriniU de Rotien, no. 82, issued at
the Easter court of 1080. The great privileges of Richard II for the Norman mon-
asteries were granted at a curia held at Fficamp in August (Neustria Pia, pp. 215,
398; Le Prevost, Eure, i. 285; Appendix B, no. s), and Robert I held a curia there
in January, 1035 (Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 327).
26* The scanty list in CoviEe, Les Etats de Normandie (Paris, 1894), p. 250 f ., is
based solely on the chroniclers. William's itinerary after 1066 (Davis, p. xxif.)
shows how little Norman evidence there is for Valin's assertion (p. 103) that the
three assemblies were held regularly each year. Now and then there is evidence
of the duke's presence at Rouen at or near Christmas: 1032 (Migne, Patrologia,
cbdi. 1165 f .) ; IOS4 (Round, no. 710) ; 1070 (? Davis, no. 56) ; 1074 (ibid., no. 75).
Liebermann, The National Assembly (HaUe, 1913), p. 82, considers the three assem-
bUes in England as ' a French novelty ' of the Conqueror. See, however, L. M.
Larson, The King's Household (Madison, 1904), p. 200 f.
2** Acta Sanctorum, February, i. 193 (Richard I).
266 Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii. (1875) 290 ft.
266 ' Si per illam calumniam damnum aJiquod ipsi monachi habuerint, duas
reclamationes in mea corte vel curia faciant:' Robert I for Fecamp, Appendix B,
no. 7. See Delisle, S.Sauveur, nos. 35, 36, 42; HariuU, ed. Lot, p. 224; Cartulaire
de la Trinite, no. 82; Ordericus, ii. 310; DeviUe, Analyse, p. 20; Round, Calendar,
nos. 78, 116, 165, 711, 712, 1114, 1170-1172, 1190, I2I2. On certain of these cases
cf. Davis, p. xxix.
26' Ordericus, ii. 433. Cf . the case of the abbot of Saint-fivroul, ibid., ii. 81 ; and
Round, no. 713.
»68 Council of Lillebonne, end.
56 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
obvious place for the settlement of other difficulties between the
greater tenants, so that it may even be agreed that a case shall be
respited until it can come before the duke.^^' The curia is a place
of record for agreements,^'" and may itself order a sworn record to
be made and attested.^'! It may send officers to partition land.^'*
Evidence is secured by oath,^" ordeal,^'* and the wager of bat-
tle,"^ and it is altogether probable that the sworn inquest was
employed.^'^ Where the accoimt is at all explicit, we usually find
certain members rendering the decision of the court, sometimes
merely as Urteilfinder after the case has been heard before the
whole curia,^'' sometimes as a separate body before which the
proceedings are conducted."* This does not necessarily involve
any stability of organization or specialization of fimction, but
there are indications that more of a beginning had been made in
this direction in Normandy than, for example, in the neighboring
coimty of Anjou."' Among the men who act as judges we reg-
ularly find one or more bishops and a vicomte,"^" members of the
'^' ' Est in respectu donee coram rege,' 1070-1081, supra, p. 22. The passage is
somewhat obscure (cf. Round, Calendar, no. 714), but the meaning of coram rege is
plain.
'"' Round, nos. 713, 1171 (of 1063, printed in BertranddeBroussillon,i<j maison
de Laval, i. 38), and the charter cited in the preceding note. Cf . the following, from
a charter of William as duke: ' Me petierunt canonid precepique ut coram Geraldo
dapifero meo firmaretur eorum conventio, quod factum est.' A. Deville, Essai
historique sur S .-Georges-de-Bocherville, p. 71.
''"■ Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 65 (Davis, no. 117).
272 Valin, piSces, no. i (= Archaeological Journal, iii. 6), xmder Richard 11; Le
Provost, Ewre, iii. 184 (1066).
™ Liwe noir, no. 21; M. A. N., xv. ig6, xxx. 681.
2" Bertrand de Broussillon, La maison de Laval, i. 39 (Round, no. 1172); Or-
deiicus, ii. 433; Mimoires de la SociitS d' Agriculture de Bayeux (1845), iii. 125;
Archaeologia, xxvii. 26; Lot. S.-WandriUe, no. 39.
2" Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 37 (Round, no. 165).
"' Brunner, Schwurgerichte, p. 270; Pollock and Maitland, i. 143; Valin, p. 200.
The existence of the sworn inquest has mainly to be inferred from its appearance in
England shortly after the Conquest and in Normandy in the twelfth century. See
infra, Chapter VI.
"' Round, no. 1190. On this practice see G. B. Adams, in Columbia Law Review,
April, 1913, note 30.
"" Delisle, S.-Sauveur, nos. 36, 42; Round, no. 11 14; Pigeon, Le diocise d'Av-
ranches, ii. 673.
'" For Anjou see Halphen, in Revue historique, Ixxvii. 282.
!»» Delisle, S.-Sauveur, nos. 13, 35, 36, 42; Round, no. 1190. The bishops are
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 57
two classes which had most occasion to become acquainted with
the law, and while we do not yet hear of a body of justices and a
chief justiciar, it is not impossible that something of the sort may
have existed. At the very begioning of William's reign the bishop
of Bayeux makes complaint before the archbishop of Rouen,
Count Odo of Brittany, Neal the vicomte, aliique seniores iusticiam
regni obtinentes ;^^^ in a case between 1055 and 1066 the judges are
Robert, count of Mortain, the archbishop, the bishops of Evreux
and Lisieux, and the abbot of Fecamp; 2*2 in three other cases
the archbishop of Rouen and Roger of Beaumont appear among
the judges.^*' In 1077 Lanfranc, who had attended the dedication
of Saint-Etienne a fortnight earlier, heard a plea between Osbem
Giffard and Abbot Wimam,^^* doubtless by special order of the
duke. Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, described by his biographer
as immersed in the business of the king and the curia,^^^ is found
in three of the small niunber of charters where the names of the
judges are given,^*' and it would not be surprisigig if he served a
Norman apprenticeship for his work as judge and Domesday
commissioner in England.^*' It is clear that, contrary to Free-
man's view of the exclusion of ecclesiastics from the Norman
prominent in Rovind, no. 78; in no. 1114 the bishops and abbots are the judges;
in no. 116, two abbots and five laymen. The curiae in which the vicomte appears
may in some cases have been local. Cf. note 201.
2" Liwre noir, no. 21; Delisle, S.Sauveur, no. 13. Delisle, p. 3, considers these
men to have been regents; Stapleton, i, p. xxiv, note o, calls them justiciars. Cf.
G. B. Adams, in Yale Law Journal, April, 1914, note 39.
282 Pigeon, Le diocdse d'Awanches, ii. 673.
'8* Roimd, nos. 78, 1190; Archaeologia, xxvii. 26. Cf. Mabillon, Annates, v.
593-
28* Deville, Analyse, p. 20. We have no record of the writ xmder which he
acted, but we have (Davis, no. 98) one of the same year addressed to him in Eng-
land.
286 Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 219.
286 Delisle, S.Sauveur, nos. 36, 42: Round, no. 78 (Davis, nos. 92, 123, 132); all
subsequent to 1066. In the first two instances he is at the head of the body. The
writ in Round, no. 464 (Davis, no. 97), evidently relates to England and not to
Normandy, for an examination of the original in the Archives of the Calvados
shows that the archbishop's initial is not J but L (i. e., Lanfranc).
287 On his work in England see Round, Feudal England, pp. 133-134, 138, 157,
460; Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 375; Adams, The Local King's Court in the
Reign 0} William I, in Yale Law Journal, April, 1914,
58 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
curia,^^^ the bishops took an active part in its proceedings, and it
is probably among them, rather than in the office of seneschal,
that we should seek the origin of the English justiciarship.^*' So,
while there is not much evidence for the sending of special justices
to hold a local court, the Norman origin of this practice " is not
likely to be questioned." ^^^
In this sketch of Norman institutions under the Conqueror it
has been necessary here and there, especially in studjdng the
curia and the judicial supremacy of the duke, to use evidence later
than 1066, and just to that extent the possibihty exists that the
result is vitiated by influences from England or by the changed
conditions of the Conqueror's later years. Wilham reigned fifty-
two years in Normandy, and this long period must have seen
notable changes in the institutions of the duchy, changes which
we are no longer in a position to trace as a whole, even to the
extent of contrasting the earlier and the later years of the reign.
All that is now possible is to seek to indicate at each point the
dates of the individual bits of evidence used. But while there was
development imder William, we do not know to what extent
there was innovation ; and, scanty as are the earUer sources, they
indicate that much of the account would hold true of the reign of
288 Norman Conquest, i (1877). 174, iii (1875). 290.
^*' Stubbs's view of the derivation of the justiciarship from the seneschalship
Q. c, i. 37s) has also been criticized by Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward, pp.
11-18, but on the untenable ground that William Fitz Osbem " was never dapifer
to William." In addition to the statements of the chroniclers, which Harcourt
seeks to explain away, Fitz Osbem witnesses as dapifer, along with the dapifer
Gerald, in a charter for Saint-Ouen (Collection Moreau, xxii. iiov, from the original;
Cartulary of Saint-Ouen, in Archives of the Seine-Inf&ieure, 2&bis, no. 338), and
issues a charter for Saint-Denis in which he styles himself ' ego WUlelmus Osbemi
filius consul at dapifer Willelmi Anglorum regis ' (Archives Nationales, LL. 1158,
p. SQo). For the genealogy of the family see Revue catholique de Normandie, xix.
261. A William Fitz Osbem, apparently a canon of Rouen, attests in 1075 (Archives
of the Seine-Infgrieure, G. 8739). On the English justiciars in this reign see Davis,
p. xxviii.
^»<' Adams, in Yale Law Journal, April, 1914, p. 18. The clearest cases are the
inquest held at Caen 'iuxta preceptum regis' by Richard, vicomte of Avranches,
1070-1079 (Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 65; Davis, no. 117), and the ordeal held
at Bayeux ' precepto regis ' and reported to the king 1067-1079 {Archaeologia,
xxvii. 26).
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 59
Robert I and even of that of Richard H.^'^ Under Robert there
was feudal tenure; probably also military service had been
assessed, at least upon the monasteries. Under his father, besides
the survivals of the older phrases of immunity, there are specific
grants of ducal Jurisdiction. Already the duke has a camera and
distinguishes between his regular and irregular sources of income,
already he makes permanent grants from the revenue of his
toUs and vicomtes. He has certain household officers, even in
two instances a so-called chancellor who disappeared with him,
'" For the sources concerning Robert I, see Appendix C. The principal charters
of Richard II, few of which throw light on the institutions of the period, are as
follows:
Doiaiicium ludithe: MartSne and Durand, Thesaurus, i. 122. Cf. Dotalicium
Adele: d'Achery, Spicilegmm (Paris, 1723), iii. 390.
Bemai, foundation, August, 1025 (1027). Neustria Pia, p. 398; Le Provost,
Eure, i. 284. On the date see Appendix B, no. 5.
Chartres cathedral. D'Achery, iii. 386; Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres,
ed. Lepinois and Merlet, i. 85.
Saint-Pfere de Chartres. Three charters: Cartulaire, ed. GuSrard, i. 92, 93, 106;
the original of the third is in MS. Lat. 9221, no. 4.
Fecamp. Three charters, all original. See Appendix B, nos. 2, 3, S-
Jumieges. (i) General confirmation: cartulary 22 in Archives of the Seine-
Inf^rieure, f. 7; vidimus of 1499 and 1529 in the same archives; copy in MS. Lat.
n. a. 1245, f. 16s; substance in confirmation of Henry II, Neustria Pia, p. 323;
Monasticon, vii. 1087; Delisle-Berger, no. 527; on the date see Appendix B, no. 5.
(2) Attests exchange with Saint- Vaast: Pfister, Robert le Pieux, no. 72. (3) Attests
grant of Albert, abbot of Micy: original in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure; Ma-
biUon, Vetera Analecta, p. 431; Bry, Histoire du Perche, p. 51. (4) Confirms priory
of Longueville, 1012: Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 283. These four charters are now
pubhshed by Vernier, nos. 12 (cf. in), 10, 9, 7.
Lisieux cathedral. M. A. N., xiii. 9; H. de Formeville, Histoire de l'Svich6-comt6
de Lisieux, i, p. ccccxlii; V. Hunger, Histoire de Verson, pieces, no. 2.
Marmoutier. Delisle, S.-Sawveur, no. 3; Reime catholigue, vii. 423; the original
is noted in B. S. C, xvii. 405.
Mont-Saint-Michel, (i) Appointment of HUdebert as abbot, 1009: original in
Archives of the Manche, H. 14982; Martfene and Durand, Thesaurus, i. 124. (2)
Grant of Verson, etc.: cartulary, f. 22v; Archives Nationales, JJ. 66, no. 1494;
M.A. N., xii. 108; Round, no. 701. (3) Grant of Saint-Pair, etc.: cartulary, f. 20;
JJ. 66, no. 1493; MabiUon, Annales (1739), iv. 651; Round, no. 702; Neustria Pia,
p. 378; jlf. j4.iV., xii. 109. (4) Attests charter of his mother Gonnor: M.A.N.,-m.
108; 'DeMsle,S.Sauveur, no. 2; Round, no. 703. 2-4inHunger, Verson, nos. 1, 3, 4.
Saint-Ouen. Various originab in Archives of the Seine-InfWeure and copies
in Collection Moreau, xviii, and MS. Lat. 5423 (many of the early documents are
false). See, in part, MusSe des archives dipartemenMes, no. 21; Chevreux and
6o NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
and he holds his court at Fecamp at Easter and other great
occasions.^'^
If, in conclusion, we try to summarize the constitution of Nor-
mandy on the eve of the invasion of England, certain features
stand out with reasonable clearness. The organization of Norman
society is feudal, with the accompaniments of feudal tenure of
land, feudal military organization, and private justice, but it is a
feudalism which is held in check by a strong ducal power. The mil-
itary service owing to the duke has been systematically assessed
and is regularly enforced. Castles can be built only by the duke's
license and must be handed over to him on demand. Private war
and the blood feud are carefuUy restricted, and private jurisdic-
tions are restrained by the reserved jurisdiction of the duke and
by the maintenance of a public local administration. The duke
keeps a firm hand on the Norman church, in the matter both of
appointments and of jurisdiction. He holds the monopoly of
coinage, and is able to collect a considerable part of his income in
money. The administrative machinery, though in many respects
still primitive, has kept pace with the duke's authority. His local
representative, the vicomte, is a public officer and not a domanial
agent; his revenues are regularly collected; and something has
been done toward creating organs of fiscal control and of judicial
administration. The system shows strength, and it shows or-
ganizing power. In some directions, as in the fixing of military
obligations, this organizing force may have been at work before
the Conqueror's time, but much must have been due to his efforts.
Vernier, Les archives de Normandie, no. i; Mart^ne and Durand, i. 121; Le Prfi-
vost, Eure, ii. 164, 413; Pommeraye, Histoire de S.-Ouen, p. 403 ff.
Saint-Quentin, 1015. H6m6r6, Augusta Viromandorum, p. 107; Gallia Chris-
tiana, xi. instr. 284; Nouveau traiU de diplomatique, iv. 226 f.
Saint-Riquier. D'Achery, Spicilegium (1723), ii. 332; Haritilf, ed. Lot, p. 185.
Saint-Wandrille. Lot, S.-Wandrille, nos. 9-12.
Sfiez cathedral. Attests charter of William of Bellfime: library of Alenson, MS.
177, f. 28; MS. Lat. 11058, f. 2.
Grants are cited for Montivilliers {Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 326) and Saint-
B6nigne of Dijon (Le Provost, Eure, ii. 323; Analecta Divionensia, ix. 175; Deville,
Analyse, p. 34).
2« Note particularly the large number of witnesses to the charter for Bernai,
among others all the bishops of the province and thirteen vicomtes: Le Prfivost,
Eure, i, 284,
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 6l
Stark and stern and wrathful, whether we read of him in the
classic phrases of William of Poitiers or in the simple speech of the
Old English Chronicle, the personahty of WiUiam the Conqueror
stands out preeminent in the midst of a conquering race, but it
does not stand alone. .The Norman barons shared the high-
handed and masterful character of their leader, and the history of
Norman rule in southern Italy and Sicily shows that the Norman
genius for pohtical organization was not confined to the dukes of
Rouen.^'^ It was in England, however, that this constructive
talent found its chief opportunity, and there, as in Normandy,
the directing hand was that of the sovereign, who, like his fol-
lowers, fovmd a wider field for qualities of state-building which
he had already shown at home.
The organization of England by the Normans and the problem
of the extent of Norman influence upon its government form no
part of our subject, but must be left, after this attempt to fill in
the Norman background, to the historian of English institutions.
Of him we may, however, ask that he proceed with due regard to
the interaction of Normandy and England during the union
which continued, with scarcely an interruption, for nearly a
century and a half after 1066, and to the parallel constitutional
development of the duchy which it is the purpose of the following
chapters to examine.
"" The Norman kingdom of Sicily lies beyond the limits of the present volume.
I have tried to sketch its European position in my Normans in European History,
chapters 7 and 8; and I have discussed certain of its institutions in E.H.R., xxvi.
433-447, 641-665. See also my paper at the Millenary Congress, Quelques prob-
lemes de I'hisioire des institutions anglo-normandes (Rouen, 1911), pp. 7-10; and infra,
Chapter III, p. in f., Chapter VI, pp. 232-234.
CHAPTER II
NORMANDY UNDER ROBERT CURTHOSE AND
WILLIAM RUFUS
The strength of the Conqueror's system of government in Nor-
mandy was to be severely tested during the reign of his son Robert
Curthose.i Whatever amiable and knightly qualities contem-
poraries were willing to ascribe to Robert, no one appears to have
considered him a strong or even a prudent ruler, and his indo-
lence, instability, and easy-going irresponsibihty soon earned for
him such epithets as the soft duke, the lazy duke, and the sleepy
duke. Lack of governance was writ large over his reign, and its
results are set forth in the gloomy picture of the state of Nor-
mandy drawn by the fullest of contemporary narratives, that of
Ordericus Vitalis.^ It is a dreary tale of private war, murder, and
pillage, of perjury, disloyalty, and revolt, for which the good
monk finds a parallel only in the worst days of Israel. Destruction
fell especially upon the peasants and upon the possessions of the
church: " that which the locust hath left hath the cankerworm
eaten, and that which the cankerworm hath left hath the cater-
pillar eaten." ' And when the nuns of Holy Trinity at Caen came
to reckon up their losses year after year in land and cattle and
produce and rents and men, their matter-of-fact summary is more
' There is no modem account of this period of Norman history. The sketch of
Robert Curthose by G. LeHardy, in the BtUletin de la Social des Antiquaires de
Normandie, x. 1-184 (1882), is partisan and quite inadequate; at my suggestion
a critical biography is being prepared by Charles W. David, of the University of
Washington. Freeman's William Rufus is useful for the narrative history of the
period.
' Ed. Le Provost, iii. 261, 289-291, 351, 357, 412, 463. 473. 47S f-, iv. 98 f., loi,
106, 163, 172, 178-182, 192, 199 f., 206, 219-221, 227 f.; and his verses in Annuaire-
Bulletin de la SociStS de I'histoire de France, 1863, ii. 1-7. See also William of
Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, pp. 460, 462, 473 f.; and cf. Freeman, William Rufus,
i. 190, 19s, ii. 367 f., 394; and Sauvage, Troarn, pp. 21 f., 71.
' Ordericus, iii. 357.
62
ROBERT CURTHOSE 63
eloquent of the Norman anarchy than are many pages of the
chronicler: *
Willelmus comes Ebroicensis ex quo rex Willelmus finivit aufer[t] Sanct§
Trinitati et abbatissg et dominabus .vii. agripennos vineg et duos equos et
.XX. solidos Rotomagensium nummorum et salinas de Escrenevilla et uno-
quoque anno .xx. libras de Gauceio et de Bavent. Ricardus filius Herluini
duas villas, Tassilei et Montboen. Willelmus camerarius filius Rogeri de
Candos decimam de Hainovilla. Willelmus Baivel .xx. boves quos sumpsit
apud Osbernivillam. Robertus de Bonesboz eandem viUam depredavit.
Robertus de Uz terram de .iiii. puteis et de Cierneio. Willelmus Bertrannus
duos vavasores et eorum decimam et .v. solidos quoque anno apud Colum-
bellas. Ricardus de Corceio .iui"'. libras et .xx. oves. NigeUusde OUIei .ii.
boves. Rogerus de Avesnes in equis et in denariis et in aliis rebus .viui.
libras. Robertus PantoK in denariis et in aJiis rebus .vi. libras. WUlelmus
ludas .XX. soKdos. Rogerus dispensator et Rogerus de Scutella .xi. boves et
.ii?' equos et predam de Folebec, et homines vxUneravenmt et verberaverunt
in pace. Robertus de Molbrai .Ixviii. libras quoque anno post mortem regis.
Eudo vicecomes .xx. boves. Adelofdus camerarius episcopi Baiocensis ter-
ram de Anglicivilla. Ranulfus vicecomes Ricardus de Corceio .xv. Kbras
de terra de Grandicampo, et Ranulfus idem et iii. boves et .ii. equos de
Duxeio et de Aneriis et .v. acros annone in Aneriis et decimam de BoiviUa.
Ingelrannus prata de Grai. Comes Henricus pedagium accepit de Chetel-
hulmo et de omni Constantino et super hoc facit operari homines Sanctg
Trinitatis de eadem viUa et patria ad casteUa suorum hominum. Alveredus
de Ludreio aufert Sanct§ Trinitati tres boves apud Teuvillam et terram de
eadem villa devastat. Et WiUehnus de Veteri ponto prata de predicta viUa.
Et Huhnum aufertur Sanctf Trinitati iniuste. Adeloldus predictus cam-
erarius episcopi aufert annonam de Grandicampo et quamplures ahas. Hugo
de Redeveris aufert .v. modios vini et vineam quoque anno ad Vernun.
Fulco de Aneriis .i. equum et viii. solidos et iii. minas de favis et omnem
terram devastat ita quod nullus ibi lucrari potest. Willelmus Bertrannus
accepit de OsbertiviUa duos boves et postea viros misit in carcerem. Willel-
mus de Rupieres accepit boves et porcos domne abbatissg et homines super
terram eius interfecit. Idem Willelmus pecuniam metatoris abbatissg de
Ruwres accepit et annonam fecit inde ferri et apud Ranvillam duos viro[s]
interfecit et complures vulneravit; et item Robertus de Guz aufert ei unum
equum apud Monboen. Hugo Paganus aufert abbatissg silvam de Salan et
sacerdotem verberavit in pace, et Willelmus Gernun silwam incidit et evellit
quantimi potest. Ranulfus f rater Igeri saisiavit terram abbatissg super hoc
quod ipsa sibi terminum respondendi dederat et inquirendi si deberet ei inde
rectum facere. Brenagium autem interrogant et Rainaldus Landun et alii
ministri abbatisse et monent eam placitare. Inde Robertus de Genz aufert ei
* Cartulary, MS. Lat. 565°) f- 39V-40V. The list of excommunicates in the
Benedictional of Archbishop Robert, ed. H. A. Wilson (London, 1903), p. 166, which
seems to belong to this period, may be connected with depredations on ecclesiastical
lands.
64 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
terram de Donmaisnil et annonam inde tulit et oves et boves et alia miilta, et
vi adhuc detinet. Et Radulfus de Cortlandun ponit terrain abbatissg in
gravatoria' et vi vult ibi earn tenere, quod nunquam fuit amplius.
Such a record shows the weakness of the duke as well as the
sufferings of the duchy. Many of the barons were in more or less
constant revolt, others were easily bought away from him. Many
of his own castles were denied him, and adulterine strongholds
sprang up.^ Even on these conditions Robert held but a part of
Normandy. Prince Henry ruled Domfront and the Cotentin
during a good part of this reign; King William won over the lands
east of the Seine and proved a serious menace elsewhere.' Even
the nominal unity of the duchy was lost.
Amidst these narratives of confusion and revolt there is small
place for the machinery of govermnent, and we are not surprised
that the chroniclers are almost silent on the subject. Robert's
reliance on mercenaries * shows the breakdown of the feudal ser-
vice, which may also be illustrated by an apparent example of
popular levies; * his constant financial necessities i" point to the
demoralization of the revenue. The rare mention of his cwria"
implies that it met but rarely. Still, these inferences are negative
and to that extent inconclusive, and even the detailed account of
Ordericus is largely local and episodic, being chiefly devoted to
events in the notoriously troubled region of the south, and is also
colored by the sufferings and losses of the church. Only from
documentary evidence shall we get a wholly impersonal view of
the ducal government.
First of all, there is something to be leanled from the statement
of ducal rights under the Conqueror, the so-called Consueltidines
et iusticie, drawn up under the joint auspices of Robert and Wil-
liam Rufus in the summer of 1091.1' Just as the coronation char-
' Du Cange, s. v., cites only this passage.
" Cf. the Fficamp charter, Appendix E, no. 4c.
' Note also the cession of Gisors to Philip I as the price of his aid against William :
Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 18; Fliche, Le r^gne de Philippe I", p. 293.
' Ordericus, iii. 266 f.; cf. William of Malmesbury, Gesla Regum, p. 468.
' Ordericus, iii. 415.
"I Ibid., iii. 267, iv. 105; cf. Wace, lines 10927 ft.
"■ Ordericus, iii. 297, 303, 381.
" Appendix D.
ROBERT CURTHOSE 65
ter of Henry I offers the best picture of the abuses of the Red
King's reign in England, so this inquest reflects the history of the
preceding four years in Normandy. But whereas the English
record shows the strength of government, the Norman shows its
weakness: Henry I promises to refrain from abuses of royal
authority, the Norman prince seeks by appeal to ancient prece-
dent to recover power that has slipped from his hands. Of the
ducal rights which the Conqueror upheld maxime et mriliter, only
a portion is here recorded, but these are evidently chosen with
reference to the existing situation — quia magis necessaria sunt.
They point to the usual evils of a weak rule in this period, private
war, private castles, and private coinage; emphasizing the body
of restrictions upon private war which had been_ so carefully
built up under Robert's predecessors with respect to the duke's
court, army, and forests, and the actual conduct of hostilities
'between his barons, and asserting the right of the duke to take
over his vassals' castles and prevent the building of new ones.
The whole reads like a legal commentary on the narrative of
Ordericus.
Another commentary, this time ecclesiastical, can be read in
the canons of the council held at Rouen in February 1096, as a
preliminary to the First Crusade.^' These are concerned chiefly
with the enforcement of the Truce of God, aheady established in
Normandy and recently reenacted by the council of Clermont,
but requiring amplification because of the weakness of the lay
power." AU men from the age of twelve upward were required to
take an oath to observe its provisions and to give military aid
for their enforcement; and anathema was pronounced against
counterfeiters and brigands and aU who might give them aid or
comfort. The protection of the farmer at his plow, a bit of old
Scandinavian custom, received ecclesiastical sanction.!^ All
churches were to hold their property as they had held it under the
Conqueror. Excellent decrees, says Ordericus,'^ but of little profit
to the peace of the church because of the failure of the duke's
justice. At best, however, the council of Rouen was but a pale
1* Ordericus, iii. 470-4^3. ^^ Cf. Chapter I, note 106.
" Cf. supra, Chapter I, note 147. " iii. 473.
66 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
reflection of that of Clermont: it left untouched the problem of
celibacy and the lay investiture of bishops and abbots, and placed
no obstacle in the way of the shameless simony and corruption of
Robert's dealings with ecclesiastical oflftces. The case of the bish-
opric of Lisieux, taken over by Ranulf Flambard for his own
minor son, and later sold to William of Pad, is a particularly
flagrant instance.''
Best of all, however, if we can but read it aright, is Robert's
own conmientary as written in the ducal charters of his reign. As
the only surviving acts of sovereign power, these show us the
ducal government in action and tell their own tale of localism and
weakness. Those of which we have knowledge are the following,
which are here arranged by the ecclesiastical establishments for
whose benefit they were issued: '*
1. Bayeux cathedral. 24 April 1089, at Vernon. Various specific
grants. Lime noir, no. 4; extract in Delisle, Saint-Sauveur, pieces, no. 44;
Roimd, no. 1433 ; Davis, no. 308. Trigan, Hisioire eccUsiasUque, m. 402, cites
the original.
2. Bayeux, Saint-Vigor. 1089, at Eu. Confirms the restoration of the
monastery, its possessions, and the rights of the bishop over it. Livre noir,
no. 6; Livre rouge, nos. 104, 105, where ' Guillebnus camerarius ' is added to
the witnesses; J.-F. Faucon, Essai historique sur le prieur6 de Saint-Vigor-le-
Grand (Bayeux, 1861), p. 213; Round, no. 1434; Davis, no. 310.
3. Bayeux, Saint- Vigor. 24 May 1096, at Bayeux. Attests charter of
Bishop Odo granting Saint-Vigor to Saint-B6mgne of Dijon. Apparent
original (A) and early copy containing additional material (B) in Ardiives of
" See Bohmer's account of the Norman church under Robert, Kirche und Stoat,
pp. 142-146; and his study of Serlo of Bayeux, in Neues Archiv, xxii. 701-738.
The case of Turold, bishop of Bayeux, deposed for irregularities by Paschal 11 in
1 107, should be added. See Dom G. Morin in Revue d'histoire ecclisiastigue, v.
284-289; and W. Tavemier's biographical investigations in Zeitschrift fiir fran-
zosische Sprache und Litteratur, xxxvi-xlii. For Odo of Bayeux, see further Bour-
rienne, in Revue cathoUque de Normandie, vii-x. On the investiture question, see
further the bull of Paschal II published by Levison, in Neues Archiv, xxxv. 427-431 ;
B. &. C, kxi. 465.
*' For Robert's attestation to a charter of William Rufus for Durham during
his visit to England in 1091, see Davis, Regesta, no. 318. For a charter of iioo-
1106 confirming his brothers' grants to Bath Priory, see Two Chartularies of the
Priory of St. Peter at Bath, ed. Hunt (Somerset Record Society, 1893), i. 47, no.
44. It must be remembered that the mention of 'Robertus comes' in a notice
may refer also to the period before his father's death; e. g., Lot, S.-Wandrille,
pp. 98-100, where I am inclined to see Robert Curthose rather than, with Lot,
Robert coimt of Eu.
ROBERT CURTHOSE 67
the C6te-d'0r, where a cartulary copy (no. 43) of B has inserted a confirma-
tion by Bishop Phihp d'Harcourt at the end. Printed in E. P6rard, Recueil
de prices servant d, I'histoire de Bourgogne, p. 206 (B) ; U. Plancher, Histoire de
Bourgogne, i, preuves, xxxii (B); Migne, Patrologia, civ. 475 (B); GalUa
Christiana, xi. instr. 76 (B); Faucon, Saint-Vigor-le-Grand, p. 216 (A);
Reme catholique de Normandie, x. 280 (translation from A, with some variants
from B). Cf. Analecta Divionensia, ix. 200-202.
4. Bayedx, Saint-Vigor. 24 May 1096, at Bayeux. Confirms Odo's
grant of the same date." Original in Bibhotheque municipale at Bayeux,
litres scell6s, no. 9, with fragments of applied seal; copy of the twelfth cen-
tury in cartulary in Archives of the Cote-d'Or, no. 44. Revue catholique, x.
283 f. ( = V. Bourrienne, Odon de Contemlle, p. 132), from original; date only
in Ordericus, ed. Le Prdvost, iii. 265, thence in Davis, no. 376.
5. Beauvais, Saint-Lucien. 14 July 1096, at Rouen ' in capitulo.'
Assents to charter of Stephen, count of Ainnale, granting Saint-Martin d'
Auchy. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 19, apparently from lost original. Ac-
cording to the Inventaire sommaire, the Archives of the Oise possess only a
late mention of this document in H. 1302.
" As the inaccurate reproduction of the dates of these charters has given rise to
lumecessary confusion, it may be worth while to print them exactly:
Odo A: 'Anno ab incamatione domini .m.xc.vi? indictione .iiii* concurrente
.vii° epacta .xxriii? xviiii? anno prindpatus domni Roberti VuiUemi regis Anglorum
filii ducis Normannie hgc cartha confirmata est et sigillo suo signata. Actum
publice Baiocas mense maio die xx iiii. viiii kal. iunii luna .xxvii.'
Odo B : ' Anno ab incamatione domini .mxcvi. indictione .iiii? concurrente .ii?
xviiii. anno piincipatus domni Roberti WiUelmi regis Anglorum fiKi ducis Norman-
nie hec carta confirmata est et sigiOo suo signata. Actum publice Baiocas mense
maio die .xxiiii? eiusdem mensis .viiii kal. iunii luna .xxvii? feria septima bissextili
anno.'
Robert: ' Aimo ab incamatione domini .m°xc?vi° indictione .iiii? concurrente
.vii? epacta .xx^^iiif .x°viiii? anno principatus Rotberti Guillelmi regis Anglorum
filii ducis Normannis hjc carta firmata est et sigillo suo signata. Actum publice
Baiocas mense maio die .xx iiii. viiii. kal. iunii luna .xx*vii? ciclo decennovennali
.x°iiii? EGO HUGO DIVIONENSIS gCCLESIE MONACHUS lUSSU EIUS-
DEM ROBERTI DUCIS NORMANNIE SCRIPSI ET SUBSCRIPSI VICE
CANCELLARII RODULFI.'
The different elements in the date are in agreement throughout save in the case
of the concurrent, which is wrongly given as seven in Robert's charter and the first
version of Odo's, but is corrected to two in the second form of Odo's charter. It is
noteworthy that all agree in dating Robert's reign from 1077-1078. In Robert's
charter the x of the year of the incarnation has been almost entirely rubbed out,
either by time or by some one who attempted to bring it into agreement with the
generally known date of Robert's accession, and this has misled some writers into
assigning the document to 1106 (B. jS, C, xlviii. 175 f.; Remie catholiqiie de Nor-
mandie, X. 282-285). The original at Bayeux, however, still shows traces of the x,
which is required not only by the remaining elements of the date but also by the
witnesses. The epact in Odo A may have been corrected at the time, as the v is
faint.
68 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
6. Bec. [1087-1089.] Attests charter of Roger of Beaumont for the
priory of Beaumont-le-Roger. Cartulary in Bibliotheque Mazarine, MS.
1212, no. i; MS. Lat. 13905, f. 6v; Collection du Vexin, iv. 165, xi. 256
(with a fuller list of witnesses than the cartulary). E. DeviUe, Le cartulaire
de Beaumont-le-Roger (Paris, 1912), no. i; Le Prdvost, Ekire, i. 205; Round,
no. 368.
7. Bec. February 1092. Confirms the grants of his father and mother on
behalf of the church of fimendreviUe (Saint-Sever, seat of the priory of
Notre-Dame-du-Pre) and adds the tithe of the hay of his park at Rouen.
Original, in poor condition, with crosses and evidently never sealed, in
Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, /owrfi Bonne-NouveUe; copy in MS. Lat. n.
a. 124s, f. 34; extracts in MS. Lat. 12884, ff- 79V, 85. Neustria Pia, p. 613,
from a copy; La Roque, iv. 1328; translated in Farin, Histoire de la mile de
Rouen (1731), ii*. 151*. The witnesses, incompletely given in the editions,
are: 'Willelmi Rotomagensis archiepiscopi, Rodberti comitis Nonnannorum,
Eustachii comitis Boloniensis, WiUekni episcopi Dunehnensis, Willelmi de
Wativilla, Roberti de Monteforti, Roberti comitis Mellentensis, Willelmi
Bertranni, Ba[lduini?] filii Ans[chetilli] de BeUomonte, Simonis dapiferi,
Eu[do]nis filii Turstini de Constantino, Gisleberti filii Bernardi, Roberti filii
Alwardi.'
8. Bec. [1091-1092.]'"' Attests grant of privileges and jurisdiction by
Archbishop William. Lanfranci Opera (Paris, 1648), p. 332; Migne, Patro-
logia, cl. 552; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 17. Dom Jouvelin-Thibaut, in MS.
Lat. 13905, f. 52, corrects the printed text and adds the important list of wit-
nesses: ' Rotberti comitis Normannie, Willelmi archiepiscopi Rothomagensis,
Gisleberti Ebroicensis episcopi, Gaufridi episcopi Constantiensis, Willelmi
episcopi Dimelmensis, Odonis episcopi Baiocensis, Serlonis episcopi Sagien-
sis, Benedicti archidiaconi, Fulberti archidiaconi, Girardi archidiaconi, Gisle-
berti scolastici, Rogeri secretarii, Ricardi filii Willelmi, Rogeri fratris abbatis
Cadumensis, Giraldi abbatis S. Wandregisili, Hugonis abbatis Cerasiensis,
Nicholai abbatis S. Audoeni, Willelmi abbatis CormeUensis, Gisleberti
abbatis Cadumensis, Fulconis abbatis de supra Diva, Willelmi Ebroicensis
comitis, Gisleberti Crispini, Rotberti de Monteforti, Rotberti comitis de
Mellent, Guillelmi Crispini, Radulfi de Conchis.'
9. Bec. [1087-1096.] Attests various gifts of Gerard de Gournay.
Poree, Bec, i. 338 f.
10. Bec. [1087-1096.] Present at grant of freedom of toll and customs by
William of Breteuil, attested by Robert, count of Meulan, and Eustace, coimt
of Boulogne. Fragment of cartulary. Archives of the Eure, H. 91, f. 75.
11. Bec. Confirms foundation of priory of Envermeu. "La premiere
charte d' Henry P' n' est qu' une confirmation de ceUe de Robert, sous qui la
fondation du prieur6 a d<i 6tre faite ": Dom Jouvelin-Thibault in MS. Lat.
13905, f. 8ov; cf. Por6e, Bec, i. 427, note 3.
12. Bec. Grants to Bec one-half of Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle and the
church of Saint-fitienne-l'AUier. Mention in charter of Henry II: Delisle-
Berger, no. 624.
2° The fatal illness of Geoffrey of Coutances dates from August 1092, in which
year also Fulk of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive seems to have been deposed.
ROBERT CURTHOSE 69
13. Caen, Saint-fitienne. tShortlyafter 1087.] Grant of Vains(Manche).
Appendix E, no. i.
14. Caen, Saint-fitienne. [1091, probably.] Confirms exchange between
Abbot Gilbert and William de Tornebu. Mention in Deville, Analyse, p. 3 1 ;
cf. p. 27.
15. Caen, Saint-fitienne. [1091, probably.] Joins with William Ruf us in
confirming this exchange. Modern copy, evidently incomplete, in MS. Lat.
1713s, P- 12; MS. Lat. n. a. 1428, f. 3V. Mention in Deville, p. 31.
16. Caen, Saint-fitienne. [1089-1091.] Witnesses, with William of Saint-
Calais, bishop of Durham, and others, a charter of Hugh Painel granting to
Saint-fitienne two-thirds of the tithe of Fontenay-le-Pesnel. MS. Lat. 17135,
p. 23, from the original, now lost; MS. Caen 108, f. lov, from lost cartidary;
modern copy in Archives du Calvados. 'De-vi\le, Analyse, p. 32 ; cf . C. Hippeau,
L'abbaye de Saint-£tienne de Caen (M. A. N., xxi, and Caen, 1855), p. 41.
17. Caen, Saint-fitienne. [1096.] Attests exchange with Dijon. Appen-
dix E, no. 2, from original.
18. Caen, Saint-fitienne. [1101-1104.] Grant of market at Cheux (Calva-
dos). Appendix E, no. 3, from original.
19. Caen, La Trinite. [1087-1091.] Grant, with the consent of his brother
Henry, of lands and rights near Caen and a market at Ouistreham (Calvados) .
MS. Lat. 5650, f . 34V. Printed by Stapleton in Archaeological Journal, iii. 26 ;
Round, no. 423, omitting some of the witnesses; Davis, no. 324.
20. Fecamp. 7 July 1088. Restores various lands, with approval of his
brother Henry. Appendix E, no. 4a, from original.
21. Fecamp. [After 7 July 1088.] Grant of fair at Fecamp. Appendix E,
no. 4b, from original.
22. Fecamp. [1089-iogi] at F6camp. Renewal of preceding grants and
seisin by ' hoc hgniun.' Appendix E, no. 4c, from original.
23. Fecamp. [Before 1091.] Grant of land of Hugh Mursard. Appendix
E, no. 5.
24. Jumieges. 30 March 1088. Attests with his brother Henry charter of
Ralph Fitz Anser6 granting Beaunay and its appurtenances and the tithe
of AnneviUe-svur-Seine (? Seine-Inf6rieure). Appendix E, no. 6, from
original.
25. Jumieges. [1091-1095] at Lisieux. Attests grant of'fitables (Seine-In-
flrieure) by Ralph Fitz Anser6 and invests therewith 'per h'gnimi.' Appen-
dix E, no. 7, from original.
26. Le Mans, Saint- Vincent. Grants tithe of his revenues in the castle of
Fresnay-sur-Sarthe. Martene and Durand, Veterum Scriptorum Amplis-
sima Collectio, i. 568; Cartidaire de Saint-Vinceni-du-Mans, ed. Charles and
Menjot d'Elbenne, no. 532.
27. Makmoutier. 1091. Grant of Ertald in Guernsey, ' procurante
Rotlaerto comite Normannie.' MS. Lat. 5441, part 1, p. 199. Roimd, no.
1179; extract in Dupont, Histoire du Cotentin, i. 466, no. 6.
28. Mont-Saint-Michel. 1088. Grant of a fair at Ardevon (Manche)
and a house lot at Rouen. Original in MS. Lat. n. a. 1674, no. 2; cartulary at
Avranches, MS. 210, f. 8ov; MS. Lat. 5430A, p. 256. Published, with fac-
simile, by Delisle, La commimoration du Domesday-Book d Londres (Paris,
70 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
1886); text in Annuaire-Bulletin de la Sociite de I' histoire de France, 1886,
pp. 177-184; Round, no. 717; Davis, no. zgg.
29. Preaux. [1087-1095.] Attests grant in Saint-Cyr-de-Salerne (Eure)
by Roger de Beaumont. Cartulary in Archives of the Eure, H. 711, no. 388.
Le Prevost, EMre, iii. 97.
30. Pbjeaux. [1087-1096.] Consents to grant of church and tithe of Le
Bosgouet (Eure) by Robert of Meulan. Cartulary, f. 130V. Le Prevost,
Eure, i. 378; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 675.
31. RoTiEN cathedral. 15 August 1095 at Rouen. Grants his right of ier-
nagium in Pierreval (Seine-Inf6rieure) . Cartulary, in Bibliotheque de Rouen,
MS. 1193, ff. 47, iisv; copy therefrom in MS. Lat. n. a. 1246, f. 66; vidimus
of 1422 in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieuie, G. 3680. La Roque, iii. 34, from
the original now lost; [Pommeraye], Histoire de I'iglise cathedrale de Rouen
(Rouen, 1686), p. 57° (mention); Round, no. 2; Davis, no. 384. Round,
followed by Davis, omits the year from the date.
32. Rouen cathedral. 1096. Grants to the church and its canon William
Fitz Ogier the possessions of Osbert the priest and his sons in Neaufles-Saint-
Martin (Eure). Pretended original in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, G.
4069; vidimus oi 1422, ibid., G. 3680; copy in cartulary, f. 47. Printed, with
a slight omission, in Inventaire sommaire, imder G. 4069.
33. Rotten, La Trinit6. 1091. Attests agreement between Abbot Walter
and Ralph of Bee concerning the tithe of Amfreville-la-Mi-Voie (Seine-
Inferiemre). A. Deville, Chartularium Monasterii Sanctae Trinitatis, no. 83;
Davis, no. 317.
34. RotTEN, Saint-Ouen. [Before 1092.] Present at exchange temp.
Abbot Nicholas. Cartulary 2&bis in Archives of. the Seine-Inferieure, p. 487,
no. 597. Robert was also present at the translation of relics 29 April 1090:
Normanniae Nova Chronica (M. A.N., xviii), p. 8.
35. SAiNT-fivROUL. [1087-1102.] Confirms grant of Walter, son of Gou-
bert of Auffai, and grants a fair at Notre-Dame-du-Parc (Seine-Inf6rieure).
Mentioned by Ordericus, iii. 40.
36. Saumtir, Saint-Florent. [1093] at Bonneville. Notice of suit in
Robert's curia between Lonlai and Saint-Florent, followed by sealed char-
ter of protection addressed to Serlo, bishop of S6ez. Livre blanc of Saint-
Florent, in Archives of the Maine-et-Loire, f. 116. Ed. Marchegay, ui
M.A.N., XXX. 682; Roimd, no. 1115; Davis, no. 342.
37. Sfez, Saint-Martin. Confirms and attests grant of tithe of rents in
Argentan by Arnulf, son of Roger of Montgomery. Livre blanc, copy in MS.
Alengon 190, f. 73V; MS. Fr. 18953, P- 27.
38. Vend6me. 1094. Attests charter of Ivo TaiUebois granting Cristot
(Calvados). C. M6tais, CarUdaire de la Triniti de Venddme, ii. 90, no. 351;
cf. iii. 42.
39. Vend6me. 1094. Attests gifts in Audrieu (Calvados). Ibid., ii. 90,
no. 352.
Before subjecting this material to diplomatic study, we may
note certain general facts of significance. First of aU, the total is
small, only thirty-nine charters, notices, and attestations for a
ROBERT CURTHOSE 7 1
reign of fifteen years (1087-1096, 1100-1106), only seven more
than can be identified from the hand of Robert's grandfather,
Robert the Magmficent,^! who reigned less than eight years and
at an epoch when the documentary habit was much less well
established. It may be that later times were indifferent to pre-
serving charters of Robert Curthose, but it is even more likely
that his own age was not eager to secure them. As confirmation
at his hands counted for little, none of these charters consist of
general liberties or comprehensive enumerations of past grants;
they are all specific and immediate. Furthermore, so far as can
now be seen, the surviving documents are aU authentic; privi-
leges of the Conqueror, Henry I, or Henry H were worth fabricat-
ing, but no one seems to have thought it worth while to invent a
charter of Robert. Chronologically, Robert's charters fall, with
only one certain exception, in the period before his departure for
the Crusade, and within this period almost wholly either in the
first years of his reign, when there were late grants of his father to
confirm or new matters to settle, or in the year of his departure,
when certain final dispositions received his sanction; the lack of
documents after his return from the East is suggestive of his polit-
ical impotence. Geographically considered, the charters concern
chiefly central Normandy, where Robert was strongest; at the
beginning of the reign they reach as far as Mont-Saint-Michel on
the one hand and Fecamp and Jumieges on the other, but for the
most part they concern Bee, Preaux, and the region of Caen
and Bayeux which was Ms last refuge. The southern border
is represented by single grants for Saint-Evroul and Saint-
Martin of Seez, but it is noteworthy that in the detailed list
of Saint-fivroul's acquisitions in this period no mention is
made of the duke's confirmation or consent.^'' Likewise sig-
nificant is the absence of any evidence of the duke's supremacy
in Henry's region of the Cotentin.^^ The fact that five of these
'1 See the list in Appendix C.
^ See the roll of ca. 1090-1098 printed in the appendix to Ordericus, v. 182-
195. His consent, however, is mentioned by William de la Fert4-Mac6 in a
giant of 1093: Denis, Les chartes de S.-Julien de Tours, no. 45.
^ See, however, for the bishop of Coutances, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 221. A
charter of Ranulfus de Podiis for HfiauviUe, Mid-Lent 1093, is granted ' tempore
72 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
charters''* contain grants of markets or fairs is also symptomatic
of Robert's careless disregard of valuable rights.
Of the thirty-nine documents only seventeen, less than one-
half, are issued in Robert's name, the others being either notices
of his acts or documents of his barons attested by him. Of the
whole number ten at least are preserved in originals, three, that is,
of the attested documents (nos. 3, 24, 25) and seven (nos. 4, 7, 18,
20, 21, 22, 28), possibly eight (no. 32), of Robert's own charters.
The material is not abundant, yet it is sufficient to permit of
drawing certain conclusions respecting his chancery and his gov-
ernment. The documents which are presented to him for attesta-
tion were naturally drawn up by the interested parties, but in the
case of the duke's own charters it is natural to look for something
of the regularity and system which we find in the chancery of the
Conqueror's later years or of their contemporary Philip I.^' If we
fail to discover this, we shall have convincing evidence of the
weakness of the administrative organization.
Externally, the originals of Robert's charters present no uni-
formity in size, handwriting, or mode of authentication. Each of
the seven is in a different hand; only one (no. 28) has the fij-st line
in capitals. Five of the duke's charters announce the apposition of
his seal (nos. i, 2, 22, 31, 32), which is mentioned in two of the
other documents (nos. 3, 36) ; but only two of the surviving orig-
inals preserve traces of the seal, no. 4, to which it was applied,
and nos. 20-22, the three charters for Feaunp, which were tied
together by a strip of white leather, secured by a large seal of
grayish wax. On neither of these seals can anything be distin-
Roberti Normannorum comitis ' (BibliothSque de Grenoble, MS. 1402, f. 233; cf.
Reime catholique de Normandie, vii. 438), but a bare reference of this sort is quite
different from a recognition of Robert's authority such as is involved in his attes-
tation. For such references elsewhere see the charter of William, son of William
Fitz Osbem, for Lire, in Le Pr6vost, Eure, i. 356; a grant to Marmoutier ' tempore
Philippi regis et Rotberti comitis Normannorum,' MS. Lat. 5441, part 2, p. 87;
and a grant to Prdaux, Round, no. 321.
" Nos. 18, 19, 21, 28, 35.
"^ No thorough study has been made of the diplomatics of William I; cf . supra,
Chapter I, p. 53 f.; and the Facsimiles of Royal and other Charters in the British
Museum, ed. Warner and Ellis. For Philip I, see the introduction to M. Prou,
Recueil des actes de Philippe I".
ROBERT CURTHOSE 73
guished, nor has any loose seal survived. No. 18 has a long tag
projecting from the parchment of the charter, but no seal is
aimoimced nor is there now evidence that one was attached.
No. 28 shows incisions such as were later made for a double queue,
but there is no evidence that these were contemporary, no seal
being announced in the document, and the crosses being evidently
regarded as sufficient. Nos. 20 and 21 were evidently sealed only
after no. 22 was issued and attached to them; nos. 7 and 32 were
never sealed. In every case the signatures of the duke and the
principal witnesses are accompanied with crosses, and it is clear
that this was considered the regular and essential form of valida-
tion. Another indication of the small weight attached to Robert's
seal is seen in the importance assigned to the accompanjdng in-
vestiture ' per lignum ' in the text of two of his charters (nos. 22,
25) and ' per unum cultellum ' in another (no. 31), forms which
suggest that the ducal charter did not differ fundamentally from a
private agreement.
The style of the charters shows the greatest variety. The duke
entitles himself dux Normannorum (nos. 4, 18, 31), dux Norman-
norum et comes Cenomannensium (nos. 1,2), dux Normannorum ei
princeps Cenomannorum (no. 13), Normannorum atque Cenoman-
norum princeps (no. 19), Normannie princeps et Cenomannorum
comes (no. 26), gratia Dei princeps Normannorum (no. 7), Dei
gratia dux et princeps Normannorum (nos. 20, 21), Dei gratia Nor-
mannorum dux (no. 28), Normannorum comes (no. 32). In no. 7
he is also filius Willelmi gloriosi regis Anglorum, in no. 28 filius
Willelmi gloriosissimi Anglorum regis, in nos. 19, 31, and 32, filius
Willelmi regis Anglorum. He witnesses as comes simply in nos.
20, 22, 25; as comes Normanniq, in nos. 3, 8, 18, 24, 28; as comes
Normannorum in nos. 7 and 17 (here also filius Willelmi regis
Anglorum); and as dux Normannorum in nos. 4 and 16. Nos. 4,
13, 18, 20, 28, 32 begin with an invocation to the Trinity; nos. 7,
19, 21, 22, 31 omit it. The date is often left out and, when given,
usually appears somewhere in the text. Only the charters for
Bayeux (nos. i, 2, 4) have a full dating clause at the end; only
these have a well developed preamble.^^ The resemblances of
'* But cf . also no. 26, which has a preamble and is incomplete at the end.
74 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
style in this group of charters and the similarities between nos.
13 and 18 for Saint-fitienne point directly to local authorship,
while in general the range of variation in style and form precludes
the existence of an effective chancery and indicates that the
duke's charters were ordinarily drawn up by the recipients.
This conclusion is not invalidated by the occasional mention of
a ducal chancellor or chaplain; it might even be argued that a
government which pretends to have a chancery and yet makes no
regular or efifective use of it is in a weaker position than one which
frankly depends on others for its secretarial work. The charter of
1088 for Mont-Saint-Michel (no. 28), one of the most formal and
regular of Robert's charters, has at the end of the list of witnesses
' Signum R. capellani R. comitis,' in the same hand as the names
of eight other witnesses, not including the duke, but in a different
hand from that of the body of the charter. Apparently this was
drawn up by the monks, the attestations being left to the duke's
secretary. Unfortunately for purposes of comparison, we have not
the originals of the other documents in which this chaplain takes
part. In one of these, the charter for La TrinitS of Caen, 1087-
1091 (no. 19), we find ' Radulfus capeUanus de Airi ' in the body
of the document, and ' Signum Radulfi capellani ' among the
attestations along with other officials of the ducal household. By
15 August 109s in a charter for Rouen he has become ' Radulfus
cancellarius ' (no. 31), a dignity which he still holds in 1096, when
he so attests in another charter for Rouen (no. 32) and when Hugh
of Flavigny signs ' vice cancellarii Rodulfi ' " (no. 4). Another
chaplain-chancellor is found at the same time, Arnulf of Choques,
ranking below Ralph, since he appears as chaplain in the charter
of 109s in which Ralph is chancellor,^' but called chancellor in
1093 and 1094 by a monk of Bee who mentions him as the duke's
messenger and intermediary.^' It is Arnulf, formerly tutor of the
^' See the date, above, note 19. His name suggests the clerks under Henry II,
infra. Chapter V, note 133.
28 Presentibus . . . Radulpho cancellario meo Einulfo de Cioches capellano
meo' (no. 31).
2° Deliberlate Beccensis ecdesie, in Mabillon, Annates (Lucca, i74o),v.6o3; Vita
Wilklmi teriii abbatis, in Migne, cl. 718; Porfie, Bee, i. 243-245. ' Turgisus capel-
lanus regis ', who became bishop of Avranches in 1094, attests no. 38 in that year.
ROBERT CURTHOSE 75
duke's sister Cecily, who accompanies Robert as chaplain on the
Crusade and rises to fame as patriarch of Jerusalem.^"
Speqal interest attaches to the signature of Hugh of Flavigny
in the charter of 24 May 1096, confirming as it does Hugh's
chronicle and throwing light on the mission of Gerento, abbot of
Saint-Benigne of Dijon, to England and Normandy. Freeman,'^
it is true, relates this episode " not without a certain misgiving "
because of the silence of " our own writers," especially Eadmer;
but there is nothing save insular prejudice to throw doubt on the
narrative of Hugh, who, having accompanied his abbot on the
journey, tells of the mission to England, toward the close of 1095,
for the purpose of arranging peace between William Rufus and
Robert and securing reforms in the English church, and of the
sojourn in Normandy until the autumn of 1096, when they
journeyed with the crusaders as far as Pontarlier. There is, more-
over, excellent charter evidence for Gerento's presence in Nor-
mandy in the interval, for he arranges and attests (no. 17) an
exchange of possessions with Gilbert, abbot of Caen, completed
in the presence of Duke Robert, and also attests the duke's char-
ter of 1096 for Rouen cathedral (no. 32), probably issued at
Rouen. His name appears here in company with that of Bishop
Odo of Bayeux,*^ and it was doubtless during Gerento's visit to
Normandy that preparations were made for the grant of Saint-
Vigor to Saint-Benigne, as accomplished by the charters of the
bishop and duke (nos. 3 and 4) issued at Bayeux 24 May 1096.
As for Hugh, his chronicle refers repeatedly to his visit to Nor-
mandy, and specifically to Rouen and Bayeux, where he spent
some time,'' while the documents show him attesting as ' Hugo
capellanus ' the exchange between the abbeys of Dijon and Caen,
and subscribing Robert's charter confirming the grant of Saint-
2° Historiens occidentaux des Croisades, iii. 281, 302, 604, 665, iv. 232; Gesla
Francorum, ed. Hagenmeyer, p. 481 f . ; Moeller, in M&anges Paul Fredericq (Brussels,
1904), PP- 194-196-
^ William Rufus, ii. 588 f . See, however, F. Liebermann, Anselm von Canterbury
und Bugo von. Lyon (Hanover, 1886), p. 16. On Hugh's life and writings, see the
preface to the edition of his Chronicle in M. G. H., Scriptores, viii.
82 On Odo's visit to Dijon, see the chronicle of Saint-B6mgne, d'Achery, Spicile-
gium, ii. 39s; Analecta Divionensia, ix. 200-202.
35 viii. 393, 47S (general); 369, 399, 407 (Rouen); 394, 482 (Bayeux).
76 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Vigor to Saint-B^nigne. Written in a more formal hand than the
autograph of Hugh's Chronicle,"^ this ducal charter shows many
points of difference from its Norman contemporaries. It takes
over, it is true, certain phrases from Robert's earlier charter for
Saint- Vigor, but the foreign authorship appears in the penal
clause, the elaborate date, and the pretentious signature of Hugh,
' vice canceUarii Rodulfi,' in elongated capitals. As Ralph him-
self never claims a share in drafting the documents which he wit-
nesses, this form of subscription is simply a further illustration of
the preparation of Robert's documents by the parties interested
in the transaction rather than by his own officers.
The disintegration of the chancery is accompanied by a corre-
sponding decline in the ducal curia. The lists of witnesses do not
show any great amount of continuity in the duke's entourage, stiU
less any clearly marked official element. The archbishop of
Rouen and the bishops of fivreux, Bayeux, and Lisieux appear
fairly often, those of Coutances and S6ez rarely, the bishop of
Avranches not at all. William of Saint-Calais, bishop of Dur-
ham, who is said to have been intrusted by Robert with the
administration of all Normandy,'^ attests six times (nos. i, 2, 7, 8,
16, 38) during his Norman sojourns (io8'9-'io94), and his succes-
sor Ranulf once in the latter part of the reign (no. 18). Of lay-
men, the most frequent witnesses are Robert, count of Meulan,
William, count of fivreux, Robert of Montfort, William of Bre-
teuil, Wilham Bertran, Enguerran Fitz Ilbert, faithful to Robert
to the end, when the men of Caen drove him forth in 1105,'' and
William of Arques, a monk of Mol^me whom Ordericus places
** See the facsimile, from the MS., now MS. Phillipps 142 in Berlin, in Scrip-
tores, viii. 284; a modem reproduction would yield clearer results for purposes of
comparison. It would also be interesting to compare this charter with contempo-
rary documents for Dijon and other monasteries with which Hugh was connected.
The handwriting of the exchange with Caen resembles closely that of the chronicle
and the Saint-Vigor charter; if not the work of Hugh, it must have been written by
one of the other monks of Dijon, two of whom sign here with Hugh and the abbot.
»' ' A Roberto fratre regis, comite Normannorum, honorifice susceptus, totius
Normannie curam suscepit ': De iniusta vexatione Willelmi, in Simeon of Durham,
ed. Arnold, i. 194. Cf. Simeon, ii. 216, where, as C. W. David has shown (£. H. R.,
xxxii. 384), this statement is carried over to Odo of Bayeux.
" Ordericus, iv. 219.
ROBERT CURTHOSE yy
among the chief counselors of Robert's earlier years as duke.''
Of household ofl&cials '* we have only the merest mention of Roger
of Ivry, butler of the Conqueror and still bearing this title in 1089
(no.i); William (of Tancarville) the chamberlain, (nos. 2, 18, 19);
Roger Mau-Couronne 'dispensator' (no. 19) ''; Simon 'dapifer'
(no. 7); and Turold ' hostiarius ' (no. 19). The bare mention of
one or two mcomtes ^'' is the only evidence of the persistence of the
local administration, while respecting the fiscal system the sources
are entirely silent.*^ Once, and once only, do the charters mention
a meeting of the ducal curia, namely in a narration of the demeles
of the abbot of Lonlai and the monks of Saint-Florent, Saumur,
respecting the priory of Briouze.*^ A term was fixed at the duke's
court at BonneviUe-sur-Touques toward the close of December
1093, 2^^ °^ ^^ appointed day Robert ordered his bishops and
nobles to do right in the case. Upon the abbot of Lonlai and his
monks making default, the duke sent a mandate of protection
under seal to the bishop of Seez, in whose diocese the priory lay,
and through him also ordered the abbot to respect the rights of the
monks of Saint-Florent. If the original documents in this suit had
been preserved, they would supply one of the noteworthy gaps in
the documentary materials of the reign, the absence of any writs
or mandata, whether executive or judicial. The mention of some-
thing of the sort in this instance saves us from the hasty inference
that nothing of the kind then existed, an argument from silence
which could in any event hardly be justified in view of the
chances against the preservation of these smaller and more fugi-
tive bits of parchment. Nevertheless, it cannot be without signi-
'' Ordericus, iii. 322, 354. Cf. Delisle's note in Anmuaire-Bulletin, 1886, p. 182;
Bulletin de la SocUti d'histoire de Normandie, a. 5.
'' Roger de Lassi, ' magister militum,' is known to us from Ordericus, iii. 411,
iv. 180. Cf. Sauvage, Troarn, p. 88 f.
'* Cf. Round, nos. 424, 666; supra, p. 63.
*° Nos. I, 28. Note, however, no. 13 and the siurvival of bemagium, infra, p. 82.
" Sauvage has suggested {Troarn, p. 226, note) that the mortgage of the duchy
to William Rufus for five years for 10,000 marks may serve as a basis for estimat-
ing the annual revenue in this period. There is, however, disagreement as to the
term of the pledge; see below, note 50.
** No. 36. Cf . the condemnation to debilitatio membrorum by the ctiria in Orderi-
cus, iii. 297.
78 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
ficance that documents of this type have come down to us from
the Norman administration of WilKam Rufus and Henry I; and
the least that can be said is that the administrative weakness of
Robert's reign cannot produce on its behalf this most convincing
evidence of the normal vigor and precision of Anglo-Norman
government.
A survey of the government of Normandy under Robert Curt-
hose must also take account of the rule of William Rufus, from
1091 to 1096 in possession of the eastern portion of the duchy and
at times cooperating with Robert elsewhere, from 1096 to iioo
sole ruler during Robert's absence. Crossing early in 1091,^' the
Red King quickly established himself in the lands east of the
Seine, where several of the leading barons had already espoused
his cause, and he soon compelled Robert to sign a treaty relin-
quishing to him the counties of Eu and Aimiale, the possessions of
the lords of Goumay and Conches, the abbey of Fecamp, and,
apparently, at the other extremity of the duchy, Cherbourg and
the abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel, then in the hands of his brother
Henry.'** Until William's return to England in August of this
year he and Robert seem to have exercised a kind of joint rule in
Normandy. They conduct a joint expedition against Henry,
whom they besiege in the Mount,* ^ they appear together in a con-
firmation for Saint-fitienne of Caen issued probably at this time,*^
and they unite, 18 July, in holding the inquest concerning their
rights and privileges which formulated the Consuetudines et
** Ordericus (iii. 365, 377) places the crossing in the week of 23 January; Flor-
ence of Worcester (ii. 27) gives February; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Candlemas.
In any case it was subsequent to 27 January, when William was at Dover (Davis,
Regesta, no. 315).
" On the provisions of this agreement, see Freeman, William Rufus, i. 275, ii.
522-528, who calls it the ' Treaty of Caen ' on the basis of a statement by Robert
of Torigni (William of Jumifeges, ed. Marx, p. 270) that it was concluded there.
Ordericus, however, places it at Rouen, which is geographically more probable;
Robert of Torigni may have confused this with the Caen inquest of July. In any
case the brothers came to terms quickly, for the siege of Henry in Mont-Saint-
Michel began at Mid-Lent (Ordericus, iii. 378). In the enumeration of lands
granted Cherbourg is mentioned only by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and Florence
of Worcester, who adds Mont-Saint-Michel.
« Freeman, i. 284-293, ii. S28-S3S. " Supra, no. 15.
ROBERT CURTHOSE 79
iusticie." The harmony of all three brothers is shown later in the
same year by the attestation of Robert and Henry to a charter of
the Red King for Durham.*^ This state of affairs was, however,
of short duration. Robert formally accused William of violating
the agreement of 109 1, and its sworn guarantors supported the
charge. No reconcihation could be reached, and in 1094 William
conducted hostile operations in Normandy from March until the
end of December. Then, as before, his base lay in the region east
of the Seine, but the history of the year is confused and tells us
nothing of civil afifairs.** The reconciliation of the two brothers
was a special object of the mission of the Abbot Gerento of Dijon
in the winter of 1095-1096; the agreement handed over the duchy
to William in pledge for the ten thousand marks which he ad-
vanced to Robert for the expenses of his crusade. The terms of
the transaction are known only through the chroniclers, who
differ as to the period. Eadmer and Hugh of Flavigny give three
years, Ordericus has five, while Robert of Torigni says William
was to have Normandy until Robert's return and the repayment
of the money.'"
William Rufus entered into possession of Normandy in Septem-
ber 1096.^1 It is not clear whether he arrived before the crusaders
had started; at least there is no evidence of a conference between
the brothers on this occasion.'^ Of the four years of rule which
*' Appendix D.
*' Davis, Regesta, no. 318; W. Farrers, Early Yorkshire Charters, no. 928.
*' Freeman, i. 460-470; Fliche, Le regne de Philippe I"', pp. 298-301, who
seeks to explain away the siege of Eu in this year on the ground of confusion with
the campaign of 1091. The English chroniclers, however, are quite specific on this
point. A precept of William Rufus to Bishop Robert of Lincoln dated at Eu belongs
to this year or later: Davis, no. 350.
'» See the passages collected in Freeman, i. 555.
^' Ordericus, iv. 16. Cf. Davis, no. 377, the date of which is given as follows in
the Winchester cartulary (Add. MS. 29436, f. 12) : ' Hec confirmatio facta est
apud Hastinges anno dominice incamationis M°.XCVI° quando perrexi Nor-
manniam pro concordia fratris mei Roberti euntis Jerusalem.'
^ There is no reason for placing in this year the letter of Ives of Chartres {Ep.
28) upon which Freeman relies (i. 559) to prove that a conference was held under
the auspices of the French king; Fliche, p. 299, places it in 1094. Apparently the
Norman crusaders started after 9 September (Delisle, LiMrature latine el histoire
du moyen dge, Paris, 1890, p. 28) but before the end of the month (Ordericus, iii.
483).
8o NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
remained to the Red King, the greater portion was spent in Nor-
mandy, but they were years of war, in Maine and on the perennial
battle-ground of the Vexin,*' and we hear little of the state of the
duchy under him. Ordericus tells us that the new master re-
covered portions of the ducal domain which Robert had given
away, and that he exercised to the full his ecclesiastical suprem-
acy, but that under his iron heel Normandy at least enjoyed a
brief period of order and rigorous justice to which it looked back
with longing after Robert's return."
It is not surprising that the documentary sources of these years
should be meager; the remarkable thing is that, few as they are,
the Norman charters of William Rufus tell us more of the work-
ings of administration than do the more mmierous acts of Robert
Curthose. We may begin by eliminating the documents issued in
England or at unknown places for the English lands of Norman
rehgious estabhshments, but for convenience we may include three
or four other charters which probably belong to the period before
1096. There results the following list of documents issued in or
concerning Normandy,^* which are here numbered with Roman
numerals in order to avoid confusion with the preceding catalogue
of acts of Robert:
I. Bec. At Rouen. Release of Surcy (Eure) from hernagium. Davis,
Regesta, nos. 425, Ixxiii; printed below, p. 82.
II. Caen, Saint-fitieime [probably in 1091]. Confirms exchange with
WiUiam da Tomebu. Supra imder Robert, no. 15.
^ On these campaigns, see Freeman, ii. 165-256, 274-296; Fliche, pp. 301-305;
R. Latouche, Eistoire du comUdu Maine pendant le X' et le XI' siecle (Paris, 1910),
PP- 4S-SI-
" iv. 16-19, 98. A returning crusader, Wigo de Marra, makes a grant to Saint-
Julien of Tours in 1099, ' regnante Willelmo rege Anglorum et duce Normannorum,'
and agrees 'si possum volente domino Normannie conficere et congregare feriam,
quod ipsi monachi habebunt totius ferie omnium rerum dedmam.' This is the
latest recognition of William's dominion that I have found: Denis, Charles de S.-
Julien de Tows, no. 51.
'' I have not included the following writ for Montebourg, which may be of
WiUiam I or II : ' Willelmus rex Anglorum omnibus suis ministris tocius Normannie
salutem. Precipio vobis ut res Sancte Marie de Monteborc quiete sint ab omni
consuetudine et sine theloneo transeant quocunque venerint.' MS. Lat. 10087,
no. 6. The chapter of Chartres addressed a letter of congratulation to the Red
King at his accession (jB. £. C, xvi. 453), but he does not appear in the list of its
royal benefactors (£. H. R., xvi. 498).
ROBERT CURTEOSE 8 1
III. Caen, Saint-fitienne [in England, 1096-1097]. Grant of Creech in ex-
change for his father's crown and regalia, and general confirmation. Vidimus
of 1424, in Neustria Pia, p. 638; La Roque, iv. 1334; MS. Lat. n. a. 1428,
f. 4. Davis, no. 397; cf. Delisle-Berger, i. 263, note.
IV. DuspAM. At Pont de I'Arche [1096-1100]. Writ of freedom from
gelds. Davis, nos. 480, xci.
V. Fecamp. [1094-1099.] Notice of suit between F6camp and Saint-
Florent. Davis, nos. 423, badv.
VI. Fecamp. Writ to justiciars mentioned in the foregoing notice.
Davis, nos. 424, badv.
VII. FECAMP. At Lillebonne [1099]. Writ issued in pursuance of the same
judgment to Ranulf of Durham and others. Original in Archives of the Seine-
Inf6rieure; copy in MS. Rouen 1207, f. 16; MS. Lat. n. a. 2412, no. 46.
Edited by me from the original, E. H. R. xxvii. 103. Round, no. 119, where
it is wrongly given as of Henry I; Davis, no. 416.
VIII. Le Mans cathedral. At Saint-Sever (fimendreviUe) [1096-1099].
Writ confirming grants of his father. Liber albus, no. 2; Davis, no. 440.
IX. Lincoln. At Pont de I'Arche [1094-1100]. Confirming grant in Bin-
brook. Davis, no. 473.
X. LONGTJEVILLE. Grant at Bosc-Lehard (Seine-Inferieure). Mentioned
in confirmations of Henry I and Henry II in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure ;
Round, nos. 219, 225. For the charters of Henry II see Chevreux and
Vernier, Ixs archives de Normandie et de la Seine-Infirieure, plate 13; De-
lisle-Berger, nos. 7, 768.
XI. Saint-£vroxil. At Windsor, late in 1091. General confirmation.
Mentioned by Ordericus, iii. 381, cf. 41.
XII. Saumur, Saint-Florent. 1092. Confirms his father's grant of Ceaux.
Davis, no. 158.
XIII. Stow. At Eu, perhaps in 1094. Writ to bishop of Lincoln. Davis,
no. 350.
XIV. Thoitney. At Rosay^^ [1094-1099]. Writ to bishop of Lincoln and
others respecting the abbey's assessment. Davis, nos. 422, Ixxii.
XV. Troarn. Confirms the abbey's possessions in Normandy and Eng-
land as granted by his father. Sauvage, Troarn, p. 363.*'
^' There are two places of this name in the department of the Seine-Inf^rfeure,
one in canton Bellencombre, the other in canton Mfoerval. The compiler of the
index to Davis unaccountably identifies Roseium with Rozoy-en-Brie, far out of
William's territory; cf. Round, in E. H. R., xxix. 349.
" There are also two spurious documents of this reign. One, dated in 1089 but
written in a later style, recites that ' tres regis Willelmi pinceme nomine Gerardus
Radulfus Malgerius ' have granted ' Deo et Petro et S. Audoeno infra Chatomen-
sium fines terram quandam ' (cartulary of Saint-Ouen in Archives of the Seine-
Infgrieure, no.' zSJir, p. 277, no. 340). The other (cf. E. H. R., xxiv. 213, note 16),
quite possibly meant for William's father, is a general charter for the abbey of
Montebourg, for which the substance and most of the witnesses have been bor-
rowed from a charter of Henry I which is printed in Delisle, Carttdaire normand,
no. 737. The false charter (Gallia Christiana, xi. instr, 229; Neustria Pia, p. 672)
82 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
It is dear, first of all, that William Rufus brought with him to
Normandy his chancellor, William Giffard,^^ who attests charters
at Rouen (no. i), Pont de I'Arche (no. iv), Saint-Sever (Emendre-
ville, no. viii), Eu (no. xiii), and Rosay (no. xiv), and who had
sufficient association with Rouen cathedral to lead the canons to
secure from him later a formal declaration that no chancellor or
chaplain had any rights in its choir.*' With the Enghsh chan-
cellor naturally came the writ. There are seven writs, a goodly
number under the circumstances, and one (no. vii) is preserved in
the original. Five are addressed to the king's officers in England
(nos. iv, vi, vii, xiii, xiv), one to officers in Maine (no. viii),"" and
one to officers in Normandy (no. i). The Norman writ runs as
follows:
Willermus rex Anglorum F. veltrario et Isenbardo bernario " et onmibvis
servientibus banc consuetudinem requirentibus salutem. Sciatis quia clamo
terrain Sancte Marie de Surceio omnino quietam de bemagio donee ego
inquiram quomodo fuit tempore patris mei. Teste Willelmo cancellario apud
Rothomagum.*^
Here we have a document parallel in every way to its English con-
temporaries in its sharp, crisp form and in its assumption of regu-
lar execution as a matter of course. The question is a purely
Norman one, the ancient contribution to the maintenance of the
duke's hunting dogs,*' and the officers addressed show by their
titles that they are concerned with this branch of the ducal
is not found in the Montebouig cartulary (MS. Lat. 10087) but appears in tlie
Livre blanc, Archives of the Manche, H. 8391, f. i; in the cartulary of Loders, Add.
MS. 15605, f. 20V, from a vidimus of Philip III; and in Archives of the Manche,
H. 8409; MS. Lat. 12885, f- 160; MS. Fr. 5200, f. 107; and MS. Grenoble 1395,
f.3.
'^ On whom see Davis, in E. H. R., xxvi. 86.
5" MS. Rouen 1193, ff. 49, 141V; Archives of the Seine-Inf^rieure, G. 3623;
printed in Valin, p. 258, no. 3; Round, no. 4.
'" Robert Doisnel, one of the officers here addressed, appears later in a charter
of Robert Curthose (no. 18).
•* The text has ' brevario;' clearly a copyist's error for ' bemario.' Of. Round,
in E. H. R., xxix. 354; and on the bemer and the velterer, his King's Serjeants,
p. 271 f.
»2 Fragment of Bee cartulary in Archives of the Eure, H. 91, f. 39V. Indicated
in A. H. R., jdv. 464, note 69; printed in Valin, p. 200, note 2. Bemagium is also
mentioned under Robert (no. 31).
^ Supra, Chapter I, note 164.
ROBERT CURTHOSE 83
administration; but the single example suffices to show the reg-
ular mechanism of Anglo-Norman administration at work. It
should be noted that the norm taken for inquiry is the practice of
the Conqueror's time, not of Robert's; and it is probable that the
method to be employed by the king was the sworn inquest."
Other Norman writs would be more than welcome as illustrating
procedure, especially in judicial matters, but so far as the general
character of the government is concerned their value would be
essentially confirmatory. In such a case a single" instance estab-
lishes the whole. Moreover, in respect to the duke's justice
another set of documents bears witness to the workings of the
curia in this period and enables us to foUow the course of a suit
much as in the Conqueror's time. The monks of Saint-Florent
and those of Fecamp have a dispute respecting their rights at
Steyning and Beeding, in Sussex, which they bring before the
court of William the Younger at Foucarmont. Five act as judges
on the king's part, Robert of Meulan, Eudo the seneschal, Wil-
ham the chancellor, WUHam Werelwast, the king's chaplain, and
WiUiam Fitz Ogier. When the decision has been reached, the king
sends sealed letters on behalf of the abbey of Fecamp to his justi-
ciars in England, supplemented by a later writ which has reached
us in the original (nos. v-vii). Evidently royal justice ran the
same course wherever the king was; Normandy and England
were a part of the same system.
These faint glimpses of the government of Normandy under
William Rufus are all that we have to bridge the gap between the
Conqueror and Henry I. They show us what happened when, as
again under Henry I, Normandy was subject to the ruler of Eng-
land and could be treated as part of the same organization; and
if we knew nothing of the independent history of Norman institu-
tions, we might be led to suppose that they had no vitality of their
own and were in some degree a reflection of the larger state across
the Channel. We have seen, however, the strength and vigor of
the Norman system before the Conquest of 1066, and we shall see
under Henry I the survival of the institutions of the Conqueror's
time, which was the standard to which all matters were then re-
«* Valin, p. 200; infra, Chapter VI, note 103.
84 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
ferred. When we find the Exchequer of Henry I and Henry II
carefully keeping up the fiscal arrangements of the Conqueror, we
get some measure of the persistence of the ancient organization in
Normandy, and we are Justified in inferring that, in local matters
at least, it was in some measure maintained even during the
disorder and weakness of Robert's reign.
CHAPTER III
THE ADMINISTRATION OF NORMANDY UNDER
HENRY II
The reign of Henry I, which Round has declared perhaps the most
tantalizing in English history, is equally tantalizing to the stu-
dent of the history and institutions of Normandy, where the
paucity of documents is even greater than in England for the same
period. There is nothing in Normandy which corresponds to the
Pipe Roll of 1 130; the only local survey is the Bayeux inquest of
1133, examined above as a source for the feudal conditions of the
eleventh century; " the only piece of legislation is the ordinance of
1 135 which divides between the king and the bishops the fines for
violating the Truce of God; * the destruction of the records of
cathedrals and religious houses has been far greater than in Eng-
land. Nevertheless the number of charters issued in Normandy or
for Norman beneficiaries is still considerable and quite exceeds the
possibility of such a catalogue as has been attempted for the
scanty documentary remains of Robert Curthose and Geoffrey
Plantagenet> Until the Regesta of Davis shall have created a
documentary and chronological basis for the study of this reign in
England, it is premature to undertake a systematic treatment of
its annals in Normandy.* For the present we must content our-
selves with an exploration of the significant points in the admin-
istrative system, having regard on the one hand to the restoration
of stable government after the overthrow of Robert, and on the
other to such institutions of later Normandy as can be traced
back to Henry's reign. Parallels and connections with England
will inevitably suggest themselves.
1 Revised and expanded from E. H. R., xxiv. 209-231 (1909).
^ Supra, Chapter I.
' Trbs Ancien Coutumier, ed. Tardif, c. 71; Round, Calendar, no. 290.
* See Chapters II and IV.
' See, however, the contributions to Henry's Norman itinerary in Appendix G.
86 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
When the victory of Tinchebrai, 28 September 1106, gave
Henry complete control of the duchy, it found him already estab-
lished at Bayeux, Caen, and fivreux.* Proceeding to Rouen, he
renewed his father's privileges to the city: paternas leges renmavit
pristinasque urbis dignitates restiUdt, phrases which also point to
a general restoration of the Conqueror's system of government
throughout the duchy.' Such was also the purpose of a council of
barons and clergy held in mid-October at Lisieux, where, accord-
ing to Ordericus,* Henry revoked all Robert's grants from the
ducal domain and restored the possessions of the church as they
had stood at the time of his father's death. General peace was
reestablished by the repression of acts of robbery and violence,
and we are told that special penalties were enacted against rape
and counterfeiting.' The destruction of adulterine castles was
also systematically begun.^" Assemblies were held at Falaise in
January and at Lisieux in March of 1 107, but no record of their
legislation has reached us," and by Easter Henry was back in
' Besides the narratives of the events of 1105-1106 to be found in the chroniclers
— Ordericus, Henry of Huntingdon, the Peterborough chronicle, Florence of Wor-
cester, WiUiam of Mahnesbxuy, and Wace, who preserves certain local details —
there are three contemporary pieces of importance: (i) Serlo, De capta Baiocensi
civitate, H. F., xix, p. xci; Wright, Anglo-Latin Poets, ii. 241; see Bohmer, Serlo
lion Bayeux, in Neues Archiv, jcdi. 701-738. (2) Henry's letter to Anselm after
Tinchebrai, in Eadmer, Eistoria Novorum, p. 184. (3) The account of this battle
by a priest of F&, first printed by Delisle, Robert of Torigni, i. 129; reprinted,
E. H. R., xxiv. 728, and, more correctly, xxv. 295.
' Ordericus, iv. 233; cf. Tardif, Etude sur les sources, i. 43. That paternas leges
applies to the whole duchy is clear from the repetition of the phrase in the speech
which Ordericus puts in Henry's mouth in r 119 (iv. 402). Cf. the use of laga
Edwardi in England.
8 iv. 233.
» According to a statement of uncertain origin in Bessin, ConcUia, i. 79; cf. Le
Provost's note to Ordericus, iv. 233; Tardif, £tude, p. 46. The penalties are similar
to those proclaimed in England in 1108 and enforced severely in ir2s: Florence of
Worcester, ii. 57, 79; William of Mahnesbury, Cesta Regum, p. 476; Eadmer,
Historia Novorum, p. T93; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 246; Simeon of Durham, ii.
281; Robert of Torigni, in William of JumiSges, ed. Marx, p. 297; Suger, Louis le
Gros, ed. Molinier, p. 47. In a charter issued at Easter 1108 Henry describes this
English legislation as ' nova statuta mea de iudiciis sive de placitis latronum et
falsorum monetariorum ': Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1338-1340, p. 166; Historians
of the Church of York, iii. 22.
" Ordericus, iv. 236; Suger, p. 47. u Ordericus, iv. 239, 269.
HENRY I 87
England.!" Ordericus tells us, under this same year, that the
magistraius populi were often called to the curia and admonished
to conform themselves to the new conditions of peace and stricter
responsibility." The only meeting of the curia of which we have
formal record at this time was held at Rouen, 7 November 1106,
in the archbishop's camera, to decide a dispute between the
monasteries of Fecamp and Saint-Taurin of fivreux, which had
been subjected to Fecamp by charter of Robert the Magnificent;
the decision was given by the * counsel and judgment of the
bishops, abbots, and barons,' among whom appear the archbishop
of Rouen, the bishops of Bayeux, fivreux, Winchester, and Dur-
ham, the abbots of Saint-Ouen, La Trinite, Jumieges, and Troarn,
the archdeacons of Rouen and Evreux, Robert de Meulan,
Richard de Revers, William d'Aubigny, and the king's chancellor
Waldric." Another suit of this same winter was decided in favor
of the abbey of Bee in the presence of the archbishop and the
bishops and barons of Normandy, the charter which records the
result being approved by King Henry, the bishops of Bayeux and
Avranches, Robert of BeUeme, Robert of Meulan, Eustace of
Boulogne, Henry, coimt of Eu, and the archdeacons of Rouen.^^
What means were provided for maintaining the government
during the king's absence is a question which we caimot answer
from the chroniclers, who are quite fragmentary on events in Nor-
mandy between 1107 and 1112. The charters, however, teU us
before 1108 of ducal justices in the Cotentin, and before 1109 of a
chief justiciar; and, as we shall see, the curia meets to decide an
important case in the king's absence in 1 1 1 1 .'' It can hardly be an
accident that before his departure in 1107 Henry gave the see of
Lisieux to John, who appears at the head of the Norman curia in
"2 Henry of Huntingdon, p. 236.
'' iv. 269.
" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 127; a fuller list of witnesses in Collection Moreau,
xlii. 88. Henry's presence at Rouen is also attested for 30 November of this year
by a charter witnessed by his chancellor Waldric (Calendar of Charier Rolls, v. 56,
no. 7; Monasticon, iii. 384), who was about this time sought out at Rouen by the
canons of Laon: Davis, in E. H. R., xxvi. 88.
'' Appendix F, no. i.
" See the charters for Montebourg, Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, and JumiSges cited
below, p. 93 f.
88 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
the later years of the reign, and who had ahready served a long
apprenticeship as judge in ecclesiastical causes in Normandy and
as one of Henry's principal chaplains in England." It is probable
that Bishop John was, if not the head, at least an important mem-
ber of the government of the duchy in these early years; but there
is no definite evidence for this period, and little enough for any
period, and we are compelled to study the administration of
Normandy topically rather than chronologically throughout the
reign. Only toward the end do the long sojourns of Henry on the
Norman side of the Channel and a somewhat greater variety of
evidence give us a rather more connected view.
The starting-point for any study of the govermnent of Nor-
mandy imder Henry I is the plea, published by Round in 1899,
which established for the first time the existence of the Norman
Exchequer eo nomine in this reign.^* In this document the great
" Ordericus, iv. 273-275 : ' A prefatis itaque magistris, quia ratione et eloquentia
satis enituit, ad archidiaconatus ofiScium promotus, ad examen rectitudinis iure
proferendum inter primos resedit et ecclesiastica negotia rationabiliter diu
disseruit.' Driven out of the archdeaconry of S6ez by Robert of BellSme he fled
to England, where ' inter precipuos regis capellanos computatus est, atque ad
regalia inter familiares consiHa sepe accitus est.' Note that Bishop John was not
only a contemporary of Ordericus but also his diocesan.
'* ' Isti simt homines qui fuerunt [presentes] ubi Bemardus disrationavit versus
Serlonem surdum virgultum et terram iuxta virgultum de Maton ad dominium
suum, sciUcet Robertus de Curci dapifer et Willelmus filius Odonis et Henricus de
Pomerai et Willelmus Glastonie et Wiganus Marescallus et Robertus capellanus
episcopi Luxoviensis et Robertus Ebroicensis et Martin scriba de capella. Et ibi
positiis fuit Serlo in misericordia regis per indicium baronum de scaccario quia
excoluerat terram illam super saisinam Bemardi, quam ante placitum istud dis-
racionaverat per indicium episcopi Luxoviensis et Roberti de Haia et multorum
aliorum ad scaccarium. Et hoc idem testificati fuerunt per brevia sua ad hoc
placitum ubi non interfuerunt quia ambo tunc infirmi fuerunt. Et cum Serlone
fuerunt ibi Ricardus frater suus et [blank] qui hoc viderunt et audierunt et per de-
precationem Bemardi Serlo admensuratus fuit de misericordia regis ad x solidos.'
E. H. R., xiv. 426.
Valin, pp. 125-132, labors hard to explain away this document, which upsets his
whole theory of the origin and functions of the Exchequer, on the ground that it
was drawn up, probably later, by a canon of Merton who introduced English
terminology. Taken apart from any preconceived theory, however, it is strictly
parallel to the other notices concerning the lands of Bernard the scribe which
Round has printed (/. c, 417-430), all of which are plainly contemporaneous records
of transactions of the reign of Henry I and show no trace of tampering, The form
HENRY I 89
officers of the household — Robert de Courcy seneschal, Henry
de la Pommeraie and WilUam Fitz Odo constables, William of
Glastonbury chamberlain,^* and Wigan the marshal — together
with Robert the treasurer ^^ and two other clerks, sit in judgment
as ' barons of the Exchequer ' to determine the ownership of a
piece of land, as well as to protect possession previously estab-
lished at the Exchequer before John, bishop of Lisieux, Robert de
la Haie seneschal, and. others. With this clue in our hands, we
shall have little difficulty in recognizing the same body in the fol-
lowing charter, in which, this time under the name of the king's
curia, it sustains the appeal of the abbot of Fecamp against an
infringement of the abbey's haute justice ^^ by the king's justices.
It is not stated that the witnesses to the charter are the members
of the court who rendered the decision, but such is doubtless the
case. The bishop of Lisieux, the two seneschals, and WiUiam of
Glastonbury are known to us as barons of the Exchequer from
the document already mentioned, while William d'Aubigny the
can also be found in St. Paul's charters of the same period: 9 Bistorical MSS. Com-
mission, p. 61 f. Valin's main argument, the statement that there was no such
thing as a Norman Exchequer before 1176, will be disposed of in Chapter V. As
Powicke points out (Loss of Normandy, p. 85), the name is of subordinate impor-
tance; the existence of the court under Henry I is abundantly established by
the documents printed in Chapter III.
" The office inherited by William from his uncle Walchelin was a chamberlain-
ship {MonasHcon, vii. 1000). He also appears in two other docimients relating to
the administration of justice in Normandy: E. H. R., xiv. 424; Liwe noir, no. 8.
'■" For proof that Robert of fivremc was treasurer, see below, p. 108 f. As the
charter there quoted shows that he was chaplain to Stephen, he cannot be the man
of this name whose son appears as a claimant for his father's land in Cornwall in
1 130, so that Round's reason for dating his plea before 1130 fells.
^^ Miurder and arson were pleas of the crown in Normandy, but had been con-
ferred on certain immunists by ducal grant. See supra, Chapter I; and Appendix
D. For the reign of Henry I the clearest statement is found in his charter of 1134
for Bee: ' Concedimus etiam eisdem monachis ut habeant in tota parochia Becci
omnes regias Ubertates: murdrum, mortem hominis, plagam, mehaim, sanguinem,
aquam, et ignem, sed et latronem in Becci parochia captum undecumque .fuerit, et
omnes alias regias Ubertates quocumque nomine vocentur, excepto solummodo
rapto, de quo honestius existimavimus seculares quam monachos iudicare: ' MS.
Lat. 13905, f. 9v; MS. Lat. 1S97B, f. i66v; Archives Nationales, JJ. 92, f. 17, no.
58; Round, Calendar, no. 375; Por6e, Bee, i. 658 f. From a comparison of this
with the F& charter printed in the text, E. Perrot, Les cos roywux, p. 315, '
argues that the theory of pleas of the crown had not yet become permanently fixed.
90 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
butler and Geoffrey de Clinton chamberlain and treasurer '^^ are
well-known ofl&cers of Henry's household.
(i) H. rex Angl[orum] iustic[iis] et omnibus baronibus et vic[ecomitibus]
et ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis totius terre sue salutem. Sciatis quia
iuditio et consideratione curie mee per privilegium ecclesie de Fiscann[o]
ex dono et concessione predecessorum meonim remanserunt Rogero abbati
Fiscann[ensi] et conventui Fiscann[ensi] .xxi.^ libre de placit[o] de quadam
combustione et .xx. libre de plac[ito] de quodam homiddio factis in terra
Sancte Trinitatis Fiscamip], unde iusticia mea placitaverat et duellum
tenuerat de combustione in curia mea. Ideoque precipio et vole quod amodo
teneat predicta abbatia Sancte Trinitatis de Fiscann[o] omnes dignitates
suas et rectitudines et consuetudines tarn in placitis quam in omnibus aliis
rebus, sicut umquam prefata abbatia melius et quietius et honorificentius
tenuit tempore predecessorum meorum et sicut carta ecclesie testatur et
sicut per breve meum precipio. T[estibus] lohanne Lexov[iensi] episcopo et
Roberto de Haia et Roberto de Curceio et Willelmo de Albany et Galfr[edo]
de Clinton[ia] et Willelmo de Glestingeberia. Apud Rothom[agum]."
It will be observed that the word curia in this charter is used
of two different bodies, the household officials, probably sitting
at Rouen, where the charter is issued, and the king's justices
(iusticia), from whose jurisdiction in holding pleas of the crown
the abbot claims exemption. In the following docimients we see
the king and his curia determining questions of title to land, but
nothing is said of the composition of the court:
(2) H. rex Angl[orum] Ric[ardo] episcopo Baioc[ensi] et omnibus baro-
nibus et fidelibus suis deOismeis salutem. Sciatis meconcessisseDeo et Sancte
Martino et monachis de Troarz amodo in peipetumn totimi mariscum imde
placitvun fuit in curia mea inter monachos predictos et Robertum de Usseio.
Ipse enim Robertus predictus recognovit rectum eorum quod iniuste earn
(sic) clamabat et illam calumpniam marisci quam habebat in eo Deo et
Sancto Martino clamavit quietam coram me. Et volo et concede et firmiter
precipio ut amodo in pace et honorifice et quiete et perpetualiter teneat
ecclesia supradicta totum iEud mariscum absque calumpnia et teneat et
habeat sicut melius et honorabilius et quietius tenet suas alias res. T[estibus]
Roberto com[ite] de Mellent et Nig[eUo] de Albinni. Apud Rothomagum.''^
^ Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 37; Monasticon, vi. 220; Calendar of CItarter Rolls,
iii. 27s.
" The cartulary has '.xx.'
'* Public Record Office, Cartae Antiquae, S. 3; cartulary of Fficamp in the
library at Rouen, MS. 1207, no. 7, where only the first of the witnesses is given.
Valin, p. 25g, prints from the cartulary.
" Original, formerly sealed sur simple queue, in Archives of the Calvados, /omJf
Troam (Marais, liasse 2, no. 776*5); copy by La Rue in the Collection Mancel at
HENRY I 91
(3) Notum sit domino Normannig et omnibus hgredibus meis, baronibus,
prepositis, et ministris quod ego Guillelmus comes de Pontivo cum essem
apud Falesiam ante dominum meimi Henricum regem Anglorum habui ver-
bum cum Rogerio de Gratapanchia patre et filio de maresco quod calumnia-
bantui contra Sanctum Martinum et monachos eius, et rem gestam et tanto
tempore a meis antecessoribus possessam et quomodo liberam et communem
regi prgfato ostendi. Diiudicavit autem rex et eius curia per verba mea et
illorum Sancto Martino et monachis remanere marescum quietum et liberum
et amplius non debere fieri inde contra eos calumniam. Quapropter prgcipio
omnibus hgredibus meis ut hgc firmiter in perpetuum teneant. Huius finis
testes mei sunt Hugo vicecomes et Robertus frater eius, Paganus filius
Hugonis de Mesdavid, Guillelmus de CorceUa, Ascelinus et Serlo capel-
lani. Hgc autem facta sunt anno ab incamatione Domini .M.C.XXIX. in
Pentecosten.^^
In the following plea " of the year iiii, the judges are named,
but they are styled optimates and appear to have been taken from
the great men of the duchy rather than exclusively from the royal
household. Apparently the king was not present. The final agree-
ment, dated 18 December 1138, is interesting for its reference to
the justiciarship of William of Roimiare, created by Stephen on
his departure from Normandy toward the close of 1137,^* and for
the list of barons witnessing. The civil strife at Rouen is evidently
that of 1090.^'
(4) In nomine domini nostri lesu Christi ad noticiam presentium et me-
moriam futurorum, ad evitandam in posterum rerum oblivionem et adverse
partis controversiam, litteris amiotamus et apicibus subsequentibus non
abolendis temporibus commendamus qualiter pontificante papa Paschali
anno ab incamatione Domini .M°.C°.XI°. sub rege Henrico abbas Ursus et
postea ecclesig Romane presidente papa Innocentio regnante rege Stephano
abbas WiUelmus anno ab incamatione Domini .M°.C°.XXX°.VIII°. ca-
lumpniam quam heredes Clari, Balduinus videlicet et Clams frater eius, de
Caen, MS. 159, f . x. Now also printed in Sauvage, Tfoam, p. 265, n. 3. Anterior to
1118, the year of the death of the coimt of Meulan.
"* Original, with seal of red wax in parchment cover, attached sur double queue.
Now also printed in Sauvage, p. 368; Valin, p. 262. This and a charter of Wil-
liam's son John are found, in original and copy, with the preceding.
"' Original notice, with no sign of having been sealed, in Archives of the Seine-
Infgrieure, fonds Jiunifiges; copy by Bigot in MS. Lat. 10055, f- 84. Now also
printed in Valin, p. 260; Vernier, no. 6r. The personnel of the coiui; is analyzed by
R. de Freville, in Nouvelle revue historigue de droit, 1912, pp. 687-696.
'' ' Neustrie vero iusticiarios Guillelmum de Roknara et Rogerium vicecomitem
aliosque nonnullos constituerat: ' Ordericus, v. 91. See infra, Chapter IV, note 15.
2' Ordericus, iii. 351 ff. A Claras de Rothomago appears as tenant of the bishop
of Bayeux in 1133: H. F., xxiii. 701.
92 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
mansione qug est apud Rothomagum txirris Rainerii cognominata et a beato
Audoeno Sancto Philiberto et ecclesig Gemmeticensi iure perpetuo possi-
denda donata, sicut prmcipali comitis Ricardi auctoritate karta teste robora-
tum est, diffinierunt. Que res se ita habet: Dominante in Normannia
Rotberto comite in urbe Rothomagensi gravis dissensio inter partes Pila-
tensium scilicet et Calloensium exorta est que multa civitatem strage
vexavit et multos nobilium utriusque partis gladio prostravit. Inter quos
partis Pilatensium erat quidam rebus et nomine quern supra diximus valde
Clarus qui abbati et monachis Gemmeticensibus pro suo actu et merito pliui-
mum erat cams. Hie ergo, quia domus prefata in munitioii loco consistit,
rerum metuens eventurti, ut ibi hospes degeret expetiit et pro sua probitate et
bonitate ad tempus impetravit. Quo decedente et rege Henrico principante
filius ipsius Balduinus hereditario iure mansionem ibidem violenter voluit
optinere, sed abbate Ursone gquitatem iudicii reposcente in causam vocatus
et nichil rationis dicere visus, iudicio optimatum eadem domo exire et dein-
ceps carere iussus est. Qui videlicet iudices hi fuerunt: Gaufridus Rotho-
magensis archiepiscopus, lohannes Luxoviensis episcopus, Rotbertus comes
Mellenti, WUIelmus comes Warenne, Gislebertus de Aquila, WiUelmus
camerarius de TancardiviUa, Willehnus de Ferrariis.
NonnuUis postea evolutis annis cum Balduinus obisset in primordio excel-
lentissimi regis Stephani, Clarus eiusdem frater super eodem negocio regias
aures pulsare et abbatem WiUehnum cepit vexare. Que causa multis locis et
temporibus varie tractata est et multismodis ut penitus finiretiu: a nobiUbus
et prudentibus viris utrinque amicis elaboratum est. Tandem in hoc rei
summa devenit ut idem Clarus ab abbate uii""'. marchas argenti acceperit et
fide data quod nee ipse nee quisquis suorum pro se vel per se de predicta
domo ulterius calumpniam moveret abiuravit et filios suos qui tunc non
aderant infra .xl. dies adventus eorum ab abbate conventus ad id se
inclinaturum sub eadem fide promisit. Itaque Willelmo de Roumara ius-
ticiam regis in Normannia conservante, dominica natale Domini proxima
precedente quando(?) idem natale mortalibus cunctis honorandimi subse-
quente proxima dominica erat celebrandmn,apud Rothomagum in domo que
fuerat Audoeni PosteUi ista pactio a Godoboldo de Sancto Victore recitata ac
perorata est et pecunia Claro tradita est, sub principibus baronibus et testi-
bus his: Ludovico abbate Sancti Georgii, Gualeranno comite Mellenti, Wil-
lelmo comite Warenne fratre eius, Hugone de Gomaco, Rotberto de Novo
Burgo, lohanne de Lunda, Rogerio de Pavihaco, Radulfo de Bosco Rohardi,
Rotberto Wesnevallis, Osberno de Kailliaco, Ingelranno de Wascolio,
Walterio de Cantelou, Waleranno de Mellente et Willelmo de Pinu, luhel
consanguineo Clari, Luca pincema, Godoboldo de Sancto Victore, Alveredo
fratre eius, Stephano filio Radulfi, Radulfo filio Rotberti, UrseUno de Wan-
teria, Radulfo de Bellomonte, lohanne fratre eius, Radulfo filio Rainboldi.
Ex parte abbatis: Gisleberto de Mara fidei susceptore, Geroldus ad barbam,
Rainaldo Vulpe, Willelmo Clarello, Rotberti Filiolo, Waltero de Eudonisvilla,
Radulfo Calcaterram fratre eius, Rabello fiho Goscelini.
So far the evidence respecting judicial organization has been of
a rather general character, but when we come to investigate the
HENRY I
93
ducal justices we are on firmer ground. The existence of a regular
body of Norman justices under Henry I is plain, first of all, from
their enumeration with the other ducal ofl&cers in the addresses of
his general charters, and is clearly seen from the writs directed
iusticiis suis Normannie '" and from the clause, perpetuated under
Geoffrey and Henry II, nisifeceris iusticia mea facial?^ The duke's
justices are mentioned as early as 1108 in a charter for Monte-
bourg,52 and about the same time — in any case not later than the
following year — we find a chief justiciar, meus proprius iusti-
tiarius . . . qui super omnes alios vice mea iustitiam tenet,^^ or,
'" Livre noir, no. 8; Round, Calendar, nos. 107, 875. Cf. Round, no. 479; Delisle,
Cartulaire normand, no. 737, and nos. 15, 17, and 18, printed below. The following
writ, from a vidimus of the mcomte of Pontaudemer in 1338, is imprinted: ' H. rex
Angl[oruni] iusticiar[iis] Norm[anme] salutem. Mando vobis quod faciatis habere
abbati de Fiscampo terram et prata de mariscis de Aisi ita bene et plenarie et iuste
sicut comes de Mellent ea tenuit de eo tempore suo, ne super hoc inde amplius
clamorem audiam. T[este] canc[ellario] apud Bonam ViUam.' Archives of the
Seine-Inf6rieure,/o«(fi Fecamp, box A (Aizier).
^ See no. 13 below, and the Livre noir, no. 37. A vidimus of Philip the Fair of
1313 offers another example: ' H. rex Angl[orum] W[illelmo] de Roumara salutem.
Sicut . . abbatissa Sancti Amandi Maeelina et ecclesia sua saisite fuerunt de
ecclesia sua de Roumara et de hiis que ad ecclesiam pertinent anno et die qua pater
meus fuit vivus et mortuus et postea eam tenuit tempore patris et fratris mei et meo
et Enuna abbatissa post eam hucusque, sic precipio quod inde amodo versus nemi-
nem ponatur in placito, quia hoc est statutvun terre mee. Sed bene et in pace teneat
sicut ecclesia sua in retro tentiit hucusque. Et nisi feceris archiepiscopus et iusticia
mea facient. T[este] R[oberto] de Ver apud Rothomagum.' Archives of the Seine-
Inf6rieure, fonds Saint-Amand; Archives Nationales, JJ. 49, no. 48; copy in MS.
Lat. 17131, f. 100.
^ ' Volo autem et districte precipio ne iusticie mee manum mittant pro iusticia
facienda in villa Montisbiu^gi diebus mercati sive nimdinarum ' : Delisle, Cartulaire
normand, no. 737; Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 157. The charter is witnessed by
Anselm, and Henry was absent from England from the summer of 1108 until after
Ansehn's death. The same phrase appears in a charter for Montebourg piuporting
to emanate from William Rufus {Liwe blanc, in Archives of the Manche, H. 8391,,
f. i; Gailia Christiana,:d. instr. 229; Neustria Pia, p. 672), but it is evident from the
witnesses that this has been forged on the basis of the charter of Henry I; see supra,
Chapter H, note 57.
^ Charters for Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 156-160. The
first of these, witnessed by William, archbishop of Rouen, who died in February
mo, is anterior to Henry's departure for England in the preceding May; it may
have suffered some alterations, but the original of the other charter is still pre-
served in the Archive of the Calvados,
94 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
more succinctly, iusticia mea capitalis.^^ Ordinarily, as in the
Fecamp charter printed above (no. i) and in nos. 5 and 6 below,
the word iustitia denotes the body of justices.''
What is perhaps our clearest bit of evidence respecting the
justices of Heniy I is contained in the ' Emptiones Eudonis,' a
document of 1 1 29-1 131'^ which comprises a series of notices of the
acquisitions made by Saint-fitienne of Caen under the adminis-
tration of AbbotEudo (i 107-1 140) . Of the suits here recorded the
first came before the king and the whole curia at Arganchy;
besides the bishop of Lisieux, two of the barons who attest are
household officers, namely Robert de Courcy seneschal, and
WiUiam of Tancarville chamberlain (d. 1129''). In the second
case, which is prior to 112 2, we find a full court {tocius iusticie) of
five justices sitting in the castle at Caen, where the Exchequer of
"* This phrase occurs in a charter for Beaubec which has come down to us with
the style of Henry II, but has the witnesses of a charter of Henry I and is apparently
cited in a charter of Stephen which accompanies it in the cartulary: ' Prohibeo ne
de aliqua possessione sua trahantur in causam nisi coram me vel coram iusticia mea
capitalL Et nichil retineo in aliquo predictorum preter oraciones monachorum.
T[estibus] episcopo Bem[ardo] de Sancto David, W[illelmo] de Tanc[ardiviUa] cam-
[erario], R[ogero ?] filio Ricardi, apud Clarendonam.' Vidimus of 13 11 (badly
faded) , and Coutumier de Dieppe (G. 85 1 , f . s 7v) , in Archives of the Seine-Inffirieure;
Archives Nationales, JJ. 46, f . 37V; Delisle-Berger, no. 314, as a charter of Henry II.
In England the same phrase is found in a charter of Henry for Holy Trinity, Lon-
don: original in Public Record Office, Ancient Deeds, AS. 317 (before 1123).
'' Other examples are the assistance given Rabel of Tancarville by the canons of
Sainte-Barbe 'erga iusticiam regis Henrici' (Round, Calendar, no. 568); 'per
manus iusticie mee ' {J'res Ancien Coutumier, c. 71) ; a transaction under Henry II
'in castello Cadomi coram iustitia regis' (DeviUe, Analyse, p. 52); and the follow-
ing notice in a cartulary of Troarn: ' Willelmus rex et Rogerius comes dederunt
nobis decimam de crasso pisce Retisville, quam Robertus de Turpo nobis voluit
auferre sed reddidit coactus iusticia regis Henrici' (MS. Lat. 10086, f. sv; Sauvage,
Troarn, p. 359).
'^ It falls between the release of Galeran de Meulan in 11 29 (Simeon of Durham,
ii. 283; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Ordericus, iv. 463) and the death of Richard of
Coutances, 18 November ri3i (fiailia Christiana, xi. 874; H. F., xxiii. 475). Henry
was absent in England from 15 July 1129 to September 1130, and again begiiming
with the summer of 1131; see Appendix G.
" Annals of Saint-Wandrille, Histoire liiUraire de la France, xxxii. 204. In the
Pipe Roll of 1130 we find, not William, but Rabel of Tancarville. If, as seems likely,
the order of notices in the ' Emptiones ' is chronological, the judgment at Arganchy
was rendered before 1118, the year of the death of William, count of fivreux, who
makes the grant which follows next but one.
HENRY I 95
the later twelfth century regularly held its sessions; John of
Lisieux, Robert de la Haie, and Hugh de Montfort constable/^
are among the judges, but we are hardly justified in assuming that
this was a meeting of the Exchequer. The action of the justices in
deputing one of their number to take surety from the disturber
of the monks should be noted. The proceedings in the third case
took place likewise in the castle at Caen, before the king and
three justices. Here the justices are sharply distinguished from
the barons,'* and Roger Marmion, who acted as justice in the
preceding case, attests simply as a baron.*"
(s) Emit Eudo abbas a Willelmo de capella molendinum de Drocione
iuxta Divam viginti duabus libris in prima emptione, de quo molendino
desaisitus per Robertum Frellam dedit prefatus abbas predicto Willelmo
alias .xxii^. libras ut ipsum molendinum contra predictum Robertimi dis-
rationaret et Sancto Stephano adquietaret. Que disratiocinatio at adquie-
tatio facta fuit apud Argenteium ante regem Henricum ibique in presentia
ipsius regis et tocius cmie recognitum fuit ipsum molendinum esse de fedio
regis. Cuius rei testis est rex ipse et barones ipsius, lohannes scilicet Lexo-
viensis episcopus, Robertus de Curceio, WOlelmus de TancardiviUa, Willel-
mus PevreUus, Rainaldus de Argenteio. Testes utriusque emptionis et tocius
consumnaationis ex parte Sancti Stephani: Robertus de Grainvilla, Warinus
de Diva, WiQelmus Rabodus et fratres eius. Ex parte WiUelmi: WiUelmus
frater eius, Robertus de Hotot, Radulphus filius Ansfride, Malgerius de Bosa-
vaUe, Rainaldus filius Ase. Dedit etiam predictus abbas uxori eiusdem Wil-
lelmi pro concessione huius venditionis, quia ipsum molendinum de eius
maritagio erat, xl. solidos Rotomagensiimi. Testes: Robertus portarius,
Rogerius camerarius, Warinus Cepellus, WiUelmus cocus et alii plures. . . .
Rogerius filius Petri de Fontaneto in castello Cadomi in presentia tocius
iusticie reddidit Sancto Stephano terram iUam et omnes decimas illas quas
ipse sanctus a Godefrido avo Ulius et a patre suo habuerat easque eidem
sancto deinceps firmiter in perpetuum tenendas concessit. Et qxiia idem
Rogerius abbatem et monachos pro eisdem decimis sepius vexaverat, ex con-
sideratione iusticie Gaufrido de Sublis fidem suam affidavit quod nunquam
amplius damnum contrarium ac laborem inde Sancto Stephano faceret sed
manuteneret et bene adquietaret. Et ut hec omnia firmissimo et indissolubili
vinculo Sancto Stephano teneret, abbas et monachi societatem quam pre-
decessores iUius in monasterio habuerant iUi concesserunt et insuper de
caritate .xl. solidos et unum equum ei dederunt. Testes ipsa iusticia, lohan-
^' Round, Geofrey de Mandeville, p. 326. Hugh revolted in 11 22, and was kept
in close confinement after his capture in 1124: Ordericus, iv. 441, 458, 463.
" Cf. Delisle, in B. iS. C, x. 273; Fr6ville, in Nouvette revue historique de droit,
1912, p. 70s f.
•" Roger Marmion was dead in 11 30, when his son paid relief for his lands: Pipe
Roll 31 Henry I, p. in.
96 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
nes scilicet Luxoviensis episcopus, Robertus de Haia, Hugo de Monteforti,
Gaufridus de Sublis, Rogerius Marmio. Ex parte Sancti Stephani: Ran-
nulfus de Taissel et Ricardus filius eius, Radulfus de Hotot, Aigulfus de Mer-
cato et nepotes illius. Ex parte Rogerii: Radulfus sororius eius, Anschitillus
hares de Hotot, Radulfus de luvinneio. . . .
Huius autem viUe" ecclesiam quam Sanctus Stephanus antiquitus in
magna pace tenuerat Herbertus quidam clericus ei modis quibuscumque
poterat auferre querens abbatem et monachos inde diu fortiter vexavit.
Quorum vexation! Henricus rex finem imponere decernens utrisque ante se
in casteUo Cadomi diem constituit placitandi. Die igitur constituto abbas
et monachi cum omnibus que eis necessaria erant ipsi regi et iusticie placitvim
suum obtulerunt. Herberto autem ibi in audientia regis et tocius iusticie
necnon et baronum deficiente, de prefata ecclesia ipsius regis et iusticie
iudicio Sanctus Stephanus saisitus remansit, nemini deinceps ampUus inde
responsurus. Testes huius rei ipse rex Hemricus et iusticia, lohannes videlicet
Luxoviensis episcopus, Robertus de Haia, Gaufridus de Sublis, et barones
Radulfus Taisso, Rogerius Marmio, WiUelmus Patricus, Robertus Car-
boneUus. Ex parte Sancti Stephani: Rannulfus de TaisseUo et fihi eius
WiUehnus et Ricardus, Robertus de GrainviUa, Radulfus de Hotot, Warinus
de Diva et filii eius.
Has emptiones quas fecit predictus abbas et donationes quas fecerunt
suprascripti barones ego Henricus rex Anglorum concedo et sigiUi mei as-
sertione confirmo. Huius rei sunt testes cmh signis suis subscript! barones.
Sigmun Henfrici regis. S. Ricardi f Baiocensis episcopi. S. lohannis f Luxo-
viensis episcopi. S. Ricarfdi Constanpiensis episcopi. fS. Turfgisi Abrin-
censis episcopi. S. Rofberti de sigillo. S. Roberjti Sagiensis episcopi. S.
Roberfti comitis Gloecestrie. S. Waleranfm comitis de MeUent. S. Robertti
de Haia, S. Rogefrii vicecomitis. S. Willelfmi de Albigneio. S. Roberfti filii
Bernardi.'^
" Siccavilla (SecqueviUe-en-Bessin).
*2 Original, endorsed ' Emptiones Eudonis,' in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1834,
no. 13-56^. The charter, which measures S7 by 66 centimeters, is ruled in dry
point and divided into four columns; there is a double queue but no trace of a seal.
(Cf. JW. ^.AT., vii. 272, no. 13; a copy by Hippeau is in MS. Lat. n. a. 1406, ff. 76-
8sv). The witnesses are printed by Dehsle, S.Sauveur, pieces, no. 47; the slip
which makes John, bishop of Sfiez, appear as Robert between two other Roberts is
not of the sort one expects in an original, and the crosses seem to have been made
by the same hand, so that we may have only an early copy. There can be no doubt
of the genuineness of the contents, as the substance of the notices is reproduced,
without the names of justices or witnesses, in one of Henry I's great charters for
Samt-fitienne in the same archives (H. 1833, no. 12-3; 63 by 52 centimeters). The
witnesses of this are given by Delisle, Caritdaire normand, no. 828; they are identical
with those of another charter for the same monastery, evidently issued at the same
time (H. 1833, no. ixbis-sbis; 74 by 52 centimeters). The two are incorporated
by Henry II into a single charter of extraordinary length: Delisle-Berger, no. 154.
The 'Emptiones Eudones ' were transcribed into the lost cartulary of Saint-
HENRY I 97
The following document of May 1133 is of greater interest
for the procedure than for the composition of the king's court;
unfortunately it is known only through an extract from a lost car-
tulary, and the omitted portions are plainly of importance. A cer-
taiQ Fulk, vassal of the abbot of Troam in respect of a certain fief,
also claims to hold of the abbot the entertainment of a man and a
horse. The king commands the abbot to do the claimant right,
and a duel is waged, doubtless in the abbot's court, and, in accord-
ance with a practice abundantlyexemplified in the later Exchequer
Rolls, recorded at Caen before the king's justices, who render a
decision in favor of the abbot. Fulk, or rather, as before, his
guardian for him, then brings forward another claim, this time to
a church and twenty acres of land, and the justices again order
the abbot to do him right; but the suit is abandoned at the
instance of. the patron of the monastery, William, count of Pon-
thieu. It should be noted that while the first plea is held per
iussum regis Henrici, Henry had been absent from Normandy for
nearly two years. There was nothing to prevent the plaintiff's
securing his writ from England, but it was probably granted by
the justices in Normandy, as in the ensuing complaint. A notice
of this kind must not be pressed too hard, but there is no indica-
tion that the procedure was exceptional, and there is interest in
the suggestion which the accoxmt affords of the justices' issuing
writs in the king's name and taking jurisdiction in disputes be-
tween a lord and his vassal. Such writs of right indicate that Nor-
mandy, as well as England, was already moving in the direction
of the procedure found in Glanvill.^' The case also illustrates
the procedure in the wager of battle as described by Glanvill: ** the
plaintiff offers battle through a champion who still preserves the
name, if not also the character, of a witness. The only justice
fitienne, a full analysis of which is in the library of Sainte-Genevifive at Paris (MS.
1656), whence it has been published by Deville, Analyse, pp. 44-49. The notices
which mention the king's justices are quoted from Deville's text, which is incom-
plete and very carelessly printed, by L. W. Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward,
p. 26 f. VaUn strangely overlooks the whole document.
'^ See G. B. Adams, Origin of the English Constitution, pp. 78-80, 94-105. Pro-
fessor Adams has convinced me that in this case Fulk was the tenant, not the lord,
of the abbot, as I was inclined to believe in 1909.
« Bk. ii, c. 3.
98 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
named besides the bishop of Lisieux is William Tanetin/* who
appears to be acting individually when the suit is dismissed.
(6) xxiiii" folio veteriscart[arii]. Notum sit omnibus quod anno millesimo
centesimo tricesimo tercio in mense maio, per clamorem Fulconis filii Ful-
conis et Rog[erii] Pelavillani vitrici eius qui custodiebat eum et terram illius
et per iussum regis Henrici, tenuit doninus abbas Andreas placitum et recti-
tudinem Ulis de procuratu unius hominis et unius equi quern dicebant ipsum
filium Fulconis debere habere ab ipso abbate in feudo cum alio feudo suo. Et
in ipso placito fuit inde dueUum iudicatum et captum inter Hugonem de
Alimannia qui testis erat filii Fulconis et Rad[ulfiun] filium Fulberti. Deinde
in eodem mense apud Cad[omvun] recordatimi est dueUum coram iusticia
regis, scilicet coram lohanne episcopo Lex[oviensi] et WiUelmo Tanetin et
aliis, et iudicavit curia regis quod habere non debebant quod requirebant,
etc. Post finem huitis dueUi fecit clamorem Rog[erius] PelaviUanus coram
iusticia regis quod abbas Troamensis toUebat fiho Fulconis ecclesiam de
TurfrediviUa '^ et .xx. acras terre, et precepit iusticia regis ut abbas rectitu-
dinem inde teneret ill[is]. Interea venit Troarnum WUlelmus comes Ponti-
vorum dominus Troarnensis abbatie et interrogavit ipsum Rog[eriimi] si de
hoc veUet placitare, et respondit Rog[erius] quod in pace dimittebat ex toto
in finem comiti et abbati, etc., totimi id est et placitum et ecclesiam et terram,
coram ipso comite et Willelmo Tanetin iusticiario regis. Plures stmt testes.*'
The activity of the justices is also seen from writs like the fol-
lowing, which should be compared with one in the Livre noir of
Bayeux,** addressed to the bishop of Lisieux, Roger de Mande-
ville, and William son of Ansger, and ordering them to do full
justice to the bishop of Bayeux as regards any disturbance of his
rights:
(7) Henricus rex Anglorum lohanni episcopo Lexoviensi et Rogerio de
Magn[aviUa] salutem. Precipio vobis ut facialis tenere plenvmi rectum abbati
de Cadomo de aqua de Vei[m] desicuti ipsa iacebat ad manerium in tempore
patris mei, ita ne inde clamorem audiam.*'
*5 William Tanetin appears as dapifer (of the count of Ponthieu ?) in 11 27, and
as tenant of the count in 113S (Round, Calendar, nos. 590, 970). He is frequently
mentioned in the cartulary of Troam in documents ranging from 1117 to 1135:
MS. Lat. 10086, ff. 30V, 31, iS2v; Sauvage, Troam, pp. xxxii, 152, 223 f.
<6 Tou£fr6ville (Calvados), canton of Troam. Cf. Sauvage, pp. 23, 140.
*' Troam cartulary, MS. Lat. 10086, f. 3sv; copy by the abb6 La Rue in MS.
Caen 64, f. 46V. Now also printed in Valin, p. 263.
*' No. 29; also in Livre rouge (MS. Lat. n. a. 1828), no. 29. Anterior to 1122,
when William Fitz Ansger was dead (DeUsIe, Rouleaux des marts, p. 293).
*» Library of Saint6-Genevi6ve, MS. 1656, f . 20; incorrectly printed by Deville,
Analyse, p. 18. Vains (Manche) had been granted to Saint-fitienne by the Con-
queror: Appendix E, no. i.
HENRY I 99
With respect to the personnel of the king's court the documents
published above, taken with the order of precedence in the address
of the king's charters/" fully substantiate Round's assertion that
Bishop John of Lisieux was the head of the Norman Exchequer;
and while the title is not given him in any document so far known,
there can be no doubt that he held the office of chief justiciar.
Next to the bishop, Robert de la Haie the seneschal appears as
the principal member of the court, indeed the absence of these two
on accoimt of iUness is the occasion of explanation. ^^ Robert
seems to have been the chief lay officer of the Norman adminis-
tration, for his name heads the list of laymen both in the address
and in the testing clause of Henry's charters except when he is pre-
ceded by some one of the rank of count. ^^ When Robert de la
Haie is not one of the court, the other Norman seneschal, Robert
de Courcy, is the first lay member. The justiciar and the seneschal
would thus seem to have been the important elements in the court.
In certain of Henry's writs we find a distinction drawn between
his iusticia Normannie and other justices in a way which suggests
at first sight the chief justiciar in contrast to his colleagues, but
more probably has reference to justices who were local or were at
least acting locally. Thus a writ in favor of the canons of Bayeux
is addressed iusticiis suis Normannie et Willelmo Glast[oni^ ei
Eudoni Baiocensi et G[aufrido] de Subles.^^ Another writ, evi-
'" Round, Calendar, nos. 282, 569, 1436 (cf. no. 611); Ordericus, iv. 435.
" E. H. R., xiv. 426; supra, note 18.
'2 E. H. R., xiv. 424; supra, nos. i, 5; infra, nos. 9, 11, 12, 14; Ordericus,
iv. 43s; Round, Calendar, nos. 107, 122, 123, 168, 197, 398, 724, 924, 998, 1191,
1388, 1436 (where Round has Richard, but the Livre noir, no. 34, has simply R.) ;
Calendar of Charter Rolls, ii. 137; Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, p. 334, 1334-
1338, p. 249; JlfoMtoCMieCorto/ory (Somerset Record Society, 1894), no. 164; Appen-
dix F, nos. 10, II. Such exceptions to the precedence of Robert in the testing
clause as are foimd in Roimd, nos. 373, 375, 411, and Monasticon, vii. 1071, are
not originals; but no. 1052 in Round (from a copy by Gaignifires) and no. 828 in
the Cartulaire normand of Delisle seem to be real exceptions. The place of Robert
de la Haie in the Norman administration shows the need of serious modification
in Vernon Harcourt's view of the unimportance of the seneschal's office in this reign;
indeed, in view of the ahnost uniform precedence of the seneschals in Hemy's
charters, it is impossible to maintain that they show " no trace of preeminence
over other household functionaries " {His Grace the Steward, p. 24).
^ Livre noir, no. 8; U. Chevalier, Ordinaire et coutumier de Viglise de Bayeux,
p. 419; Round, Calendar, no. 1437.
lOO NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
dently issued in the vacancy of the see between 1133 and 113S,
is directed iusticiis el custodibus episcopatus Baiocensis, who are
ordered to execute a decision of the king's curia in a case between
two of the bishop's vassals — et nisi feceritis iusticia Norm[annie]
facial fieri.^* There are also writs addressed to local Justices in
particular districts: iustilie et vicecomili Archarum,^^ iusliciariis et
minislris de Sancto Marculfo el de Varrevilla,^ iusticiis Constatir-
lini, iusticiis Constanlini et Valloniarum,^'' Algaro de S ancle
Marie Ecclesia celerisque iusticiis Constanlini.^^ In the first of
these instances the justice and vicecomes may be one and the same,
as occurs in England at this period,^' and the same persons may be
acting as justices and custodes in the Bayeux writ; but it is not
likely that the justices and ministri of Saint-Marcouf were identi-
cal, and the justices of the Cotentin have no other title and are
evidently royal judges for the district, whether itinerant or acting
imder local commissions it is impossible to say. In some instances,
as when the bishop of Lisieux is associated with local magnates
like Roger de Mandeville and William Tanetin, the court may
have consisted of an itinerant justiciar and a local judge. In order
to follow out questions connected with the local administration of
justice, we should need to examine a considerable number of writs,
or at least a considerable group of tl^ose relating to a particular
district or religious establishment; and the Norman writs of
Henry's reign are few and scattered.*" Not all of the following
documents for the abbey of Montebourg relate to the administra-
tion of justice, but they are printed here because they form an
interesting group which has not as yet been pubhshed:*'
" Livre noir, no. 37. ^^ No. 9, bdow.
'* Round, Calendar, no. 398. " No. 11, below.
'* Henry I for H^auville, a priory of Marmoutier: vidimus in Archives of the
Manche; copy in MS. Grenoble 1402, f. 232; printed in Revue catholique de Nor-
mandie, x. 350.
" Stubbs, Constitutional History, 6th ed., i. 423; Roimd, Geoffrey de MandeciUe,
p. 106 ff.
*° The two most important sets of such writs are those in the Livre noir of
Bayeux (nos. 8, 29, 34, 37, 38) and the charters and writs relating to Envermeu
calendared by Round (Calendar, nos. 393-398). See also the writ for Saint-Pfere
of Chartres printed below, Chapter VI, p. 223.
»' The cartulary of Montebourg (MS. Lat. 10087) was unknown to Round, as
were the valuable copies of documents relating to the Cotentin which were made by
HENRY I lOI
(8) H. rex Angl[orum] vicec[omitibus] et prepositis et ministris suis tocius
Costantini salutem. Precipio vobis quod non capiatis hominem aliquem vel
nampnum eius aliqua occasione in mercato de Monteborc die ipso quo mer-
catum est, si eum alia die et alibi in terra mea eos capere poteritis. Quia nolo
quod mercatum elemosine mee per occasionem destruatiu-. T[este] R[oberto]
comite Gloec[estrie] apud Argent[onum ?] per WUlelmum Glastonie.'^
(9) H. rex Angl[oruni] iusticiariis et ministris de Sancto Malculpho et de
VarreviUa*' et omnibus dominis de quibus abbatia de Monteborc tenet,
salutem. Precipio quod abbatia de Montebxu-go teneat omnia sua ita bene et
quiete et honorifice sicut liberior abbacia tocius Normannie, et nominatim
elemosinam meam terram de FoucarviUa liberam et quietam de teloneo et de
verec et de omnibus consuetudinibus et de omnibus querelis. Nolo enim ut
habeant occasionem mittendi manum uUo modo super elemosinam meam.
Quod si quid iniurie fecerint, videat iusticia mea ne perdam rectum meum;
abbacia namque est propria mea capeUa et ideo precipio vobis ut eam
custodiatis. T[este] R[oberto] de Haia. Apud Rotli[omagum]."
(10) H. rex Anglie R[icardo] Constantiensi episcopo et vicec[omitibus] et
omnibus baronibus et fideUbus suis de Costent[ino] salutem. Sciatis me con-
cessisse abbatie Sancte Marie Montisburgi ecclesiam de MorfariviUa «' cum
feria et terris et decLmis et omnibus rebus ipsi ecclesie pertinentibus, quam
Sanson de ' Morfarvilla predicte abbatie dedit et concessit concessione
Roberti de Novo Burgo domini sui et fratrum eius. Et volo et precipio
finniter ut bene et in pace et quiete et honorifice teneat. T[estibus] Roberto
de Novo Burgo et WiUelmo de Albinneio. Apud Rothomagum.^*
Pierre Mangon at the end of the seventeenth century and are now preserved in the
library of Grenoble (MSS. 1390-1402) . Cf . Dehsle, Les mimoires de Pierre Mangon,
mcomte de Valognes, in Annuaire de la Manche, i8gi, pp. 11-42. Certain docu-
ments concerning the Norman possessions of Montebourg are also copied in the
cartulary of Loders in the British Museum, Add. MS. 15605, excerpted in Remte
catholique de Nortnandie, jrvii-xix.
^ MS. Lat. 10087, no. 8, where the writ is dated ' apud Dug.' The mdimus in the
Archives of the Manche (H. 8426, 8527) and in the Archives Nationales (JJ. 52, f.
62, JJ. 118, f. 258); MSS. Grenoble 1395, ff. 9, 58, and 1402, f. 64V; and Add. MS.
15605 of the British Museum, ff . 13V, 14V, 26, all have ' Argent.' For the contents
of the privileges of the market of Montebourg, see Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no.
737; Remte caiholigue, xvii. 308; Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 157.
^ Saint-Marcouf is in the canton of Montebourg. Varreville and FoucarviUe
are in the canton of Sainte-MSre-£gUse (Manche).
^ MS. Lat. 10087, no. 9; also in Liwe blanc (Archives of the Manche, H. 8391),
f. 2; MS. Lat. 12885, f. r6i; Add. MS. 15605,6. 13V, 14V, 26. Vidimus in Archives
of the Manche, H. 8426, 8427, 10881, and in Archives Nationales, JJ. 52, f. 62, JJ.
118, f. 258. Copies in MSS. Grenoble 139S, f . 28V, and 1402, f . 35V, and in the Baluze
MSS. of the BibliothSque Nationale, MS. 58, ff. 38, 39V. In MS. Grenoble 1395,
f. 9, there is a copy of this writ (from a mdinms of 1315) addressed 'episcopo Con-
st[antiensi] et iusticliis] Norm[annie] et omnibus . . .'
°5 Montfarville (Manche), canton of Quettehou. *" MS. Lat. 10087, uo. 10.
I02 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
(ii) H. rex Angl[orum] iustic[iis] Costentini et Willelmo de Bniis et
forestariis suis salutem. Mando vobis atque precipio quod pennittatis
habere monachos de Montisburg[o] tot arbores in Bruis " ad focmn suum
quot ebdomade habentur in anno et materiem ad sua edificia et pasnagium
suum quietum et omnes consuetudines suas liberas et quietas, et de tot
arboribus sint quieti forestarii in placitis meis de quot garantizaverint eos
monachi per suas taillias. T[este] R[oberto] comite Gloec[estrie] apud
Roth[omaguni] per R[obertum] de Haia.»8
(12) H. rex Angl[orum] Ric[ardo] episcopo de Constanc[iis] et W[i]leImo]
de Alben[neio] salutem. Precipio ut Unfredus de Alben[neid] teneat terram
suam in pace et quiete et decimam de Morsalines '' et molendinimi et quic-
quid habet in eadem villa, et concedo ut ecclesia de Montebo[r]c post mortem
Unfredi eamdem terram habeat in quiete et pace sicut Unfridus earn eidem
ecclesie dedit. T[este] R[oberto] de Haia. Apud Roth[omagum]."'
(13) H. rex Angl[orum] W[illelmo] de Albin[neio] salutem. Precipio quod
ecclesia de Monteburgo de elemosina mea teneat terram suam de Morsalinis
quam Unfridus de Adevilla ei dedit concessu patris tui ita bene et in pace et
iuste et quiete sicut breve patris tui quod habet testatiu:. Et nisi feceris
iusticia mea faciat, ne inde amplius clamorem audiam pro penuria plene
iusticie vel recti. T[este] R[oberto] comite Gloec[estrie] apud Alg' per W.
Filiastr[um]."
(14) H. rex Angl[orum] Ric[ardo] de AnsgervUla, W. de Sancto Germano
salutem. Precipio vobis quod faciatis ita iuste habere abbati de Montisburgo
octavam partem ecclesie de HerreviUa " sicut habet octavam partem terre
eiusdem viUe et desicut venit in curiam meam ut illam partem disrationaret
versus monachos deHaivilla et homines suos et iUi defecerunt se iUucveniendi
ad diem suum inde sumptum et datum; ita ne super hoc amplius clamorem
inde audiam. T[este] R[oberto] de Haia per Thomam de Ponte Episcopi.
Apud Rothomagum."
(is) H. rex Anglie episcopo Constancpensi] et iustic[iis] Normannie et
omnibus dominis de quibus abbatia de Montisburgo et ecclesia sua tenet, sa-
lutem. Precipio quod abbas de Montisbiurgo et ecclesia sua teneant terras et
homines et ecclesias et decimas et molendina et consuetudines et omnia sua
" Brix (Manche), canton of Valognes.
*' MS. Lat. 10087, no- II) Archives of the Manche, H. 8426, 8427; Archives
Nationales, JJ. 52, f. 62, JJ. 118, f. 258; MS. Grenoble 1395, f. 9; Add. MS. 13605,
ff. 13V, 14. In MSS. Grenoble 1395, f. 29, and 1402, f. 35V, the writ begins: ' H.
r[ex] Angl[orum] iustpciis] Constantini et Vallon[iarum] et forestariis de Bruis.'
Cf. Henry's general confirmation, Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 737.
»' Morsalines (Manche), canton of Quettehou.
'» MS. Lat. 10087, no. 12.
" Ibid., no. 13.
" Helleville (Manche), in the canton of Les Pieux, not far from the priory of
Hfeuville.
" MS. Lat. 10087, "lo- 14-
HENRY I 103
ita bene et in pace sicut abbatia Fiscan[m], quod enim ad me pertinet in ea
onine concessi illi in elemosina. T[este] R[oberto] de Ver. Apud Rotho-
m[agum]."
The glimpse of the forest courts in no. 11 is interesting. Pleas
of the forest are mentioned in Normandy as early as the reign of
Robert I, and there is evidence of a special forest law under the
Conqueror; '* this writ shows the foresters rendering periodic
account before the king's justices and offering talKes as their
justification for trees that have been taken by the monks. The
regarders are also mentioned in Henry's reign," as are the fines
and forfeitures of the forest pleas."
William de Brix and Richard d'Angerville '^ are also found as
royal judges in the Cotentin in a document relating to the abbey
of Saint-Sauveur, where the king's justices are apparently sitting
in the feudal court of Nigel the vicomte. That they might so sit
appears from English practice, and there is also evidence that
Henry's officers exercised judicial rights on the lands of the
bishop of Bayeux.^'
(16) Sciant etiam omnes quod monachi Sanctj Salvatoris omnes decimas
et maxime medietatem campartorum, quod est decima pro qua inceptum
fuit, totius terrg Nigelli vicecomitis et suorum omnium hominvun diracioci-
navenmt in curia sua, quibusdam eius militibus et vavassoribus contradi-
centibus, quibusdam concedentibus. Et ibi nemine resistente sed omnibus
adquiescentibus iudicatum est atque diffinitum tam a regis quam a Nigelli
iudicibus ut abbatig extunc et deinceps recta decima et maxime medietas
" MS. Lat. 10087, no. 15 (where the witness appears as ' R. de Weu ') ; Livre blanc
(H. 893i),f. iv; MS. Lat. 12885, f. 161; Add. MS. 15605, ff. 13V, 14V, 26;MS.
Grenoble 139s, f • 28v; vidimus in Archives of the Manche, H. 8426, 8427, 8692, and
in Archives Nationales, JJ. 52, f. 62, JJ. 118, f. 258. In MS. Grenoble 1402, f. 3sv,
the witness is given as ' Ric. de Redvers.'
" Supra, Chapter I, notes 215-218.
'8 Infra, note 156.
" Appendix F, no. 17.
'" William de Brix witnesses charters of Henry I for Saint-fitienne (Round, Cal-
endar, nos. 1411, 1412; Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 828). Richard d'Angerville
appears as a witness in January iioi in the Troam cartulary (MS. Lat. 10086, f.
149) and in 1 104 in Delisle, S.Sameur, pieces, no. 46. Roger Suhart was a promi-
nent sub-tenant of the bishop of Bayeux in 1133, H. F., xxiii. 699 f. (cf. Tardif,
Coutumiers de Normandie, i. i, p. 112).
" Livre i:oir, no. 16. Cf. the presence of Henry I's judges in the court of the
bishop of Exeter, E. H. R., xiv. 421.
I04 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
campartorum a predictis sine caliunpnia reddereUir. Histestibus: Willelmo
de Bruis, Ricardo de Ansgervilla, Rogero de Rufo Campo, Waltero de
Hainou, Rogero Suhart.'"
As regards ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Henry I seems to have
adhered in general to the practice of his father, the principles of
whose poKcy, as formulated in the canons of LiUebonne, he con-
firmed by the apposition of his seal.*^ Barons as well as prelates
sat in the curiae which decided the independence of Saint-Taurin
from Fecamp and the rights of Bee over Notre-Dame-du-Pre.*^
If the court which establishes the right of Geoffrey the priest to
the church of Saint-Sauveur at Caen is composed of bishops and
clergy, it is still the king's court and the result is transmitted to
the bishop and chapter of Bayeux by royal writ.*' For slaying in
violation of the Truce of God the bishop now has a fixed fine of
nine pounds; aU personal property beyond this is forfeited to the
king, in whose court the duel must be held and whose justices
collect the fine due the bishop.**
The Norman evidence, like that for England in the same period,
does not suffice to give a clear picture of the judicial system, yet it
is plain that there is such a system and that it is creating a body of
law. The justices issue writs, take sureties, try pleas of the crown,
and hear possessory as well as petitory actions. If we may trust
Henry I's charter for the town of Verneuil in the form in which it
has reached us, the use of writs is already so common that they
are granted by local officers, although the writ concerning land
stands on a different footing from the others.*^ Very likely the
*" In pancarte of Saint-Sauveur, British Museum, Add. Ch. 15281, formerly
sealed (' sigillum Rogerii vicecomitis '). Printed by Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces,
no. 48, from the cartulary of the abbey at Saint-L6, no. 13, where the words ' tam
a regis quam a NigeUi iudicibus ' are omitted.
*' Teulet, Layettes du TrSsor des Chartes, i. 25, no. 22.
82 Qallia Christiana, Lx. instr. 127; Appendix F, no. i. See supra, notes 14, 15.
^ ' In curia mea ante episcopos meos et ante clerum meum ': Livre noir, no. 38
(1107-1123).
^ Ordinance of 1135 in Trh Ancien Coutumiet, c. 71; Round, Calendar, no. 290;
ct. Tardit, £,tnde, p. 48 f.; infra, p. 140.
** ' Et si aliquis burgensium breve aUquod a prelato pecierit, illud habebit sine
precio, preter terram: ' Ordonnances des Rois, iv. 639, c. 10. The text of these
privileges is very corrupt; for prelato (of. DuCange, s. v.) we should probably read
pretore or preposito.
HENRY 1 105
king's court administered some form of procedure by sworn
inquest; such inquests were certainly held by Henry's command,
and within ten years of his death they had developed into regular
assizes.*^
Of the fiscal side of the Norman administration no records have
survived anterior to the Exchequer Roll of 1 180, but a roll of 1 136
is mentioned in the eighteenth century,*' and a careful study of
the later rolls and of the incidental evidence of earlier sources
shows that the essential features of the Exchequer of Henry II
existed under Henry I and even earlier. As in England, there was
no sharp separation between the Judicial and the financial duties
of the king's officers: in 11 23 the iustiiiarii regis took possession
of the county of fivreux and the lands of the rebels and added
them to the king's demesne,** and after Robert of Belleme had
been removed from office in 11 12 for failure to render account
for the royal revenues in his vicomtes of Argentan, Exmes, and
Falaise, we find Bishop John of Lisieux in charge of the royal
stores at Argentan.*' The system of collection and account which
appears in the later rolls, being based upon the vicomte and
prevoti and not on the newer bailliage of the Angevin dukes,
plainly goes back to the time when these were the important local
areas; and the tithes and specific pa3Tnents charged against the
farms can in many instances be traced back well into the eleventh
century.'" Even the amount of the farm might long remain un-
changed, in spite of such a general revision as was made in 1176;
the forest of Roumare, for example, was let at the same amount in
1 180 as in ii22.'i An excellent illustration of the continuity of
the Exchequer arrangements is furnished by the following ex-
tracts from a charter of Henry I for Seez cathedral, in which, as in
86 See infra, Chapter VI. ** Ordericus, iv. 453.
«> M.A. N., xvi. p. XXX. 8' Ibid., iv. 303, 305.
^'' Supra, Chapter I.
'1 ' Et in parco meo Rothomagi totam decimam feni et .c. solidos de foresta mea
de Romare, scilicet decimam per annum: ' charter of Henry I in 11 22 for Notre-
Dame-du-Pr6, early copy in Archives of the Seine-Inf^rieure,/o»Mfi Bonne-Nouvelle,
box B; certified copy in MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, f. 37. In 1180 the tithe is still 100 solidi
(Stapleton, i. 75). On the revision of 1176 see Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 23,
Io6 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
a charter for Bocherville,'^ the farm of the vicomte is shown to
have existed under William the Conqueror:
Ipsis quoque fratribus regularibus damus et confirmamus quindecim libras
Rothomagensis monete quas dedi in dedicatione ipsius ecclesie in unoquoque
anno habendas, scilicet septem libras et decern solidos in teloneo meo de
Falesia et septem libras et decern solidos in teloneo meo de Oximis. . . .
Preterea duodecim libras in firma nostra de Argentomo et viginti et imum
solidos in teloneo eiusdem ville et sexaginta ioUdos et decern denarios de
teloneo meo de Oximis que dederunt pater mens et mater mea ecclesie
Sagiensi ad victum canoniconmi duorum, quod antiquitus in elemosina statu-
tum fuerat.^' . . .
Normandy also offers an interesting parallel to England in the
matter of its treasury. Round has shown the significance, for the
history of fiscal institutions in England, of Henry I's grants to the
French monasteries of Cluny, Tiron, and Fontevrault, especially
the grant to Tiron of fifteen marks receivable each year de thesauro
meo in festo Sancti Michaelis Wintonie, which imder Henry II
became payable from his treasury at the Exchequer.^* Now the
first of these charters to Fontevrault also contains a charge
against the Norman revenues, namely £ioo in the rent of the
king's mint at Rouen,'^ while a still clearer piece of evidence is
found in a charter for the leprosery of Le Grand-Beauheu at Char-
tres. Issued originally between 1121 and 1131 and renewed in
1 135, this runs as follows: ^
(17) H. rex Anglorum archiepiscopo Rothomagensi, episcopis, abbatibus,
comitibus, iusticiariis Normannie et thesaurariis et omnibus fidelibus suis per
"2 Romid, no. 198; Stapleton, i. 68.
" See the charter in full in Appendix F, no. 11 (fromMS. Alenfon 177, f. 98; and
MS. Lat. 11058, f. 8). These items are duly charged in the roUs (Stapleton, i.
pp. Ixxxviii, xcvi, cxxxii, 39, 50, 103) , except the payment from the preposUura of
Falaise, which is los. too small in 1180 but appears in full in 1198 (ibid., ii. 414).
s* Calendar, pp. xliii-xlv, nos. 998-1003, 1052, 1053, 1387-1390, 1459, 1460;
Commune 0} London, p. 81; Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 40, note.
" Round, nos. 1052, 1459.
'" Cartulaire de la Uproserie du Grand-Beaulieu, ed. R. Merlet and M. Jusselin
(Chartres, 1909, Collection de carttUaires chartrains, ii), no. i, from a vidimus of
1469 in the Archives of the Eure-et-Loir. All the essential phrases are repeated in
a charter of Stephen, issued at fivreux in 1136, of which the original is preserved
in the same archives (ibid., no. 11; see infra, Chapter IV, notes s, 9, 13). Being
witnessed by the earl of Gloucester and Robert 'de sigillo,' Henry's charter cannot
be earlier than 11 21; in its original form it is anterior to the general confirmation
of Innocent II, 13 September 1131 (Cartulaire, no. 6).
HENRY I 107
Nonnanniam constitutis salutem. Sciatis quia dedi et concessi in perpetuam
elemosinam Deo et Sancte Marie Magdalene de Bello Loco et infirmis ibidem
Deo servientibus, pro anima patrum et parentum meorum et pro remissione
peccatorum meorum et statu et incolumitate regni mei Anglie et ducatus mei
Normannle, omni anno X libras Rothomagensium de thesauro meo, et
semper eas simul habent ad festum Sancti Michaelis quando firme et
pecunia mea colligimtur, et ipsis thesaurariis meis precipio ut eas eis omni
anno et termino prenominato sine distiurbacione omni et occasione liberent.
Hoc itaque donum meum illi ecclesie et fratribus infiimis sine fine mansurum
regia auctoritate statuo et adeo michi collata potestate inviolatmn permanere
confirmo.
Testibus lohanne episcopo Lexoviorum et Roberto de sigillo et Rogerio
de Fiscanno et Roberto comite de Gloecestrie et Rpcardo] filio comitis et
R[oberto] de Ver et Roberto de Cmrci, et Gaufrido filio Pagani et Gaufrido
de Magnavilla et Roberto de Novo Biurgo et WiUelmo de Roumaro. Apud
Rothomagum. Anno ab incamatione Domini M°C°XXX° quinto hec
carta renovata fuit, quia prior igne combusta erat.
Here we have a Norman treasury as well as Norman treasurers,
one of whom can probably be identified in the witness Roger of
Fecamp,'' and we learn that, as in England, Michaelmas was the
term when the king's ' farms and money are collected.' No
place is mentioned, but the later history of the endowment and
the connection of a treasurership with a canonry in Rouen cathe-
dral '* make it probable that the treasury here mentioned was at
Rouen. Stephen repeats all the provisions of his uncle's grant,
but Henry II makes it an annual charge, still at Michaelmas,
against the mcomte of Rouen, where it appears in the Exchequer
RoUs.*' Treasure was stored at other centers also, for at Henry's
death we know that the bulk of his treasure was at Falaise,'""
and imder Henry II Caen and Argentan were used for the same
purpose."^ The custom of keeping treasure in various royal
castles is not, however, inconsistent with a single administration
of the treasury of receipt and disbursement.^^
The English Pipe Roll of 1 130 shows the Norman treasury re-
ceiving pa5Tnents on English accoimts and certifying credits by
" See below, notes 119, 120.
9* See the following paragraphs.
" Cartulaire du Grand-Beatdieu, nos. 11, 28, 65; Delisle, Henri II, p. 126;
Delisle-Berger, no. 434; Stapleton, i. 70.
"» Ordericus, v. 50; Robert of Torigni, 1. 200 f.
"1 Chapter V, note 115.
i<B For England cf . Roimd, introduction to Pipe Roll 28 Henry II, p. xxiv.
I08 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
royal writs,"" the officers who receive the money being Osbert de
Pont de I'Arche and Nigel nephew of the bishop of Salisbury.
Osbert held a ministerium camerq curiq}"* Nigel is styled treasurer
in two documents which he witnessed at Rouen/"* but though he
was with the king in Normandy through the early months of
1 131, he accompanied him to England in the summer of that
year/"^ and it does not appear that his duties or Osbert's were
confined to Normandy."" Whatever the exact relation of Nigel
' the treasurer ' to the Norman treasury, there was throughout
the twelfth century a special treasurer for Normandy. In the
Exchequer Rolls of 1180 and later the tithes of the Lieuvin, the
pays d'Auge, and certain other districts are a fixed charge upon
the farms for the benefit of the treasurer of Normandy,'"* a
natural extension to one of the royal chaplains of the practice of
assigning the tithe of a vicomte to a religious house. That this
arrangement goes back to the reign of Henry I appears from the
following passage in Stephen's confirmation of the possessions of
Sainte-Barbe-en-Auge in 1137: '"'
Confirmavi . . . decimam de vicecomitatu de Lesvin et Algia qug sunt
de capellaria mea quas Gislebertus de Ebroicis et Robertus filius eius capellani
regis Henrici et mei dederunt et concesserunt eidem gcclesig.
It is not here stated that Gilbert of Evreux and his son were
treasurers, but we know from other sources that they were. In the
1" Pp. 7, 13, 37, 39> 54, 63- '" J^; P- 37-
"' Round, Calendar, no. 1388; and the following conclusion of a charter of the
chapter of Chartres, issued, as appears from the lists in R. Merlet, Dignitaires de
I'Sglise Notre-Dame de Chartres, subsequently to 11 26: ' Postea vero Mauricius
et Petrus, alii fratres, concesserunt hoc ipsum apud Rotomagiun et vadimonia sue
concessionis transmiserunt per manus domni Henrici prepositi, videntibus et audi-
entibus Andrea de Baldement, Willelmo de Fraxineto, Nigello thesaurario, Heinrico
de Richeborc, Radulfo de Mercato, Ansoldo de Bellovidere canonico, Guillelmo de
la Ventona, Roberto de la Haie ' (MS. Lat. 5185 I, p. 90, copied from the original).
''" Round, Calendar, nos. 122-124, 287, 373, 1388; Sarum Documents, p. 7; Ap-
pendix F, no. 10; Monasticon, iv. 538, vi. 240, viii. 1271; E. B. R., xxiii. 726.
"" Cf. the document witnessed by them, E. H. R., xiv. 422, which was probably
issued in England. Hubert Hall, Red Book of the Exchequer, p. ccc, seeks to identify
them with the milites episcopi of the Conslilulio domus regis.
"" Stapleton, i. pp. xciii, cxxi, 40, 77, go, 99, 100, 118, 146, 157, 167, 168, 246,
ii. 461, S49, 560. Cf. infra. Chapter V, note 139.
i<i» Original, or pretended original, in the Archives of the Calvados, /o«dj Sainte-
Barbe; Round, Calendar, no. 570.
HENRY I 109
history of the foundation of Sainte-Barbe,"" written at the end of
the twelfth century, we read:
Fuit in diebus superioris Henrici regis Anglorum quidam clericus in nrbe
Rothomagensi nomine Gillebertus, ex dericali et militari prosapia editus.
Hie et Rothomagensis ecclesie precentor et prefati regis thesaurarius erat.
Cum autem filios quinque haberet iuvenes egregios literis deditos et in curia
regis nominates, primogenitum Willelmum sibi annis iam maturus in the-
saiurarii ofiScio ex regis beneplacito subrogavit. In quo etiam officio reliqui
fratres, quamdiu superstites fuerunt, ac si iure hereditario sibi invicem suc-
cesserunt. Guillelmus igitur patris potitus officio, cum pro multiplici preclare
indolis probitate regis et procerum gratiam et familiaritatem haberet, tan-
dem spreta mimdi maleblandientis prosperitate, spreto iuventutis flore,
spreto patre dulcique fratrum consorcio, spreto eciam latere regis Anglorum,
regi militare disposuit angelorum.
Here we have six successive treasurers. Gilbert "^ must have
given up the office some years before 11 28, when his son William
' the Treasurer,' having Uved as a hermit for a time after his re-
tirement from the court, was made prior of the newly organized
community of Sainte-Barbe by its patron Rabel of Tancarville.
Gilbert died before 1137,"^ and his fief of Agy, near Bayeux, had
been in possession of Sainte-Barbe since 1133 or earlier."' Wil-
liam's successor as treasurer was Robert, secundus natus post
"" MS. 1643 of the library of Sainte-Genevifive, f . 57, printed by R. N. Sauvage,
La chronique de Sainte-Barbe-en-Auge (Caen, 1907), pp. 19-20.
•" A strict interpretation of Stephen's charter might make Gilbert one of his
chaplains, but that is out of the question. ' Gislebertus cantor ' witnesses a charter
of Archbishop Geoffrey in 1 119 (MS. Lat. 17044, f. 19), but this may have been the
Gislebertus cantor who witnesses Archbishop Hugh's charters for Saint-Georges de
Bocherville in ii3r (MS. Rouen 1227, ff. 45, 46), for Bee in 1141 (MS. Lat. 13905,
f. 90), for Beaubec in 1142 (Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, /(W<ii Beaubec), and
for Lire in 1145 (Archives of the Eure, H. 438). As Gilbert the treasurer was of
clerical descent, he may be that ' Gislebertus filius Rotberti archidiaconi Ebroicen-
sis ' who offered his son Hugh to Jumieges in 1099 (Le Prdvost, Eure, iii. 46). He
can hardly have been the ' Gislebertus filius Bemardi ' who was a canon of Rouen
in 107s (Archives of the Seine-Inf&ieure, G. 8739).
u^ ' In Baiocassino apud Ageium terram de patrimonio Gisleberti de Ebrois
quam filii eius dederunt fcclesif S. Barbarg pro anima eiusdem Gisleberti qui ibi
iacet: ' charter of Hugh, archbishop of Rouen, 1137, confirming the possessions of
Sainte-Barbe; original in Archives of the Calvados, fonds Sainte-Barbe. The posses-
sions at Agy are described more exactly in original charters of Henry II and Philip,
bishop of Bayeux, preserved in the same' fonds; cf. Calendar of Charter Rolls,
iii. 308; Sauvage, in Memoires de I'Academie de Caen, 1908, p. 11.
"^ Inquest of military tenants of the bishop of Bayeux in 1133, H. F., xxiii. 701.
no NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Guillelmum, mr in regno nominatissimus,^^* whom we have already
found sitting in the Norman Exchequer."* He must have been in
office in 1 1 28 and have continued as late as 1136, since he was a
chaplain of Stephen. Of the other sons we know nothing save
that one was named Richard "* and that two of the prior's
brothers followed him to Sainte-Barbe. "' The Master Thomas
of fivreux, who appears as a canon of Rouen in 11 65 and subse-
quently,"* doubtless belonged to this family. Rogerus thesaurarius
witnesses a royal charter at Rouen in 1135,"' but he is probably
to be identified with Roger, nephew of the abbot of Fecamp, who
was a chaplain of Henry I and Stephen.'^"
The treasurer was not the only chaplain to receive regular
allowances from the Norman revenues, but the sources now avail-
able do not permit us to follow the others back or ascertain their
administrative duties. The dominica capellaria of Saint-Cande-le-
Vieux at Rouen, for example, tempts our curiosity; its exemption
from the diocese of Rouen requires explanation, and the fact that
the authority of the bishop of Lisieux over it seems to have been
established under John the justiciar suggests some connection
between these chaplains and the royal administration.^''! The
whole subject of the royal chapel is one of great obscurity, for
England as well as for Normandy, and any facts which may be
brought forward concerning it are likely to throw Ught upon the
history of the administrative system. The scantiness of the Nor-
man material for the early twelfth century likewise leaves us ia
'" Sauvage, Chronique, p. 20. "' Supra, notes 18, 20.
"« Sauvage, loc. cit., p. 36. He is doubtless the ' Ricardus Ebroicensis canonicus
noster ' who appears, under 15 January, in the obituary of Rouen cathedral: H. F.,
xjdii. 3S9A.
"' Sauvage, loc. cit., p. 25.
"' Cartulary of Foucarmont (MS. Rouen 1224), f. 30 (1165); MS. Lat. 1713s,
p. 22 (ir72); L. de Glanville, Hisloire du prieuri de Saini-L6, ii. 326 (1177);
Poupardin, Charles de S.-Germain-des-Pr&s, no. 156.
"' Round, Calendar, no. 590.
•^" lUd., nos. 124, 289, 29s, S4I, 105s; Ramsey Carltdary, i. 250; Monasticon,
vii. 700.
•2' The whole history of this exemption is obscure. See Gallia Christiana, xi. 42,
774; Toussaint Duplessis, Description de la Haute-Normandie, ii. i2r; H. de
Formeville, Hisloire de Vivich€-comli de Lisieux, i, pp. xii-xvi; Stapleton, i, pp.
cxxx, czxxvii.
HENRY I III
the dark with respect to other members of that " official class
working in the interests of the crown" whose activity at Win-
chester and elsewhere has been so well illustrated by Round's
studies.'^^ The following document of 1133-1135 introduces us
to two such royal clerks:
(18) H. rex Anglorum archiepiscopo Rothomagensi et iusticiis et baro-
nibus suis de Normannia et vic[ecomiti] et burgensibus et ministris suis de
Rothomago salutem. Sciatis quod concede Ojrao episcopo Ebroicensi terrain
et domum illam de Rothomago que fuit Willelmi Bruni clerici mei quam ipse
emit ad opus ecclesie sue de Sancta Maria de Ebroicis de Petro filio ipsius W.
Brimi et Rannulfo scriptore meo consensu '^ per .c. sol[idos] Roth[oma-
gensiiun] quos eis inde dedit. Et ideo volo et precipio quod ipse episcopus
et ecclesia sua bene et in pace Ulam teneant et libere sicut predictus WiUel-
mus unquam melius tenuit et honorabilius. Testibus Adel[ulfo] episcopo
Carlol[ensi] et comite Leglrec[estrie] et Rog[ero] de Fisc[anno] et WiUelmo
de Ely et Radulfo de Hastingps], apud Rothomagum.^^
William Brown had been ahve in 1130, when he appears as a
considerable landholder in Suffolk/^s and had held lands in Win-
chester before 1115 in conjunction with WilUam Fitz Odo, prob-
ably the constable of that name.^^' Roger Brun occurs in the
midst of a group of king's clerks in another document of this
period.i^' Apparently we have here another family of royal clerks,
and one cannot help surmising some relationship with that Master
Thomas Brown, also a landowner in Winchester,'^* who makes his
I appearance in 1137 at the court of Roger of Sicily, where he rises
to high position in the Judicial and fiscal administration, and is
then recalled by Henry II to a position of ' no mean authority ' in
the English Exchequer. '^s j^ jg qq part of our present purpose to
^ Compare, besides his article on Bernard the Scribe, in E. H. R., xiv. 417-
430, the Victoria History of Hampshire, i. 430, 536; and R. L. Poole, The Exchequer
in the Twelfth Century, p. 123 f.
•23 Cartulary G. 6 has ' scriptore concessu meo.'
^ fivreux cartularies in the Archives of theEure, G. 122, f. 41V, no. 201; G. 123,
no. 193; G. 6, p. 17, no. 11; Round, Calendar, no. 289.
126 Pipe RoU 31 Henry I, p. 99. Ranulf the scribe held lands in Berks: ibid.,
p. 126.
126 £iber Winton., ff. 3b, 12b.
12' E. H. R., xiv. 428; cf. Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. Hunter (Camden Society),
P-Si-
>28 Pipe Roll I Richard I, p. 205.
"^9 I have brought together the facts concerning Thomas Brown in an article
112 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
enter into the controversy respecting the relation of the Anglo-
Norman Exchequer and the Sicilian diwan to which these facts in
Thomas's biography have given rise. In view of what is now
known concerning its Byzantine and Saracen antecedents it can
no longer be maintained that the Sicilian fiscal system was im-
ported from England by Thomas Brown ; but it is possible that he
may have exerted some influence in matters of detail, and it is
certainly worth noting that, if we are justified in connecting
him with the clerks of the same name under Henry I, he probably
had some acquaintance with the workings of Anglo-Norman
administration before he entered the service of the Sicilian king.
Precisely to what extent Normandy and England had sep-
arately organized govermnents under Henry I, it is not possible
to say without further genealogical study and a more careful
examination of the dociunentary evidence. Wholly distinct the
two administrations cannot have been, for so long as kingship was
ambulatory and the government centered in the royal household,
a considerable number of the king's officers must have been com-
mon to the kingdom and the duchy.. Thus William of Tancarville,
though his castle was in Normandy and though he received a fixed
grant from the Norman treasury, is styled ' chamberlain of Eng-
land and Normandy,' "" and the seneschalship of Humphrey de
Bohun was likewise common to both countries.'" William Brown
we have just seen as a landholder on both sides of the Channel;
Simon the dispenser is with the king in Normandy between 1117
and 1 1 20 and in England in 1130.1^^ Not only the great body of
personal servants, but such departments as the chancery and the
chapel, certainly followed the king. Thus in the transfretation
of 1 1 20, of which the chroniclers have left some record because of
the loss of the White Ship, the king was accompanied by chap-
on England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century, E. H. R., xxvi. 438-443, where (pp.
651-655) the Sicilian fiscal system is also discussed (1911).
™ Annals of Saint-Wandrille, Histoire liitlraire de la France, xxxii. 204; cf.
Walter Map, De Nugis, ed. M. R. James, p. 244. For the grant from the treasury
see Monasiicon, vii. 1066; Stapleton, i. 68, 157.
"' Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll Society), no. 27.
"2 Round, King's Serjeants, p. 189; Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, pp. s, 79.
HENRY I 113
lains, dapiferi, camerarii, and pincerne.^^^ The fiscal administra-
tion was naturally more stationary than the household proper, for
the collection and disbursement of the revenue had to go on in the
king's absence; and, while we know even less of the Norman
treasury than of the treasury at Winchester, there was at least a
separate treasurer and probably some other permanent ofl&cials."*
Yet in this department too a cormection was maintained between
the kingdom and the duchy. Treasure was carried back and forth,
not only with the king, as on his return from Normandy in 1120,1'*
but also at other times, a considerable part of the large sum stored
at Falaise at the time of Henry's death having been recently
brought from England."^ Such transshipments must have been
accompanied, as under Henry H,'*' by royal ofl&cers — indeed the
possession of the castle of Porchester by one of the chamberlains
of the Exchequer may have been connected with this process of
transfer ''* — while some system of balancing accounts between
the two treasuries is involved in the practice of receiving pay-
ments on one side of the Channel to apply on accounts due on the
other. Intercommunication of this sort is, of course, quite com-
patible with the existence of two separate corps of oflEicials, but
the appearance in Normandy of the two chamberlains, Geoffrey
de Clinton and Robert Mauduit, as well as such fiscal ofl&cers as
™ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 242; William of Malmes-
bviry, Gesta Regum, ii. 497. Ordericus (iv. 415-419) mentions by name William,
one of the four principal chaplains, William de Pirou dapifer, and Gisulf the scribe.
Cf. the transfretation of 1130, John of Worcester (ed. Weaver), p. 33.
1^ There was also a separate Norman mint at Rouen, and pleas concerning the
coinage were held apttd arcam monete: Round, Calendar, nos. 1053, 1459; Pipe
Roll 31 Henry I, p. 122; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 157.
"' Ordericus, iv. 412, 419.
"6 Hid,, V. so; Robert of Torigni, i. 201.
1" E. g.. Pipe Roll 6 Henry n, p. 47; i3HenryII, p. i93f.; 21 Henry H, p. 200.
^' Round, in Victoria History of Hampshire, i. 432; Ancestor, v. 207-210. The
history of this Mauduit chamberlainship is, in spite of Round's researches, not yet
entirely clear. It is not true that, as the editors of the Oxford edition of the Dialogus
suggest (p. 20), the office of William Mauduit was acquired by William de Pont de
I'Arche in ir30, for, apart from the fact that William Mauduit would not be men-
tioned in the Constitutio domus regis if he was no longer in office, we find him re-
ceiving money in the camera curie in 1130 (Pipe RoU, p. 134) and witnessing as
chamberlain in the summer of 1131 {infra, Appendix F, no. 11; cf. Round, Calen-
dar, no, 107).
1 14 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Nigel nepos episcopi and Osbert de Pont de I'Arche, would seem
to indicate that the two administrations were not wholly dis-
tinct."' In judicial matters the chief link between the kingdom
and the duchy was the king, although the officers who came with
him from England might also constitute an important element in
the meetings of the Norman curia. In general, however, the Nor-
man judicial system possessed a considerable measure of distinct-
ness. The cases in which the king sat were more likely to leave a
record in the charters, yet we have seen abundant evidence of the
activity of the courts in his absence and of the existence, in addi-
tion to the local officers, of a body of Norman justices, among
whom the justiciar and the two seneschals stand out with such
prominence as to suggest that they constituted the nucleus of the
Norman central government.
Our conception of Henry's Norman household will depend in
large measure upon our interpretation of that curious and unique
record, the Constitutio domus regis, which contains a detailed list
of the officers of the court with their daily stipends and allowances
of food, wine, and candles."" Drawn up not long after Henry's
death,"' this is based upon the conditions of his reign and is thus
much the earliest of the many household ordinances of European
royalty. It is true that in its present form it is not so much an
ordinance as an attempt at an up-to-date account of the royal
household; but the word constitutio points to a formal act, and the
consistent use of the future tense shows that in the body of the
document we are dealing, not with a mere description, but with
the language of one who commands and prescribes. If we call to
mind the contemporary mention of Henry's reform in the prac-
tices of his courtiers,"^ and particularly the specific statement of
1*' Cf. introduction to Oxford edition of Dialogus, p. 19, note 3.
"" Liber Niger Scaccarii, ed. Hearne, pp. 341-359 (the best text); Red Book of
the Exchequer, ed. Hall, pp. 807-813. For modern discussions, see Hall's introduc-
tion, pp. cclxxxvi-ccci; Bateson, Media,eval England, pp. 5-8; Poole, The Exchequer
in the Twelfth Century, pp. 94-99; Round, The King's Serjeants and Officers of
State, especially p. 54 ff.
'*>■ Whether under Stephen, as is generally assumed, or in the early years of
Henry II (cf. Liebermann, Veher Psettdo-Cnuts Conslitutiones de Foresta, p. 25)
does not greatly affect our purpose.
"2 Eadmer, p, 192 f.; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii, 487, The re-
HENRY I 115
Walter Map that he established scriptas domus etfamilie sue con-
siietudines, including fixed liveries for the barons of his curia and
regular allowances for the members of his household,"' we shall
not hesitate to identify this reform with the original nucleus of the
Constitutio, so far as this can be separated from glosses and later
additions. Some elements were doubtless still older, since a charter
of the Conqueror"* in 1070-107 1 mentions court liveries, demaine
and common bread, candles and candle ends, such as appear in the
Constitutio, and since many of the serjeanties of the Constitutio
can be followed back as far as Domesday. As regards place, the
Constitutio contains no specific reference to either side of the
Channel, save for the mention of the modius Rotomagensis as a
standard of measurement, and this phrase has been used as an
argument both for and against the compilation of the document
in Normandy."^ Clearly its scope cannot be restricted to the
duchy, for most of the persons therein mentioned are found in
possession of lands and offices in England, and the Pipe RoU of
1 130 not only shows two of the chief, men of the household receiv-
ing the per diem allowance fixed in the Constitutio,^*^ but also
form probably antedates 11 21, since Robert Peche before becoming bishop ' in
cura panum ac potus strenue ministrare solebat ': Florence of Worcester, ii. 75.
Another larderer, Roger, had been made bishop in iioi: William of Mahnesbury,
Gesta Pontificum, p. 303.
1** ' Scriptas habebat domus et familie sue' consuetudines quas ipse statuerat:
domus, ut semper esset omnibus habunda copiis et certissimas haberet vices a
longe provisas et communiter auditas ubicunque manendi vel movendi, et ad earn
venientes singuli quos barones vocant terre primates statutas ex liberalitate regis
liberationes haberent; familie, ne quis egeret sed perciperet quisquis certa don-
aria.' De Nugis Cwialium, ed. James, p. 219 (ed. Wright, p. 210).
'^* Davis, Regesta, no. 60.
"5 The Norman view is maintained by Stapleton, Magni Roluli, i, p. xxi;
Hall, Red Book, p. ccc; id., Studies in English Official Historical Documents, p. 163.
Poole, p. 95, argues that if the household was settled in Normandy, there would
have been no need to call upon the bakers to spend 40^. in procuring the measure;
but it seems clear that the reference is rather to the piffchase of a given quantity of
grain. If that is the correct interpretation, we have an illustration of fixed prices
for the court's purchases, such as seem to be implied in the passages of Eadmer
and William of Malmesbury cited in note 142.
"' Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, pp. 129, 131, 140, where the liveries of the chancellor
and William de Pont de I'Arche the chamberlain are reckoned at s^. a day. When
officers served in the curia, they were paid from the camera curie, so that their
wages do not appear in the Pipe Rolls, where they are mentioned for the most
1 16 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
mentions most of its lesser members — ushers, bakers, larderers,
cup-bearers, butterymen, naperers, and archers, the velterer and
the master of the harriers, hosarius, scutellarius, bordarius, corti-
narius,^*'' the cook who pays half a mark of gold for his father's
office,"' down to the sumpter-man and the Serjeants of the chapel
and the kitchen."^ All this, however, does not show that these
were members of a purely English household, for the king had
spent nearly the whole of this fiscal year in England, and there is
no record how many of them accompanied him to Normandy in
September.
It is impossible, from the records now extant, to follow out the
officers of the Constitutio on Norman soil, for we have no Ex-
chequer RoUs for this period and little other material of the sort
which has enabled the patient learning and ingenuity of Round to
identify so many of the king's Serjeants in England. In the ab-
sence of any such body of conquered land as in England, it is
likely that in Normandy the officers of state were less freely re-
warded by land and were dependent in large measure upon the
fixed endowments from the ducal revenues of which we find traces
here and there. Thus Henry's treasurer, as we have already seen,
had the tithes of certain vicomtes,^^" and we know that his cham-
berlain of the family of Tancarville had a fixed grant of £60 from
the farm of Lilleboime."i Similar charges in the roll of 1180 in
favor of the dispenser of LiUebonne "'^ and the duke's larderer
may also have an early origia."' Normandy was familiar with the
part as excused from Danegeld, the amount remitted serving as an accurate meas-
ure of the hides which they owned in each county. Cf. Poole, Exchequef, p. 125.
"' Pipe RoU, pp. 1, 4, IS f., 22 f., 41, 45 f., SI, s6, S9, 6i, 72 f ., 75 f ., 80, 83, 86, 99,
102, 104, 107, 126; and Roimd, King's Serjeants, under these words.
"' Pipe Roll, p. 84. If the cook Radulphus de Marchia of the Constitutio is the
Radulfus de Marceio of St. Paul's documents, he was dead before 1127 (9 Historical
MSS. Commission, p. 65 f.).
"' Pipe RoU, pp. 102, 107 f., 126; cf. E. H. R., xiv. 423.
''" Supra, note 108; cf. infra, Chapter V, note 139.
"' Monasticon, vii. io56; Stapleton, i. 68. "^ Stapleton, i. 68.
"' Ibid., i, pp. Ixxxiii, 30, 99, 274, ii. 471, S72, S73- As the alms here charged
against the farm of Valognes, like the other fixed charges in the rolls, appear to be
arranged in chronological order, the assignment to the larderer is probably earlier
than the grant to the chapelry of Valognes, transferred to the abbey De Voto by
an early charter of Henry II (Delisle-Berger, no. 135).
HENRY I 117
system of daily allowances described in the ConsHtutio, for Wace,
who would carry this back to the time of Richard the Good and
Robert I, speaks of the duke's provision
De chandeile e de vin e d' altre livreisim,i"
and teUs us that the dignitaries of the household
Chascun iur orent livreisuns
E as granz festes dras et duns."^
This is confirmed and amplified by a curious charter which bears
the royal style of Henry II but on the ground of its witnesses is
probably to be assigned to the reign of his grandfather.'*^ This
document, which gives us the most concrete accoimt of the Nor-
man household, grants to Odoin de Malpalu, the king's serjeant,
along with various lands and rights,
' the whole ministry of the king's panetaria, with all its appurtenances,
with livery in the court every day that the king is at Rouen, namely four
pennyworth of bread from the depensa, and one sextary of knight's wine from
the cellar, and four portions from the kitchen, one of them a large one, two of
the size for knights, and one dispensaUle. And Odoin is to j&nd the king
bread in his court, and to reckon by tallies with his dispensers and with aU his
bakers, and he shall receive the money and give quittances to the bakers.
And when the king sends to Rouen for bread, Odoin is to bring it at the king's
cost, and every pack horse shall have i2d. and every pannier-bearing one 6d.
and every basker-carrier a pennyworth of bread, and if the bread is brought
by water the boatman shall have 6d. a journey. When the king makes a
joiurney, Odoin is to have all that is left of the bread of the panetaria; and he
is to have charge of and jurisdiction over the king's bakers at Rouen and
within the hanlieue of Rouen, and aU their forfeitures, and the weighing of
bread, and all fines of bread and forfeited bread. Odoin shall also have one
free fishery in the Seine, and all his wheat shall be ground in the king's mills
of Rouen free of charge, immediately after the wheat which he shall find in
the hopper; and he is to be one of the regarders of the king's forests, at the
king's cost, and to be quit of pannage in aU these forests for aU his swine, and
every Christmas he is to have twenty shillings or four swine,' etc."'
1" Chronique ascendante, ed. Andresen (i. 214), line 211.
1'' Roman de Rou, ed. Andresen, ii, line 799 ff.
I's Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 14; Delisle-Berger, no. 705; Round, Calen-
dar, no. 1280; there is also a copy in MS. Lat. 9067, f. 141V. On the difficult
question of the nature and date of this charter, see Delisle, in B. E. C, Ixvii. 395-
397; Round, in Archaeological Journal, bdv. 73-77; Delisle, Hemi II, p. 34, note;
Round, Serjeants, p. 199 f .
"' This is, substantially. Round's analysis.
Il8 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Here the serjeant remains at Rouen and, apart from his con-
tinuing privileges, draws his livery only while the king is there, so
that he belongs with the chaplains and porters attached per-
manently to the royal castles rather than with the ofl&cers who
follow the king. So in an early charter of Henry II his serjeant
Baudri, besides his daily wages as porter and jailer at Rouen and
his gifts and Hveries as regarder and pannager of the forests, is
confirmed as marshal whenever the king sojourns at Rouen, re-
ceiving for each of these days six loaves of bread, six portions from
the kitchen, and a sextary of wine, besides a shield each year and
every Christmas two swine from the larder of Rouen and a beech
in one of the forests."' Henry II had a way of rewarding his
Serjeants with town houses, notably in the growing port of
Dieppe,'*' and one of his grants of this sort may explain an im-
explained ofl&cer of the Constitutio, namely Ralph le Robeur, or le
Bobeur, whom I am inclined to identify with Ralph le Forbeur,
who held a house at Bayeux on condition of furbishing the king's
hunting arms.'^"
Rouen was doubtless the principal center for these officials of
the more local and stationary type,"' although too much must not
be argued from the survival of documents respecting serjeanties
which owed their value principally to the later growth of the city.
It would still be an anachronism to speak of Rouen as a capital,
yet it has special significance in connection with the treasury, and
it appears much more frequently than any other Norman place in
the king's charters,'*^ while his park at Sainte-Vaubourg and his
palace at Le Pre were close by.'*' Next to Rouen, Caen holds the
"8 Delisle-Berger, no. 212. For another Rouen marshalship see Geoffrey's
charter, infra, Chapter IV, no. 13; and cf. the services due Henry I from Roland
d'Oissel: Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 2; Round, Calendar, no. 1278.
'" See the Coutumier of Dieppe, in Archives of the Seine-Inffirieure, G. 851;
Delisle-Berger, nos. 1x5, 329, 398, 479, 709, 713, 719.
IS" ' Servitio furbiandi venabula et alia arma mea ': Cartulaire de Normandie
(MS. Rouen 1235), f. 24V; Delisle-Berger, no. 723; Valin, p. 151, note 4. Cf.
' Aldwinus forbator ' in Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 41.
'°' To the treasurer and Serjeants mentioned above should be added ' Robertus
capellanus mens de Rotomago ': Monaslicon, vii. 1043, 1099; Round, no. 475.
102 See Appendix G, supplemented by the great number of charters which cannot
be specifically dated.
'" B. t,. C, xi. 438; Stapleton, i, p. cxli; fitienne de Roueo, ed. Omont, bk. iii,
HENRY I 119
chief place in the description of his enlargement and strengthening
of the older Norman castles,^'* and in his itinerary Caen, Falaise,
and Argentan appear most frequently after Rouen. The sessions
of court and justices at the castle of Caen '^* foreshadow the later
meetings of the Exchequer there, while the king's loricarii at
Argentan are reminders that such strongholds were also needed
for sterner work."^ Henry's sojourns elsewhere are scattered
through his itinerary without indicating any such degree of fre-
quency or length of stay; besides the ports of Dieppe and Bar-
fleur and the older towns and fortresses of the interior, they
include his newer strongholds on or near the frontier — Vemeuil
and Vire, VaudreuU and Lions-la-Foret, where he died.
Besides the Norman parallels to the Serjeants and liveries of the
Constitutio, there is definite evidence that the officers who ac-
companied the king to Normandy received the same stipends as
in England. In the Pipe Roll of 1 130 William de Pont de I'Arche,
the chamberlain, has an allowance for the period of sixty-three
days intervening between his departure from the king in Nor-
mandy and his taking over of the bishopric of Durham,'" a jour-
ney partly in Normandy and partly in England during which he is
paid at the luiiform rate of $s. a day fixed in the Constitutio. This
further shows that the liveries of the Constitutio are reckoned in
sterling, due allowance being doubtless made for the different
standards in Normandy. Moreover, if a difference existed be-
tween allowances in England and in Normandy, the Constitutio
could hardly have avoided mentioning it in tracing the increase
in the stipend of the keeper of the seal, Robert, a constant com-
panion of the king in these later years, who was receiving his
maximum remimeration in Normandy at the moment of Henry's
death. We may conclude that there is no reason for ascribing the
linessff. (Hewlett, Chronicles of Stephen, ii. 713); Delisle-Berger, no. 523; Rottdi
Chartarum, p. 3.
'«* On his castles see Robert of Torigni, i. 164, 197; id., in William of Jumifiges,
ed. Marx, p. 309; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, p. 275 f.
"' Supra, no. 5; Deville, Analyse, p. 47 f.
i«« Appendix F, no. 21. Note the attestations of the two marshals.
1" ' In liberatione Willelmi de Pontearcanim de .bdii. diebus .xv.l. et .xv.s.
ex quo recessit de Rege in Normannia et accepit episcopatimi Dmielmensem';
p. 129, cf. p. 131.
I20 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Constitutio exclusively to either side of the Channel, but, as the
compiler speaks particularly of conditions at the time of the king's
death, he doubtless had most freshly in mind the household of the
last two years of the reign, which were spent in Normandy. Hence
the tnodius Rotomagensis, which seems to have been the standard
measure of the Norman Exchequer."*
This official or semi-official description of the household in
Henry's later years may be supplemented by the witnesses to the
charters which he issued in Normandy 1133-1135."' The most
solemn of these, the ordinance respecting the Truce of God which
is the only surviving monument of his Norman legislation,"" was
promulgated at Rouen in presence of the archbishop and the
bishops of the province, and by the common coimsel and consent
of the attesting barons who comprised only earls and high officers
of the curia: Robert, earl of Gloucester, the king's son, his nephew
Stephen, the earl of Leicester and Earl Giffard, Brian Fitz Count
constable, Robert de Courcy and Hugh Bigod seneschals, Wil-
liam Fitz Odo chamberlain, and William Fitz John, whose office
has not been identified. The bishops of Ely and Carlisle and the
keeper of the seal are noted as present, but are carefully distin-
guished from the barons. A charter of the same year issued at
Caen "^ adds to Henry's entourage the names of Geoffrey Fitz
Payne, Roger the treasurer, and three royal chaplains, Robert
archdeacon of Exeter, Richard de Beaufage, and Richard, son of
Robert of Gloucester, the last two already designated as bishops
respectively of Avranches and Bayeux."'' Charters of the pre-
ceding year "' add to the names of officers of state who were with
1" Stapleton, i. 32, 39, where we read of rents and allowances in the Cotentin
of ' modii avene ' and 'modii bladii,' 'ad mensuram Rothom[agensem].'
"» See Appendix G.
"" Tris Ancien Couiumier, ed. Tardif, c. 71; Round, Calendar, no. 290.
™ Round, no. 590.
"' Ordericus, v. 44 f.
"' Round, nos. 37s, 959. See further no. 374; supra, no. 18; E. H. R., xjdii.
726, no. iv {Monasticon, viii. 1275), which adds William, Earl Warren {ibid., vii.
1 1 13). From the lists of those who were with the king in England just before the
transfretation of 1133 (Monasticon, vi. 177; Madoz, Baronia Anglica, p. 158;
cf. Round, Feudal England, p. 426 f.) it appears that many of these must have
crossed with him.
HENRY I 121
the king at Rouen Robert de la Haie and Humphrey de Bohun
seneschals, and Robert de Vere constable. Three other chamber-
lains, Aubrey de Vere, William of Houghton, and William of
Glastonbury, are found at Falaise in a royal charter of the same
period,"* and two marshals appear with the king at Argentan."°
At Henry's death, i December 113 5 at Lions, there were present,
in addition to his chaplains, the archbishop of Rouen, the bishop
of Evreux, the earls of Gloucester, Surrey, and Leicester, and the
coimts of Meulan and Perche.""
In their joumejdngs to and fro across the Chaimel the kings of
the twelfth century made use of a royal galley (esnecca) ,^'" pay-
ments for which are a regular item in the Pipe Rolls of Henry H.
Li the Conqueror's reign this service seems to have been in charge
of Stephen Fitz Airard, who appears in Domesday holding lands
in Berkshire, and is probably the ' Stephanus stirman ' who has a
house in Warwick and the rent of two houses in Southampton."'
After Stephen's death the privilege does not seem to have passed
to his family, and when his son Thomas claimed the feudal right
by placing the White Ship at the disposal of Henry I in 11 20,
provision had already been made for the king's crossing."' Who
possessed the ministerium esnecce under Henry I and his grandson
we learn from a charter issued by Henry H at the beginning of
his reign:
Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Willelmo et Nicholao, filiis Rogeri
generi Alberti, et heredibus Bonefacii et Azonis et Roberti et Radxilfi fratrmn
ipsorum ministerium meum de esnecca mea cimi liberatione que pertinet et
"* Ramsey Chronicle, p. 284, no. 33s; Ramsey Cartulary, i. 250.
i'6 Appendix F, no. 21. "* Ordericus, v. 50 f.
"' ' Rex Anglie ad suam transfretationem navem propriam solet habere. Can-
cellarius ei fieri fecit non imam solam sed tres simul naves optimas: ' Fitz Stephen,
Vita S. Thome {Materials, iii. 26). It is not clear whether the ministerium of the
Hastings esnecca which was held under Henry I by the ancestors of Roger of
' Bumes ' (Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 39b) was distinct from the service of the
esnecca mentioned below. Under Henry II it passed to Hugh de Bee, husband of
Roger's sister Illaria, and was claimed under John by Roger's niece Avicia. What
may be a Chester esnecca appears in 1168 (Pipe Roll, p. 92).
>'8 Ordericus, iv. 411; Domesday Book, i. 52, 63b, 238. Stephen Fitz Airard also
appears in a charter of the early years of Henry I which permits him to grant lands
to Ramsey: Calendar of Charter Rolls, ii. 102, no. s (cf. nos. 7 and 15).
•" Ordericus, iv. 411.
122 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
totam terrain Rogeri generi Alberti et f eoda omnia que ipse Rogerus tenuit in
capita de rege H. avo meo et de quocunque tenuisset die qua fuit vivus et
mortuus. ^^
Roger, son-in-law of Albert, is otherwise known. He had held
lands in Wallop (Hampshire) before 1130,1'' as well as lands
in Southampton which he and his wife gave to the abbey of St.
Denis,'*^ and he witnessed a royal charter in Normandy which
cannot be earlier than 1123.''^ The ministerium doubtless came
to him from Albert with his wife Avizia, which would carry it well
back into Henry's reign. The interesting fact to note is that while
none of the names in his family are Anglo-Saxon, and none are
necessarily Norman, one at least, Boniface, is evidently ItaHan,'^
while the names Albert and Azo, as weU as the form Avizia,
though not necessarily ItaHan, point toward Italy. The appear-
ance of an Italian shipmaster in charge of the royal galley under
Henry I is surely a matter of interest, and suggests that inter-
course with the South in this period may well have been more
active than is commonly supposed.
'8° British Museum, Campbell Charter, xxix. g; printed in Archaeologia, vi. 116;
Delisle-Berger, no. 26. Cf. N. H. Nicoljis, History of the Royal Navy, i. 433; Guide
to Manuscripts exhibited in the Department of Manuscripts (1899), p. 41, no. 17.
^^ Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 39.
182 Calendar of Charter Rolls, iii. 337; cf. my paper in M Manges Charles Bemont^
p. 78.
183 Charter for Walter de Beauchamp, given at Vaudreuil: Appendix F, no. 9.
'8* On the rarity of the name Boniface in England in this period see Andrew, in
the Numismatic Chronicle, fourth series, i. 208.
CHAPTER IV
NORMANDY UNDER STEPHEN OF BLOIS AND
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENETi
The conquest of Normandy by Geoffrey of Anjou raises an in-
teresting question for students of Norman history, since by estab-
lishing between the two countries a personal union which was to
last sixty years it opened the way to Angevin influence in the
affairs of the duchy and to the possible modification of Norman
institutions in accordance with Angevin practice. The problem
of the nature and extent of this influence presents itself in its
simplest form during Geoffrey's own reign of six years, not only
because the new duke was, unlike his successors, exclusively the
product of Angevin training and tradition, but also because under
him the Norman and Angevin lands led a life of their own, dis-
tinct from that of the larger empire of which they afterward
formed a part. Unfortimately the available information is
meager, especially with reference to the preliminary elements in
the problem, for we know but httle of conditions in Normandy
under Henry I, and no special study has yet been made of Anjou
tmder Fulk of Jerusalem and his son.^ In general it appears that
the state which Fulk the Red and his descendants hammered out
on the borders of the Loire was smaller and more compact than
the duchy to the northward, and the government of its rulers was
more direct and personal, so that its administrative needs were
simpler and seem to have been met without the creation of a fiscal
and judicial system like the Norman and without any such fixity
of docmnentary form or rigor of official procedure as are dis-
cernible in Normandy by the beginning of the twelfth century.
' Revised from E. H. R., xxvn. 417-444 (1912).
^ For the eleventh century there is an admirable study by L. Halphen, Le cowM
d' Anjou au XI" siecle (Paris, igo6). For the twelfth, a certain amount of useful
material is contained in C. J. Beautemps-Beaupre, Coutumes et instikttions de V Anjou
et du Maine, part ii, i (Paris, 1890) ; see also F. M. Powicke, The Angevin Adminis-
tration of Normandy, E. H. R., xxi. 625-649, especially 648 f., xxii. 15-42; and his
Loss of Normandy, ch, ii.
123
124 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
In point of organization there is no ground for considering the
Angevin government to have been in advance of the Norman, nor,
unless it be in the more immediate control of affairs by the count,
is there inherent reason for expecting it to have had the marked
effects upon Norman policy which are sometimes ascribed to it.
Statements on these matters are, however, premature until more
is known of the state of Anjou during this period, but it is possible
in the meantime to bring together the Norman evidence for
Geoffrey's reign and consider it with reference to the persistence
of older institutions as well as to possible innovations. For such
a study the death of Henry I forms the natural point of departure.
In Normandy, as in England, the reign of Stephen seems to
have had a merely negative importance. After Henry's death the
Norman barons invited Theobald of Blois to rule over them, but
the news of his brother's accession in England decided them to
accept the lord of whom their English fiefs were held. Stephen
took the title of duke of the Normans, and had it engraved on his
seal, but he used it rarely, even in Norman docixments,' and
never exercised an effective government over the whole of the
duchy. The great strongholds of the southern border, Argentan,
Exmes, and Domfront, had been promptly handed over to the
empress by a loyal vicomte, as had also the castles of the count of
Ponthieu, notably S6ez and Alengon, which were restored to
Count William in return for his support of the Angevin party.
From this basis, after a short truce, Geoffrey and his followers
carried their ravages westward into the vale of Mortain and the
Cotentin, and northward as far as Lisieux, while the party of
Stephen waited in vain for the arrival of its leader.* It was not
till March 1137 that the king, accompanied by the queen, the
bishops of Winchester, Lincoln, and CarKsle, and his chancellor,
Roger,^ arrived at La Hougue and proceeded by way of Bayeux
' Delisle, Henri II, p. 115 f.
* Ordericus, V. 56-78; Robert of Torigni, i. 199 f., 205; John of Marmoutier,
in Marchegay, Chronigues des comtes d' Anjou, p. 294 (ed. Halphen and Poupardin,
p. 225); William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, p. 538; Henry of Huntingdon,
p. 260.
' See their attestations in Delisle, pp. 11 7-1 19, nos. 2-8, 10. For Alexander of
Lincoln, see also Henry of Huntingdon, p. 260, and two notifications issued in his
favor by Stephen at Rouen and preserved in the Registrum Antiquissimum of
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 125
and fivreux to the valley of the Seine. Although he was well re-
ceived by the Normans, who had been embittered by the excesses
of the Angevin soldiery, and was recognized by the French king,
Stephen's presence was not suflSdent to bring peace to the coun-
try. Geoffrey was able to lead an attack on Caen and force
money from Norman monasteries as the price of safety for their
lands, and after an abortive attempt at an expedition against
Argentan, Stephen was, early in July, forced to purchase a truce
by the annual payment of two thousand marks. Through this
parching summer and until his return to England early in Decem-
ber, Normandy enjoyed whatever of order its duke was able to
give it. Certain robber barons were coerced into obedience ^ and
the forms of administration were maintained, but Stephen's own
partisans were obhged to admit that he was a weak ruler.' His
strongest support seems to have come from the Norman church:
the archbishop of Rouen and four of his suffragans had hastened
to his court in England early in 1136; Archdeacon Arnulf of Seez
was his chief envoy to Rome in the same year; ' and most of the
Lincoln Cathedral, nos. 180, 194, a reference which I owe to the kindness of Mr. H.
W. C. Davis (cf. Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 103, no. 29, 140, no. 17). The king
was accompanied as far as Portsmouth by Roger of Salisbury and several other
members of the curia who do not seem to have crossed: Calendar of Charter Rolls,
iii. 338. On Stephen's sojourn in Normandy see O. Rossler, Kaiserin Mathilde,
pp. 185-193; Ramsay, Foundations of England, ii. 359-364.
His presence at Bayeux is shown by a charter for Montebourg O^elisle, p. 117,
no. i; Robert of Torigni, i. 206), which is dated 1136, and must accordingly have
been issued between Stephen's arrival in Normandy, in the third week of March,
andEaster (11 April 1137). So a charter for Le Grand-Beaulieu of Chartres (Cartu-
laire, ed. Merlet and Jusselin, no. 11, from the original in the Archives of th&
Eure-et-Loir) is given at fivreux in 1136 ' regni mei vero secundo.' Other points in
Stephen's itinerary which appear from the charters but are not mentioned in the
chroniclers are Falaise (Round, Calendar, no. 611), Lions-la-For6t (ibid., no. 1404),
Rouen (ibid., no. ro55; D. Gumey, Record of the House ofGoumay (London, 1848-
1858), i. 108; Calendar of Charter Rolls, iii. 374; infra, note 9).
• Ordericus, v. 81-91; Robert of Torigni, i. 206 f. On the date of Stephen's-
return see also Gervase of Canterbury, i. loi ; John of Worcester, ed. Weaver, p. 45 ;
Henry of Huntingdon, p. 260.
' ' Nonnannia . . . totam eflScaci gubematore provinciam carere mesta vide-
bat ': Ordericus, v. 9r.
« Round, Geoffrey de MandeviUe, pp. 252 f., 260, 262 f. On the attitude of the
Norman clergy cf. Actus Pontijicum Cenomannis, ed. Busson and Ledru (Le Mansy
1901), p. 446.
126 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Norman prelates continued to adhere to him with a loyalty which
was to cost them dear at the hands of his successor. It is not sur-
prising that, of the score of Stephen's charters which relate to
Normandy,' two confirm the bishops in their privileges," and most
of the others concern the religious establishments of upper Nor-
mandy. Both in form and in substance these documents follow
closely the charters of Henry I and assume the maintenance of his
administrative system, with its justices, vicomtes, and subordi-
nate officers. They also show that the ducal revenues were kept
at farm, at least in eastern Normandy " — indeed, a fiscal roU of
1 136 is said to have once existed ^^ — and that the Norman treas-
urers, among them Robert of Evreux, continued in office.^' It is,
however, noteworthy that only one order to a Norman official has
survived, and while it refers to an earlier writ on the same subject,
it is perhaps significant that this previous command has not been
obeyed : 1*
' Delisle, Henri II, pp. 117-120, nos. 1-13 (no. i is printed without the witnesses
in Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 238; nos. 3 and 4 are in Le Prevost, Eure, ii. 477, 488;
no. 7 is in part in Neustria Pia, p. 778, and is indicated, probably erroneously, in
the Inveniaire sommaire as having been in the Archives of the Eure, H. 592);
Round, Calendar, nos. g, 239, 291-296, 427, 570, 611, 800, 802, 1055, 1404. Also a
charter for Beaubec issued at Rouen (Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 851, f.
S7v; Archives Nationales, JJ. 46, f. 37V; printed from a vidimus of Charles VI in
Gumey , Record of the House of Gournay, i. 108) ; a writ for Bee, printed below, no. i ;
a charter for Bee given at Marlborough (MS. Lat. 1390S, f ■ 2iv) ; another addressed
to his officers of Wissant and Boulogne and given at Rouen (ibid., i. 86) ; a charter
for the cordwainers of Rouen (La Roque, iii. 149, where it is wrongly attributed to
William I) ; and an agreement in his presence at Rouen in 113 7 between the canons
of Saint-fivroul and the monks of Notre-Dame de Mortain, notified by Richard,
bishop of Avranches (MS. 292, f. 309V, of the Library of Caen, from the original;
MS. Lat. S4II, part ii, p. 409; Collection Moreau, Ivii. 126; MS. Fr. 4900, f. 70).
Of these nos. 11-13 in Delisle and nos. 9, 295, 296, 427, 800, 802 in Round were
issued in England, leaving fifteen documents issued in Normandy, if we include
the charter for Fontevrault (DeUsle, no. 10; Round, no. 1055). To these may be
added four others given at Rouen for establishments outside of Normandy, namely
one for Boulogne {Calendar of Charter Rolls, iii. 374), one for the leprosery of
Chartres [Cartulaire, ed. Merlet and Jusselin, no. 11) confirming its alms from the
Norman treasury, and the two for Lincoln mentioned above, note 5.
i" Delisle, nos. 5, 11; Round, nos. g, 291. " Round, nos. 292 f., 570.
'^ It is mentioned in 1790: M. A. N., xvi, p. xxx.
" Supra, pp. 106-110; charter for Le Grand-BeauUeu of Chartres (Cartulaire,
no. 11) confirming Henry I's grant of £10 in his Norman treasury.
" Fragment of cartulary of Bee in the Archives of the Eure, H. 91 , f . 33, Prob-.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 12/
(i) S. rex Angl[orum] Ing[eranno] de Wasc[olio] salutem. Scias quoniam
vehementer miror de hoc quod non fecisti preceptum meum de terra mona-
chorum de Becco de Turf re villa de elemosina Willelmi Pevrellp]. Quare tibi
predpio quod facias in pace et iuste et quiete terrain illam tenere sicut melius
tenuerunt die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, ita quod non requiras
aUquam novam consuetudinem de hominibus in terra iUa residentibus.
Teste comite de Mell[ento] apud Pont[em] Ald[omari].
At his departure Stephen left the government of Normandy in
the hands of certain justiciars, among whom we have the names of
only Roger the vicomte, who met his death shortly afterwards in
the effort to maintain order in the Cotentin, and William of Rou-
mare,!^ who is mentioned as justiciar in a Rouen docimient of
i8 December 1138." Beyond this point no regular administration
of the duchy can be traced, and even in the castles and towns
which continued to recognize Stephen his authority must have
become merely nominal after the outbreak of the civil war drew
the leaders of his party across the sea." Wilham of Ypres and
Richard de Luci, who are fighting for him in Normandy in 1 138,
join him in England at the close of the year; Galeran of Meulan
and his brother the earl of Leicester are with him in 1139; and
ably issued in June, when Stephen was at Pontaudemer (Ordericus, v. 85; cf.
Delisle, no. 8).
1' Ordericus, v. 91 f., 105; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, p. 28 f.
'5 Printed, supra, Chapter III, no. 4; Valin, p. 260; Vernier, no. 61; all from
the original in the Archives of the Seine-Inferieure.
^' The charter of Stephen as count of Mortain, purporting to have been issued
at Mortain ' in aula comitis ' in 1139 {Gallia Christiana, xi. 478), is false, at least so
far as the date is concerned, for Stephen spent that year in England, and the bishop
of Avranches was then Richard, not Herbert, whose seal was attached to the accom-
panying charter (MS. Lat. 5441, ii. 416). Charters of Stephen as count of Mortain
are known for Bee (Round, no. 378); for Saint-fitienne (DeviUe, Analyse, p. 18);
for the Dames Blanches of Mortain (Stapleton, i, p. kv); for Savigny (cartulary
in Archives of the Manche, no. 211) ; and for the nuns of Moutons, in the style of
the Anglo-Norman writ, as follows: ' St. comes Bolonie et Mortonii Stephano vice-
comiti omnibusque suis baronibus atque servientibus salutem. Mando et precipio
vobis ut onmes res dominarum Sancte Marie de Muston, scilicet in terra et in vaccis
et in aliis bestiis, in pace et qvdete dimittatis, easque et quidquid ad eas pertinet
honorifice custodiatis et manuteneatis. Tibi autem, Stephane, firmiter precipio ne
de aliqua causa implacites eas nisi per me et coram me, quia sunt in mea custodia
illisque deffendo ne placitent sine me. Istis testibus: Hamfredo dapifero et Addam
de Belnayo et Hamfredo de Camerayo [or camerario].' Copies, based on a vidimus
of 1310, in Archives of the Manche, /c»»if Moutons.
128 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
William of Roumare goes over to the empress in 1140.** Left to
itself, the coimtry quickly fell back into the disorder and blood-
shed from which it had never really emerged during Stephen's
nine months' sojourn. The descriptions of the Norman anarchy
lack something of the realism with which William of Newburgh
and the Peterborough chronicler depict conditions on the other
side of the Channel, but the account in Ordericus is vivid enough,
both in its general summary and its concrete examples, and its
venerable author saw no hope of better days when he brought his
work to its noble close in 1141.1'
Yet this same year proved the turning-point in the reestabhsh-
ment of ducal authority.^" Secure in the possession of Argentan
'8 Ordericus, v. 108, 115, 125; Round, Geofrey de Mandeville, pp. 46, 55; Ram-
say, Foundations of England, ii. 396; E. H. R., xxv. 116.
'' Ordericus, v. 57-77, 79 f., 89-91, 104-109, 114-117, 130 f., 133. One of the
regions which suffered most severely was the Avranchin, where the account of
Ordericus (v. 89) and Robert of Torigni (ii. 234) is supplemented by an original
notice from the archives of Mont-Saint-Michel (Archives of the Manche, H. 14997;
MS. Avranches 210, f. 8ov) : Certain men of the Mount 'post mortem enim caris-
simi domini nostri Henrici regis in abbatem dominum suum et contra totius villg
salutem nequiter cum pluiibus huiusce mali consciis conspirationem fecerunt. Quo
comperto a pluribus abbas consilio fidelium suorum eos convenit et super tot et
tantos malis conquestus eos alloquitur, quibus negantibus et obtestantibus iterum
fidelitatem tam sug salutis quam totius villg iuraverunt. Qui iterum in proditione
ilia vehementer grassati hominibus alteritis Tegionis ad tantum facinus patrandum
adheserunt, iterum allocuti et tercio sacramentis adstricti funditus in malitia sua
perseveraverunt. Ad ultimum congregata curia ad dies pliuimos constitutos onme
iuditium subterfugerunt et sic malitia eorum comperta omnibus patuit. Quo com-
perto Uberales ipsius villg et ipsius provintig proceres super ignominia tanta confusi
eos omnino exterminaverunt et sacramento affirmaverunt extunc illos non recepturos
nee cum eis deinceps habitaturos. . . . [Rogerius camerarius] post mortem regis
Anglie sacramentimi irritum fecit, Britanniam cum omni suppellectili petiit, unde
multa mala non solum per se verum etiam dux f actus inimicorum qui tunc temporis
nimia aviditate Normanniam infestabant terre et hominibus ecclesie irrogavit.' It
will be noted that in this document there is no trace of ducal authority after Henry's
death, and the barons take matters into their own hands.
'" On Geoffrey's recovery of Normandy see Kate Norgate, Angevin Kings, i.
338-342, and the authorities there cited. That, as Miss Norgate says, " the story
of this campaign, as told by the historians of the time, is little more than a list of
the places taken, put together evidently at random," is true only of William of
Malmesbury, who lacked local knowledge. The succession of events in Robert of
Torigni and John of Marmoutier is intelligible and consistent, and of the additional
places mentioned by William of Malmesbury, Bastebourg and TreviSres were ap-
parently the result of special expeditions from Caen and Bayeux, while the others
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 1 29
and the adjoining vicomtes, and controlling Caen and Bayeux
through his alliance with Robert of Gloucester, Geoffrey of
Anjou in 1141 won Lisieux, Falaise, and the country as far as the
Seine, and the following year gave him not only the outstanding
places in the Bessin, but the county of Mortain, the Avranchin,
and the Cotentin.^i By January 1144 he was able to enforce the
submission of the city of Rouen, followed three months later by
the surrender of its tower.^^ Although the castle of Arques held
out until the summer of the following year, the barons of the duchy
had already made their peace with the new duke, who had won
over their leader, the count of Meulan, as early as 1141 ; and even
the Norman church, which had received Stephen's nephew as
abbot of Fecamp in 1140 and his chancellor as bishop of Bayeux
in 1 142, was driven to acknowledge the king's defeat. John of
Lisieux, the justiciar of Henry I, submitted to Geoffrey just before
his death in 1141; the bishop of Avranches led the procession
which welcomed the Angevin army to his city in the following
year; and even the archbishop of Rouen, maximus regis propug-
nator at the outbreak of the civil war in England, who dated his
dociunents by Stephen's reign as late as 1143, was doubtless
present when Geoffrey was received into his cathedral upon the
city's surrender, and thenceforth recognized him as ruler of the
— Briquessart, Villers, Plessis, Vire — lay in the direction of Mortain, though not
" up the left bank of the Ome."
^1 The chroniclers say nothing of the Channel Islands, although modem writers
upon the islands say that Geoffrey sent a certain Raoul de Valmont there to estab-
lish the duke's authority and ascertain his rights. It would be interesting to know
the origin of this statement. See G. Dupont, Histoire du Cotenlin et de ses lies
(Caen, 1870), i. 354-357; F. B. Tupper, History of Guernsey (Guernsey, 1876), p. 76;
E. P£got-Ogier, Histoire des lies de la Manche (Paris, 1881), p. 133 f. We know
very little of the history of these islands in the twelfth century.
^ As Geoffrey crossed the Seine at Hilarymas and received the submission
of Rouen 19 or 20 January, his charter for ChAteau-l'Hennitage, given 28 January
1144 at Mayet {Archives historiques du Maine, vi. 45), can hardly belong in this
year. On the surrender of Arques in the following year see Cartulaire de S.-Laud
d' Angers, ed. Planchenault, p. 65. The completion of the conquest as far as the
Seine in 1143 is confirmed by a charter of that year given ' Andegavis civitate in
anno quo annuente Deo et sancta matre eius partem Normannie que est citra
Sequanam adquisivimus ': P. F. Chiflflet, Histoire de I'abbaye de Totmms, preuves,
p. 424 (Ju^nin, preuves, p. 156),
I30 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
duchy.'' Although he had been so styled by his partisans some
time before,'^ Geoffrey did not assume the ducal title imtil the
acquisition of Rouen gave him full control of his new dominions
and Justified his prompt recognition by the king of France.^*
Geoffrey's reign as duke of Normandy extends from 1144 to
early in 11 50, when he handed the duchy over to his son Henry,
the heir of Matilda and Henry I.'^ This transfer, accomplished
2' Bohmer, Kirche und Stoat in England und in der Normandie, p. 313 f. The
archbishop still recognizes Stephen in a document of 1143 in Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 23, but acknowledges Geoffrey in charters of 1145 (Pommeraye, HistoiredeS-
Oiien, p. 425; P. Laffleur de Kermaingant, Cartulaire de I'abbaye de S. -Michel du
Triport, p. 31; C. Mfitais, Cartulaire de la TriniU de VendSme, ii. 331; Collection
Moreau, bd. 188, 206) . So Amulf of Lisieux dates a charter for Fecamp by Stephen's
reign in 1142 (Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, fonds F6camp), but attests a
charter which recognizes Geoffrey in September 1143 (see the next note), and is
soon busy securing the favor of the new prince (Epistolae, no. 2). That Geoffrey
had been able to put pressure upon the Norman church appears from the instance
of the treasurer of Lisieux, who was kept out of his church of Mesnil-Eudes (Calva-
dos) ' propter ducatus divisionem ': letters of Bishop John in MS. Lat. 5288, f. 68.
" Charter of William, count of Ponthieu, for Vignats, 19 September 1143, wit-
nessed by the bishops of Seez, Lisieux, and Coutances, and three abbots: Gallia
Christiana, xi. instr. 162. On the other hand Geoffrey is called count in a charter
of Reginald of Saint- Valery issued some time before the capture of Dieppe: Roimd,
Calendar, no. 1057; Fr^viUe, Histoire du commerce de Rouen, ii. 9.
26 On the assumption of the ducal title, see DeUsle, Henri II, p. 135 f.; and cf.
the date of no. 728 in Round's Calendar. According to Robert of Torigni and the
annals of Mont-Saint-Michel (ed. Delisle, i. 234, ii. 234), Geoffrey became duke
upon the surrender of the tower of Rouen (23 April), but a charter of tJlger, bishop
of Angers (DeUsle, Henri II, p. 135), places 29 June 1145 in the first year of his
reign. Lucius II addresses him 16 May 1144 as count of Anjou merely: Livre noir
de Bayeux, no. 206.
2' Against the annals of Saint-Aubin (Halphen, Recueil d'annales angevines, p.
1 2) , which give 1 149, and Miss Norgate's argument for 1 148 (Angemn Kings, i. 369 f .,
377; Dictionary of National Biography, sub ' Henry II '), the date of 1150 seems to
me clearly established from Robert of Torigni (i. 253), and the annals of Caen {H.
F., xii. 780) and Saint-fivroid (Ordericus, v. 162), and especially from the regnal
years in certain of Henry's charters. Gervase of Canterbury (i. 142), who is not
quite clear as to the year, gives January as the month of Henry's return to Nor-
mandy; and two charters for Savigny, given in the eighth year of his reign as duke
and issued before the beginning of April 1157, show that he became duke before the
end of March (Delisle, pp. 122, 231, 279 f., 515, nos. 30, 30a; Berger, i. 183, con-
fuses the whole matter of these charters by dating Henry's reign from the end of
1150, following an unsupported statement of Delisle, p. 121). A charter of Arch-
bishop Hugh (La Roque, iii. 45) is dated 1150 'principante in Normannia duce
Henrico.' On the other hand Geoffrey drops the title of duke in a charter of 28
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 131
when the young duke was in his seventeenth year, shows plainly
that the count of Anjou had won and held Normandy for his son
and not for himself, and earlier evidence points to the same con-
clusion. Besides the few weeks which may have intervened be-
tween his return and his assiunption of the ducal title in 1150,
Henry was on the Norman side of the Channel from the end of
1 146 to the spring of 1149,^' enjoying the instruction of the most
famous Norman scholar of the time, William of Conches, who
prepared for his use a choice selection of maxims of the Gentile
philosophers; 2* yet even at this tender age his name was used to
give sanction to ducal acts. A charter for Bec^' and one for Saint-
WandriUe ^^ are issued by Geoffrey with the advice and consent
of his son Henry; another confirmation for Bee '^ and one for
Fecamp '^ are issued by the two jointly; while a document of
1 147 for Saint-Ouen, attested by Geoffrey's chancellor, Richard
October 1150 {Liber aUms Cenomannensis, no. 6; cf. Delisle, p. 138) and in a notifi-
cation at Montreuil, addressed to the archbishop of Rouen, evidently in 1150-
1151 {infra, note go).
^^ On the dates of Henry's crossings see Round, Geojjrey de Mandeville, pp. 405-
410.
28 William's Dragmaticon is dedicated to Geoffrey as duke of Normandy and
count of Anjou in an introduction which praises his care for the education of the
young princes (R. L. Poole, Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought, p. 347 f .) ;
and his treatise on moral philosophy, De honesto et utili, is dedicated to Henry before
the assumption of the ducal title. See this work, attributed to Hildebert of Le
Mans, in Migne, ckxi. 1007-1056; and, on its authorship, Haur6au, in Notices et
extraits des MSS., xxxiii, 1, pp. 257-263. Curiously enough, it was used by Giraldus
Cambrensis in writing the De principis instructione, where Henry H serves as a
terrible example. Adelard of Bath also appears to have been one of Henry's tutors:
E. H. R., xxviii. 516.
2' ' Non lateat vos nee quenquam presentium sive futurorum me consiUo H. filii
mei et baronum meorum concessisse quod ecclesia SancteMarie de Becco et monachi
Ulius ecclesie habeant omnes consuetudines et quietudines et Ubertates quas habebant
in tempore H. regis. Quapropter ego precipio ut omnes res eiusdem ecclesie sint
quiete et libere in terra et in aqua et in piano et in nemore per totam Normanniam
ab omni consuetudine et vexatione, sicut erant in tempore Henrici regis ' (extract
by Dom Jouvelin-Thibault, in MS. Lat. 13905, f. 85V).
"• Round, no. 170; Delisle-Berger, no. 9*; Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 78.
3' " Geofroy due de Normandie et d'Anjou, Henri 2'' son fils, confirment et de-
clarent que monachi de Becco et omnes res eorum sunt quiete de theloneo et passagio
et pontagio et de omni consuetudine, sicut a retroactis temporibus fuerunt apud
Archas et apud Diepam ": MS. Lat. 13905, f. 85V.
'^ Delisle, p. 508, no. 6* and facsimile no. i; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*.
132 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
of Bohun, is given by Henricus duds Normannorum et comitis
Andegavie filius and addressed to his officers of Normandy." We
should also expect to find the empress taking an active part in
Norman affairs; but her absence in England from 1139 to 1148 ^*
removed her from any share in the events of these critical years
on the Continent, nor has any trace been found of her participa-
tion in her husband's administration after her return. The lack of
documents which can be specifically referred to these two years
is, however, probably accidental, for we have a grant of land at
Argentan to one of her followers before her departure for Eng-
land,'^ and several charters, issued in her own name or conjointly
with her son, which show her activity in the years immediately
following his accession.'^
The sources of information for the study of Geoffrey's govern-
ment of Normandy are remarkably scanty and fragmentary. The
narrative writers fail us entirely, for Ordericus stops before the
conquest is completed, and Robert of Torigni and John of Mar-
moutier give us nothing beyond an enumeration of campaigns.
We are perforce restricted to the charters, among which those of
the duke himself, about forty in number, are so fundamental as
to caU for somewhat special examination. The following list in-
^' Neustria Pia, p. 15; La Roque, iv. suppl., p. 10; Delisle, p. 508, no. 3*; De-
lisle-Berger, no. $*. Delisle and Berger query the date, but we know that Henry
was solemnly received at Bee on Ascension Day, 1147 (Robert of Torigni, i. 243).
Henry likewise makes a grant to the nuns of Almenfeches as son of Duke Geoffrey:
Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 5; Delisle-Berger, no. 7*-
^ Delisle, Henri II, p. 140, and the older Norman writers give 1147 as the year
of her return, which took place ' ante Quadragisimam.' There is some tmcertainty
because of the confusion of chronology — which is, however, less than has been
supposed (see Round, Geofrey de Mandemlle, pp. 405-410) — in Gervase of Canter-
bury, but as he (i. 133) places Matilda's return after the death of Robert of Glouces-
ter (31 October 1147) and just before the council of Rheims (21 March 1148), it
would seem to fall in 1148. Rossler, Kaiserin Mathilde, pp. 410-412, assimies 1147,
but his book has no value for Matilda's later years.
" Original in MS. Lat. 10083, f- 3? analyzed in M. A. N., viii. 388; Delisle,
p. 141, no. 4; Roimd, no. 591. As this charter is given at Argentan and witnessed
by Matilda's brother Reginald, who attests as earl of Cornwall after 1141 (Roimd,
Geofrey de Mandemlle, pp. 68, 271), it must be anterior to her departure in 1139.
'» Delisle, pp. 126, 141-143, nos. S-13; Delisle-Berger, nos. 11*, 45*. See also
her charters for Silly, Round, Calendar, nos. 679 f., 683; aad Sarunt Charters, p. 14
(1148).
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I33
dudes such Norman charters of Geo£frey as I have been able to
find, arranged, since few of them are dated, in the alphabetical
order of the places for whose benefit they were issued:
Almeneches. Delisle, Carkdaire normand, no. 4, and p. 273.
Bayetjx. Probablyii4S-n47. Eight charters andwrits of Geoffrey: i.ijtf-e
noir, nos. 16-19, 24, 25, 39, 100 (1147). Also four reports addressed to him
by his justices: nos. 43, 44, 89, 90. These are all, except no. 100, attributed
to Henry II in the edition (see, however, the corrections at the end of the
second volume), but in the cartulary the initial G appears in every case on
the margin. See A. H. R., viii. 618; infra, Chapter VI; Delisle, Henri II,
pp. 137 f., sii. nos. 42*, 43*, where the attribution of the last two to Henry
II is corrected by Berger, i. 3. . No. 17 is also in the Livre rouge (MS. Lat.
n. a. 1828, no. 401), of which there is a poor edition by Anquetil (Bayeux,
1909).
Bec. Extracts from two charters, printed above, notes 29, 31.
Beg, priory of Notre-Dame-du-Pr6. 27 March 1149, at Bec. Original,
printed below, no. 2.
Beg, priory of Saint-Ymer. 1147, at Saumur. MS. Lat. n. a. 2097, p. 9;
Collection Lenoir at SemiUy,lxxii, 2, p. 169. Cartulaires de S.-Ymer-en-Auge
et de Bricquebec, ed. C. Br^ard (Paris, 1908), p. 7; Round, Calendar, no. 360;
Delisle, no. 3* A; cf. DeUsle-Berger, i. 2.
Cluny. Before 1147, ^ it is attested by Hugh, archbishop of Tours. A.
Bruel, Charles de Cluni, v. 447 ; cf . G. F. Duckett, Charters and Records of
Cluni, ii. 78. In Martene and Durand, Thesaurus Anecdotorum, i. 383, it is
attributed to a duke R.
CouTANCES. At Saint-L6. A. E. R., viii. 630; infra, Chapter VI, note
95. Cf. DeUsle, Carkdaire normand, no. 162; Henri II, no. 17* A; Delisle-
Berger, i. 2. Ascribed to Henry II by Round, no. 960.
EvEtXJX. At Rouen. Printed below, no. 6.
Fecamp, (i) At Rouen.- Original, misplaced, in Archives of the Seine-
Inferieure; modern copies in MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, ff. 122-123; MS. Rouen,
1210, f. 17." (2) With his son Henry; at Rouen. Original, in same archives.
Delisle, Henri II, no. 6*, with facsimile; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*; Round, no.
126, omitting most of the witnesses.
Lessay. At Saumur. Original, printed below, no. 3.
LisiEUX, Saint-Desir, and the Knights of the Hospital. 1147, after
Easter (?'in Pascha precedenti'), at Mirebeau. Modern copies in Archives
of the Calvados. Extract in Grente and Havard, Villedieu-les-Poeles
(Paris, 1899), p. 6; Roimd, no. 576, where it is dated at Easter and the wit-
" ' Gaufredus dux Normannorum et comes Andegavorum omnibus hominibus
Fiscanni salutem. Sciatis me vidisse cartam ecclesie Fiscanni que testatur ecclesie
Fiscanni portus maris de Stigas usque ad Leregant. Idee mando vobis et prohibeo
quod vos non intromittatis de aliqua re que ad portus istos veniat vel sit, nisi per
inanum Henrici abbatis vel servientixun suorum, quia in ipsis nichil habeo. Teste
Ragioaldo de Sancto Walerico apud Rothomagum.'
134 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
nesses are omitted; M. A. N., xiv. 382, xvii. 325 (translation). Lechaud6,
M. A. N., vii. 247, ascribes it to William Rufus!
Marmoutier, priory of HeauviUe. At Argentan. Printed below, no. 7a.
MoNTEBOURG. (i) At Argentan. Printed below, no. 4. (2) At Lisieux.
Printed below, no. 5.
MoRTEMER. II October 1147, ^•t Rouen. La Roque, iii. 152, iv. 1396,
1636, suppl.,p. 8; NetistriaPia,p.iyg. Aaalyzed'm Bulletin des AnPiquaires
de Normandie, xiii. 115; Round, no. 1405; cf. H. F., xiv. 511. '^
Preaux. 1 149, at Rouen. Notice of transaction in curia sitting at Geof-
frey's order. Archives of the Eure, H. 711, no. 453. Printed in VaUn, p.
265; cf. Le Prevost, Eure, iii. 324.
ROTIEN, cathedral. At Rouen. Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 7,
p. 793. Printed in VaUn, p. 266 (where the undeciphered word is scilicet);
Delisle-Berger, no. 39*. The initial is left blank in the cartulary, so that the
author may be either Geoffrey or Henry II. Delisle, no 37*, ascribes it to
Henry, but gives no reason. Geoffrey's authorship seems to me likely from
the phrase ' tempore H. regis AngUe,' for ii; such cases (e. g., Livre noir de
Bayeux, nos. 27, 28, 32; Neustria Pia, p. 15) Henry II adds ' avi mei,' as
in the writ for H6auviUe (Delisle-Berger, no. 29*), which we can compare
with an exactly parallel one of his father (no. 7a below).
Rouen, town. Probably in 1144 and doubtless at Rouen. Incorporated
in Henry II's charter: A. Chdruel, Eistoire de Rouen, i. 241; Round, no.
109; DeKsle-Berger, no. 14*.
Rouen, gild of cordwainers. At Rouen. Vidimus of 1267 in MS. Lat.
9067, f. issv; and MS. Rouen 2192, f. 189. Printed from vidimus of 1371
(Archives Nationales, JJ. 102, no. 317) in Ordonnances des Rois, v. 416;
translated in Cheruel, Rouen, i, p. cxiv. Cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 16*
Rouen, Henry the Marshal, the duke's serjeant. Probably before 1147,
at Rouen. Printed below, no. 13.
Rouen, leprosery of Mont-aux-Malades. (i) At Rouen. Original writ,
printed below, no. 12. (2) Charter notifying the reception of the Palmers
of Rouen into confraternity: translation in P. Langlois, Eistoire du prieurg
du Mont-aux-Malades-les-Rou^n (Rouen, 1851), p. 4.
Rouen, Saint-Amand. At Lisieux. Printed below, no. 7.
Rouen, Saint-Ouen. ' Gaufredus dux Normannorum et comes Ande-
gavorum coniirmat donationem c[omitis] Walterii Giffardi. Testibus Ro-
berto de Novoburgo, Widone de Sabluel.' MS. Lat. 5423, f. 232V.
SAZNT-ANDRi-EN-GouEFERN. At Argentan. Printed below, no. 10.
SAiNT-fivROUL. Probably in 1144. Printed below, no. 8.
Saint- Wandrille. (i) At Rouen. Printed E. E. R., xxvii. 438, note 97 ;
Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 1 19. (2) At Argentan. Neustria Pia, p. 176 (extract) ;
Round, no. 170; in fuU in Lot, no. 78; DeUsle-Berger, no. 9*.
Savigny. (i) At Argentan. Original, Archives Nationales, L. 969;
cartulary in Archives of the Manche, no. 408; Round, no. 812. (2) At Ar-
'* The epact in this charter is of 1148, showing that it was calculated from i
September, as in a charter of Geoffrey in the Cartulaire de S.-Laud d' Angers, no. 49.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 135
gentan. Vidimus, printed below, no. 11. (3) At Montreuil; 1150-1151.
Original, printed below, note 90.
Seez, Saint-Martin. Printed below, no. 9.
For a reign of six years this is a respectable number of docu-
ments, if we take into accoimt the relatively small body of Nor-
man charters which has survived from the first half of the twelfth
century, and their geographical distribution is significant. Four
of the episcopal sees are represented, the archives of the others
being an almost total loss, and the monasteries of the list are
scattered throughout the duchy, from the ancient establishments
in the region of the Seine to Montebourg, Heauville, Lessay, and
Savigny on the west. All this bears evidence of an effective rule of
the whole land. At the same time it is noteworthy that, if we
except the charter for the town of Rouen, which was granted
under special circumstances, there are among them all no general
enumerations and confirmations of lands and privileges such as
are fotmd under Henry I and in still greater number under
Henry H.^' What we have instead is specific grants, letters of
protection, declarations of freedom from toll, and orders to the
duke's ofl&cers to hold inquests, make payments, and maintain
rights. The writs bulk large in proportion to the charters. This
cannot be mere accident, for the detailed confirmations which are
so nvunerous under Henry II rarely mention his father,*" but hark
back constantly to the conditions of his grandfather's time. We
get distinctly the impression of a reign which restores rather than
creates, and administers rather than ordains, of a regency rather
than a permanent government.
Considered from the diplomatic point of view, Geoffrey's char-
ters show variety, but they also show something of the regularity
and definiteness of form which come only from an organized
" An apparent exception, the long charter for Bayeux (Liwe noir, no. 39), is
merely a statement of the results of inquests held to determine the ancient rights of
the see. The difference from the policy of other dukes may be seen even in the case
of Stephen by comparing his detailed confirmation for Montebourg {Gallia Christi-
ana, xi, instr. 238) with the charters of Geoffrey for the same abbey printed below,
nos. 4, s-
*" Later references to Geoffrey's official acts are rare. See infra, notes 89,91,121;
Round, no. 1296; and the grant to Aunay cited in a bull of Eugene III (Bulletin des
Antiquaires de Normandie, xix. 256),
136 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
chancery. That Normandy had the advantage of such a system
under Henry I is of course well known, but we caimot speak with
equal certainty of conditions in contemporary Anjou. Down to
the close of the eleventh century the counts of Anjou, like the
kin gs of France, had not entirely differentiated their chancery
from their chapel, the same man appearing at one time as chaplain
and at another as chancellor, nor had they developed a regular
set of forms for their official acts. Until 1 109 at least, the only
period which has been carefully studied, almost all of their docu-
ments were drawn up by the monasteries in whose favor they
were issued,*^ and the evidence of style would indicate that this
custom persisted in large measure imder Fulk of Jerusalem and
even under his son. Geoffrey's Angevin charters have something
of the variety, the prolixity, and the narrative form which belong
to the monastic notice rather than to the charter proper, and
which are in sharp contrast with the brevity and fixity which the
Anglo-Norman charter, and especially the writ, has attained
before the close of the Conqueror's reign.
StiU, mention is found from time to time of the chaplain or
notary who composed the document, and especially of Thomas of
Loches, the historian of the counts of Anjou, whose attestation
appears as early as 1133 and continues as chaplain or chancellor
throughout the reign.^^ Thomas also accompanied Geoffrey on
his Norman expeditions, for his signature as chancellor appears in
documents issued at Argentan, Lisieux, and Rouen, and he wit-
nesses as chaplain a charter given at Bee in 1149.*' Curiously
enough, this last document bears likewise the name of the duke's
principal chancellor, Richard of Bohun. Dean of Bayeux since
" Halphen, Le comti d'Anjou, pp. 192 f., 237. For the confusion of chancellor and
chaplain under the Capetians see Prou, Recueil des actes de Philippe I", pp. liv-lvi.
^ On Thomas see Mabille's introduction to Marchegay, Chroniques des comtes
d'Anjou, pp. xiv-xxv; Beautemps-Beauprfi, Coutumes, part ii, i. 220-222; and
now the introduction to Halphen and Poupardin, Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou,
pp. xxvii-xxxvi.
*' Infra, nos. 2, 4-73. Thomas is mentioned in a writ of the empress for Cher-
bourg (Delisle, Henri II, no. 84*; Round,no.938) in a way that suggests (particu-
larly if we conjecture ' tenuerunt ' in the missing portion) that Geoffrey may have
given him some part of the considerable possessions of Roger of Salisbury (of.
Round, no, 909) in the Cotentin.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I37
the days of Henry I, Richard bought the chancellorship from
Geoffrey by pledging the income of his deanery for an amount
which he had much difficulty in paying and which subsequently
brought him into trouble with his bishop and with the Pope; and
in 1151 he was rewarded with the bishopric of Coutances.^* Nine
of Geoffrey's charters and writs bear his attestation,^^ and as one
of these is dated at Saumur,^^ it is plain that he followed the duke
beyond the confines of Normandy. No chronological separation
between the charters of Richard and Thomas seems possible:
the Bayeux writs attested by Richard belong to the early years of
the reign; two of the others fall in 1147 '" and one in 1149; *' and
he appears as chancellor in five docmnents issued by Henry 11.^'
Probably the explanation is that Richard was chancellor in Nor-
mandy and Thomas chaplain, as in the charter for Bee, but that
in Richard's absence Thomas took the title and perhaps the func-
tions of chancellor, which he had claimed in Anjou as early as
1142.^"
Richard's work can be tested in two originals, issued at places
as far apart as Bee and Saumur, but written by the same scribe ^'
" ' Postmodum vero venientis ad nos venerabilis fratris nostri Philippi Baiocensis
episcopi suggestione accepimus quod antedictus frater noster pecuniam illam, non
pro ecclesie Baiocensis utUitate aut sui honesta necessitate suscepit, sed ut cancel-
lariam sibi nobilis memorie Gauf ridi quondam Andegavensis comitis compararet, et
cum in capitulo Baiocensi se infra biennium soluturum eandem pecuniam promisis-
set, licet multum post decanatum habuerit, debitum tamen ipsum, ut promiserat,
nequaquam exsolvit ' {Liiire noir, no. 185). As Richard continued to hold the
deanery, not only for two years but ' multum post,' he evidently became chancellor
not long after Geoffrey's conquest of the duchy. He had been dean under Bishop
Richard Fitz Samson {ibid., no. 480), who died in 1133, and is mentioned with this
title in several Bayeux documents: ibid., nos. 60, 100 (1147)1 103 (1146), 106, 207
(1146), 2gi; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 20* (1151). On the date of his elevation to the
bishopric see Robert of Torigni, i. 257 and note; and cf . Delisle-Berger, nos. 35*, 45*-
*^ Livre noir, nos. 17, 19,39; Round, nos. 126 (= Delisle,no. 6*, with facsimile;
DeUsle-Berger, no. 8*), 170, 960, 1405; infra, nos. 2, 3.
*^ Infra, no. 3. " Round, no. 1405; Neustria Pia, p. 15. *' Infra, no. 2.
" DeUsle-Berger, nos. 5*, 12*, 28*, 40*, 42*. Delisle, p. 88, note, is incorrect.
'» Cartulaire de I'abbaye du Ronceray, ed. Marchegay, p. 244 {Archives d' Anjou,
iii) . Halphen and Poupardin, l.c.,p. xxix, doubt whether Thomas was really chan-
cellor, the title being at times taken by a mere notary.
'' That Richard was not himself the scribe is seen from the recurrence of the
same hand in the notice printed below (note 90), issued by Geoffrey as count of
Anjou at Montreuil-Bellay in 1150-1151, in which Richard is not mentioned.
138 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
and showing such resemblances in their formulae that the first,
excellently preserved with its seal, may safely be used to supply
some of the gaps in the mutilated text of the second. These are:
(2) G. dux Norm[annorum] & com[es] And[egavorum] H. archiep[iscop]o
& omnibus ep[iscop]is comitibus baronibus iusticiis Norni[annie] & omni-
bus suis iidelibus sal[utem]. Notum sit vobis atque omnibus tam presentibus
quam futuris quod ego dedi & concessi monachis Sanctg Marie de Becco tres
prebendas de Buns, ea conditione quod post quam ill§ fuerint liberatg a
tribus presentibus clericis, scilicet Ivone Hugone atque Alexandro, monachi
Sanctg Marig de Prato iUas perpetuo libere & quiete possideant. Huius rei
sunt testes: Ric[ardus] cancell[arius], Gaulr[edus] Roth[omagensis] decanus,
Tomas capellanus, Robertus de Movoburg[o] (sic) & alii quam plures. Hoc
autem concessum est anno ab incarnatione Domini .M.C.XLIX. in Pascha
instanti die dominica de ramis palmarum in Beccensi capitulo.'^
(3) G. dux Norm[annorum] et comes And[egavorum] H. archiepiscopo &
omnibus ep[iscopis comitibus] baronibus iusticiis & omnibus suis servienti-
bus salutem. [Notum sit vobis] atque omnibus hominibus tam presentibus
quam futuris quod ego concessi donationem quam WiUelmus de Aureavalle
fecit ecclesig Sanctg Trinitatis de Exaquio, videlicet de molendino de Sancta
Oportuna quod predictg ecclesig dedit cum omnibus consuetudinibus &molta
& omnibus rebus que ad iUud molendinum pertinebant & de parte ilia quam
in ecclesia Sanctg Oportung habebat [ecclesig] Exaquii dedit sicut carta iUius
testatur. & ut hec dona[tio et concessio] perpetuo fiat sigilli mei testimonio
illam confirmari [T]estes autem inde sunt Ric[ardus] cancel-
larius, WiUelmus de Vernone, Engelg[erus] de Boli[one], Alex[ander]
de Boh[one], Robertus de Montef[orti], de Sancto lohanne,
Rualocus de Saeio, Iosl[inus] de TyT[onibus], Pi[ppinus de Tyronibus], WU-
lelmus de [Sai ?], Adam de Sotewast. Apud Salmu^am]."*
'2 Original, sealed en double queue, in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure. See the
facsimile, Plate 7 b. Cf. G. Demay, Invenlaire des sceaux de la Normandie, no. 20;
Porde, Bee. i. 397. The phrase ' in Pascha instanti ' seems at first sight to indicate
that the style of Easter was here used, which would bring the date g April 1150.
This is, however, inconsistent with the fact that Henry had by this time become
duke (supra, note 26), and we should need stronger evidence to establish so striking
a variation from the practice of beginning the year at Christmas or i January, which
prevailed in both Normandy and Anjou (Delisle, Henri II, p. 230; Halphen, Le
comtS d' Anjou, pp. 237-239) . Evidently the phrase has no reference to the beginning
of the year, as is likewise true of 'in Pascha precedenti' in the charters of 1147 in
Neustria Pia, pp. 15, 779, in the latter of which, dated 11 October, the reference
to Easter could have no significance under any system of reckoning, a fact over-
looked by Berger, Henri II, no. 5*- The Bee charter belongs accordingly to 27
March 1149.
^ Original, with double queue, but no trace of seal, in Archives of the Manche,
H. 7771. Printed in Invenlaire sommaire; d. Delisle, Henri II, p. s°9, ^°- i7*B;
Berger, i. a.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 139
No originals have been discovered from the hand of the chan-
cellor Thomas, but we can follow him with some confidence in
certain early copies. Let us begin with two charters in the
cartulary of Montebourg: "
(4) Ego Goffr[edus] diix Norm[annorum] et comes And[egavorum] rela-
tione multorum cognoscens audiendo et audiens cognoscendo quoniam H.
rex predecessor meus abbatiam Montisburgi Sancte Marie tanquam pro-
priam capellam nimio dilexit amore diligendo custodivit augmentavit no-
bilitavit, similiter abbatiam eamdem in mea custodia et in tuitione capio et
quicquid ille contulit vel concessit in bosco et in piano et in omnibus con-
suetudinibus et in omnibus modis unde habent monachi cartas et brevia
prefate abbatie diligenter annuo. Insuper illi addo do et concede in perpe-
tuam elemosinam perpetuo iure habendam pro salute mea et filiorum meorum
necnon et predicti regis omniumque predecessorum meorimi Ulam terram
que est in suo aisimento inter suam terram et forestam usque ad rivulum
sicut oritur et descendit de veteri fonte, et ipsum rivulum cum alveo concede
Ita ut rivulus fesseatus sit firma divisa inter ees et forestam, cum censtet
quia redditus nichil inde foreste minuitur sed melius clauditur munitiu: atque
defenditur.
Testibus Thema canceU[ario], Alex[andro] de Beh[ene], Ric[ardo] de Haia,
Ric[ardo] de Wauvilla, W[iIIelmo] Avenel, Olivier de Albiniaco, Gisleb[erto]
archidpacono], Rob[erto] de Valeniis, Rob[erto] Berdel, Unfr[edo] de Bose-
viU[a] et aliis multis, apud Argent[omiun].
(s) Ego Gaufridus comes Andegavis {sic) et dux Normannorum cunctis
baronibus meis vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus hominibus meis salutem.
Sciatis quod habee in mea propria custodia abbatiam de Monteburgo emnes
menachos et omnes res ad ees pertinentes tanquam meam propriam elemo-
sinam sicut habuit rex Henricus antecessor meus, et concede abbatie et
ipsis monachis quicquid concessit eis predictus rex in omnibus rebus et in
omnibus consuetudinibus et unde habent ipsius regis cartas et brevia, et ut
habeant omnes censuetudines suas in ferestis meis liberas et quietas et fecum
in Monteburgo, et ut sint quieti a theloneo et consuetudine ubicunque ven-
dant vel emant vel conducant aliquid qued homines eorum pessint af&dare
esse proprium ecclesie et monacherum, et omnes denationes barenum quas
dederunt vel dederint ipsi ecclesie. Precipio igitur vobis ut abbatiam et
quicquid ad eam pertinet manuteneatis et defendatis et regatis sicut meam
propriam elemosinam, ne pro penuria recti inde clamerem audiam.
T[estibus] WiU[elmo] de Vemen, Alex[andro] de Bohun, Pag[ano] de
Claris VaUibus, Th[oma] canceUario, Rob[erte] de Curc[eio], apud Luxovium.
+ Preterea concede eidem abbatie coram supradictis testibus iUam terram
que est inter suam terram et forestam usque ad rivum et ipsum rivum sicut
descendit de veteri fonte et quoddam warlocum quod est in altera parte.
" MS. Lat. ioo?7, nos. 35, 36.
140 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
The first of these uses a comparatively untechnical phraseology
and has something of the more literary flavor of the Angevin
charter. The second, from its substance evidently posterior, is
full of the legal terminology of the charters of Henry I on which it
is based,'^ and culminates with the characteristically Norman
clause, ne pro penuria recti inde clamorem audiam.'^ Such repeti-
tions of the language of earlier charters for the same establish-
ment are perfectly natural and are familiar to all students of
diplomatics." When, however, we find Thomas adopting the
brevity and precision of the Anglo-Norman writ, as well as its
typical phrases, we see how thoroughly Norman an institution the
chancery of Geoffrey has become. The first of the following re-
lates to the see of Evreux, the second to the nuns of Saint-Amand,
the third to H6auviIIe, a priory of Marmoutier:
(6) G. dux Normann[orum] et comes And[egavoruin] G[uidoni] de Sablo-
l[io] et Will[elino] Lovello atque prepositis et ballivis suis de Vemolio et de
Nonancort salutem et dilecitionem. Mando atque vobis precipio quod
episcopo Ebroicensi reddatis omnes decimas suas de Vernolpo] et de Nonan-
cort sicut eas umquam melius habuit in tempore H. regis et sicut carta eius
garantizat, ita quod eas habeat prout tempus ierit ad voluntatem suam, et
de tempore transacto quicquid ei debetur absque dilatione reddatis. Insuper
etiam vobis precipio ne quid inde amittat neque pro ref actura molendinorum
neque pro augmentatione reddite supradictarum villanmi. De pace vero
fracta mando vobis quod ei inde quicquid habere debuerit plenarie reddi
faciatis, scilicet .ix. libras sicut carta H. regis garantizat. Tibi etiam, Wil-
lelme Lovel, precipio quod iusticiam ei facias de Gilleberto nummario (?).
Teste Thoma cancellario apud Rothomagum.'s
(7) G. dux Normann[orum] et comes And[egavorum] R. de Sancto Wa-
lerico et ministris suis de Archis salutem. Precipio quod habere faciatis S.
Amando decimam suam de forestis de Awi et de Alihermont in denariis
'' Supra, Chapter III, nos. 8-15; Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 737.
" E.H.R., xxvi. 446 f . Can we see Thomas's hand in a writ of Geoffrey in 1 146,
mentioned in a notice from La Trinitg de Venddme (Cartulaire, ii. 343), where we
have ' ne ampUus super hoc clamorem audiret ' ?
" An excellent illustration is furnished by the charter of Geoffrey cind Henry for
F6camp (Delisle, Henri II, p. 508, no. 6*, with facsimile; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*),
which reproduces the language of the early grants of immunity: ' absque uUa in-
quietatione vel imminutione secularis vel iuditiarie potestatis.' See Appendix B.
" Archives of the Eure, G. 122, no. 204, G. 123, no. 196, printed in Le Pr6vost,
Eure, ii. 488, who reads ' munario ' before the testing clause where I conjecture
'nummario.' For the charter of Henry I see Tris Ancien Coutumier, c. 71;
Round, Calendar, no, sgo.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I4I
frumento et avena sicut earn melius habuit tempore Henrici regis, quia nolo
ut elemosina mea minuatur. Teste Toma cancellario apud Lux[ovium]."
(7a) G. dux Norm[annorum] et comes Andeg[avorum] episcopo Constan-
tinensi et iusticiis et vicecomitibus et baronibus Constantini salutem. Pre-
cipio et volo quod monachi Sancti Martini Maiorismonasterii de Heavilla
teneant omnes terras et ecclesias et decimas et omnes res suas que pertinent
ad elemosinam meam de Heavilla ita bene et in pace et honorifice et iuste
et quiete sicut melius et quietius tenuerunt tempore regis H. Et nemo eis
vel rebus eorum ullam iniuriam vel conttuneliam faciat. Teste Thoma
cancellario apud Argent[omum].™
The triumph of the traditions of the Anglo-Norman chancery
can also be seen in documents in which no chancellor is men-
tioned. The following, which probably belongs to the early part
of 1 144, is a good example of a brevity which is literary rather
than legal in its phraseology: *'
(8) Notum sit omnibus tam futuris quam presentibus quod ego Gaufridus
Andegavormn comes, Fulconis bone memorie Iherusalem regis filius, mo-
nachis Sancti Ebrulfi res eorum universas ita habendas et possidendas libere
et quiete concedo et affirmo, sicut habebant in tempore regis Hainrici anteces-r
soris mei. Et omnibus communiter ne predictos monachos de rebus suis in
causam mittant precipio, insuper illis ne cmn aliquo inde placitentiur pro-
hibeo, et amicis meis ubicunque fuerint, sicut me diligunt, ut eos manuten^
eant et ab omnibus defendant cirni summa diligentia submoneo et rogo.
The next is similar, though Geoffrey is now duke: '^
(9) Goffridusdux Normannorum et comes Andegavensium omnibus dapi-
feris et prepositis villicis et servientibus suis salutem. De his que pertinent
ad proprium victum et vestitum monachorum Sancti Martini de Sagio et
serviens eorundem monachorum proprium esse eorum affiducare poterit,
nullum inde capiatis teloneum aut pedagixmi aut consuetudinem ahquam
minimam vel magnam. Quod si feceritis meum incurretis odimn et cum
sexaginta solidis reddetis.
59 Copy by Gaignieres in MS. Lat. 17031, p. 137.
«» Vidimus of 1524 after sealed origmal, " fort consumfi en queue simple,'' in
BibliothSque Nationale, Collection de Touraine, xxxi. 57, no. 8. Cf. A. H. R., xx.
29; Delisle-Berger, no. 29*.
^ Cartulary of Saint-£vroul, MS. Lat. 11056, no. 681 ; Round, Calendar, no. 637.
In the absence of place and witnesses this charter presents some curious features.
Geoffrey speaks as successor of Henry I, yet he has not taken the ducal title. The
news of Fulk's death, which occurred 10 November 1143 (R. Rohricht, Geschichte
des Konigreichs Jerusakm, p. 229), could hardly have reached his son before the
capitulation of Rouen, where Geoffrey remained until his assumption of the ducal
title; yet a charter issued at Rouen in such an ahen style is rather surprising.
•^ Copy from Livre rouge of Sfiez, m MS. Fr. 18953, pp. 37, 222-
142 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
In the following charter the same matter is thrown into the legal
language of Henry I's time; indeed, except for the insertion of
sicut mee res proprie, it reproduces exactly the terms of a writ of
Henry for the same monastery: *'
(10) G. dux Norm[annonmi] comes And[egavorum] baronibus et omni-
bus vic[ecoimtibus] et ministris tocius Anglie et Normannie et portuum
maris salutem. Precipio quod totum corrodium et omnes res monachorum
de abbatia de Vinaz quas servientes eorum affidare poterint pertinere suo
dominico victiii et vestitui sint in pace et quiete de theloneo et passagio et
omnibus consuetudinibus sicut mee res proprie. Et super hoc prohibeo quod
nullus eos disturbet iniuste super .x. libras forisfacture. Testibus comite de
Pontevio et Alexandro de Bohun et Roberto de Noburg' (sic), apud Argen-
tomum.
The following is parallel, but contains a further provision: '*
(11) G. dux Normannorum et comes Andegav[orum] omnibus baronibus
et fideKbus suis et ministris totius Normannie et Cenomaimie et portuum
maris salutem. Precipio quod totum corredium abbatis de Savign[eio] et
monachorum suorum et abbatum qui sunt de obedienda Savign[eii] et
omnes res quas ministri sui affidare poterunt esse suas sint quiete de theloneo
et passagio et omni consuetudine ubicunque venerint, et prohibeo ne ullus
eos super hac re disturbet super decern libras forisfacture. Precipio etiam
quod monachi Savigneii totam terram suam et homines et omnes res suas in
iirma pace teneant et non inde pladtent, quia terra et omnes res eorum in
mea custodia et defensione sunt et nolo quod aliquis eis inde contumeUam
faciat neque de ahqua re eos inquietare presumat.
Teste {sic) Guidone de Sabl[olio] et Alexandro de Bohun, apud Argen-
tomagum.
Another writ of a well known type is: **
(12) G. dux Norm[annorum] et com[es] And[egavorum] vicec[omitibus]
Roth[omagensibus] sal[utem]. Precipio quod tradatis leprosis Roth[omagen-
sibus] xl. sol[idos] Roth[omagensium] singuUs mensibus sicut rex .H. eis dedit
et carta eius testatur.
T[este] Rob[erto] de Novo burgo, apud Roth[omagu]m.
" Cartulary of Saint-Andr6-en-Gouffem, in Archives of the Calvados,f.22V, no.
90; no. 72 is the writ of Henry I. Note that Geoffrey has even let Anglie stand.
This type of writ is familiar in England; see, for example, J. Armitage Robinson,
Gilbert Crispin, p. 150, no. 34. For a quite different Angevin form see CarMaire de
Tiiron, i. 63.
°* Copy of 1237 under seal of William, bishop of Avranches, in Archives of the
Mandie, fonds Savigny.
"' Original, with fragment of simple queue, in Archives Nationales, K 23, 15^.
See the facsimile, Plate 7 a. Printed m Delisle, Henri II, p. 136; Langlois, Histoire
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I43
Further illustration is unnecessary. We recognize not only the
sobriety, conciseness, and clearness which Delisle notes as the
characteristics of the Anglo-Norman chancery,^^ but also its
regular terminology, such as the address, the nisifeceris clause,"
sicut umquam melius habuit, ne inde amplius clamorem audiam, ita
bene, etc., and the ten poimds' penalty for infringement.** In aU
essential matters Geoffrey's ducal chancery was a Norman institu-
tion, and, what is more important, it was an instrument for
maintaining the rights which his predecessors had granted and
the administration through which they had governed.
Since few of Geoffrey's charters are dated, it is impossible to
construct an itinerary or form any estimate of the distribution of
his time between Normandy and Anjou. He visited Normandy
every year of his reign as duke,'' but, apart from his sojourns at
Rouen and Argentan and an occasional military expedition, the
only places at which he can be traced are Bayeux, Bee, Lisieux,
and Saint-L6. By far the greater number of his charters are
issued from Rouen, which seems to have acquired new importance
as the capital of the duchy. Geoffrey rebuilt the tower and the
du prieurS du Mont-aux-Malades-Us-Rouen, p. 397; calendared in Tardif, Monu-
ments historigues, no. 516.
'° Henri II, pp. 240-246.
" Hvre noir, no. 24.
*' A further indication of Norman influence is seen in Geoffrey's second seal,
where he takes the title of ' dux Normannorum ' and carries still further the imita-
tion of the Norman type which his father had begun. Only one original of this seal
is known to exist (see the facsimile, Plate 7b), attached to a charter for Bee, printed
above (no. 2), and described by Demay, Inventaire des sceaux de la Normandie, no.
20; but there are also certain drawings (Delisle, Henri II, p. 138 f.). On the intro-
duction of the Norman type into Anjou, see G. de Manteyer, Le sceau^matrice du
comte d' Anjou Foulques le Jeune, in Mimoires des Antiquaires de France, be. 305-
338; on the distinction between the ' sigillum ducatus ' and the ' sigillum comitatus,'
the Cartulaire de S.-La/ud d' Angers, no. 83; of. Cartidaire deS.-Auhin, ii. 112.
" In ii4she is at Arques and Rouen (Robert of Torigniji. 237, 239); inii46at
Rouen {ibid., i. 242) and Courcy-sur-Dive (charter for Cormery given ' in presentiam
meam apud Curciacum super Divam in exercitu meo . . . aimo Domini miUesimo
centesimo quadragesimo sexto regnante Ludovico rege Francorum qui tunc crucem
Domini assumpserat ': Bibliotheque Nationale, Collection Housseau, v, no. 1718);
in 1 147 at Argentan {Liwe noir, no. 100) and 11 October at Rouen (Round, no.
140s); in 1148 at Fauguemon, near Lisieux (Robert of Torigniji. 247); 27 March
1149 at Bee {supra, no. 2).
144 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
bridge over the Seine,'" and after Rouen became the abode of the
empress in 1148'' a local poet did not hesitate to compare to im-
perial Rome the ancient and noble city which resembled it so
closely in name and claimed JuUus Caesar for its founder^'' To
Geoffrey Rouen owed a detailed and comprehensive charter, the
earliest of the city's surviving mimiments,'' which restored to the
citizens the privileges which they had enjoyed under Henry I,
safeguarded particularly their Jurisdictional and fiscal immuni-
ties, confirmed the gild organization, as represented in the mer-
chant and cordwainers' gilds,'^ and guaranteed the rights of Rouen
merchants in England and their monopoly of the commerce of the
Seine and the Irish trade of Normandy. Rouen had no rival in
poKtical or commercial importance, nor can much trace of mimi-
cipal life be discovered elsewhere in the duchy during this reign.
Vemeuil and Nonancourt on the southern border seem to have
'" Robert of Torigni, i. 239, 242, 368. Cf . A. Deville, Secherches sur I'ancien pont
de Rouen, in Pricis des travaux de I'Acadlmie de Rouen, 1831, pp. 171-173.
1 Supra, note 34. Most of MatUda's Norman charters are dated at Rouen or
Le Pr6: Delisle, Henri II, p. 142 f., nos. 6-13; Round, nos. 263, 679 f., 683.
" ' Rothoma nobilis, urbs antiqua, potens, speciosa,
Gens Normanna sibi te preposuit dominari;
Imperialis honorificentia te super omat;
Tu Rome similis tam nomine quam probitate,
Rothoma, si mediam removes, et Roma vocaris.
Viribus acta tuis devicta Britannia servit;
Et tumor Anglicus et Scotus algidus et Galo sevus
Mimia protensis manibus tibi debita solvunt.
Sub duce Gaufredo cadit hostis et anna quiescunt,
Nominis ore sui Gaufredus gaudia fert dux;
Rothoma letaris sub tanto principe felix.'
The remaining nine lines are a eulogy of King Roger of Sicily (cf. E. E. R., xxvi.
43S) : MS. Fr. 2623, f . 1 14V, printed in C. Richard, Notice sur I'ancienne BiblioMque
des &chm,ns de Rouen (Rouen, 1845), p. 37. ' Imperialis honorificentia ' is, of
course, an allusion to the coming of the empress. For the tradition respecting
Caesar, see Ordericus, ii. 324, where its size and prosperity are also spoken of.
" Ch&raA, Histoirede Rouen, i. 2^1; Round, Caienrfor, no. 109; Delisle-Berger,
no. 14*. Cf. A. Giry, &tabUssements de Rouen, i. 25-27.
'* The privileges of the cordwainers are contained in a special charter: Ordon-
nances des Rois, v. 416; supra, p. 134. See the similar charters of Henry I, Stephen,
and Henry II in La Roque, iii. 149 (cf. Round, no. 107; Delisle-Berger, no. 16*),
where the charter of Stephen, found in his name in MS. Lat. 9067, f. 155, is wrongly
attributed to William the Conqueror.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 145
continued something of the prosperity which they owed to the
fostering care of Henry I," but it is perhaps significant that Geof-
frey's charters make no mention of Caen or of its religious estab-
lishments, and the fortunes of both Caen and Dieppe waited upon
the reestablishment of close relations with England under his
son.'* Charters and chroniclers are also silent in Geoffrey's reign
respecting another phase of local hfe, namely castle-building,
which had been a traditional practice of the Angevin coimts at
home and played a prominent part in the Norman policy of
Henry I and Henry H."
On his visits to Normandy Geoffrey was often accompanied by
Angevin barons, such as the seneschal Joslin of Tours and his
brother Pippin, Geoffrey de Cleers, and Vdijae of Clairvaux; but
he had also an important Norman following. His most frequent
attendants were the seneschal Reginald of Saint- Valery, Robert
de Neufbourg, Robert de Courcy, William de Vernon, Guy de
Sable, Alexander and Enjuger de Bohun, Osbert de Cailli, Richard
de la Haie, and Enguerran de Vascoeuil. The attestations of the
great men of the duchy, such as the counts of Meulan, Roumare,
and Ponthieu, appear more rarely, while the subscriptions of the
bishops occur only in occasional documents dated at Rouen,'*
where they doubtless attended the more formal meetings of the
court, although they played no regular part in the ducal adminis-
tration. The appearance of Norman barons with Geoffrey in
Anjou '' likewise goes to show that there was no mechanical
separation between his two groups of followers; but the regular
officers of government were quite distinct in Normandy from
'' SeeHenry'schartertoVememlmOr(Zo«»o«ceideji?oM, iv. 638; and the docu-
ments mentioning these towns in Le Pr6vost, Eure, ii. 476 f., 488, iii. 345, 347;
Round, nos. 282 f., 287, 292 f . For Geofifrey's reign see supra, no. 6; and Ordericus,
V. 132, where the conventus of Vemeuil in 1141 is estimated at 13,000 men.
'6 For Dieppe under Geoffrey see below, note 97; and Round, nos. 109, 170,
1057 f. The growth of the town under Henry II is seen in the various grants of
houses to the king's officers preserved in the Coutumier de Dieppe (Archives of the
Seine-Inf^rieure, G. 851): Delisle-Berger, nos. 115, 398, 709, 713, 719.
" For the Norman castles of the twelfth century see Powicke, The Loss of Nor-
mandy, ch. vii.
'" Livre noir, nos. 17, 19; Round, no. 126; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*; infra, no. 13.
" Supra, no. 3; Cartulaire de S.-Ymer, p. 7; Round, no. 1058,
146 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
those in his other possessions, in which indeed there does not
seem to have been entire unity of organization.*"
It was in this nucleus of administrative ofl&cers that the breach
of continuity created by time and dvil war between the curia of
Henry I and that of his son-in-law was most serious, yet it is
significant that the new recruits came from Normandy and not
from Anjou. The change was most marked on the ecclesiastical
side, for Henry's justiciar, John of Lisieux, had died in 1141, and
Archbishop Hugh and the bishop of Coutances were the only pre-
lates who survived from Henry's time. The bishops had taken
Stephen's part; Philip of Bayeux, the most experienced of them
in public affairs, had even been his chancellor; ^^ and it was not
to be expected that Geoffrey would turn to them for confidential
advice or place one of them at the head of his administration.
Under these circumstances the suppression of the justiciarship
was natural, particularly as no such ofi&ce existed in Anjou. The
principal seneschal of Henry I, Robert de la Haie, was also dead,*^
and his son Richard had held Cherbourg for Stephen; ^ so that
this dignity feU to a new man, Reginald of Saint- Valery,^ under
whom it seems to have gained something of the relatively greater
importance which, in the absence of a justiciar, it had come to
possess in Anjou.*^ We hear very little of the other seneschals,
although Robert de Courcy, dapifer under Henry I, has the same
'°, What has been said above of the chancellors can hardly be considered an ex-
ception to the distinctness of Nonnandy. For Geoffrey's other dominions note the
mention of Hugh and Geoffrey de Cleers as seneschals besides Joslin of Tours in
Marchegay, Chroniques des Iglises d' Anjou, p. 88 (cf . the documents cited in Delisle,
Henri //, p. 387 f .) ; and also the special officers for Maine who appear in a charter
given at Le Mans in 1146 (B. &. C, xxxvi. 433).
" Register of St. Osmund, i. igi f.; Calendar of Charter Rolls, v. 17, no. 8. For
Philip's biography see Bourrienne's articles in Revue cathoUque de Normandie, xviii ff .
'^ On his place under Henry I, see supra, p. gg. He disappears after Henry's
time.
83 John of Marmoutier, ed. Marchegay, pp. 2gg-3oi, ed. Halphen and Poupaidin,
p. 2 29 f . If, as John says, Richard was carried off by pirates, he would seem to have
returned to Normandy, where he holds an important position under Geoffrey and
Henry H. There may, of course, have been two barons of this name; the seneschal,
{infra, note 88) was a son-in-law of WiUiam de Vernon (Stapleton, i, p. cxlv).
** On Reginald see Delisle, p. 421.
" On the seneschal in Anjou see Beautemps-Beauprfi, Coutumes, part ii, i, chs.
8, 10; and cf. Powicke, E. H, R., xxi. 649; Loss of Normandy, p. 38.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I47
title in one of Geoffrey's charters; ** and while I have not found
the title applied to him before Henry II's reign, I believe that
Robert de Neufbourg, whose signature regularly precedes that of
Robert de Courcy in the charters," must also have been dapifer
under Geoffrey before he became chief seneschal under Henry II.
The same title may have been restored to Richard de la Haie,
who uses it in 1152.'*
Of actual meetings of the curia we have few notices, and these
are concerned entirely with its judicial decisions. It was in
Geo£frey's court that Philip of Bayeux established his rights over
Ducy and Louvieres *' and released to the abbey of Savigny his
claim to land in Escures; '" here also the abbot of Fecamp won
*' Livre noir, no. 19. Robert de Courcy, who was in Normandy in 1138, when he
befriended Geoffrey (Ordericus, v. 109), in 1141 (Tardif, Tres Ancien Coutumier,
p. 117; cf. Roimd, Calendar, no. 1198), and in 1145 (B. &. C, xxi. 127, 131), may
not be identical with the Robert de Courcy who as dapifer attests charters of the
empress in 1142 (Round, Geoffrey de Mandevilh, pp. 170, 183). The Courcy
genealogy needs clearing up; see Tardif ,/. c. ; Delisle, p. 440.
8' Liwe noir, no. 39; Round, Calendar, no. 170; Neustria Pia, p. 15; infra,
Chapter VI, note 95; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 8*; and the charter for Bee, supra,
no. 2. Robert de Neufbourg was one of the early partisans of Geoffrey: Ordericus,
V. 68. On his position under Henry II see Delisle, pp. 445-447.
*' See his charters in the Archives of the Manche, H. 4622, 5130; and cf. H. 692.
Stapleton, i, p. xjodv, note, says he was dapifer under Geoffrey, but cites no evidence.
" ' Quas in curia nobihs memorie Gaufridi quondam Normannie ducis per iudi-
ciiun obtinuisti ': Xiwe noir, no. 156.
"• ' H. Dei gratia Rothomagensi archiepiscopo totique capitxdo Rothomagensis
ecclesig G. Andeg[avorum] comes salutem et dilectionem. Notimi sit vobis atque
omnibus hominibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod Philipus Baiocensis episco-
pus in pace dimisit et quietam clamavit terram de Escuris quam ipse adversum
monachos Saviniacenses calumpniabatur et quam monachi in tempore regis H. et
duorum Baiocensium episcoporum predecessorum eius libere et quiete tenuerant.
lUam autem terram dimisit eis quietam et liberam ipse Ph. Baiocensis episcopus in
presentia GuiUelmi Cenomannensis episcopi et mea aput Cenomannos, presente
Raginaldo de Sancto Walerico et Guidone de Sabl[eio] et Gofferio de Brueria atque
plurimis aUis. Quare vobis mando ac vos diligenter deprecor ut si Baiocensis episco-
pus vel aliquis alius super hoc reclamare aut terram calimipniari presumeret, mo-
nachi prefati vestram protectionem atque adiutorium inde haberent. Testibus
Gaufredo de Claris Vallibus et Guillelmo de Botevilla et magistro Hugone decano
Sancti Martini, apud Mosterolpum].' Original, with double queue, in Archives
Nationales, L. 969; cartulary of Savigny, in Archives of the Manche, no. 201;
Round, no. 809, where the place and witnesses are omitted and Geoffrey's title is
arbitrarily altered by the insertion of ' duke of the Normans.' For the date see
above, note 26. Another account of the transaction, showing that Hugh de Cleers
148 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
control of the port against the townsmen,'^ and the canons of
Rouen established their privileges in the forest of Aliermont.'^ In
these instances the duke appears to have been himself present; ''
but the curia at Rouen, which effected a compromise between the
abbot of Pr^aux and Enguerran de Vascoeuil, was composed of
indices, baillivi, and proceres under the presidency of Reginald of
Saint- Valery as dapifer Normannie,^^ Possibly Angevin prece-
dents may have done something to develop the seneschal's im-
portance on such occasions, but as an itinerant justice he is in no
way distinguished from his associates. As under Henry I,'^ the
judicial authority of the duke seems to have been exercised chiefly
by travelling justices who acted under his writs. Such officers are
constantly found in the inquests held on behalf of the bishop
of Bayeux, specific mention being made of Reginald of Saint-
Valery, Robert de Neufbourg, Robert de Courcy, William de
Vernon, Richard de la Haie, Guy de Sabl6,Enjuger de Bohtm,and
Galeran, count of Meulan.'^ Certain of these reappear in the same
capacity in other parts of Normandy: Robert de Neufbourg and
was also among those present, is given in the following letter of William, bishop of
Le Mans: ' H. Dei gratia Rotomagensis ecclesie archiepiscopo totique eiusdem
ecclesie capitulo G. eadem gratia humiUs Cenomannensis episcopus per bona tem-
poralia inunarcescibilis vite coronam feliciter attingere. Discretioni vestre notum
fieri volumus quod Philip^jus Baiocensis ecclesie episcopus terram de Escuris, quam
abbati et monachis de Savinneio calmnpniabatur et quam predictus abbas et mon-
achi solute et quiete in tempore duorum episcoporum predecessorum suorum et
Henrici regis tenuerant, in presentia nostra et domini Gofredi Normannorum
ducis et Andegavorum comitis et Guidonis de Sablon et Raginaldi de Sancto
Galerico et Goferii de Brueria et Hugonis de Cleriis et aliorum midtorum in pace
dimisit. Hoc ideo vobis scripsimus quod si prefatus episcopus vd aliquis alius
erga ecclesiam Savinneii insurrexerit, prescripte ecclesie, sicut decet sanctos, ius
suum defendatis.'- Original in MS. Lat. 92x5, Savigny, no. i; cartulary, no. 202;
omitted by L. Celier, in his Catalogue des actes des Piques du Mans (Paris, 1910);
cf. Auvry, Histoire de la congregation de Savigny, iii. 44.
" ' Sicut eum disrationavit in curia patris mei et postea in curia mea' : charter
of Henry H, Delisle-Berger, no. 120; Round, no. 132.
92 Valin, p. 266; Delisle-Berger, no. 39*; cf. supra, p. 134.
" Pleas ' ante ducem Normannorum ' are mentioned in the charter to Rouen
(Delisle-Berger, no. 14*) . In the eulogy of Geoffrey by fitienne de Rouen his justice
is especially praised: Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, ed. Marchegay, p. 313; Hew-
lett, Chronicles of Stephen, ii. 772.
" Valin, p. 265. »» Supra, Chapter IH.
•° Livre noir, nos. 17, ig, 24, 25, 39, 43, 44, 89, 90,
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET l^f)
William de Vernon at Arques and Dieppe; " Guy de Sable, this
time with William Lovel, at Verneuil and Nonancourt.'* In the
Cotentin we read of an inquest held at the duke's assize {in
assisia mea) at Valognes; no justice is mentioned, but four who
are otherwise known to have exercised such functions witness the
charter of Geoffrey which declares the result.^' Evidently the
system extended throughout the duchy; evidently also the jus-
tices were chosen from the principal lay members of the curia,
without recourse to the clergy.
The problem of chief interest in connection with Geoffrey's
justices is their administration of the sworn inquest in the deter-
mination of disputes concerning land, a question which need not
here be treated at length, as we shall have occasion to discuss it
with some fullness later.i"" The evidence comes for the most part
from the Livre noir of Bayeux and is connected with the active
efforts of the bishop, Philip d'Harcourt, for the recovery of his
property in the years immediately following the Angevin con-
quest. For his benefit Geoffrey provided for a general recognition
of the demesne, fiefs, and other rights of the see, as well as for the
determination by inquest of neighbors of disputes between the
bishop and any of his tenants, and he added special writs to
individual justices with reference to particular estates and feudal
holdings. The facts were determined by the oath of lawful men of
the vicinage, and each of the justices in charge made a written
return to the duke, four such returns having survived as detailed
evidence of the procedure employed. The sworn recognition was
also used under Geoffrey to determine the rights of the bishop of
Coutances over Tourlaville '"' and those of the chapter of Rouen
in the forest of Aliermont; i"'' and its diffusion is further shown by
" E. H. R., xxvii. 438, note 97; Lot, S.-WandriUe, no. 119. Reginald of Saint-
Valery was also concerned with Dieppe, where he held the revenues of the port:
Round, nos. 1057 f.
" Supra, no. 6. In the region of Argentan Fulk d'Axinou and Robert de Neuville
seem to have been justices: Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 4, p. 273.
"' William de Vernon, Enjuger de Bohun, Robert de Neufbourg, and Robert de
Courcy: infra, Chapter VI, note 95.
"» Infra, Chapter VI.
1™ Itifra, Chapter VI, note 95.
!« Delisle-Berger, no. 39*. On the attribution to Geoffrey see above, p. 134.
150 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
the practice of submitting tKe question of a champion's profes-
sionalism to the oath of ten citizens of Rouen selected by the
duke's Justice,'"' and by a case in the baronial court of the count
of Meulan where the parties put themselves on the verdict of
eight lawful knights.'"* The sworn inquest was nothing new in
Normandy, having been prescribed by Henry I in 1133 to deter-
mine the possessions of the bishop of Bayeux,'"^ and in employ-
ing it again for the bishop's benefit Geoffrey expressly states that
he is following in Henry's footsteps.'"^ It was obviously a Nor-
man, not an Angevin institution. The evidence for its use under
Geoffrey, however, is much more abundant than under the pre-
vious Norman dukes, and two writs of his directing his justices to
cause lands of the bishop of Bayetix to be recognized secundum
assisiam meam led Brunner to conclude that the duke, whom he
supposed to be Henry II, was here citing a general ordinance
which introduced this procedure as a regular method of trial in
cases concerning land. No other mention of such an assize has
been found in Geoffrey's reign, and it is possible to interpret the
phrase in other ways; but the reappearance of these words in the
early years of Henry II, along with clear evidence of the use
of the recognition as a remedy regularly open to ordinary liti-
gants, adds weight to Brunner's conclusion. On the whole, it
seems probable that the regularization and extension of this
form of procedure, which are well attested by 11 59, had aheady
begun imder Geoffrey and had perhaps been formulated by him
in some specific document now lost.""
Next to the justices, who may be considered as both central and
local oflScers, came the vicomtes, who had since the eleventh cen-
tury been the principal agents of local administration, charged
with the general oversight of the vicomte, and particularly with the
"* Delisle-Berger, no. 14*.
'" Valin, pp. 201, 264; Chapter VI, note 128.
105 Supra, Chapter I, p. 15.
106 ' Vestigiis regis Henrid inherentes qui hoc idem iuramento antiquorum homi-
num fecerat recognosci. . . . luramentum quod rex Henricus fieri fecerat ratum
esse volentes, iuramento eorundem qui tempore regis Henrici iuraverunt et aliorum
recognosci fecimus iura, possessiones, consuetudines, libertates quas ecclesia Baio-
censis tempore Odonis episcopi habuerat et habere debebat.' Livre noir, no. 39.
"" See the discussion of this evidence in Chapter VI.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 151
collection of the duke's revenues and the payment of the farm at
which their district was let.'"' These fiscal arrangements, which
also covered the parallel but inferior jurisdiction of the prevdts,
show remarkable fixity from the time of WiUiam the Conqueror
to that of Henry II,!"' and it is not surprising that Geoffrey
sought to reestablish and maintain them, especially since his
resources had been diminished by the extensive grants from the
ducal demesne which he had been obliged to make as the price of
the barons' support."" He is careful that the bishop of Evreux
shall have his tenths from the farm of Verneuil and Nonan-
court,"' the nuns of Saint-Amand their tithes in the forests of
Eaui and Aliermont,"^ the monks of Saint-Wandrille their ancient
rights in his rents at Arques and Dieppe, in the proceeds of the
fair at Caen, and in the toll of Rouen, Exmes, Falaise, and Argen-
tan."' We have the actual writ ordering the vicomte of Rouen to
pay the lepers of the city the forty shillings monthly which King
Henry had given them,"* and the charter to the citizens of Rouen
shows the duke's ofi&cers collecting the tolls and customs and
wine-dues which are mentioned in the documents of his prede-
cessors."* While, however, the vicomtes and prevdts continued to
accoimt to the Exchequer ' for the issues of their more ancient
jurisdictions,' the Angevin dukes superimposed upon the local
government of Normandy the new area of the bailliage}^^ It is not
likely that under Geoffrey this new unit acquired any such im-
portance as it possesses in the miUtary returns of 1172; yet the
•"^ Stapleton, i, pp. xxxiv-xxxvi, Ixi; Delisle, in B. E. C, x. 264 f.; id., Henri II,
pp. 212-218; supra, p. 46 f.
'™ Supra, pp. 42-44, los f. "" Supra, no. 6.
"» Robert of Torigni, i. 267. "^ No. 7.
"' Lot, S.-WandriUe, nos. 78, 119. Another example of the continuity of the
fiscal system is seen in the empress's grant to Saint-Andrfi-en-Gouffem (1151-1154)
of 46 J. ()d., which had been paid annually to the vicomte of Argentan for the gravaria
of Montgaroult: Round, no. 593; Delisle, p. 142, no. 10.
"* Supra, no. 12. Cf. the charters of the empress and Henry for Le Grand-
Beaulieu: DeUsle, p. 126; Delisle-Berger, nos. 11*, 45*.
"^ Round, no. 109. On the dues collected at Rouen under the Norman dukes
see Charles deBeaurepaire,iaFico»««^(/e I'Eau de Rouen (Evreux, 1856), pp. 2, 18-
20, 40-52.
"' Stapleton, i, p. xxxiiif.; B. J§. C, x. 259 f.; Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 22 f.;
and, more fully, in his Loss of Normandy, pp, 71-73, 103-116.
152 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
name hailia, probably in the more general sense of an officer's dis-
trict, occurs first in his reign,"' and the bailUvi make their appear-
ance in his charters, where, however, the term, like the more
common ministri, may have been applied collectively to all below
the rank of vicomte}^^ We meet also with the duke's constable at
Cherbourg,"' the wardens of his forest of Argentanj'^" his gold-
smith at ArqueSji^i and his moneyer at Vemeuil or Nonancourt,'^^
as well as a group of servientes — a loose term which in one in-
stance describes those who exercise the duke's authority on the
lands of the bishop of Bayeux,'^' and in another denotes the Ser-
jeants of Rouen whose offices the charter of the city promises to
restore.!^* One hereditary serjeanty of this sort, that of Henry the
marshal in Rouen and its banlieue, is known in its curious privi-
leges from the document, preserved in a corrupt form, by which
Geoffrey conferred it: ^"^
(13) G. dux Normeim[orum et] comes Andeg[avorum] . . archiepiscopo
Rothomagensi et omnibus episcopis Normemiie et comitibus'''* et iusti-
ciis suis salutem. Noveritis quod ego dedi et concessi Hemico le Mareschal
"' Livre noir, no. 24. Cf. no. 40, issued shortly after Geoffrey's death; and
Stapleton, i, p. xxxiv.
''' Liwe noir, no. 16; Neustria Pia, p. 15; Valin, p. 265; supra, nos. $, 10, 11.
Cf. Delisle, pp. 207, 219.
"' Delisle, pp. 142 f., 409, 513, no. 84*, facsimile, pi. i. This is a writ of the em-
press, probably issued between 1151 and IIS4, but the constable in question, Osbert
de la Heuse, was a companion of Geoffrey (John of Marmoutier, ed. Halphen and
Poupardin, p. 174), and had doubtless been placed by him in charge of Cherbourg.
'^'' Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 4.
^^ Charter of Henry II granting ' Waltero cambiatori aurifabro et heredibus suis
totam terram Roberti cambiatoris patris sui sitam apud Archas quietam et liberam
et totum cambium et totam aurif abricaturam toscius castellarie Archarum et tocius
Deppe . . . preterea . . . omnes consuetudines et quittancias et libertates quas
pater mens G. comes Andegavorura dedit et concessit Roberto patri suo et carta con-
finnavit.' Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 851, f. 5S^.', MS. Lat. 9209, Rouen,
no. 2; Delisle, Henri II, no. 527; Delisle-Berger, no. 719.
^ Supra, no. 6, reading ' Gisleberto niunmario.'
'^ Livre noir, no. 16. The general meaning is also found in nos. 3 and 9, supra.
•^ Delisle-Berger, no. 14*, where the ' proprium marescallum civitatis ' is also
mentioned.
^^ Archives Nationales, JJ. 72, no. 191, based on a vidimus of Philip V in 1318.
The charter is probably anterior to 1147, as it is witnessed by the count of Meulan.
For other serjeanties connected with Rouen under Henry I and Henry II see Chap-
ter III, notes 156-158, and Chapter V, notes 145-147.
■^' MS, cormmmibus.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 1 53
servienti meo sergenteriam de bagnileuca Rothomagensi sicut se proportat
de feodo de Pratellis et de feodo de Cailliaco, et dedi eidem Henrico et suis
heredibus sergenteriam de Cailliaco sicut se proportat in longum et in latum
et sicut extendit de feodo de Cailliaco et de feudo de Pratellis et de feodo de
Feritate usque ad partes de Gournayo, et omnia alia ad placitum spate per-
tinencia, tenenda et habenda dicto Henrico le Mareschal et suis heredibus
bene et in pace servientium {sic) faciendo. Et volo et concede quod dictus
Henricus le Maxeschal et eius heredes habeant omnes robas tallatas omnia-
que superlectillia et omnia vasa nisi fuerint argentea et aurata, et carnes ba-
conum nisi bacones fuerint integri, et dolium nisi plenum sit vini, videlicet
eorum et earum que membra sua forefadent, et de domibus que cremabuntur
forefactxu-a que eidem Henricus et eius heredes habeant tantum quantimi
poterimt sursum percutere de moura •*' spate sue si eques fuerint ignem def-
fendendo. Volo etiam et concedo quod eidem Henricus et eius heredes
habeant suum hardere et suum edificare in foresta mea de Tisone et pastu-
lagia ab omnibus libera et quieta. Et quia volo quod omnia et singula
predicta dicto Henrico et eius heredibus rata et stabilia in perpetuum tene-
antur, banc presentem cartam munimine sigiUi mei confirmavi.
Testibus Hugone Rothomagensi archiepiscopo, Ern[ulfo] Luxoviensi
episcopo, Philippo Baiocenso episcopo, Galerano comite Mellendi, Reginaldo
de Sancto Walerico, Rogero de Claris vallis {sic), Gaufredo de Cleres, apud
Rothomagum.
Respecting Geoffrey's policy toward the Norman church, there
is little to add to what Bohmer has said on the subject. '^^ On
three occasions during his reign the effort was made to exercise
freedom of election in place of the practice of ducal appointment
which had prevailed under Henry I and even under Stephen; but
while in each case Geoffrey ended by accepting the candidate so
chosen, he asserted his authority with a vigor which left his real
control xmdiminished. He held the property of the see against
Amulf of Lisieux for two years and three months, and restored it
then only after the exaction of a heavy payment; Gerard of Seez,
elected imder questionable circumstances about the beginning of
1 144, suffered at the hands of Geoffrey's followers acts of violence
which were subsequently compared to the murder of Becketj'^'
and was not reconciled to the duke until Easter 1147; the abbot
whom monks and pope set over the monastery of Mont-Saint-
Michel was compelled to purchase his peace with the duke at a
^2' I. e., the blade: Old French moure, meure (Godefroy).
^^ Kirche und Stoat in England und in der Normandie, pp. 310-325.
^' Giraldus Cambrensis, viii. 301.
154 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
price which left his house under a heavy burden of debt."" Con-
tests such as these, as well as the long adherence of the prelates to
Stephen's cause, make it plain why the bishops play so little part
in the secular affairs of the duchy during Geoffrey's reign, the
only notable exception being the use of Amulf of Lisieux as inter-
mediary in the difi&culties of 1 150 with Louis VII.'^i Apart, how-
ever, from the energetic assertion of his claims during vacancies,
when he doubtless did much to earn Saint Bernard's characteriza-
tion of malleus bonorum, oppressor pads et lihertatis ecclesie,^^^
Geoffrey can hardly be accused of injustice in his dealings with
the Norman church. If the case of Bayeux may be taken as an
example, we find him placing the full machinery of judicial ad-
ministration at the bishop's disposal for the recovery of rights and
property which had been lost during the anarchy and earlier,^''
and it is significant, in contrast with conditions in Anjou,"^ that
no complaints of Geoffrey's exactions in Normandy meet us at the
outset of the succeeding reign. It was in accord with the ten-
dencies of the age that the Norman church should in Geoffrey's
time be drawn into closer relations with Rome and with the rest
of northern France, but it is noteworthy that he did not permit
Eugene III or his legates to enter his dominions; "' and, with due
allowance for the inevitable growth of curial influence and of
solidarity within the church in this period, it would seem that the
ducal prerogative was handed on unimpaired to his successor.
I'D Annals of Mont-Saint-Michel, in Labbe, Nova Bibliotheca (1657), i. 352.
■^ H. F., XV. 521; Oeuwes de Suger, ed. Lecoy de la Marche, p. 267.
"2 Epislolae, no. 348, in Migne, clxxxii. 553. So Peter of Cluny says: ' totius
ecclesie Dei que in partibus illis est hostis comes Andegavorum audiatur.' H. F.,
XV. 637.
133 Infra, pp. 204-212; Remie cathoUque de Normandie, xix. 167-172, 266-272,
295-301 . Observe also the enforcement of the fine of £9 for breach of the bishop's
peace: supra, no. 6.
"< See the charters of Henry II for Saint-Florent and Fontevrault, in Delisle-
Berger, nos. 22*, 27*, 30*.
™ ' Certus erat se Romanam ecclesiam offendisse, quod nee domnum papam nee
aUquem legatum passus erat ingredi terram suam: ' John of Salisbury, Historia
Pontificalis, in M. G. H., Scriptores, xx. 531. B6hmer overlooks this passage. The
mission of the legates Alberic and Imarus, upon which he bases his statement that
legatine authority was freely exercised in Normandy, belongs to 1144 and hence
can hardly be considered typical. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 80; Livre noir, no. 58;
H. F., XV. 696 f.
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 1 55
So far as this investigation furnishes an answer to the question
with which we started, it is that in his administration of Nor-
mandy Geoffrey continued the institutions and the policy of
Henry I. The judicial and fiscal system and the organs of local
government remain as before, with no trace of Angevin admix-
ture. The personnel of the curia undergoes some change, and the
seneschal perhaps acquires somewhat greater importance; but
if the justiciar disappears, it is only to reemerge under Henry H,
and the department which stands in the most intimate relation
to the new ruler, the chancery, is Normanized even to its smallest
phrases. Where, as in the case of the sworn inquest, some de-
velopment appears probable, it roots in the practice of Henry I's
reign and follows no discoverable Angevin precedents, nor do we
find in Normandy that direct and personal rule which is so char-
acteristic of the government of the counts of Anjou. All the evi-
dence goes to show that Geoffrey observed for himself the policy,
which at the close of his life he laid down for his son, that of avoid- ,
ing the transfer of customs or institutions from one part of his
dominions to another. ^'^ How far this advice was followed by
Henry II is a problem for the next chapter.
i» ' Terre vero sue et genti spiritu presago in posterum previdens, Henrico heredi
suo interdixit ne Normannie vel Anglie consuetudines in consulatus sui teiram, vel
e converse, varie vicissitudinis altematione permutaret: ' John of Marmoutier,
ed. Marchegay, p. 292; ed. Halphen and Poupardin, p. 224.
CHAPTER V
THE GOVERNMENT OF NORMANDY UNDER HENRY II '
In the great Plantagenet empire of the twelfth century Nor-
mandy held the central place, mediating historically, as well as
geographically, between the England which it had conquered a
century earher and the Angevin and Aquitanian lands which
shared its Prankish traditions and were beginning to feel with it
the nascent centripetal power of the French monarchy . The
begiimings of this empire were the result of Norman initiative,
and upon Normandy fell the brunt of, the attacks under which it
collapsed. Yet Normandy, though central, was not dominant.
It was boimd to its neighbors, not merely by a personal union, but
by a common imperial policy, by certain elements of a common
administration, and by constant communication and interchange
of officials; and it took its place by their side as a member of the
strongest and most remarkable state of its time. Be our interest
military or economic, ecclesiastical or constitutional, we cannot
hope to understand any part of this realm without constant refer-
ence to the other parts and to the whole. What is true of the
several countries is true of their sovereign. Henry II has too often
been viewed merely as an English king, yet he was bom and edu-
cated on the Continent, began to rule on the Continent, and spent
a large part of his later life in his Continental dominions. He was,
it is true, not a foreigner, as was William the Conqueror, for
England had a share in forming him which it had not in the mak-
ing of his great-grandfather; yet he is not, even retrospectively,
a national figure, either English or French. In a later age he
would have been called international, or even cosmopolitan, for
he had wide-ranging tastes, and knew the languages of the world
from France to Syria.^
1 Revised and expanded from A. H. R., xx. 24-42, 277-291 (1914-1915). A sum-
mary was read before the International Congress of Historical Studies at London in
April 1913.
^ 'Linguarum omnium que sunt a marl Gallico usque ad lordanem habens
«s6
HENRY 11 157
It is natural that Henry's reign should have been most thor-
oughly studied in the land where his descendants still rule, but it
is significant of his wider influence that the Continental relations
of his legal reforms were first clearly seen by a German jurist, and
that the greatest French scholar of our time should have begun
his long Ufe of labor with a study of Henry's financial adminis-
tration and closed it by dedicating to the Continental documents
of his reign a masterly volume of the Chartes et dipldmes relatifs a
Vhistoire de France. Where Brunner and Delisle are masters, one
must perforce follow; yet this period of Norman history is not ex-
hausted, as Powicke has recently shown us, and one may still seek
to contribute a bit of new evidence or a new suggestion to the
understanding of what will always be a reign of imcommon inter-
est. In presenting the results of any such study much depends on
the point of view. When the institutions of Normandy approach
those of its Continental neighbors, they wiU impress the Enghsh
student more than they impress the French, while other elements
which seem famihar and hence commonplace to an English writer
become highly significant when seen against a Continental back-
groimd. The point of view in this chapter is Enghsh in the sense
that it examines the government of Normandy under Henry II
particularly for light which may be thrown upon the government
of England in the same period; and, while it is based upon an inde-
pendent exploration of the available evidence, it will pass Ughtly
over institutions which, like the chancery, are already well under-
stood, or which, like the fiscal system, are interesting chiefly by
way of contrast to Continental conditions.' The central subject
must be the courts of law.
The great obstacle to any careful study of Normandy in this
period is the paucity of original information, especially as con-
scientiam, Latina tantum utens et Gallica,' says Walter Map, De Nugis CuriaUum,
ed. M. R. James, p. 237 (ed. T. Wright, p. 227).
' For the fiscal system Delisle's study, Des revenus publics en Normandie au XII'
sUcle, B. £. C, X, xi, xiii, is still fundamental. For legal matters L. Valin, Le due de-
Normandie et sa cow, is useful, though inadequate in its use of materials and at
times too juristic. F. M. Powicke's Loss of Normandy, supplemented at certain,
points by his articles in E. H. R., xxi. 635-649, xxii. 15-42, gives the best survey of
the Angevin period but treats constitutional matters less fully than other aspects,
of the subject.
158 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
trasted with the wealth of record in contemporary England. For
Henry's reign the only Norman chronicle is that of Robert of
Torigni,^ pieced out by occasional local annals and by the casual
references of English writers to Norman affairs, and there is little
to add in the form of letters ^ or other literary remains. Over
against the splendid series of the Pipe Rolls, unbroken after 1155,
Normandy can show only the Exchequer Roll of 1180 and two
fragments of 1184.* There is no Dialogiie on the Exchequer and
no Glanvill, and the earliest customal is not earlier than iigg.''
Henry's charters are fairly numerous, in originals, in cartulary
copies, or in the vidimus of French kings, and an admirable basis
for their study at last exists in Leopold Delisle's Introduction,^
now being followed by the publication of the full texts; yet of
those here collected the four hundred or more which relate to
Normandy are an insignificant part of the thousands which once
existed and from which it would have been possible to recon-
struct the whole course of administrative and judicial procedure
in the Norman state. The charters of bishops and barons and
lesser persons are more numerous and offer much to reward the
investigator of local and family history and of legal and economic
relations, but they too often tell us what we least want to know,
and the result of prolonged explorations is in many respects
disappointing.
Equally fatal is the loss of Henry's Norman legislation. At
best, as Maitland has reminded us,' his law-making was done in
* Cited from Delisle's edition (Soci6t€ de THistoire de Nonnandie, Rouen,
1872-1873); Howlett's reprint in the RoUs Series {Chronicles of Stephen, iv) is much
less useful.
' The letters of Amulf of Lisieux, for example, are disappointing.
" Cited from the edition of Thomas Stapleton (London, 1840-1844); the second
fragment of 1184 from Delisle's Henri II, pp. 334-344. That the Exchequer had
other types of roUs appears from the notice of 1186 printed by Delisle, Mlmoires
de I'Acadimie des Inscriptions, xxiv, part 2, p. 353; and by VaUn, p. 278.
' E.-J. Tardif, Le Tres Ancien Coutumier, in his Coutumiers de Normandie, i
(Rouen, 1881); cf. Viollet, in Histoire littlraire de la France, xxxiii. 43-62.
' Recueil des actes de Henri II roi d' Angleterre et due de Normandie concemant les
provinces francaises et les affaires de France, Introduction, with a fascicle of facsimiles,
Paris, 1909; tome i, revised and published by filie Berger, Paris, 1916; tome ii
in press. Cf. my review, E. H. R., October 1917.
' History of English Law, i. 136. On the legislation of the dukes of Normandy
HENRY II 159
an informal fashion and has left few monuments, even in England,
and for Normandy the only formal ordinances that have been
preserved are the levy of the Palestine tax in 11 66 and the Con-
tinental prototjqjes of the Assize of Arms and the regulations con-
cerning the Saladin tithe.^" Here again time has dealt imkindly
with records which are known to have existed. The Bee annalist
tells of the Christmas court at Falaise in 11 59, whose acts he evi-
dently had before him in writing his provokingly meager sum-
mary," and three years later we hear of a Lenten assembly at
Rouen which seems to have had legislative importance.^'' There
were probably, as we shall see, one or more specific assizes estab-
lishing the use of the recognition, and tenure by parage seems to
have been introduced by a definite statute.^' Now and then, in an
age when no line was drawn between legislation and adjudication,
there are instances of general enactments in the form of judicial
decisions.**
Next to the Exchequer Rolls, the fullest information respecting
Norman institutions under Henry was contained in the returns
from the great general inquests ordered at different occasions in
his reign. One of these, the inquest of 1172 concerning military
tenures, has long been known and used, but for the others we have
little more than a bare mention. In Normandy, as later in Eng-
land, the new ruler began at once the gradual recovery of the lost
portions of his demesne through the machinery of the sworn in-
quest; and we have record of such inquests held at Caen before
1 1 54 to determine the duke's rights at Bayeux, and, then or
shortly afterward, throughout the Bessin,'* while in 11 63 two of
see Tardif , &Uide sur les sources de I'ancien droit normand, read before the Congrfa
du Mill^naire in 191 1, of which the part covering Henry II has not yet appeared.
On Henry's early legislation see infra. Appendix I.
1" Gervase of Canterbury, i. 198 (Delisle-Berger, no. 255); Benedict of Peter-
borough, i. 269, ii. 30. Cf. also the general ordinance concerning the debts of Cru-
saders issued at Vemeuil in 1177, ibid., i. 194; DeUsle-Berger, no. 507.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 180; cf. infra, Appendix I.
•2 Robert of Torigni, i. 336. ^ Powicke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 69, loi.
" See Robert of Torigni, ii. 241; the various reforms attributed to William Fitz
Ralph in the Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 60-65; and the unpubUshed example in
Appendix H, no. 9.
" Livre noir, nos. 13, 35, 138; Delisle-Berger, nos. 68*, 76*, 38. On the pro-
cedure see infra. Chapter VI.,
l6o NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
his justices made inquiry, diocese by diocese, concerning the rents
and customs pertaining to the duke and his barons.'* This was not
entirely effectual, and in 1 171 the income of the duchy was almost
doubled by an inquest held throughout Normandy to ascertain
the lands and forest and other portions of the demesne which had
been occupied since the death of Henry I." Of this systematic
survey we are fortunate in having, besides the references in the
Exchequer Rolls '^ and possible indications in cartularies " and
in the Couiumier desforets of Hector of Chartres,^'* the full returns
for the vicomte of the Avranchin,^' which give us an exact picture
of the king's rights and his administration in this district. Per-
haps we may coimect with the same inquest a still more important
document of Henry's reign, the so-called iurea regalis, preserved
in the Tres Ancien Coukimier ^^ and containing a statement of the
•' Robert of Torigni, i. 344. Roger of Wendover (i. 25) speaks of an 'inquisitio
generalis ' in England this year, but he plainly has in mind the inquest of knights'
fees of 1 1 66. The Inquest of Sheriffs of 11 70 is the nearest English analogy to the
Norman inquests of 1163 and 1171; see Stubbs-Davis, Select Charters (1913),
p. 174; and on thereturns Round, The Commune of London, pp. 125-136.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 28.
1' Indicated by the phrase ' recuperatus per iuream,' Stapleton, passim.
" Notably in the cartulary of Fecamp (Valin, p. 269; Delisle-Berger, no. 338),
where there is a reference to the rights of the duke as recognized and recorded in
his roU; and in the Bayeux cartularies (Liwe noir, no. 46; Liitre rouge, no. 46),
where the phrase ' recognitum autem fuit ' shows that an extract has been made
from a more comprehensive document. Being subsequent to the accession of
Bishop Henry in 1165, the Bayeux document is not a part of the earUer inquests
for this district nor connected with the general inquest of 1163, and the mention
of William Fitz John seems to place it before the close of 1172 (see, on the date of
his death, DeKsle, p. 480, where it should be observed that the entry of 11 80 refers
to an old account). The portion of the original inquest which concerned the king
would naturally be omitted in drawing up a statement for the benefit of the bishop.
2° Preserved in the Archives of the Seine-InfMeure; see Michel Pr6vost, ^ude
sur la forlt de Roumare (Rouen, 1904), pp. 354-365. The numerous references to
Henry in the Coutumier, which appeared to Beaurepaire (B. 6. C, kvii. 508) to
point to a general inquest on the forests, seem rather to cite his charters.
» Printed by Delisle, pp. 345-347. Cf. Powicke, in E. B. R., xxv. 710 f.; and
for the date, Haskins, ibid., xxvi. 326-328; and Appendix K.
22 Ed. Taidif, pp. 59-65. The iurea cannot be later than the death of William
Patric in 1174, and it is anterior to 1172 if we accept Sir George Warner's date for
the death of William Fitz John (supra, note 19) ; but there is nothing to connect it
with any one year, and it may belong with the inquest of 1163 or with the earlier
inquiries in the Bessin. In any case, in spite of its general form, it was the result of
HENRY II l6l
duke's reserved jurisdiction and his rights over wardship, craspice,
wreck, and treasure trove. Ducal example, if not ducal precept,
is doubtless responsible for the exact surveys of the possessions of
religious houses which were made in this reign and of which the
chief Norman instance is the detailed inquest on the manors of La
Trinite de Caen.^* The military inquest of 1172 ^ was a natural
consequence of the English inquiry of 1166, itself perhaps sug-
gested by Sicilian precedents,^^ but, save in the case of the bishop
of Bayeux ^* and the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel," we have only
the general summary and not, as in the parallel English case, the
original returns made by the tenants.
It would be especially interesting to know in some detail the
history of Henry's early years as duke, not only because of their
importance in forming the youth who was at twenty-one to be-
come ruler of the vast Norman empire, but also because we might
then study the institutions of the duchy and the policy of its ruler
before the union with England reopened the way to possible modi-
fication from without. Unfortimately the thirty ducal charters
a local inquest, for all the jurors are in some way connected with the Bessin and
the statement concerning the fishing rights of the bishop of Bayeux and the earl of
Chester points to the same region. That William Fitz John was connected with
earUer inquests in the Bessin (infra, note 74) is pointed out by Tardif {Aiide sur
les sources, i. 12), who, however, knows nothing of the inquest of ii7r, in which
year William was also justiciar (Round, no. 456; M. A. N., xv. 198). E. Perrot,
Les cos roywux (Paris, 1910), p. 306 f., assigns the iurea to ca. iiso.
^ MS. Lat. 5650, ff. 60V-87, where the mention of William du Hommet (f. 82)
shows that the inquests belong to the latter part of this reign and not to the earlier
half of the century, as suggested by H. Legras, Le bourgage de Caen, p. 37, note.
The whole is to be published by R. N. Sauvage in the BibUotheque de droit normand.
English examples of monastic inquests in this period are those of the Ramsey
Cartulary, iii. 224-314; the inquest of ii8i in the Domesday of St. PavVs; and the
Glastonbury inquisition of 1189. For a writ of Henry II granting the monks of
Canterbury permission to hold such inquests on their lands, see Delisle-Berger, no.
425-
^ B.. F., xxiii. 693-699; Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 624-647. On the text
see Powicke, in E. H. R., xxvi. 89-93; 0° the importance of the document for the
"history of the Norman baronage, see his Loss of Normandy, pp. 482-520.
'^ See my discussion in E. H. R., xxvi. 66r-664.
^ M. A. N., viii. 425-431; H. P., xxiii. 699-702. These returns were based on
the inquest of 1133 and represent still earUer conditions, supra, p. 15.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 296-303; H. F., xxiii. 703-705.
l62 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
which constitute our sole source for Norman government between
1 1 50 and 1154 give few answers to the many questions we should
like to put. So far as they tell us anything, they show the young
duke surrounded by his father's advisers and maintaining his
father's policy, itself a continuation of the system of Henry I,^*
but we can also discern certain new names which are to rise to
importance in the ensuing period. Reginald of Saint- Valery is still
seneschal,'" and so are Robert de Courcy, Robert de Neufbourg,'"
and Richard de la Haie; '^ but Manasses Bisset and Humphrey de
Bohun also appear with this title,'* while William the marshal,
Richard du Hommet the constable,'' and Warin Fitz Gerald the
chamberlain'* are new. Besides Richard de Bohun, who con-
tinues to act as chancellor, at least until 1151, we find another
chancellor, William,'^ and a chancellor's clerk and keeper of the
'' Supra, Chapter IV. The writ for Hfiauville in Delisle-Berger, no. 29*, is, save
for the witnesses and the insertion of am mei, an exact repetition of the writ of Geof-
frey for the same establishment printed above, Chapter IV, no. 7a. The following
charter of 1150-1151 for the chapter of Chartres is not in DeUsle-Berger: ' H. dux
Normannorum G. comiti Mellendi et Willehno de Hangemara et Roberto de Havilla
et omnibus fideUbus suis totius Normannie salutem. Sciatis me resaisisse canonicos
Sancte Marie Camotensis ecclesie de decima et de ecclesia de Havilla, ideoque
mando et firmiter precipio quod ecclesiam et decimam teneant in bono et in pace
iuste et integre salvis rectis suis omnibus iUis hominibus, ubi ea sibi fieri debent,
qui in predicta ecclesia aut decima aliquid clamaveiint rationabiliter. Testibus
Alexandre de Bohun, Willehno Trosebot, Stephano de BeUo Campo, apud Rotho-
magum ' (MS. Lat. 5185 I, p. 328; not in the printed cartulary). Delisle-Berger
also omit a charter of 1x52-1154, printed in Revue cathoUgiiedeNormatidie,\Ti. 446.
^ DeUsle-Berger, nos. 8*, 11*, 3S*-37*, 44*- See in general the Ust of witnesses
to Henry's early charters in Delisle, p. 133 f., where, however, the official titles are
not always given and no distinction is made between Normandy and Anjou.
'" Robert de Neufbourg is not called seneschal in documents before 1155, but
his activity as justice and his precedence in charters make it probable that he held
this dignity also under Geoffrey and during the early years of Henry. See Chapter
IV, note 87.
" Delisle, p. 133 f.; Liiirenoir,no. 7.
'2 Dehsle-Berger, nos. 48*-5o*, 63*, 65*, 68*, 76*; cf. Vernon Harcourt, His
Grace the Steward, p. 37.
*" Delisle-Berger, nos. 50*, 51*, 63', 65*-68*, 72*, 76*. Humphrey Fite Odo and
William of Roumare also appear as constables (Delisle-Berger, nos. 10*, 42*), and
still others appear in no. 55* For William the marshal see no. 13*.
" Delisle-Berger, nos. 48*, 49*, 57", 76*.
»' Delisle, p. 88, note; Dehsle-Berger, nos. 13*, 15*, 36*, 50*, 52*, 65*. I do not
understand why DeUsle dismisses the early chancellors with bare mention; certainly
Henry's chancery does not begin its history in 1154. See E. H. R., xxxii. 597.
HENRY II 163
seal, Maurice,'* who need clearing up. The most notable among
these new men is the clever and ambitious Bishop Amulf of
Lisieux, who heads the lists of witnesses to Henry's charters and
the list of Justices in his curia,^'' thus restoring the office of justiciar
which his predecessor Bishop John had held under Henry I and
which had disappeared under Geoffrey. Of himibler servants we
find Odo hostiarius, doubtless the usher of this name who appears
in the Pipe Rolls and perhaps the Odo of Falaise, regiorum com-
putator redituum, who was cured of blindness at the tomb of
Becket.'* The curia meets in different parts of Normandy '' —
Rouen, Lisieux, Domfront — and has its share of judicial busi-
ness: there the abbot of Aunay proves his right to the church of
Cenilly, the abbot of Fecamp to his tithes in the neighboring
forest, the abbot of Savigny to the land claimed by Robert Fitz
Ralph.*" We get ghmpses of a body of justices busy with the hold-
ing of sworn inquests and the protection of legal rights; *' and
there are local vicomtes and baillis and porters, all receiving their
orders in the sharp, crisp language of the Anglo-Norman writ.*''
So far as the sources of information are concerned, the period
from 1154 to 1 189 is divided into two almost equal parts by the
change of the king's style in 1 172-1173, which separates his char-
ters into two groups, according as they do or do not contain the
words Dei gratia in the title.*' These groups do not differ notably
in number, but the materials for the second half of the reign
are the fuller, since the charters are there reenforced by the
Exchequer Rolls and by a larger mmaber of records of judicial de-
cisions. The earher period, is, however, the more interesting from
a constitutional point of view as being a period of origins, and this
'^ Delisle-Berger, nos. 20*, 37*, 44*.
" Ibid., nos. 11*, 34*-37*, 42*, 45*, 68*, 72*, 75*, 76*, 80*. For the disappear-
ance of the justiciarship vinder Geoffrey, see supra, p. 146.
" He is the sole witness to Dehsle-Berger, no. 38*. For Odo of Falaise see
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ii. 185.
" Delisle-Berger, nos. 32*, 67*, 75*; Robert of Torigni, i. 255, 259. Cf. also
the large gathering at Bayeux in November 115 1: Delisle-Berger, no. 20*.
*" Delisle-Berger, nos. 32*, 67*, 75*; Appendix H, no. 3.
" Delisle-Berger, nos.28*, 29*, 32*-34*, 41*, 66*, 67*, 80*; Revue catholique,vu.44.6.
« Delisle-Berger, nos. 11*, 14*, 15*, 35*, 36*, 38*, 43*, 66*.
« Delisle, pp. 12-38.
164 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
is notably true of the years between 11 54 and 1164, preliminary
to the struggle with the Church and the great legislative measures
of the reign in England, but as yet obscure on both sides of the
Channel. The possibility of Norman precedents, especially in
matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and civil procedure, requires
a careful sifting of all the information that has reached us from
what seems to have been a formative period in Henry's policy.
Let us first consider the administration of justice. Of the judi-
cial business that came before the duke himself in his curia we
have only the slightest indications,^ and these tell us next to
nothing in the earlier years. Between 11 54 and 1164 the king
spent half his time in England, while the affairs of his other
dominions claimed many of the busy months he passed on the
Continent. If Normandy was to have an efifective judicial system,
it must be organized to work in the king's long absences as well as
under his immediate supervision. From his father and grand-
father Henry inherited the institution of a regular body of jus-
tices, both in the curia and in local affairs, which he had only to
develop and adapt to the needs of a rapidly expanding ducal
jurisdiction. In this process there was doubtless constant experi-
mentation, both with men and with methods, such as we can
follow somewhat more closely in England later in the reign ; but
for the earlier years the Norman evidence happens to be fully as
abundant as the English,^^ and shows us some features of the
system with reasonable clearness.
First of all there is a distinction between the ordinary justices
and the justiciar of Normandy, iusticia rnea Normannie.^ Ordi-
narily, as imder Henry I,*' there would seem to have been two
** M.A. N., XV. 198; Delisle, p. 43; infra, Appendix H, no. 3. An example from
the latter part of the reign is found in an agreement between the abbot of Saint-
Pierre-sur-Dive and Gervase de Fresnay, i May 1181, ' coram domino rege et
iusticia sua' (original in Archives of the Calvados, /owdj Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive).
^' On which see Stubbs, introduction to Benedict of Peterborough, ii, p. bdv.
*' Notably in the clause of the king's writs, ' nisi feceris iusticia mea Normannie
faciat fieri ': Delisle-Berger, nos. 13, 14, 365, 368, 382; Round, nos. 44, 949; cf.
Livre noir, no. 37, of Henry I. In other writs we find in the same clause only
iusticia mea: Delisle-Berger, nos. 38, 91, 99, 155, 206 f., 228 f., 335, 342, 346, 369 f.
Sometimes the justice is mentioned by name: ibid., nos. 66* f., 75*, 21, 22.
*' Supra, Chapter HI.
HENRY II 165
justiciars, a bishop and the chief seneschal, who frequently sit
together, but at least five persons are known to have acted in this
capacity in this period, and the available sources do not enable us
to fix their succession and relation to one another with the pre-
cision which has sometimes been sought.*^ As under Geoffrey,^'
the courts held by the justiciars are called assizes,*" often, by way
of distinction from the lesser courts, full assizes {plena assisia);^'^
and if we may judge from a fuU assize held at Caen in 1157 and
attended by the barons from the four grealt regions of the west,*^
they comprehended several administrative districts. Meetings
at Caen and Rouen are frequent, but not sufl&ciently regular to
indicate the existence of a permanent central curia, and the
justiciars are clearly itinerant. The lack of any rolls prevents our
tracing their circuits, but the records of cases are more numerous
than those which have been collected for England in the same
period.*^ In 1155, before the king had returned from his corona-
tion. Bishop Amulf of Lisieux and Robert of Neufbourg the chief
seneschal, as master justices of all Normandy, hold assizes at
Carentan and Domfront.^ In 1157 they appear in two judgments
of the curia at Caen,** and about the same time in another pro-
<8 Notably by Vernon Haicourt, His Grace the Steward, pp. 43-50. His at-
tempt to sustain his theory of the unimportance of the seneschal by explaining
away the dapifership of Robert de Neufbourg has been satisfactorily disposed of
by Valin, p. 157 f. The charter of Henry H for Savigny (Delisle-Berger, no. 80),
in which Harcourt considers Robert's style ' unofficial embellishment,' is also in
the Cartulaire de Normandie (MS. Rouen 1235), f. 8ov.
*' ' In assisia mea apud Valonias,' infra, Chapter VI, note 95.
'" Robert of^Torigni, ii. 241; M. A. N., xv. 197. Note in Henry's writ in Liiire
noir, no. 10, ' quando fui apud Baiocas ad asisiam meam,' the order to William
Patric to be ' ad primam asisam que erit citra Lexovium ' (anterior to 1172-1173,
Delisle-Berger, no. 33s).
'' 'In plena assisia apud Abrincas': Deville, Analyse, p. 18; Valin, p. 268;
Delisle-Berger, no. 153. 'In plena assisia apud Rothomagum': Appendix H,
no. 6; cartulary of Saint-fivroul, no. 172. ' In plena assisia apud Argentomum ':
ibid., no. 250 (1190).
^ ' In plenaria curia regis, utpote in assisa ubi erant barones iiii comitatuum ':
Robert of Torigni, ii. 251.
'' On records in England, see PoUock and Maitland, i. 156.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 241.
'' Ibid., ii. 251; M. A. N., xv. 197 (original in Archives of the Ome, H. 3912).
Cf. Delisle-Berger, nos. 98, 102.
1 66 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
ceeding, likewise at Caen, in part of which the bishop of Lisieux
is in his absence replaced by two barons.^ Before his death in
1 1 59 we find Robert de Neufbourg in various other cases at
Avranches, Bayeux, Caen, and Rouen.*' In 1 157 there appears
with him at Rouen Rotrou, bishop of fivreux,'* who is active in
the administration of justice throughout the duchy during the
next seven years and is specifically called ' justiciar of Nor-
mandy.' '' At times Rotrou is accompanied by Reginald
of Saint-Valery as justiciar,*" and in 11 63 they hold an iter
throughout the duchy to ascertain the respective rights of king
and barons. *i Richard du Hommet the constable also appears
" Appendix H, nos. 3, 4.
" Livre noir, nos. 27, 28, 35; Valin, p. 267 f.; M. A. N., xv. 198; Deville,
Analyse, pp. 18, 42; Delisle-Berger, nos. 21, 22, 38, 121, 153; Round, no. 341;
Appendix H, nos. 3-5. He is still ' dapifer et iusticia totius Normannie ' when he
retires to Bee in 1159: Robert of Torigni, i. 322, ii. 174. Cf. Delisle, pp. 445-447;
Harcourt, p. 46 f.
'* ' In presencia domini Rotroldi episcopi Ebroicensis et Roberti de Novo Burgo
dapiferi et Gualeranri comitis de Mellent et Rogerii abbatis Sancti Wandregisili et
Rogerii abbatis Sancti Audoeni Rothomagensis et Hugonis de Gomaio et Godardi
de Vallibus et Adam de Wacnevilla et Roberti filii Haimerici, apud Rothomagum.
Huius pactionis sunt testes. . . .' Cartulary of Saint-Wandrille, D, ii, 14. The
first set of witnesses is different in the other version which follows in the cartulary
and is printed by Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 88; Round, no. 172.
The following charter shows Rotrou and Robert de Neufbourg in the court of
Galeran, count of Meulan, probably sitting as ducal justices, such as we find under
Henry I (Chapter HI, no. 16) and later in Henry H's reign {infra, note 179):
■ Arnio etiam ab incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo quinquagesimo quinto
residentibus in curia mea apud Brionnium domino Rotroth venerabili Ebroicensi
episcopo et domino Rogerio abbate Becci et honorabili Michaele predicti monas-
terii patre atque domino Roberto de Novoburgo multisque aliis nobilissimis viris,
ego Gualerannus comes de Mellent. . . .' Cartulary of Pr6aux, no. 68.
69 Delisle, p. 455 f.; Valin, pp. 268, 270; infra. Chapter VI, note 93; Appendix
H, nos. 6, 8. A document of Rotrou for Foucarmont (originals in Archives of the
Seine-InfMeure; also in MS. Rouen 1224, f. 87) ends: ' Hoc autem totum factum
est me presente et audiente et tunc temporis existente iusticia Normannie.' In
Henry's great charter for Saint-fitienne, 1136-1161 (Delisle-Berger, no. 154), he
attests as ' iustic[ia] Norm[annie].'
'" Delisle, p. 455; Valin, p. 270; Round, nos. 133, 134, 491; Harcourt, p. 48 f.;
Delisle-Berger, nos. 221, 223, 397; and Appendix H, nos. 7, 8. Reginald was ab-
sent in the East from 1158 to 1160: Robert of Torigni, i. 316, ii. r66; cf. also Jaff6-
Lowenfeld,/?egeria,no. 10363. Pardons of Danegeld in 1136 (Pipe Roll 2 Henry II,
pp. 9f., 23) indicate that Rotrou and Reginald were already members of the curia.
" ' Rotrocus episcopus Ebroicensis et Rainaldus de Sancto Walerio fecenint in
HENRY II 167
with this title,'^ and Bishop Philip of Bayeux may also have
held it.«'
These courts were doubtless attended by the chief barons and
royal officers of the region,*^ some of whom evidently acted as
Judges, although the title of justice appears rarely in the notices of
decisions and our lists of royal officers are so incomplete that in
most instances it is impossible to distinguish the officials from the
barons. A good example is furnished by an assize held at Ba-
yeux *^ by the bishop of fivreux and Reginald of Saint-Valery
between 1161 and 1165, where we find the bishops of Lisieux and
Avranches, Richard son of the earl of Gloucester, Godard de
Vaux, one of the king's justices, Etard Poulain, one of his hailUs
in the Bessin,*^ Osbert de la Heuse, constable of Cherbourg,^^
Robert Fitz Bernard, prevot of Caen,^^ Graverend d'fivrecy,
mcomte,^^ Richard de Vaux, vidame of the bishop of Bayeux/" and
Roger d'Arri, canon of Bayeux and later a permanent official of
the Exchequer.'! The vicomtes and baillis acted as judges in their
Normannia recognoscere iussu regis, per episcopatus, legales redditus et consuetu-
dines ad regem et ad barones pertinentes': Robert of Torigni, i. 344.
^ A judgment of 1164 is rendered ' apud Cadomum [coram] abbate de Troamo,
Ricardo de Humet tunc tempoiis iustitia regis, Guillelmo filio lohaimis, Renaldo
de Gerponvilla, Godardo de Vaux, Guillelmo de Varaville, lordane Taxone, Ricardo
fiUo comitis, Guillelmo Crasso, Henrico de Agnis, Nicholao de Veies, Graver[endo]
de Vrecie, Roberto filio Bemardi, Sjrmone de Scuris, Henrico filio Corbini, Roberto
Pigache, Guillelmo Forti, Philippo f ratre Vitalis monachi, Guillelmo Gemon, Rogero
Darriedf Ricardo de Vaiuf, lohaime Cumin ': cartulary of S.-Wandrille, Q, ii, 36.
See also infra, Appendix H, no. 6.
'^ He is specially mentioned with Robert de Neufbourg in Delisle-Berger, no. 120,
and with Rotrou in Valin, p. 268 (Delisle-Berger, no. 153). Cf. Harcourt, p. 47,
note.
** ' Interfuerunt huic concordie comes de Mellent, comes Ebroicensis, comes
Giffardus, et multi barones et servientes regis de diversis partibus.' Charter of
Rotrou: Delisle, p. 455; Le Provost, Eure, i. 551.
** M. A. N., XV. 197; Valin, p. 270. Cf. the longer list in the assize at Caen in
1164, supra, note 62, in which nearly all these names reappear.
'^ Infra, notes 77-79.
" Delisle, p. 409.
«8 Delisle-Berger, no. 66*; Robert of Torigni, ii. 251.
•9 Ibid., ii. 248.
"• Ibid., ii. 258.
^ See infra, note 125, the index to the Livre noir, and the list of later assizes in
Appendix J,
l68 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
own districts,'^ where an ordinance of 1 159 required them to hold
court once a month," and they naturally sat with the justiciars in
the larger assizes, where they are sometimes specifically called
justices. Thus WiUiam Fitz John and fitard Poulain, the chief
royal officers in the Bessin,'^ both with the title of baillim regis,''^
are constantly found in the assizes of Lower Normandy. WiUiam
can be traced in the local administration of justice as well as in the
assizes, and later in the reign becomes dapifer, justice, and pro-
curator NormannieJ^ Etard sits in two cases at Caen in 11 57, in
one of them apparently with the title of justiciar," is iusticia regis
at Lisieux in 1161,'' and appears in the court elsewhere." He
is frequently accompanied by Godard de Vaux, who replaces the
bishop of Lisieux at Caen at the beginning of the reign, sits at
Caen and Rouen in 1 157,*° and appears at various other sessions at
Rouen in this period, often with a certain Adam de Wanneville,
who may also have been a justice. ^^ Our information does not
permit us to separate the local from the itinerant judges in the
records of the assizes, still less to follow the work of the local
courts. Doubtless arrangements varied locally and in the course
of the reign, and apparently the confusion of local areas stood in
the way of a set of courts as simple and uniform as the EngUsh.
™ Thus at Pontaudemer and in the territory of Brionne, William de Morville
is ' custos et iusticia iussu regis Henrici ' : cartulary of Pontaudemer (MS. Rouen
1232), ff. 18, 28; Delisle-Berger, no. 368. At Mortain in 1162-1163 we find the
constable, Robert Boquerel {Analecta Bollandiana, ii. 527; cf. Delisle-Berger, nos.
79, 364), holding the king's court (Delisle, p. 440; original in MS. Rouen 3122,
no. 4); and somewhat later the seneschal of Mortain, Nigel, addressed as one of
the king's justices (Stapleton, i, p. kv; Delisle, pp. 210, 408). See infra, note 170.
Cf. 'the king's justices of Caux ' (1154-1165): Somm^nil, Chronicon Valassense
(Rouen, 1868), p. 83.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 180.
" Delisle, pp. 366, 479 f.; Tardif, Tres Ancim Coutumier, p. no; Livre noir,
nos. 9, 12; Delisle-Berger, nos. 13, 228.
'* Delisle, p. 447; infra, Appendix H, nos. 3, 4.
" Liwe noir, nos. 27, 28, 35, 36, 46; Robert of Torigni, ii. 31, 251 f.; Delisle-
Berger, nos. 66*, 14, 21, 22, 38, 305; M. A. N., xv. 198; supra, notes 56, 62.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 252; M.A. N., xv. 197.
'" Infra, note loi. '» Appendix H, no. 5.
80 Supra, note 58; infra. Appendix H, nos. 3, 4.
81 Supra, notes 58, 59; infra. Chapter VI, note 93; Appendix H, nos. 3, 5-8;
Delisle, p. 456; Delisle-Berger, no. 366; Round, no. 341 ; also, perhaps, as justice,
in an illegible charter in the Archives of the Manche, H. 212.
HENRY II 169
The one clear point of special importance is the existence of a
well defined system of itinerant justices.
Of even greater interest is the question of procedure, which
bears directly upon the development of the jury. This problem
will be discussed in detail in the following chapter, so that at this
point it is necessary only to indicate its relation to these formative
years of Henry's poUcy. In England, in spite of the occasional
employment of the sworn inquest since the Conqueror's time, we
have no evidence that it was a normal mode of trial before the
appearance of the assize utrum in 1164, followed shortly by the
other possessory assizes and the grand assize. In Normandy, on
the other hand, writs ordering the determination of questions of
possession and ownership in accordance with the duke's assize
{secundum assisiam meani) are found in 1156, as well as in
Geoffrey's reign, while we find an ordinary litigant demanding an
assize against Saint-Etienne before 1159. In that year a question
concerning tithes and presentation is decided by recognition on
the duke's court, while at Christmas Henry issued a formal
ordinance directing the use of the evidence of neighbors in his
local courts. Accordingly it would appear that the recognition
had become the normal procedure in certain types of actions con-
cerning land, while the testimony of the vicinage had been pre-
scribed in ecclesiastical courts much as in the Constitutions of
Clarendon. That matters had reached this point on the English
side of the Channel does not appear from any evidence as yet
brought to Ught, and in the existing state of our knowledge it is
highly probable that Henry drew upon the results of his Norman
experience in drafting his Enghsh assizes. There was, of course,
no mechanical transfer, for a restless experimenter like Henry was
constantly reshaping his materials, and if we could follow the
process in Normandy, we should probably find him modifying in
various ways the procedure and the assize which he had inherited
from his father. Something, too, must be allowed for the natural
development of the institution as it passed into more general use,
but the exceptional is not likely to have become normal without
some direct action of the sovereign in extending his prerogative
procedure to his subjects, and in this respect the evidence avail-
lyo NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
able from the years before 1164 places Normandy in advance of
England.
There is another field in which the practice of the Norman
courts before 11 64 has a special interest for England, namely that
of ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. The struggle between Henry II and
Becket, says Maitland,*^ "has a long Prankish prologue"; has it
also a Norman prologue ? A short prologue, at least, it must have
had, for in February 1162 a great council was held at Rouen, in
which Henry " complained of the bishops and their officers and
his vicomtes and ordered that the provisions of the council of Lille-
bonne should be observed." *' No details are given, but the men-
tion of the local officers and the coimcil of Lillebonne shows
plainly that the question was one of encroachments by the Church
which his officers failed to prevent. Just which of the canons of
this council the king believed to have been violated we can only
surmise, but he clearly sought to base his protest, as in England
two years later, upon an appeal to ancient and well estabUshed
practice, as contained in a document which had been drawn up
under the Conqueror in 1080 and confirmed by Henry I,^ and
which thus presented a more definite formulation of the "customs,
liberties, and dignities of his ancestors " than was at hand in
England. Erom the ecclesiastical point of view, these canons had
become somewhat antiquated by 1162, since they referred con-
stantly to local Norman usage rather than to the general prin-
ciples of canon law which had been more sharply formulated in
^ Pollock and Maitland, i. 18.
" ' Querimoniam fadens de episcopis et eorum ministris et vicecomitibus suis,
iussit ut concilium lulie Bone teneretur: ' Robert of Torigni, i. 336.
** The best text of the council of Lillebonne, now preserved in the Archives
Nationales, bears the seal of Henry I: Teulet, Layettes, i. 25, no. 22; Delisle, Cartu-
laire normand, no. i. The canons are also given by Ordericus, ii. 316-323; cf. the
analysis given by Tardit, &tude sur les sources, pp. 39-43 ; and supra, Chapter I, pp.
30-35. Evidence that they were observed in the twelfth century is found in a charter
of Audoin, bishop of fivreux from 1118 to 1139: ' Convocatis ex more ad synodum
omjiibus presbiteris nostris; circadam quam ab illis exigebam ex concilii lulibone
institutione et ecclesiarum episcopalium Normannie consuetudine, quoniam ilia
gravari conquerebantur, eorum communi petitioiie et nostrorum canonicorum in-
tercessione perdonavi ': Archives of the Eure, G. 122, no. 36. The canons of the
council were frequently copied in legal collections relating to Normandy.
HENRY II 171
the interval, and since they recognized the supremacy of the duke
and the arbitrament of his curia in church matters to an extent
which would not have been admitted by the Church in Henry II's
time. It is, indeed, highly probable that Henry's complaint was
based particularly upon the closing enactment of the assembly of
LiUebonne, that the bishops should seize no right of justice or cus-
tomary dues beyond those there enumerated until they had
established their claim in the king's court; but the absence of
evidence precludes us from examining the bearing of this canon
upon the vexed question of criminous clerks. Some idea of their
treatment in Normandy can be gained from a case described by
Amulf of Lisieux, that of a certain Henry, who, apparently before
1 166, manufactured false money and put it into circulation at
Eayeux. Convicted after confession, it is not stated in what court,
he was imprisoned and fettered by the king's officers, but finally
much effort of the diocesan secured his release on condition of
abjuring the duchy, and he was degraded by the archbishop.*^
An ordinance of 1159 requiring the testimony of neighbors in
accusations by rural deans ^ shows that Henry's dissatisfaction
with the exercise of jurisdiction by archdeacons and deans had
found expression in Normandy as well as in England before the
Constitutions of Clarendon, in which it occupies a definite, though,
subordinate, place.
Still another claim which Henry made in 11 64 we are able to
test by Norman practice, namely the jurisdiction of the king's
court over suits respecting advowson and presentation.*' In 1 159,
when the bishop of Coutances had smnmoned Ralph de la Mouche
to show by what right he claimed the presentation of the priest of
Mesnil-Drey, a certain Osmund proved his right against Ralph
*' Ep. 123 (Migne, cci. 144). Addressed to N' (this, not Nicolao, is the reading
of the MS. used by Giles, St. John's College, Oxford, 126, as Mr. R. L. Poole has
kindly ascertained for me), bishop of Meaux, who does not appear to have existed,
the text of this letter requires further examination. The priest's brother Amfredus
had forfeited his lands and gone into exile fifteen years before, and if Henry's
offenses are of the same period, they would fall at least as early as n66.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 180; cf. Constitutions of Clarendon, c. 6. See infra.
Chapter VI, note 94; and Appendix I.
<" Constitutions of Clarendon, c. i. On the probability of previous English
legislation concerning advowsons, see Appendix I.
172 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
by sworn recognition in the king's court at Gavray.'' In another
case anterior to 1164 the bishop of fivreux, acting as the duke's
justiciar in full assize at Rouen, had adjudged the presentation of
Le Sap to the monks of Saint-£vroul against a lay claimant. **
There are also examples of the bishop's jurisdiction in such cases
when one or both of the parties were ecclesiastics,'" so that there
was some foundation for the assertion of Amulf of Lisieux that
such matters had always pertained to the bishop; '^ but the com-
prehensive inquest of 1205 states specifically that in Henry's
reign disputes respecting patronage had to be settled in the
duke's court or in the court of the lord of whose fee the church was
held,'2 and this is borne out by the documents.'^ Indeed more
than a generation before 11 64 the monks of Chartres, claiming the
church of Chandai in the court of Richer of Laigle, plead in the lay
court iuxta morem Normannie.^ In the latter part of Henry II's
reign the question whether a holding was lay fee or alms was
matter for a recognition in the king's court, as we see from various
cases in the cartularies and Exchequer Rolls, '^ as well as from the
*' Robert of Torigni, ii. 259.
*' Chapter VI, note 93.
'° Robert of Torigni, ii. 259; dispute between Archbishop Hugh and the abbot
of Pr^aux, cartulary of Pr^aux, no. 51; Jordan Taisson ji. a clerk in the court of
Henry, bishop of Bayeux, Archives of the Calvados, H. 5606, 3; cartulary of
Saint-fivroul, nos. 231, 233; infra, note 125; Appendix H, no. i.
'^ Ep. 116: ' Mota est ei qui presentaverat questio patronatus in iudicio secu-
lari, cum semper ab antiquo cause huiusmodi ad episcopalem audientiam per-
tinerent.'
^ DeUsle, Cartulaire normand, no. 124; Round, no. 1318.
" Stapleton, i. 5, 12, 64, 96, 114; cartulary of the chapter of Rouen (MS. Rouen
1193), f. 131; charter of Bishop Lisiard of Sfiez in cartulary of Saint-fivroul, no.
250 (1190); and the assizes of danein presentment in Round, no. 438; Delisle,
Jugements de V&chiquier, no. 35; the cartulary of Fecamp (MS. Rouen 1207), f.
70V; and Delisle-Berger, no. 651.
^ CarMaire de S.-Pere de Chartres, ii. 607; Round, no. 1237.
*' Stapleton, i. SS, 64; JB. &. C, i. 545; Delisle-Berger, no. 406; charters of
Jordan de I'fipesse, in Archives of the Manche, H. 1034, 6452 (printed in Inven-
taire sommaire) ; charter of John P6ril granting ' presentationem ecclesie Sancti
Martini de Mairoles (Marolles, canton Lisieux) cum omni iure patronatus eiusdem
ecclesie et duas garbas dedme eiusdem ville et totius patochie, que recognite fuerunt
in assisa apud Monfort tempore domini regis Henrici ad laicum feodum ' (copy of
cartulary of leprosery of Lisieux, Archives of the Calvados, H. suppl. 486, f. 9; cf.
infra, Appendix J, no. 20).
HENRY II 17-^
Coutumier and from the inquest of 1205; '* yet it is not possible
to say how clearly this principle was established in Normandy
before the appearance of the assize utrum in the Constitutions
of Clarendon." That this assize had a somewhat independent
history in Normandy may perhaps be argued from the divergence
of the Norman ireoe defeodo et elemosina from the English assize
utrum.^^ While we have clear cases of the decision of questions
of tithes and parish lands in the duke's court before 1164,'' there
are traces of the bishop's authority here also,"" and there is some
indication that the two jurisdictions might deal with the same
case, apparently without rivalry.^^ Here, as in aU questions con-
cerning the Norman antecedents of the Constitutions of Claren-
don, the evidence is interesting but too scanty to be conclusive.
In working back from this document it is always well to remember
Maitland's dictum that " if as regards criminous clerks the Con-
stitutions of Clarendon are the high-water-mark of the claims of
'' Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 18; Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 124.
" The case of the rights of Saint-fivroul over Le Sap cannot be considered an
authentic example of this: infra, Chapter VI, note 93.
" Bnmner, Schwurgerichie, pp. 236 f., 324-326; Maitland, Collected Papers, ii.
216; Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 4 f .
'' Robert of Torigni, ii. 259; infra. Appendix H, nos. 3, 5, 6. Cf. Cartulaire de
Notre-Dame de Chartres, i. 187 (1171); MS. Lat. 5650, f. 80.
^°° E. g., Neustria Pia, p. 351 (= Le Provost, Eure, iii. 82); cartulary of Saint-
fivroul, no. 233; Vernier, no. 75; infra. Chapter VI, note ro9; Appendix H,
no. 9.
"" Thus (ris6-iiS9) we find the prior of Perrieres establishing his right to the
tithe of fipaney (Calvados) in the coiuts of the bishop of Sdez (Collection Moreau,
Ixviii. 9), the archbishop of Rouen {ibid., liv. 243; Archives of the Ome, H. 2026),
and the king, the judgment being finally confirmed by Henry: ' teneat bene et in
pace et quiete tptam decimam suam de Espanaio sicut earn dirationavit in curia mea
coram iusticiis meis et in curia archiepiscopi Rothomagensis ' (Delisle-Berger, no.
109). We also find the king's justices sitting in the court of Bishop Amulf of
Lisieux in ii6r in a case between Alice Trubaud and the abbot of Caen against the
abbot of Troam concerning the advowson of Dives: 'Huius autem actionis sunt
testes et ipsius iudicii cooperatores extiterunt Normannus et lohannes archidiaconi,
Fulco decanus, Rogerius filius Aini canonicus et alii plures canonici Lexovienses, sed
et barones regis Radulfus de Tomeio, Robertus de Montfort, Aicardus Puldn
iustida regis ': cartulary of Troam (MS. Lat. 10086), f. 159; cf. the charters of
Amulf and Cardinal Henry of Pisa, f. iS2v.; and Sauvage, Troam, p. 166, n. 5.
For a case of T147 ' iustitia archiepiscopi Rothomagensis et comitis de Mellent,'
see Valin, p. 264. See also Round, no. 138; Delisle-Berger, no. 650; Liverani,
SptdlegUtm Liberianum (Florence, 1864), p. 579.
174 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
secular Justice, as regards the title to lands they are the low-water-
mark." 102
After 1 1 64 the point of view of our study must be somewhat
shifted. Thanks to a series of legislative monuments and treatises
which have no Norman analogues, we can trace with some con-
fidence the course of English constitutional development, while
our knowledge of Norman affairs is too scanty to permit following
the evolution of institutions or poUcies. The most that we can
attempt is to reconstruct the chief elements of judicial and
fiscal organization and procedure, in the hope of furnishing an
instructive parallel to better known English conditions.
The turning-point in the constitutional history of Normandy
during the latter part of Henry's reign is the year 1176, when the
death of the seneschal and justiciar, William de Courcy,^"' led the
king to appoint in his place as ruler of Normandy Richard of
Ilchester, bishop of Winchester, long a trusted officer of the Eng-
hsh Exchequer, where he had charge of a special roll and proved
himself particularly " alert and businesslike in reckonings and the
writing of rolls and writs.""* Very possibly the constitutional
development of Normandy may have lagged behind that of Eng-
land in the busy years which intervened between the Constitu-
tions of Clarendon and the Assize of Northampton; very likely
its administration had fallen into disorder after the rebellion of
1173 ; certain it is that Richard was excellently qualified by talent
and experience to undertake the reorganization of governmental
iiB Collected Papers, ii. 216.
'^ On whom see Delisle, Benri II, pp. 476-478.
1" Dialogus, bk. i, c. s (Oxford ed., p. 77). On Richard see Miss Norgate, in
Dictionary of National Biography, xlviii. 194; Delisle, pp. 431-434; R. L. Poole,
The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 1 16 ff . It is not quite true, as Miss Noigate
says, that we have no trace of his activity during his sojourn in Normandy. He is
mentioned in three documents: a charter of Philippa Rosel given at the Exchequer
in 1176 (original in British Museum, Add. Ch. 15278; Round, no. 517); an assize
which he held at Caen in January, 1177 {Livre noir, no. 95; Delisle, p. 347); and
an assize held at Montfort ' quo tempore Ricardus Wintoniensis episcopus in
Normannia post regem iudex erat et maior iustitia ' (Appendix H, no. 10). A
tallage levied by him is still carried on the roll of 1180 (Stapleton, i. 74). Delisle-
Berger, no. 569, probably belongs to these years; ct. the witnesses with the justices
in Appendix H, no. 10,
HENRY II 175
business which seems to have been effected during the year and a
haK which he now spent in Normandy. It is not without signifi-
cance that the roll of 11 76 remained the basis of reckoning for
more than twenty years, and that from this year we begin to fol-
low with some clearness and continuity the judicial work of the
Norman Exchequer.
It has indeed been maintained that the term exchequer does
not previously occur in Normandy, and hence that Richard is the
creator of the institution.'"^ The author of the Dialogus, however,
who began his treatise while Richard was in Normandy, refers to
the Norman Exchequer as an ancient institution, as old perhaps
as the Conqueror,"^ under whom we can trace the regular ac-
counting for the farm of the vicomUs which is the essence of such
a fiscal system; "' and the name scaccarium occurs in 1171 "' and
in a notice of Henry I's reign discovered by Round.'"' At what
epoch there was introduced the distinctive method of reckoning
which gave the Exchequer its name, is an even darker problem in
Normandy than in England. According to an ingenious conjec-
ture of Poole,"" the employment of the abacus for balancing the
royal accounts came to England from the schools of Laon in the
reign of Henry I. To me the epoch of its introduction seems prob-
ably earlier and connected with the abacists of Lorraine in the
"' Valin, pp. 116-136. On Valin's own showing we can hardly imagine Richard
creating the Exchequer between his arrival toward Michaelmas of 1176 and the
regular session of that body, doubtless also at Michaelmas, mentioned in the Rosel
charter of that year (see the preceding note).
"8 Bk. i, c. 4 (Oxford ed., p. 66).
i*" Supra, pp. 40-44; E. H. R., xxvi. 328 (1911) (a terra data under the Con-
queror). For accounts which run far back of 11 76 see Stapleton, i. 12, 92, 94. On
the administrative organization as the essence of the Exchequer cf. Liebermann,
E. H. R., xxviii. 153. For the use of tallies under the Conqueror see Stapleton, i,
p. xxii.
i»8 Delisle, p. 345; cf. E. H. R., xxvi. 326-328 (1911). No reliance can be placed
on the early mention of the Exchequer in a highly suspicious charter for Saint-
fivroul: Round, nos. 638, 639; Delisle, p. 316; Delisle-Berger, no. 513. There is
an important document from the Exchequer, 1178-1180 (Round, no. 1123), which
Valin overlooks. ■ His misreading of ' rotuUs trium annorum ' (p. 135) as a single
roll covering three years hardly requires comment.
"'' E. H. R., xiv. 426 (1899); supra, Chapter III, note 18.
"" Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, pp. 42-59.
176 N0RM4N INSTITUTIONS
preceding century; "' but in any case the English evidence ante-
dates the Nonnan, and, although the personnel and the language
of the Enghsh Exchequer were Norman, the process may very
well have been, as Poole urges, " from England to Normandy, not
from Normandy to England."
The absence of earlier rolls deprives us of all basis for fixing the
nature of Bishop Richard's reforms, which probably had less to do
with the mechanism of administration than with the reestablish-
ment of order in the finances through the collection of back
accoimts — arrearages of seven, fifteen, even twenty years meet
us in the roll of 1180"'' — the revision of the farms, and the change
of ofl&cials in Normandy and the other continental dominions
which is recorded in 11 77."' Whatever Richard accomplished, he
did not make the Norman Exchequer a copy of the EhgUsh, for
in 1 1 78-1 1 79 the author of the Dialogue, who had more than
once been in Normandy, tells us that the two bodies differed " in
many points and wellnigh in the most important." "*
What these great differences were, apart from the absence of
blank farm in Normandy, it is impossible to say, for we have no
Norman Dialogue. The terms of the Norman Exchequer are the
same as the English, Easter and Michaelmas; the ofl&cers are like-
wise called barons; the place is fixed at Caen, where the principal
treasury was."' One point of divergence which appears from the
rolls is that in Normandy each section begins with a statement of
"1 See my article on The Abacus and the King's Curia, E. H. R., xxvii. 101-106
(1912). Norman clerks also were in relations with the schools of Lorraine: Orderi-
cus, iii. 265.
"* Stapleton, i. 12, 92, 94.
"' Benedict of Peterborough, i. 198. The words of Ralph de Diceto (i. 424)
' fiscalia diligenter recensens ' need mean no more than is here suggested. On these
points I am glad to find myself in agreement with Powicke (pp. 73-75, 85).
"* ' In plurimis et pene maioribus dissident: ' bk. i, c. 4 (p. 66). Cf. Liebermann,
Einleitung in den Dialogus, p.m. For Richard Fitz Neal's sojourns in Normandy
see Eyton, Itinerary, pp. 112, 190; Delisle-Berger, no. 384.
"' That the principal treasury was at Caen as early as 1172 is clear from Robert
of Torigni's account (ii. 297) of the deposit there of the barons' returns of that year.
See also Stapleton, i. 56, and another mention on p. no, where (cf. p. 77; Rotuli
Normanniae, p. 50) the treasury at Rouen is likewise important. Treasure was
also kept at Falaise (Stapleton, i. 39), which had been a principal place of
deposit under Henry I (Robert of Torigni, i. 200; Ordericus, v.. 50), and at
Argentan Pelisle, p. 334). See Chapter III, p. 107 £f. On the use of castles for
HENRY II 177
the total amount due, whereas in the Pipe Rolls, until 8 Richard
I, this can be discovered only by computation."' Variation in
nomenclature is seen in the Norman heading misericordie, pro-
missiones, et fines, corresponding to the placita, conventiones, and
oblata of the EngHsh record. The Norman rolls tell us next to
nothing respecting the royal judges and their circuits, while the
absence of anything corresponding to Danegeld renders it impos-
sible to trace the members of the curia by means of amoimts par-
doned them. The author of the Dialogue was perhaps impressed
by the absence from the Norman rolls of the capital headings and
other rubrics which he so carefuUy describes in the English, but so
far as we can compare the surviving records the 'great differences'
seem to have consisted in externals rather than in essentials.
Though the two Exchequers kept their transactions quite dis-
tinct,"' the two sets of rolls rest upon the same fundamental
system of accoimting,"' the greater subdivision and local detail of
the Norman roll resulting from the existence of a set of govern-
mental areas much more complex and irregular than the English
shires. The older vicomte and prevoti persist in spite of the super-
position of the newer hailliage; "' many of the tithes and fixed
the custody of treasure see Round's introduction to the Pipe Roll of 28 Henry II,
p. xxiv.
The Pipe Rolls make frequent mention of transshipments of treasure from Eng-
land to Normandy for the king's use on the Continent, and there is evidence that the
various treasuries in the empire were regarded 'asparts of a single system' (Powicke,
Loss of Normandy, pp. 347-350). For the year 1198 Ramsay {Angemn Empire, p.
372) has calculated that the Norman revenue was greater than the English.
"' Stapleton, i, p. xi; Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 130.
"' Thus we rarely find one Exchequer crediting a pajonent made at the other,
as in the case of the relief of Hugh de Goumay: Pipe Roll 32 Henry II, pp. xxviii,
60. For such examples under Henry I, see Chapter III, note 103.
"' Even to the form of the rolls and the use of tallies: Stapleton, i, pp. ix, xiii,
84; Wace, ed. Andresen, ii, line 2012. Cf. also the parallel treatment of the crown
debtors: Stapleton, i, p. xii; Powicke, p. 74. See, however, infra, note 215.
"' In what may be considered our only contemporary description of the Norman
Exchequer under Henry II, Wace's account of Richard the Good in his tower, we
read (ed. Andiesen, ii, lines 2009-2012):
Venir ad fait de cest pais
Tuz ses provoz e ses baillis,
Ses gravereins et ses vescuntes;
Ses tailles ot e ses acuntes.
On the whole subject of local geography, see Powicke, pp. 61-79, 103-119.
178 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
allowances go back to the Conqueror's time or even earlier; ''"
and the farm, less affected by terre date than in England, seems to
have imdergone little change except in the case of important com-
mercial centers Uke Rouen, Caen, and Dieppe."^ The whole sub-
structure of ducal finance was evidently very ancient, and for
that reason in Henry's time quite inadequate, and the rolls show
clearly that, as in England, the chief means for supplementing it
were found in the administration of civil and criminal justice.'^
However interesting it might be to follow out in detail the points
of agreement and divergence in the methods of the two Excheq-
uers, the fact of primary importance is that, so far as northern
Europe is concerned, England and Normandy stand in a group
by themselves, well in advance of all their neighbors in the
development of a money economy and in the mechanism of fiscal
administration.
As regards its functions as a court, it has recently been argued '="
that the Exchequer of the Norman dukes was in no sense a judicial
body and was in no wise connected with the later Echiquier de
Normandie. This view is a natural reaction against those writers
who approached the earlier institution with the ideas of an age
when the Exchequer was known only as a court, but it assumes a
breach in that continuity of law and institutions which is in
general so noteworthy in passing from Angevin to Capetian Nor-
mandy, and it does not fully realize the fluidity of the Anglo-
Norman curiaP^ What we seem rather to find is a curia which
sits for fiscal purposes at Caen and for judicial purposes at various
places in the duchy, and which, when Philip Augustus transfers
its fiscal duties to Paris, retains its judicial functions and its
Anglo-Norman name. The chief thing to avoid in tracing its
history is the projection back into the Anglo-Norman period of
"i" Supra, pp. 42-44- "' Supra, p. 105; Stapleton, i. 56, 68, 70.
122 Cf. Delisle, B. &. C, x. 288, xiii. 108 £f.
^ Valin, pp. i37-i39> 249-251; the two passages are not wholly consistent. See,
contra, Powicke, pp. 85, 398.
''^ On the fundamental identity of curia. Exchequer, and assizes see R. de
Frfiville, hude sur I'organisalion judiciaire en Normandie aux XII' el XIII' sUdes
in Nouvelle revue historique de droit, 1912, p, 683.
HENRY II 179
the more fully organized Echiquier which we know from the
Grand Coutumier and the arrets of the thirteenth century. From
the reigns of Henry 11 and Richard a small but definite body of
cases furnishes conclusive evidence of the activity of the Excheq-
uer in Judicial matters, and indicates that there was no clear dis-
tinction between its competence and that of the curia regis}^ As
in England in the same period,^^ it seems probable that the dif-
ference was essentially one of place: when the curia sat in the Ex-
chequer chamber at Caen, it was said to sit at the Exchequer,
when it sat elsewhere it was called simply the curia. Certainly the
distinction was not, at least among the higher ofl&cers, one of
persoimel, for the same men appear at one time as barons, or
justices,!" Qf tiig Exchequer and at another as justices holding
assizes in various parts of Normandy.*^*
«5 For cases and transactions before the Exchequer in this period see M. A. N.,
XV. 198-201; Delisle, p. 349; Valin, pieces, nos. 19, 24, 25, 28; Round, nos. 309,
310, 438, 461, 485 (another version in MS. Lat. 10086, f. logv), 509 (also in the
British Museum, Add. Ch. 15289, no. 2), 517 (original in Add. Ch. 15278; some
additional witnesses in the confirmation in Archives of the Calvados, H. 322, no. 3),
560, 606 (where the witnesses are omitted; original in Archives of the Calvados, H.
6607, 301-303), 608, 1123; cartulary of F6camp, f. 25 (letter of archbishop of Rouen
to William Fitz Ralph and the other barons of the Exchequer notifying them of the
settlement of a question of presentation in the court of the bishop of Bayeux);
Cartulaire de Normandie, f. 68v (infra, note 127); Archives of the Calvados, H.
5716, 6607 (78-83, 309), 6653 (338-342), 6672 (293-301), 6679 (186-191), 7707;
Archives of the Ome, H. 3916 (infra, Appendix H, no. 11); and the following pas-
sage in Richard's great confirmation of the privileges of Saint-fitienne: 'Recuperavit
idem [abbas Willelmus, d. 11 79] super Robertum de Veim in curia H. regis patris
nostri apud Cadomum hereditagium quod idem Robertus clamabat in tenendo
manerio de Veim et de Sancto Leonardo, et super Robertum de Briecuria ecclesiam
Sancti Andree de Vilers de qua monachos violenter dissaisierat sed iuditio baronum
qui erant ad scacarium apud Cadomum adiudicata est ecclesia predicta Sancto
Stephano et restituta ': Archives of the Calvados, H. 1836; cf. Deville, Analyse, p.
52. Most of these documents relate to agreements or acknowledgments before the
Exchequer, but good examples of judicial proceedings will be found in the last ex-
tract; in Valin, nos. 24, 25, 28; in Round, nos. 309, 310, 438 (Delisle-Berger, no.
647) ; and in the documents given in facsimile va.M. A. N., xv.
''^ Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, pp. 174-182; cf. G. B. Adams,
mA.H. R., xviii. 357 (i9i3)-
127 ' Hoc autem factum f uit apud Cadomum ad scacarium coram iusticiis domini
regis tempore Willelmi filii Radulfi senescalli Normannie ' : Cartulaire de Normandie,
f. 68v. SoalsoinValin, nos. 19, 24; Round, nos. 509, 517. Barons of the Exchequer
appear in Valin, no. 25; Round, no. 11 23; Delisle-Berger, no. 647.
^' See the list of assizes, infra, Appendix J.
l8o NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
In the sessions of the Exchequer the seneschal naturally pre-
sided, accompanied by certain men who bear the title of barons or
justices but in the documents are not always distinguishable from
the other barons and clerks in attendance. In a charter of 1178-
1180,1''' besides William Fitz Ralph the seneschal, we find as
barons William du Hommet the constable. Master Walter of
Coutances, who had served as clerk of the king's camera and
keeper of the seal and was perhaps treasurer of Normandy,""
Osbert de la Heuse, constable of Cherbourg, Ranulf de Grandval,
Richard Giflard, and Gilbert Pipart, justiciars of the king, the
last two having served as justices in England and as barons of the
Norman Exchequer imder Richard of Winchester."' Later we
find most frequently Haimo the butler, the justices William de la
Mare and Richard Silvain, Jordan de la Lande, and certain clerks,
of whom as many as four appear in one charter of the period."^
Most of these clerks are only names to us, but we can follow with
some clearness two members of the clerical family of Arri, Roger,
canon of Bayeux since the early years of Henry's reign and a
regular witness in records of the curia and Exchequer from 11 64
to 1191,"' and AnquetU, who attests less frequently but receives
a Uvery as clerk of the Exchequer as late as 1 198 ; "* while another
type appears in WiUiam Calix, a constant witness from the time
of Richard of Ilchester, a responsible disbursing officer in .the roll
of 1 184, and a large money-lender on his own accoimt, forfeiting
"' M. A. N., XXX. 672 (c/. xix. 66); Round, no. 1123.
"" Delisle, pp. 106-113, The title ' thesaurarius Rothomagensis ' (Delisle,
p. loi; Round, no. 34) means treasurer of the cathedral (Delisle-Berger, nos. 510,
567) rather than royal treasurer at Rouen; but Ralph de Wanneville, treasurer of
Rouen, was also treasurer of Normandy (Round, no. 21; Stapleton, i. 110), and we
know that the office of ducal treasurer had been combined with a canonry in the
cathedral from the time of Henry I (supra, p.^iog f.). There are relations between
the duke and the treasurer of Avranches (Delisle, p. 346) and the treasurer and
chaplain of Bayeux (A. H. R., xiv. 471; Livre noir, nos. 13, 138, 27r, 275) which
may have had some significance. For the conversion of the plate of Rouen cath-
edral to the uses of Henry II, see MS. Rouen 1403, p. 18 (Round, no. 274).
™- Delisle, pp. 376, 428. "* Appendix H, no. 11.
"* Supra, note 62; Livre noir, nos. 45, 73, 128, 129, 135, 139, 182, 442; Round,
nos. 432, 435, 437, 438, 456, 461, 485, S09, 1446, 1447, I4SI ; Delisle-Berger, no. 689;
the Exchequer notices cited in note 125; and the list of assizes in Appendix J.
•" Stapleton, i. 145, 225, ii. 376, 384; and the lists just cited. Cf . Osmund d'Ani
in assizes imder Philip Augustus: CartulairedeMontmord, ed.Duhosc, nos. 34-36.
HENRY 11 l8l
to the crown at his death a mass of chattels and pledges ''^ which
suggests on a smaller scale the operations of that arch-usurer
William Cade.^'' The rolls show other ecclesiastics active in the
business of the Exchequer, notably the king's chancellor, Ralph
de Wanneville, later bishop of Lisieux and treasurer of Nor-
mandy; '" but imtil Henry's faithful clerks are rewarded with the
sees of fivreux, Lisieux, and Rouen toward the close of the reign,
the higher clergy are less prominent in the admihistration than
they were in his earlier years."*
Of those who serve the king in Normandy many have served or
will serve him elsewhere; his officers and treasure are passing to
and fro across the Channel; his household is ever on the march,
and some elements in it are common to the whole Plantagenet
empire; yet Normandy has also officers of its own. Some are
clerks, such as the treasurer,"' the subordinates in the Ex-
chequer,!^" and the chaplains of the great castles; "^ some are
^^ Round, no. 517, and index; Stapleton, i, pp. cli, no, 129, 130, 145, 170, 171,
183, 194-198, 226, 228, 240, ii. 375, 379 (the countess of Richmond as a debtor),
465-469; and the lists cited in note 133.
"* On whom see E. H. R., xxviii. 209-227, 522-527, 730-732.
^^ Delisle, pp. 99-103.
138 Yet Froger, bishop of Sfez, is said to have been ordered by Alexander III to
give up his bishopric or his place in the royal administration {Memoires de la Societe
d' agriculture de Bayeux, viii. 244); and Nigel Wireker heard in Normandy that
the bishops of the English realm attend curia and Exchequer so assiduously that
they seem ordained ' ad ministerium fisci ' rather than ' ad mysteria ecclesie '
(Wright, Anglo-Latin Poets, i. 203).
"' The relation of the treasurer to the chamberlain on the one hand and to the
custody of local treasure on the other is not perfectly clear. In the rolls of 11 80 and
following the Norman treasurer has an assured income unconnected with service
in the king's household and consisting of the tithes of the vicomtes of Fficamp,
Caux, Auge, Lieuvin, Roumois, and the country between Risle and Seine, and of
the great forests of the Seine vaUey, as well as a special endowment at Vaudreuil
(Rotuli Chartarum, p. 17; cf. Round, nos. 193, 561). Certain of these can be fovmd
in the possession of Henry I's treasurer, and the antiquity and situation of these
vicomtSs may point to an even earlier origin: supra, Chapter III, note 108. The
duke's chaplain at Bayeux similarly had the tithe of the regards of the forest of
Vemai (Stapleton, i. 5). Can this have some connection with a local treasury
{supra, note 130) ?
"» Supra, notes 132-135; and cf. the clerks who appear in the roU of 1180.
Stapleton, i. 37 f ., 56-58.
"' Ibid., i. 5, 90; RoluK Normanniae, pp. 7, 23; Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 69, 107,
"3-
1 82 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Serjeants, acting as ushers,^^'' money-changers,'^' scribes,'" mar-
shals,"' pantlers,'** and larderers;"' and for local government
there are the keepers of jails, parks and forests,"* and fairs,"'
as well as the vicomtes, privois, baillis, and constables upon whom
the whole system rested — in all a multitude of officials, compared
by Peter of Blois to an army of locusts,"" with the bureaucratic
element rapidly gaining on the feudal in a way which anticipates
the gens du roi of the thirteenth century. Wace, himself a person
of some knowledge of the law,"' gives us a picture of the growth of
officialism and htigation in his own time in the complaints which
he puts into the mouths of the peasants revolting in 996 against
the prevSts, beadles, baillis old and new, who leave one not an
hour's peace with their constant simimons to pleas of every sort:
Tant i a plaintes e quereles
E custummes viez et nuveles,
Ne poent une hure aveir pais:
Tute iur sunt siununs as plaiz:
Plaiz de forez, plaiz de moneies,
Plaiz de purprises, plaiz de veies,
Plaiz de bies faire, plaiz de moutes,
Plaiz de defautes, plaiz de toutes,
Plaiz d' aguaiz, plaiz de graveries,
Plaiz de medlees, plaiz de aies.
Tant i a prevoz e bedeaus
E tant bailiz, viels e nuvels,
Ne poent aveir pais une hure,
Tantes choses Iur mettent sure
Dunt ne se poent derainier. ''''
"2 Valin, p. 151, note 3; RoMi Chartarum, p. 82; Eyton, Court, Household, and
Itinerary of Henry II, p. 9.
1** Delisle-Berger, nos. 328, 562, 719; Stapleton, i. 77; ' Symon cambitor tunc
prepositus Andeleii ' in cartulary of Mortemer (MS. Lat. 18369), f. 103 (1168).
^** Hereditary ' scriptor prepositure Cadomi ' in Olim (ed. Beugnot), i. 417.
"^ Delisle-Berger, no. 212; supra. Chapter IV, no. 13.
"' Dehsle, Cartulaire normand, no. 14; supra, Chapter III, p. 117.
"' Stapleton, i. 30, 99, 274, ii. 471, 572 f.; B. &. C, xi. 410, note 14.
"' Delisle, Henri II, p. 209; Delisle-Berger, nos. 171-173, 212. On the Norman
forests at this period see Borrelli de Serres, Recherches sur divers services publics,
XIII' siide, pp. 406-417.
"° Delisle, Henri II, pp. 210, 271, note, 346.
"° Ep. 95, in Migne, ccvii. 298. "' Tardif, £tude sur les sources, i. 9, note 4.
"' Ed. Andresen, ii, lines 841-855. Cf. the extortionate Serjeant in Tris Ancien
Coutumier, c. 64.
HENRY 11 183
Normandy had its full share of the great court days of Henry's
reign, when the king kept some great feast amid his barons and
officials. Christmas was often spent in this way, at Bayeux,
Bur,"' Domfront, Falaise, twice each at Cherbourg and Argen-
tan, thrice at Caen. The most splendid of these assemblies was
the Christmas court of 1182 at Caen. On this occasion Henry's
barons were forbidden to hold courts of their own, and they and
others flocked to Caen to the number, we are told, of more than a
thousand knights. The Young King was there — his last Christ-
mas — and his brothers Richard and Geoffrey, their brother-in-
law, Henry the Lion of Saxony, the archbishops of Dublin and
Canterbury, with many bishops and abbots.^^ The feudal char-
acter of such a curia is illustrated by the episode of William of
Tancarville, summus ex feudo regis camerarius, who pushed his
way through the crowd to assert his hereditary right to serve the
king and princes and to retain for himself the silver wash-basins,
such as his father had thus received and placed in his monasteries
of Sainte-Barbe and Saint-Georges de BocherviUe; and by the
decision of the barons on the following day that the claim
had been sustained and the chamberlain vindicated against the
accusations of the seneschal and others."^ A more modem touch
is given by the ' full assize ' held shortly afterward by the sen-
eschal, William Fitz Ralph, and attended by barons and others
whose names have reached us to the number of nearly eighty.^"
Throughout the administration of justice the seneschal is the
important figure. Something of his enhanced importance was
doubtless due to the absences of Henry H and Richard and the
decline of the personal justice of the sovereign, but something
must also be ascribed to the personality of William Fitz Ralph,
who in 1 1 78 came fresh from his experience as itinerant justice in
England and held the office until his death in 1200, exerting an
^'^ Cf. also the Young King's court at Bur m 1171, attended, among others, by
more than no knights named William: Robert of Torigni, ii. 31.
iM Robert of Torigni, ii. 117; Benedict of Peterborough, i. 291.
166 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, ed. James, pp. 242-246 (ed. Wright, pp.
232-234); cf. Round, King's Serjeants, p. 115 f.; and for the chamberlain's duties,
Wace, lines 1873 ff., 2322 ff.
"» Delisle-Berger, no. 638; Valin, p. 274; Round, no. 432.
1 84 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
influence upon Norman law which may still be traced in the Tres
Ancien Coutumier}^'' As the alter ego of the king the seneschal was
the head of the whole judicial system, and in his sovereign's
absence he alone could preside in the judgment of those who had
the privilege of appearing only before the duke or his chief jus-
ticiar."' We find him holding court, not only at Caen, where the
traces of his activity are naturally better preserved, but at Ar-
gentan, Bemai, Longueville, NeufchS,tel, Saint-Wandrille, and
Rouen. With him sit such men as William de la Mare, Richard
Giffard, Richard of Argences, and John d'Eraines, archdeacon of
Seez, who also in groups of two or three hold assizes in various
parts of Normandy."' With no help from the Exchequer Rolls
and only scattered references in the charters, it is impossible to
define the composition of these assizes or determine how often
they were held. In the documents the hst of justices is often in-
complete, and they are frequently indistinguishable from the
other witnesses; yet we can identify many of them with the
bailUs and constables who meet us in the rolls, and occasionally an
assize is held by a group of constables covering a considerable dis-
trict. According to the custumal of 1 199-1 200, a doubtful witness
for our period, assizes are held once or twice a year in each
mcomte and are attended by the ducal officers within the district
and by the local lords, who are forbidden to hold their own courts
during the session of the assize.^^" FuU roUs are kept of the cases
considered and the names of the jurors, and the clerks have also
167 Delisle, pp. 219-220, 481-483; Tardif, Tris Ancien Coutumier, p. los; Valin,
pp. 160-163, where the fines carried in later Pipe Rolls are wrongly taken as evi-
dence that William was justice in England after 11 78. The Norman roll of iiSo
(PP- S6> 57) shows that he received pay for the full [year 1179-1180 and ad-
ministered justice in a preceding year.
1'* For examples of this privilege see Delisle, pp. 162, 219.
"9 See the list of assizes in Appendix J. Note the assize held by the constables
in no. 2.
"» Trds Ancien Coukimier, cc. 25-29, 36, 37, 44, 55, 56; Robert of Torigni, ii. 117.
R. de Fr^viUe has pointed out (Nouvelle revue historique de droit, 191 2, pp. 715-724)
that the Tris Ancien Coutumier cannot be taken as an unmixed source for the
judicial organization of the Plantagenet period; its statements respecting law and
procedure are less likely to have been affected by French influence. The growing
importance of the official element in the administration of justice in the twelfth
century is well brought out by Frfiville (p. 682 ft,), who, however, goes too far in
HENRY U 185
their little parchments to record the various fines and payments."'
The theory still survives that all chattels of offenders are forfeited
to the duke, for " the function of the sworn affeerers is to declare
what goods the offender has";"^ but there are maximum pay-
ments for the various classes of society, and knight and peasant
enjoy exemption of their arms and means of hvelihood in a way
which suggests the well known clause of Magna Caria}^^ The
justices have a reputation for extortion on technical pretexts,"*
and the Exchequer Rolls show them bent on upholding the dignity
and authority of their court by fines for contradiction and foohsh
speaking, for leaving its session without permission, and for dis-
regarding or transgressing its decrees."* There are fines for those
■who go to the ecclesiastical courts against the justices' orders; "*
and even lords of the rank of Hugh de Longchamp and Hugh de
Goumay are heavily mulcted for neglecting the simomons to the
regard of the forest."'
The ordinary local courts of the vicomte and bailli are not men-
tioned in the Tres Ancien Coutumier and have left few traces in the
charters. Early in the reign they had been ordered to meet at
least once a month;"* in the Avranchin the vicomte held pleas
thrice a year in Ardevon and Genest."' In Guernsey in 1179, the
court of the vicomte is still curia regis, and he has an official seal.""
excluding the non-professional element, and propounds a general theory which
inverts the real order of development. His studies of the meaning of the word
baron in this period are worth pursuing further.
1^ Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 25, 28, 29, 65.
162 Pollock and Maitland, ii. 514.
^^ Tris Ancien Coutumier, cc. 55, 56; Magna Carta, c. 20; and on its interpreta-
tion, Tait and Pollard, E. H. R., xxvii. 720-728, xxviii. 117.
'" Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 65.
"* Stapleton, i. 5, 16, 21, 34, 41, 51, 54, 58, 80, 86, 113, 116.
1S5 liid,^ i. 21 (' quia ivit in curiam episcopi contra defensum iusticie '), 47, 102.
'" Ibid., i. S9, 74. On pleas of the forest see the F6camp cartulary (MS. Rouen
1207), f. 36V.
1'* Robert of Torigni, ii. 180. This is also the period prescribed by Philip Augus-
tus for his baillis in iigo: Rigord, ed. Delaborde, p. 100 f.
i«8 Delisle, p. 346. Cf. the pleas held by Nigel, seneschal of Mortain: Stapleton,
i, pp. kv, 11; Delisle, p. 408.
"" ' Actum est hoc in curia domini regis in Guenerreio coram Gisleberto de Hoga
tunc vicecomite, et quia sigillum non habebam sigillo Gisleberti de Hoga vicecomitis
consideratione et assensu amicorum hanc cartam sigillari constitui ': original, with
Gilbert's seal, printed in Historical MSS. Commission, Various Collections, iv. 53.
1 86 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Once the sole agent of the duke in all departments of local ad-
ministration, the vicomte saw his power greatly reduced by the
development of the itinerant justices, and we have no means of
knowing just what he still retained imder the pleas which re-
mained a constituent element of his farm. The newer jurisdictions
of the iailli and constable have also to be reckoned with, and
there were probably differences of local custom as well as changes
in the course of the Angevin period. Thus the pleas of the sword
regularly stood outside of the local farm "^ and fell naturally to
the itinerant justices, yet in the district of Falaise a charter of
Henry II specifically reserves them to the baillis."^ The local
officers also possessed a minor civil jurisdiction, as we see from a
writ in which Henry orders the constable and bailUs of Cherbourg
to do full justice in a certain case unless the land in question be a
knight's fee or a burgage of more than a hundred shillings' annual
value, in which event the matter doubtless went to the higher
court."^ In general, however, the local writs are administrative
i"- This is specifically stated for the Hiesmois (see the following note), for the
Lieuvin (Rotuli Normanniae, p. ii6), for the castle of Gaillon (Delisle, Cariulaire
normand, no. 120), and for the vicomte of Bonneville and the pr&i>8Us of Falaise and
Domfront (ibid., no. iii).
"2 Cariulaire de Fontenay-le-Marmion (ed. G. Saige), no. i; Delisle-Berger, no.
701; cf. VaUn, p. 227. Later they are held here by the itinerant justices: Rotuli
Normanniae, p. 20. For the bailli of Rouen see Henry's charter in Chfiruel, Eistoire
de Rouen, i. 247; Delisle-Berger, no. 526 (on date, see Valin, Prlcis of Rouen Acad-
emy, 1911, pp. 9-42)-
™ ' H. Dei gratia rex Angl[orum] et dux Norm[annorum] et Aquit[anorum] et
comes And[egavensium] constabulario et baiUivis suis de Cesarisburgo salutem. Pre-
cipio vobis quod sine dilatione plenum rectum teneatis priori et canonicis Sancte
Marie de Voto iuxta Cesarisburgum de terra que f uit Preisie apud Cesarisburgum et
de domo quam ipsa eis dedit, quas Willelmus Pichard et uxor Richer' eis diffortiant,.
nisi sit feodum lorice vel burgagium quod valeat plusquam .c. solidos per annum.
Et nisi feceritis iusticia mea Norm[annie] faciat, ne amplius inde clamorem audiam
pro defectu recti. T[este] Hug[one] Bardulf dapifero apud Bonam villam.' Original,
with fragment of simple queue, in Archives of the Manche, H. 1963. Printed from
a poor copy by Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 367; Round, no. 949; Delisle-
Berger, no. 688. This writ is interesting further as one of the rare Norman examples-
of a writ of right, approaching more nearly the type addressed in England to the
lord (Glanvill, bk. xii, cc. 3, 4) than that addressed to the royal officer (ibid., bk.
xii, cc. 11-20). It is indicative of the lesser importance of the local officers in Nor-
mandy that the justice appears in the nisi feceris clause, as in this writ (cf . those
listed in note 46), more commonly than in similar writs in England.
A controversy concerning a mill is settled 30 June 1175, ' in presentia W. de
HENRY II 187
rather than judicial,"* and throw no light on the work of the local
courts, which are plainly less important than in England.
With respect to the criminal jurisdiction of the duke, we have a
list of pleas of the sword drawn up before 11 74,"* elaborated at
certain points in the earher part of the Tres Ancien Couiumier,"^
and confirmed by the fines recorded in the Exchequer Rolls and
the cases reserved by Henry in his charters."' The enumeration
includes murder and slaying, mayhem, robbery, arson, rape, and
the plotted assault, offenses against the peace of the house, the
plow, the duke's highway and the duke's court, against his army
and his coinage. In large measure this list goes back to the Con-
queror's time, when many of these pleas had already been granted
to the great immunists, lay and ecclesiastical, who still continued
to retain them under Henry H."* Barons, however, whose courts
encroach on the duke's jurisdiction must expect to be fined by his
justices,"' as must those who seek to settle such crimes out of
Huechon conestabularii regis ': Liwe blanc of Saint-Martin de S6ez, f. 13. Cf. the
constable of Mortain, supra, note 72.
"* For examples see Round, nos. 25, 26, 131, 205-207, 492 (where the original
has ' Beiesino ' in the address), 939, 1282; Dehsle, pp. 164 f., 179 f.; supra, note 46.
1" Tres Ancien Cotdumier, c. 70. For the date see supra, note 22.
'™ Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 15, 16, 35, 53, S4i $8, 59; cf. Pollock and Mait-
land, ii. 455.
1" Round, nos. 375, 382; Delisle, Carkilaire normand, no. 16; id., Eenri II,
no. 495. The charter for Cormeilles (DeUsle-Berger, no. 707; Round, no. 420)
reserves ' incendiariorum iusticia et invasorum euntium et redeuntium ad nostram
curiam et retrobanni et auxilio redemptionis nostre et falsariorum monete nostre.'
"' Supra, p. 28 f.; Appendix D. Cf. Powicke, p. 80 ff.; Perrot, Les cas royaux,
pp. 301-315.
1" ' Pro placitis ensis iniuste captis ': Stapleton, i. 21. ' Pro duello latrocinii
male servato in curia sua . . . pro duello de combustione male servato in curia sua' :
ibid., i. 123. On the right of barons to hold pleas of the sword see Chapter I, notes
103, 104; Valin, p. 220 ff.; Powicke, pp. 80-88. That the justices might sit in
franchise courts is seen from a charter of John for William of Briouze (Rotuli Nor-
manniae, p. 20; see Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 18) and from the following extract from
the cartulary of Savigny (f. 27V) : ' Fidelibus universis GiiiUeknus Avenel salutem.
Sciatis quod Robertus pincema et GuiUelmus frater eius in presentia mea in curia
comitis in plenaria assissa coram baronibus domini regis concesserunt monachis
Savigneii ... in manu mea qui time eram senescallus domini comitis Moretonii.'
Cf. the justices in the courts of the bishop of Lisieux and the count of Meulan,
supra, notes 58, loi. The baron's jealousy of losing his court is illustrated by the
following: ' B. de Sancto Walerico maiori et paribus communie Rothomagensis
salutem et magnum amorem. Audivi quod vos misistis in placitum Walterum
1 88 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
court."'" Since the early years of the reign the itinerant justices
are proclaiming outlaws in the marketplaces,'*' and men are flee-
ing the realm for murder, robbery, and similar offenses, which
already bear the name of felonies,'*^ while their chattels become a
large element in the ducal revenues.'*' Nothing is said of their
accusation by a jury of presentment, but we have reason for
thinking that such juries were in use after 1159,'*^ and the chattels
of those who fail at the ordeal by water are accounted for in the
roll of 1 180 as they are in the Pipe Rolls after the Assize of Claren-
don.'** The pleas of the crown are viewed as a source of income
analogous to the various portions of the ducal demesne; in the
Avranchin, at least, they are in charge of a special officer, or
coroner, as early as 1171.'*^
In civil matters the ducal courts had cognizance of disputes
concerning church property, so far as these did not come under
ecclesiastical jurisdiction,'*' and of such suits concerning land as
involved the use of the recognition. From early times the prop-
fratrem meum de masura mea que [est] iuxta atrium Beate Marie de Rothomago.
Unde non parum miror, cum non defecerim alicui de recto tenendo. Mando igitur
vobis quod dimittatis mihi curiam meam sicut alii barones regis vel etiam minores
habeut, quia libenter quando requisitus fuero rectum faciam.' Cartulary of the
chapter of Rouen (MS. Rouen 1193), f. 112; Delisle, p. 358.
IS" Stapleton, i. 25-27, 32; cf. p. 51; Tres Ancien Coulumier, c. 36.
"' Appendix H, no. 4. On the importance of thefora patrie in such cases see the
Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 36, 37; cf. Wace, ii, line 334; Amulf of Lisieux, Ep. no.
182 ' j^isi sijij f ugitivi de terra mea pro muldro vel furto vel alio scelere ' : charter
of Henry for Fecamp (1162), in Valin, p. 269; Ddisle-Berger, no. 221; Round,
no. 133, where a curious misreading of indicium makes the document relate to a
court instead of a fair. In another charter of 1162 for F6camp we have (Delisle-
Berger, no. 222) : ' Habeant meam firmam pacem in eimdo morando redeundo, nisi
nominati[m] calumpniati fuerint de proditione vel felonia.'
^ See the catalla fugitivorum in Stapleton, i. 4, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 27, 29,
32-34, 43, 49, SS, S8, 72, 89, 94; Delisle, pp. 335, 339, 340, 343; and cf. Tres Ancien
Coutumier, cc. 36, 37. In the cartulary of La Trinitfi de Caen, MS. Lat. s^So, f.
84V, we read in an inquest of this reign: ' De feodo Rogeri Terrici fugitivi pro
latrocinio inquirendum est ibidem.'
"* Infra, Chapter VI; Appendix I.
"5 Stapleton, i. 62; and for England, Stubbs, Benedidus, ii, p. Ixii, note.
i8« Delisle, p. 346; E. H. R., xxv. 710 f., xxvi. 326 f. For mention of coroners in
England before 1194, see C. Gross, Coroners' Rolls, pp. xv-xix.
'" Tris Ancien Coutumier, c. 53. Cf. supra, p. 172 f. On the prejudice of the
author of the Tres Ancien Coulumier in favor of the Church, see Viollet, in Histoire
lilteraire, xxxiii. 52-ss.
HENRY II 189
erty of churches and monasteries had been assimilated to the
dtike's own demesne {sicut res mea dominica) , and charters re-
peatedly declare that particular establishments shall be impleaded
only in the king's court, in some cases only before him or his
principal justiciar.^** The protection of possession by the duke,
praised especially by the author of the first part of the Tres Ancien
Coutumier as a defense of the poor against the rich and powerful,
is secured, as in England, by recourse to twelve lawful men of the
vicinage. The possessory assizes described in this treatise 1*' cor-
respond to the four English assizes, and the Exchequer Rolls
furnish abimdant evidence that they were in current use by
iiSo.!'" On the other hand the principle that no man should
answer for the title of his free tenement without royal writ does
not seem to have been so broadly recognized in Normandy as in
England, nor do we find anything which bears the name of the
grand assize ,"i but its Nornian analogues, the Ireve de stabilia
and breve de superdemanda, appear in the early Exchequer RoUs,"*
as does also the writ of right."' In the few instances where com-
parison with Glanvill is possible, the Norman writs seem to have
preserved their individuality of form, while showing general agree-
ment in substance. Even in the duke's court, the law of Nor-
mandy has its differences from the law which is being made
beyond the Channel, nor can we see that its development shows
any dependence upon the law of England."*
18' Brmmer, Schwurgerichte, p. 238 ff.; Delisle, pp. 162, 219.
'" Cc. 7, 16-19, 21, 23, 57. See Bruimer, c. 15, who, however, points out that
the Norman parallel to the assize utrum, the breve defeodo et elemosina, is a petitory
writ.
1'° E. g., Stapleton, i.'s, 12, 13, r9, 64, 65, 96; cf. 114, 115 (1184). Cf. Brunner,
p. 307-
"1 Brmmer, pp. 410-4T6.
"* Ibid., pp. 3r2-3i7; Stapleton, i. 11, 13, 29; Delisle, p. 339; Tres Ancien
Coutumier, c. 85, where Tardif (p. Ixxv) points out that the appearance of the sene-
schal's name in the writs carries them back of 1204, when the office was abolished.
i** Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 30; and the numerous pasrments in the rolls pro
recto habendo. For an example see supra, note 173.
^'* Cf. the order of Henry III for the maintenance in the Channel Islands of
' assisas illas que ibi temporibus antecessorum nostrorum regum Anglie, videlicet
H. avi nostri, R. regis avimculi nostri, et J. regis patris nostri, observate fuerunt':
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1216-1225, P. 136.
190 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
If we ask what limitations existed upon the ducal authority in
Normandy, the answer must be that there were none, beyond the
, force of feudal custom and the body of law and precedent which
the ducal court was creating, and that the only sanction of these
was rebellion. Not until 1315, however, did revolt secure a definite
formulation of the local rights and liberties of Normandy in the
Charte aux Normands of Louis X; '^^ the scribe who sought to pass
off as the work of Henry II a version of Magna Carta as reissued
in 1225, though he deceived older antiquarians, has long since been
discredited."^ The position of the duke in Normandy required of
him none of those chartered promises which are often regarded as
the foundations of English liberty. Yet if, with Stubbs,"' we are
to consider the charter of Henry I and its successors as an amplifi-
cation of the coronation oath, we must not overlook the fact that
the coronation oath of the dukes, with its threefold promise of
peace, repression of disorder, and justice, is in exact verbal agree-
ment with that of the English king as repeated since Anglo-Saxon
times."^ When, however, we recall that both in England and in
Normandy these obligations were explained and accepted with
especial care and ceremony at the accession of John,"' we learn to
attach less significance to such promises. And by the time that
the Great Charter has declared the king below the law, England
and Normandy have started on separate paths of constitutional
development.
In the twelfth century, however, the resemblances between
Normandy and England stand out the more clearly the further we
explore and compare their institutions. There are of course fun-
damental differences in local government, but the essential central
organs of finance and judicature are similarly constituted and fol-
'"^ Ordonnances des Rois, i. 551, 587. For the revolt see Dufayard in Reeue
historique, liv, Iv; Coville, Les Stats de Normandie, pp. 32-40.
i'« Delisle, Henri II, pp. 312-316, who by a slip gives 1227 as the date.
1" Select Charters, gth edition, p. 116. For the opposite view see H. L. Cannon,
A. H. R., XV. 37-46.
"* Compare the two forms in the MS. of Rouen cathedral: The Benedidional
of Archbishop Robert, ed. H. A. Wilson (Bradshaw Society, 3ndv), pp. 140, 158. On
the English coronation oath, see Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 163-165; on the
Norman ceremony, Valin, pp. 43-45.
"' Stubbs, i. 553 f. ; Roger of Hoveden, iv. 87 f. ; Magna Vita S. Hugonis, p. 293 f .
HENRY II 191
low similar methods of work. The matter would be much clearer
were it not for the disappearance of many thousands of royal writs
which alone could reveal the daily routine of administration on
both sides of the Channel; but Henry II had only one chan-
cery, and its methods show remarkable tmiformity in all of his
various dominions and testify to similar administrative condi-
tions throughout. The chancery was an extraordinarily active and
effective mechanism, and we may well join with Delisle in prais-
ing its regularity, finish, and irreproachable precision, the terseness
and simplicity of its documents, their ' solid and severe ele-
gance.' ^'"' Its charters and writs, like Glanvill and the Dialogus,
tell the story of a remarkably orderly and businesslike govern-
ment, which expected obedience and secured it. A parallel story
of order and thrift is told in the records of the Exchequers, in the
Norman rolls quite as expUdtly as in the EngKsh Pipe RoUs. The
king's writ is necessary for every new disbursement; his ofl&cers
must account for every penny of cash and every bushel of grain;
the ' seller of justice ' must have his fee or his amercement; the
land of the ducal castles is farmed ' up to the very walls.' ^"^ The
thrifty detail of Henry's housekeeping is further illustrated in the
inquest concerning his rights in the Avranchin, the only region for
which an ofl&cial statement has been preserved. Besides the an-
cient farm of the vicomte, the king has his monopoly of the fair of
Saint Andrew, where even the abbot of the Mount pays his due of
wax and pepper; he has his custom of wine in the ' Valley ' and
his rights over the ' customary ' houses of the city, including
fourpence from each, his meadows, and his chestnut grove; he
has recovered by inquest an oven, a bit of land which yields ten
quarters of grain, the treasurer's new house, and a room which has
encroached on his demesne. The pleas of the crown are also a part
of the demesne and have their special custodian, like the fair and
the chestnut grove ; his men of the neighborhood must bring the
chestnuts to the king in Normandy, and he keeps the sacks which
they are obliged to furnish for this purpose.^"^ The sovereign who
2»» Delisle, Benri II, pp. i f., 151.
2»i Powicke, Loss of Normandy, p. 298.
™ Inquest of 1171 in Delisle, pp. 345-347; cf. Appendix K.
192 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
saves chestnut bags shows equal watchfuhiess in his own house-
hold, wherever it journeys: its written ordinances fix the daily
allowances of bread and wine and candle ends, and the master
marshal requires tallies of receipt from all its officers.^"' The
military bookkeeping is Hkewise careful: the Norman returns of
service in 1 172 correspond to the English cartae of 1166, and the
registers of military obligations extend to minute fractions of a
knight's fee. Norman in origin,^"^ the military system was by
this time as much at home in England as in Normandy, and in
both countries it offered convincing evidence of the Norman
capacity for methodical and efficient organization.
What more specific elements the Normans contributed to the
Anglo-Norman state must remain in large measure a matter of
speculation. It would be interesting, were it possible, to ascertain
what, in an institutional sense, Normandy had given and received
during a century and a quarter of imion with England and par-
ticularly during more than a generation of membership in the
Plantagenet empire. A study of Normandy and England under
the Conqueror suggests fields in which Norman influence was
exerted, while the reigns of Henry I and Geoffrey show the per-
sistence and further development of the institutions of Nor-
mandy; but the process of change under Henry H was too rapid
to permit of definite conclusions respecting the influence of one
region or set of institutions upon another. Certainly the move-
ment under him was not all in one direction. If the two chief
figures in Norman administration in Henry's later years, Richard
of Ilchester and WilHam Fitz Ralph, had served an EngHsh
apprenticeship, there had earlier in the reign been Norman pre-
cedents for Henry's English legislation. If the English mihtary
inquest of 11 66 preceded the Norman returns of 1 172, the Assize
of Arms and the ordinance for the Saladin tithe were first pro-
mulgated for the king's Continental dominions. The order of
these measures may have been a matter of chance, for to a man of
Henry's temperament it mattered httle where an experiment was
first tried, but it was impossible to administer a great empire
upon his system without using the experience gained in one region
2'» See Chapter III. s" See Chapter I.
HENRY II 193
for the advantage of another. There was wisdom in Geoffrey's
parting admonition to his son against the transfer of customs and
institutions from one part of his reahn to another,'"'* but so long as
there was a common element in the administration and frequent
interchange of ofl&cers between different regions, it could not be
fully heeded. A certain amoimt of give and take there must
inevitably have been, and now and then it can definitely be traced.
On the other hand, it must not be supposed that there was any
general assunilation, which would have been a still greater impos-
sibility. Normandy preserved and carried over into the French
kingdom its individuahty of law and character, and as a model of
vigorous and centralized administration it seems to have affected
the government of Philip Augustus in ways which are still dark to
yg 206 When that chapter of constitutional history comes to be
written, if it ever can be written, it will illustrate from still another
side the permanent importance of the creative statesmanship of
the Norman dukes.
That creative work, so far as we can discern, was completed
with the death of Henry II. It is true that no one has yet studied
in fuU detail the law and government of Normandy under Richard
and John,^"' and that the materials are in some respects more
abundant than under their father. Richard's charters have not
been coUected,^"* nor does his reign yield any new types of record,
but the Exchequer Rolls of 1195 and 1198 are the fullest which
have been preserved, and the first Norman customal probably
belongs to the year following his death.'"" Under John, as is well
206 See the quotation from John of Marmoutier at the end of the preceding
chapter.
206 According to Benedict of Peterborough, i. 270, Philip Augustus and the count
of Flanders had early imitated the Assize of Arms (cf. Guilhiermoz, Origine de la
noblesse, p. 227). Ralph of Diceto, ii. 7 f., says Phihp followed Henry's adminis-
trative policy on the advice of his household. Cf. also supra, note 168.
20' See, however, the discussion of military organization and finance in Powicke,
Loss of Normandy, chs. vii and viii.
208 The copies collected by Achille DeviUe are in MS. Lat. n. a. 1244 and MS.
Ft. n. a. 6191. A working list of Richard's charters is given by Cartellieri, Philipp
II. August, ii. 288-301, iii. 217-233.
209 Tardif, Tres Ancien Coviumier, pp. Ixv-hxii; see, however, VioUet, in His-
toire littiraire, xxxiii. 47-49. No Norman court rolls have been preserved from this
period.
194 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
known, Normandy has its place in the great series of continuous
records which begin with this reign, the charter rolls, patent rolls,
and liberate rolls, from which material a separate set of Norman
rolls was also drawn ofif.^^" At no period are the workings of
administration in the Norman duchy so well known as just before
its faU. At no time, one is tempted to add, are they so little worth
knowing, save for the illustrations they afford of the government
of Henry II. What can be seen only fragmentarily or in outline in
his reign is now revealed in explicit detail — the work of the
Exchequer and camera, the activity of the royal clerks and Ser-
jeants, the king's wines and the queen's furs, the royal prisoners
and the royal sport, the control over trade and shipping, the
strongholds upon which Richard lavished his treasure, the loans
and exactions of John. The itinerant justices which had existed
since Henry I first meet us by this name vmder John; ''^ the writs
presupposed in the earlier Exchequer RoUs can now be read in the
Rotuli de contrabrevibus?^ What they offer, however, is new
examples, not new principles: there is no evidence of any change
in the system of Henry II. The mechanism which in England
" was so strong that it would do its work though the king was an
absentee, "21' was in Normandy strong enough to work though the
king was present. Even John could not destroy it or seriously
weaken it. It would be rash to assert that the fifteen years of
Richard and John were not in some degree years of development
in Normandy, especially in the field of law, but there is no evi-
dence that they were years of innovation. What was strong and
permanent in Norman law and Norman government had been
written in before. From an institutional point of view, the inter-
est of these two reigns lies rather in the transition from Angevin
to Capetian administration, and it is worthy of note that it is the
conditions anterior to 1190, not those of 1204, which the inquests
21" Rotuli Charlarum, 1199-1216 (1837); Rotuli Litlerarum Patentium, 1201-
1216 (183s); Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis regnante Johanne (1844);
Rotuli Normanniae in Turri Londinensi assenati (1835); all edited by Hardy foi
the Record Commission. The last is reprinted ia M. A. N., xv. 89-136.
2'i Rotuli Chartarum, p. SQ! Rotuli Normanniae, pp. 20, 97.
^^ Rotuli Normanniae, pp. xv, 22-37, 45-98.
"' Pollock and Maitland, i, 169.
HENRY II 195
of Philip Augustus seek to establish."^ What the new rulers of
Normandy preserved and imitated was the work of Henry II and
the state-builders who preceded him.^*^
To their Capetian successors the Norman rulers handed over a
t3^e of weU organized and e:^dent government such as they had
also developed in England. In the fields of finance, judicature,
and military organization the modem features of this state, as of
"^its contemporaries in Aragon and Sicily, stood out in sharp relief
against the feudal background of the twelfth century. Like theirs,
its institutions set strongly in the direction of centralization and
royal authority. Unlike them, it had also an element which,
while as yet royal, possessed great importance for the future in
the development of more popular institutions, the sworn inquest
which was to become the jury, the jury of England and of 'king-
less cormnonwealths beyond the seas.' The special interest of
the jury in the history of legal procedure and representative
government sets it apart for special treatment in the following
chapter.
^" See Delisle, Cartulaire normand, nos. iii, 120, 124; H. F., xxiv, preuves, nos.
10, 21, 22, 39, 69.
^^ H. Jenkinson's valuable paper on The Financial Records of the Reign of King
John (fa Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, 191 7, pp. 244-300) reached me too
late for discussion in this chapter. It makes new suggestions concerning the proc-
esses ol the Norman Exchequer, touching upon the problems of Thomas Brown
and Richard of Ilchester, and ascribing noteworthy administrative changes to the
reign of John.
CHAPTER VI
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY'
The Continental derivation of the institution of trial by jury is
now generally accepted by scholars. First demonstrated in 1872
by Brunner in his masterly treatise on the origin of juries,^ this
view has at length triumphed over the natural disinclination of
Englishmen to admit that the palladium of their liberties " is in its
origin not English but Prankish, not popular but royal." ' What-
ever one may think of the Scandinavian analogies, there is now no
question that the modem jury is an outgrowth of the sworn
inquests of neighbors held by command of the Norman and
Angevin kings, and that the procedure in these inquests is in all
essential respects the same as that employed by the Frankish
rulers three centuries before. It is also the accepted opinion that
while such inquests appear in England immediately after the Nor-
man Conquest, their employment in lawsuits remains exceptional
imtil the time of Henry II, when they become, in certain cases, a
matter of right and a part of the settled law of the land. From
this point on, the course of development is reasonably clear; the
obscure stage in the growth of the jury lies earlier, between the
close of the ninth century, when ' the deep darkness setties down '
over the Frankish empire and its law, and the assizes of Henry II.
Information concerning the law and institutions of this interven-
ing period must be sought mainly in the charters of the time, and
' Revised and expanded from A. E. R., viii. 613-640 (1903).
2 H. Brunner, Die Enisiehung der SchwurgericMe (Berlin, 1872). Brunner's re-
sults are accepted by Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 652 ff.; Pollock and Mait-
land, History of English Law, i. 138 ff.; J. B. Thayer, Development of Trial by Jury,
ch. ii; cf. W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, i. 145 f.; J. Hatschek, Englische
Verfassungsgeschichte (Munich, 19J3), p. 123 f. Valm, Ledtic deNormandie (igro),
pp. 194-220, uses Pollock and Maitland and a few new documents, but makes no
use of Brunner or of this chapter as first published in 1903. M. M. Bigelow, The
Old Jury, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xlix. 310-327 (1916),
deals with other questions. Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century,
pp. 6-8, emphasizes the Scandinavian element in the jury of presentment.
' Pollock and Maitland, i. 142.
196
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 1 97
it is upon their evidence that Brunner based his conclusions as to
the persistence of the Prankish system of inquest in Normandy.
Unfortunately this great historian of law was obliged to confine
his investigations to the materials available at Paris, and while
further research tends to confirm most of the iaferences which his
sound historic sense drew from the sources at his disposal, it also
shows the need of utilizing more fully the docxunents preserved in
Norman libraries and archives. For the jury, as for other aspects
of Norman institutions, these are not abundant, but they enable
us to determine some questions which Brunner raised and to
illustrate more fully the earlier stages in the development of recog-
nitions. The most important body of evidence, the cartulary of
Bayeux cathedral known as the Livre noir, is now accessible in
print,* though imfortunately in an edition marred by many inac-
curacies of transcription and defects in dating the docmnents, so
that its evidence can now be subjected to careful analysis and
verification.
* AntiqiMS Cartulanus Ecdesiae Baiocensis (Liwe noir), edited by V. Bourrienne,
(Sod6t6 de I'Histoire de Normandie, Rouen and Paris, 1902-1903). Through the
courtesy of the abb6 Deslandes I had ample opportunity to examine the MS. at
the cathedral in 1902 and again in 1905. A defective analysis of the cartulary was
published by Lfichaudfi d'Ardsy, M. A. N., viii. 435-454, and extracts from it are
in his papers at the Bibliotheque Nationale (MS. Lat. 10064) and in the transcripts
made by him for the English government and preserved at the Public Record Office
(' Cartulaire de la Basse Normandie,' i. 46-53). It would be hard to find anything
more careless and unintelligent than this portion of L6chaud6's copies, which form
the basis of the analyses in Round's Calendar (no. 1432 ff.). As a specimen may be
cited his account of nos. 34 to 42 of the cartulary: " Suivent neuf autres brefs du
mfime roi Henry 11 qui n'oEErent maintenant pas plus d'int&fit que les vingt-six
prfic&ientes." As a matter of fact only three of these documents emanate from
Henry II, three being of Henry I, one of Geoffrey, one of Robert, earl of Gloucester,
and one of Herbert Poisson; while three of the documents are of decided impor-
tance in relation to the Norman jury. Some use was made of the Liwe noir by
Stapleton in his edition of the Exchequer Rolls and by DeUsle in his essay on Nor-
man finance in the twelfth century (5. ^. C, x-xiii). Brunner used Delisle's copies,
from which he published numerous extracts in his Sckwurgerichte. Sixteen of the
documents of most importance for the history of the jury are printed from the Lon-
don copies by M. M. Bigelow in the appendix to his History of Procedure (London,
1880), nos. 40-55, but without any serious effort to determine questions of date and
authorship (cf. Brunner in Zeitschrift der SavignySHftung, Germ. Abt., ii. 207).
The other Bayeux cartularies preserved at Bayeux {Livre noir de I'SvlchS, MSS.
206-208) and Paris (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1828, 1925, 1926, the last two formerly at
Cheltenham) throw no further light on the jury.
198 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
One of the most interesting problems in the history of the jury
is to determine how and when the procedure by recognition
ceased to be an exclusive privilege of the king and became part of
the regular system of justice. This extension of the king's preroga-
tive procedure may have been made " bit by bit, now for this
class of cases and now for that," ^ but Brunner believes it can have
been accomplished only by a definite royal act or series of acts.*
The jurists refer to the recognition as a royal favor, an outgrowth
of equity, a relief to the poor, while the very name of assize by
which the recognition came to be known points to the royal ordi-
nance, or assize, by which it was introduced. The author of this
ordinance he considers to have been Henry II. The whole ma-
chinery of the various assizes appears in well developed form in the
treatise ascribed to GlanviU and written near the close of Henry's
reign, whereas none of them has been traced in England back of
1 164, when the assize utrum makes its appearance in the Constitu-
tions of Clarendon. A charter of King John seems to place the
introduction of recognitions in his father's reign, and one of
Henry's own writs refers to the grand assize as ' my assize.' The
English assizes cannot, then, be older than Henry's accession in
1 1 54; they may be somewhat yoimger. When we turn to Nor-
mandy, we find likewise a full-grown system of recognitions in
existence in the later years of the twelfth century, as attested by
the earliest Norman customal,the Tres Ancien Coutumier, and the
numerous references to recognitions contained in the Exchequer
Rolls of 1 180 and the following years.' Between these records and
GlanviU there is Uttle to choose in point of time, and priority
might be claimed for England or for Normandy with equal
inconclusiveness.
Brunner, however, discovered in the Bayeux cartulary three
docimients which not only antedate any mention of assizes so far
noted in English sources, but also, he maintained, afford clear
proof that the regular establishment of the procedure by recogni-
tion was the work of Henry II as duke of Normandy before he
° Pollock and Maitland, i. 144.
' Ch. xiv, " Die EinfUhrung des ordentlichen Recognitionsprocesses."
' Supra, Chapter V, note igo.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 1 99
ascended the EngKsh throne. One of these documents, issued in
the name of Henry as king and belonging to the year 1156, orders
William Fitz John to hold a recognition, by means of the ancient
men of Caen, with reference to the rights of the bishop of Bayeux
at Caen, and to do the bishop fuU right according to Henry's
assize (secundum assisam meam).^ The other two writs rim in the
name of a duke of Normandy and count of Anjou whose name is
left blank in the cartulary. One of them ' directs two of the duke's
justices to determine by recognition, secundum asisiam meam,
who was seized of certain fiefs in the time of Henry I; the other
commands another justice to hold recognition throughout his dis-
trict, secundum assisiam meam, concerning- the fiefs of the bishop
of Bayeux, and at the same time threatens one of the bishop's
tenants with such a recognition unless he gives up a knight's fee
wrongfully withheld from the bishop.*" While the author of the
second and third of these docimients (nos. 25 and 24) is not
named, the style of duke of Normandy and count of Anjou was
used only by Geoffrey Plantagenet and by Henry 11 between his
father's death in 1151 and his coronation as king in 1154." That
the duke in question was not Geoffrey, Brunner was led to main-
tain from the recurrence of the phrase assisa mea in the writ of
Henry relating to Caen; if ' my assize ' meant Henry's assize in
the one case, it must have meant his assize in the other.*^ Inas-
' Liwe noir, no. 27; Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 393, no. 48; La Rue,.
Essais historiques sur la vUle de Caen, i. 37s; Brunner, p. 302, no. i; Round, Calen-
dar, no. 1443; Delisle-Berger, no. 21. Brunner places the document between 1156
and 1159; the king's itmerary fixes it in October 1156. For the text and a fuller
discussion of this and the two other documents see below, pp. 209-214.
' Livre noir, no. 25; Bigelow, p. 393, no. 47; Brunner, p. 302, no. 2; Dellsle,
Henri II, p. 138, no. 6 ; not in Round.
" Livre noir, no. 2^; Bigelow, p. 392, no. 46; Brunner, p. 302, no. 3; Round, no.,
1439; Stapleton, Magni Rotuli, i, p. xxxiv; Delisle, p. 137, no. s-
" Henry received the duchy of Normandy from his father in 1150 and became
count of Anjou on his father's death, 7 September ri5i. His marriage with Eleanor
in May 1152 gave him the additional title of duke of Aquitaine, but he did not take
this style in his charters until 1153, so that its absence does not prove a doctmient
to be anterior to his marriage: seeDelisle, pp. 120-133. Nos. 24and2S,ifof Henry,
would fall between 1151 and 1153; Brunner places them between 1150 and 1152.
^ Schwurgerichle, p. 303 and note, where the silence of no. 39 in the Livre noir is
also urged. Brunner's conviction seems to have been fortified by the authority of
Delisle (see Zeitschrift der SamgnySlifUmg, Germ. Abt., ii. 207), although Delisle
200 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
much as the assize referred to is obviously a general ordinance
concerning the procedure by recognition, the introduction of this
form of procedure is to be ascribed to its author, the young duke
Henry II.
Such is the essence of Bruimer's argiunent, which hinges upon
two points: the meaning of the phrase assisa mea, and the author-
ship of the two anonymous writs, nos. 24 and 25. In the matter
of authorship Brunner, while confident of his interpretation — and
his confidence seems to have grown into certitude after the pub-
lication of the Entstekung^^ — stiU admitted that a final decision
was impossible before the rich treasures of the Livre noir should be
accessible in print. Now that the published cartulary lies before
us, it appears that while the editor follows Bnumer in ascribing "
the critical documents to Henry II, he brings no new evidence to
Kght; the name of the duke does not appear in the printed text.
Fortunately, however, a close examination of the manuscript of
the cartulary reveals something more. Those familiar with the
habits of mediaeval scribes are aware that when, as here, the
initial letter was left blank for the rubricator, it was usual to give
him some indication of the omitted letter by marking it lightly
in the blank space or on the margin." Now an attentive examina-
tion of the well thumbed margins of the Livre noir shows that the
initial was clearly indicated in a contemporary hand, and that not
only in nos. 24 and 25 but in ten other documents left anonymous
in the edition '* the initial is G. The author of the writs in ques-
had formerly assigned no. 24 to Geoffrey (B. £. C, x. 260, note 2) and in his last
work {Henri II, p. 137 f .) comes out decisively for Geoffrey's authorship. Round,
who does not calendar no. 25, ascribes no. 24 to Geoffrey {Calendar, no. 1439).
" In 1896 in a review of Pollock and Maitland he says: " Nach Lage der Urkun-
den des Liber niger capituli Baiocensis ist es zweifeUos, dass die Einfuhrung der
Recognitionen in der Normandie 1150-1152 stattfand." Zeilschrift der Savigny-
Stiftung, Germ. Abt., xvii. 128. Cf. ibid., ii. 207; Holtzendorff, EncydopMie der
Rechtswissenschaft, edition of 1890, p. 325; Political Science Quarterly, xi. 537;
Brunner, GeschicMe der engUschev Rechtsquellen (1909), p. 65.
" Where they have often been cut off in binding.
" Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 39, 43, 44, 89, 90, 100. Throughout the cartulary the
initial letter of charters is again and again indicated in this way, only in most of the
other cases the rest of the first word was written out in the text, so that the missing
letter could readily be supplied without recovirse to the margin. The charters of
Henry II regularly (no, 436 seems to be the only exception) have somethmg more
TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 20I
tion was accordingly not Henry, but his father Geoffrey. ' My
assize ' was Geoffrey's assize io the first instance, even if the ex-
pression was later adopted by Henry; and if Brunner's contention
is sound as to the conclusion to be drawn from the phrase, it was
Geoffrey Plantagenet who first established the recognition as a
regular form of procedure in Normandy. In continuing the em-
ployment of this procedure in Normandy and in extending it to
England Henry II was simply carrying out the policy begim by
his father. This conclusion necessarily follows if we accept Brun-
ner's premises, but one of them, the phrase assisa mea, requires
further investigation. Before undertaking, however, to analyze
in detail the writs in which this expression is found, it is necessary
to place them in their proper setting by tracing the history of the
htigation concerning the rights and possessions of the bishop of
Bayeux and by examining, as carefully as the material at hand
permits, the procedure employed in the bishop's behalf.
The see of Bayeiix, which had occupied a position of wealth
and importance in the eleventh century, especially in the days of
Bishop Odo, the famous half-brother of WilHam the Conqueror,
suffered serious losses from the weakness and neglect of Odo's
immediate successors, Thorold and Richard Fitz Samson.'* After
Richard's death in Easter week, 1133,'' "in order that the church
of the duke's name than the initial. In all the charters of Geoffrey, as well as in
many others, there is also a marginal ' sic ' in what appears to be a somewhat later
hand, evidently that of a mediaeval collator. In the Livre rouge (MS. Lat. n. a. 1828,
f. 154) no. 17 of the Liwe noir likewise appears with the initial G indicated, this
time in the blank space itself.
M. Henri Omont, head of the department of manuscripts of the Bibliotheque
Nationale, who happened to visit the chapter library just as I had finished examin-
ing the manuscript of the Liwe noir in August 1902, had the kindness to verity my
reading of the marginal initials. So now Delisle, Henri II, p. 137, supplemented
by Berger, i. 3. In the corrections at the end of the second volume of his edition
(1903) Bourrienne ascribes nos. 16-19, 24, 25, 89, and 90 to Geoffrey, but without
giving any reason for changing his opinion and without referring to the marginal
initials, to which the archivist had called his attention after my visit. The same
silence is observed in his articles in the Reime catholique, xix (1909) , in which con-
siderable use is made of the article inA.H. JR., viii. Valin, p. 209 f ., overlooks these
corrections as well as my readings.
'* On the history of the possessions of the see cf . Bourrienne's introduction to his
edition of the Livre noir, p. zxziii ff.; and his articles on Phihp d'Harcourt in the
Revue catholique, xix ff. " Ordericus Vitalis, v. 31,
202 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
of Bayeux might not be utterly ruined," Henry I ordered an in-
quest to be held, on the oath of ancient men who knew the facts,
to ascertain the holdings of the church as they had existed in
Odo's time, with respect both to the demesne and to the fiefs of
knights, vavassors, and rustics. Accordingly "all these were
sworn and recognized and by the king's command restored to the
said church," which was confirmed in its possessions by a royal
charter. 18 -phe writ directing this inquest, the record of the returns
from the bishop's demesne," and the confirmatory charter are
referred to in documents of Geoffrey and Henry II, but they have
not come down to us. Fortunately, however, the returns of the
inquest relating to military tenures have been preserved and give
an idea of the procedure employed. The recognition was held
before the king's son, Robert, earl of Gloucester, sent to Bayeux
for this purpose immediately after the death of Bishop Richard.
Twelve '"' men were chosen, and sworn to tell the truth concerning
the fiefs and services ; and their returns, besides stating the mihtary
obligations of the bishop and the customary reliefs and aids due
Mm, cover in detail the holdings and services of his knights and
vavassors, beginning with the principal tenant. Earl Robert him-
self, whose statement is incorporated verbally into their report.^^
1' ' Ne f unditus ecclesia predicta destrueretur, provide Henricus rex, avus meus,
instituit ut iutamento antiquorum hominum qui rem norant recognoscerentur
tenedure iam dicte ecclesie sicut f uerant in tempore predict! Odonis, tam in domini-
cis quam in feodis militum, vavassorum, et rusticorum. Ipsius equidem tempore hec
omnia iurata simt et recognita et sepe dicte ecclesie precepto eius resignata et
munimine carthe sue, quocumquemodo a possessione ecclesie alienataessent.reddita
sunt et confinnata.' Writ of Henry II, Livre noir, no. 14; Brunner, p. 264; Bige-
low, p. 389; Delisle-Berger, no. 33*- The inquest of Heniy I is also mentioned
in a bull of Lucius II (Livre noir, no. 206) and in a later writ of Henry II {Und., no.
32). The date is fixed by a document of Geoffrey {ibid., no. 39): 'post mortem
Ricardi episcopi, filii Sansonis.'
" ' Recognitum est sicut continebatur in scripto quod factum fuerat secundum
iuramentum quod rex Henricus antea fieri preceperat.' Livre noir, no. 39; Bigelow,
p. 395. That this scriptum was not the same as the carta seems probable from the
different word used and from the preservation of a separate record of the military
tenures.
*» Only eleven are given in the returns, but twelve are named in the Red Book
of the Exchequer, the name of Helto the constable having been omitted from the
Bayeux text.
^ The document was first published by Lfichaudfi from a private copy (now MS.
Lat. 10064, f. 3) made from a register formerly in the episcopal archives: M. A. N.,
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 203
How much was accomplished by these proceedings toward the
recovery of the bishop's rights, we have no means of knowing.
That they were for a time more carefully observed may perhaps be
inferred from the fact that the profits of the see would naturally
fall to the king during the interval of two years which elapsed
before Henry's nominee to the vacant see could be consecrated,^^
and that during this period the king remained in Normandy.^'
However, the new bishop, Richard of Kent, was a son of Robert,
earl of Gloucester, and in the stormy times that followed the see
seems to have been at the mercy of his father, who soon succeeded
in usurping the greater part of its property.^* The reestablish-
ment of the bishop's fortunes was the work of Richard's succes-
sor, Philip d'Harcourt, bishop from 1142 to 1163, within whose
episcopate the evidence of value for the early history of the Nor-
man jury is chiefly found. ' Wise in the wisdom of this world
which is foolishness with God,' as the contemporary abbot of
Mont-Saint-Michel describes him,^^ Philip seems to have begun
his arduous struggle for the recovery of his possessions imme-
diately upon his accession, and to have sought from the beginning
the support of the papacy. When his sentences of excommunica-
tion proved ineffective in spite of papal sanctions,^^ he made in
1 144 the first of a nimiber of journeys to Rome," and 16 May of
viii. 425-431 ; also in Eeziers, Mimoires pour servir d I'Hat historique et gSographique
du diocese de Bayeux, i. 142; and in H. F., xxiii. 699-702, which furnishes the best
text. These returns are abo found in L6chaud6's copies in the PubUc Record Office
(' Cartulaire de la Basse Normandie,' i. 53), but are not mentioned in Round's
Calendar. Upon them is based the summary of services due from the bishop of
Bayeux contained in the Red Book of the Exchequer (ed. HaU, pp. 645-647; E. F.,
xxiii. 699). On the importance of these returns for feudal tenure, see Chapter I,
supra.
^ Ordericus, v. 31, 45. ^ See Appendix G. " Livre noir, no. 190.
2* Robert of Torigni, i. 344. Cf . also H. F., xiv. 503 ; and the Epistolae of Amulf
of Lisieux (Migne, cci) , no. 6. The various possessions recovered by Philip's efforts
are enumerated in a bull of Eugene III of 3 February 1153, Livre noir, no. 156.
^^ BuU of Innocent II, 18 June 1143 (probably), ibid., no. 195; bull of Celestine
II, 9 January 1144, ibid., no. 179.
" He appears in the Pope's presence three times under Eugene III, in 1145
{ibid., no. 173), in 1146 {ibid., no. 207), and in 1153 {ibid., no. 200). His presence
at Rome when the bulls were obtained from Lucius II is also attested by a bull of
IS May, in which he appears as a witness: Martfine and Durand, Thesaurus, iii.
S87; Jaflfe-Lowenfeld, Regesta, no. 8609,
204 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
that year obtained from Pope Lucius 11 three important bulls
which mark a turn in the fortunes of the church of Bayeux. One,
addressed to Philip himself, emunerated and confirmed the
ancient privileges and possessions of the see.^' The second com-
manded the clergy and people of the diocese to render due
obedience to the bishop, and, after annulling all grants and sales
of church property made since the time of Bishop Odo, ordered
its restitution to the church of Bayeux on the tenure by which it
should be proved, on the oath of lawful witnesses, to have been
held in Odo's time.''' The third bull was addressed to Geoffrey,
count of Anjou, who had just succeeded in making himself master
of Normandy, and directed him to cause the possessions of the see
of Bayeux to be declared by the sworn statement of lawful men
of the region, in the same manner as they had been recognized in
the time of his father-in-law, Henry I.^" These bulls were re-
issued in March 1145'^ by the successor of Lucius, Eugene III,
who also rebuked the encroachments of various monasteries and
individuals upon the rights of the bishop j'^ but from this point on
we need concern ourselves no longer with the acts of the popes,
but can turn our attention to the machinery of secular justice
which they seem to have set in motion.
For a study of the recognitions held> concerning the lands of the
bishop of Bayeux imder Duke Geoffrey the evidence in the Liwe
noir consists of ten documents emanating from Geoffrey or his
justices,^' and a number of references to these and to others made
in documents of Henry 11.'^ The inquests to which these writs
'* Livre noir, no. 154.
''' Ibid., no. 157; Jafffi-Lowenfeld, no. 8612.
"> Liwe noir, no. 206.
" Only the reissues of the first two have come down to us {ibid., nos. 155, 173),
but it is implied in no. 39 that the bull to Geoffrey was likewise repeated.
'2 Ibid., nos. 190, 159 (the Pope's itinerary makes it clear that these are of
1145); 186, 199 (these two may be of either 1145 or 1146); 198 (clearly of 1146);
191 (of 1 147 — cf. the Pope's itinerary and no. 41); and 192.
" Nos. 16, 17, 19, 24, 25, 39, 43, 44, 89, 90. Bigelow, History of Procedure,
p. 390 £f., nos. 43-47, 51-55- Cf . Brunner, Schwurgerichte, pp. 265 ff., 302. The first
letter of each of these is in blank in the cartulary, but in every case G appears,
on the margin.
" Nos. 9, 12, 14, 32, 36; Delisle-Berger, nos. 33*, 13, 14, 72, 228. Of these only
nos. 14 and 32 of the Liwe noir are in Bigelow (nos. 42 and 49).
TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 205
and charters relate are of course subsequent to the conquest of
Normandy by Geoffrey in 1 144 and anterior to his relinquishment
of the duchy to his son Henry in 1150,^^ and it is altogether likely
that they fall after the bulls of Eugene III of March 1145.='' The
documents are issued at various places — Rouen, Le Mans,
Bayeux — and witnessed by various of the duke's followers, but
none of them are dated, and our knowledge of the itineraries of
Geoffrey and his justices is not sufl&cient to permit of drawing
close chronological limits. It is, however, probable that the proc-
ess of recovering the bishop's possessions began soon after the
papal bulls were received, and there is some reason for placing at
least two of the docimients before the summer of 1147.'' Clearly
the material which has reached us from these inquests is only a
portion of what once existed, but it illustrates the different stages
in the process of recognition and gives a fair idea of the procedure
employed. Apart from the general order to try by sworn inquest
all disputes which might arise concerning the bishop's fiefs,'* a
document to which we shall return later, the duke must have pro-
vided for a general recognition of the rights and possessions of the
see, similar to the one which had been held under Henry I and to
that which was afterward ordered by Henry II.'' This was
" For these dates see Chapter IV, supra.
" 'Predictorum patnim nostrorum Lucii pape et Eugenii litteris commoniti':
Liwe noir, no. 39.
" Galeran, count of Meulan, who appears as witness in no. 16 and as the justice
who makes the return in no. 89, took the cross at Vfeelay in 1146 and followed
Louis Vn on the second crusade (Robert of Torigni, i. 241 ; Chronicon Valassense,
ed. Sommfinil, Rouen, 1868, pp. 7-9), so that he was away from Normandy from
the summer of 1147 until 1149 or thereabouts. The bulls of Eugene III and other
documents in the Liwe noir indicate that the active period in the recovery of the
bishop's rights Ues between 1145 and 1147. See nos. 159, 189, 190, 199, 186, 207,
198, 191, r92 for the papal bulls, and for the other documents nos. 41, 52, 100-104.
C. Port, in his Dictionnaire historique de Maine-et-Loire, ii. 255, says that Geof-
frey himself went on the crusade in 1147, but I have found no authority for the
statement. Geoffrey issued a charter for Mortemer at Rouen, 11 October 1147,
whereas the crusaders started in June: Bulletin de la SociiU des Antiquaires de
Normandie, xiii. 115, no. 2; Round, Calendar, no. 1405; supra, p. 134.
" Liwe noir, no. 16.
" The order of Geoffrey for a general recognition has not been preserved, but
is clearly presupposed in his charter describing the results of the inquests (no.
39) and in the similar order of Henry II (no. 14).
206 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
supplemented, at least in some cases, by special writs issued to
individual justices and relating to particular estates.*" After
holding the local inquest each justice made a written return
to the duke,*' and the results were finally embodied in ducal
charters.*''
The course of procedure can be followed most clearly in the
various documents relating to the rights of the bishop of Bayeux
in the banlieue of Cambremer, a privileged portion of an enclave
of his diocese lying within the limits of the diocese of Lisieux.*'
The duke issued a writ to Reginald of Saint-Valery, Robert de
Neufbourg, and aU his justices of Normandy, ordering them to
hold a recognition on the oath of good men of the vicinage con-
cerning the limits of the banlieue, its customs, forfeitures, and
warren, and to put Bishop PhiKp in such possession of them as his
predecessors had enjoyed imder WiUiam the Conqueror and
Henry I." The inquest was held by the duke's justices, Robert
de Neufbourg and Robert de Courcy, in the church of Saint-
Gervais at Falaise. The jurors were chosen from the old and
lawful men residing within the district in question, some of
whom had been ofi&cers {servientes) of the banlieue in the time of
King Henry, and care was taken to svimmon a larger nimiber than
the justices ordinarily called, eighteen *^ in all, and to see that
they represented the lands of different barons. On the basis of
what they had heard and seen and knew the recognitors swore to
the boundaries of the banlieue and to the bishop's toUs, fines,
warren, and rights of justice. The justices then drew up returns
addressed to the duke, stating the verdict found and the names of
the jurors,** and on the basis of these the duke issued a charter
*" Nos. 17, 24, 25. Similar writs are presupposed in nos. 89 and 90 and in no. 36.
« Nos. 43, 44, 89, 90.
^2 Nos. 39 (cf. nos. 9, 12, 32), 19 (cf. 18); reference to such a charter in no. 36.
^ On the banlieue (leugata) in Normandy see supra, p. 49. On the enclave of
Cambremer, B^ziers, M6moires sur le diocese de Bayeux, i. 28, iii. 152.
" Liwe noir, no. 17; Liwe rouge, no. 401.
*' Eighteen, according to the return of Robert de Neufbourg, but only seventeen
names appear in the lists.
^« Nos. 43, 44 (cf. 32). There are some differences in the two returns: Bour-
rienne, in Reime cathoUque, xix. 269 f . Each of these returns is in the name of both
justices, but in one case the name of Robert de Neutbouig, and in the other that of
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 20J
embodying the results of the recognition.*' The inquest concern-
ing the other manors of the bishop was held in the choir of the
cathedral at Bayeux by Richard de la Haie, Robert de Neufbourg,
Robert de Courcy, and Enjuger de Bohun, specially deputed by
the duke for this purpose. The evidence of the recognitors, com-
prising several ancient and lawful men from each manor, was
found to be in entire agreement with the written returns of the
inquest held under Henry I, and a statement to this effect was
embodied in a charter of the duke, which further specified as
belonging to the bishop's demesne the estates of Carcagny and
Vouilly, the fosse of Luchon, and " the Marsh and its herbage,
including the reeds and rushes."*' A special charter was also
issued for Carcagny and Vouilly.*' The bishop's forests were like-
wise the object of an inquest, but the writ and charter issued in
this case, though cited by Henry H,^" have not come down to us.
It win be observed that all the documents so far examined re-
late to the bishop's demesne, and that, while the preservation of a
larger body of material from Geoffrey's time enables us to see
more clearly the different stages in the process of recognition,
there is no indication that the procedure differs in any way from
the practice of Henry I's reign, which it professes to foUow. In-
deed, so long as the subject-matter of the inquest is the bishop's
demesne, it is not likely that there will be much advance in the
direction of the trial jury; except that the rights in question are
claimed for the bishop instead of for the king or duke, such recog-
nitions as have been described show no significant difference from
a fiscal inquest, such, for example, as the Domesday survey. The
application of the inquest to the feudal possessions of the bishop,
Robert de Courcy appears first. Brunner (p. 266) suggests the natural explanation
that in each case the document was drawn up by the justice whose name appears
first. The similar reports of the recognition in regard to Cheffreville (nos. 89, 90)
are made by the justices individually.
*' No. 39, where the facts with regard to Cambremer are set forth at length along
with the returns from other domains, the two justices appearing among the witnesses.
References to this recognition are also made in nos. 9, 12, 32, and> 156.
*8 No. 39, end.
*' No. 19; Brunner, p. 268. Cf. also the notification in no. 18 of the quitclaim
of the fosse of Luchon.
«» No. 36; Ddiale-Beiger, no. 14.
208 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
on the other hand, brings us a step nearer the later assizes. There
is, it is true, no distinction in principle between recognizing the
bishop's demesne and recognizing his fiefs; but inasmuch as dis-
putes between lord and tenant constitute a large proportion of the
cases arising under the later assizes, the submission of any such
controversy to the sworn verdict of neighbors is a movement
away from the inquest that is primarily fiscal, and toward the
general application of the inquest to suits concerning tenure.
Whether Geoffrey also imitated the example of Henry I in order-
ing a general inquest with regard to the fiefs of the bishop does not
clearly appear. Henry H indicates that such was the case," and
an extant writ directs one of the duke's justices to have the
bishop's fief in his district recognized,'" but no set of returns for
the fiefs has been preserved, and the compiler of the list of the
bishop's tenants in the Red Book of the Exchequer went back to the
returns of the inquest of Henry I.^' There is, however, another
writ of Geoffrey relating to the bishop's fiefs which deserves care-
ful attention. It is addressed to all his barons, justices, bailiffs,
and other faithful subjects in Normandy, and provides that " if
a dispute shall arise between the bishop and any of his men con-
cerning any tenement, it shall be recognized by the oath of lawful
men of the vicinage who was seized of the land in Bishop Odo's
time, whether it was the bishop or the other claimant; and the
verdict thus declared shall be firmly observed unless the tenant
can show, in the duke's court or the bishop's, that the tenement
came to him subsequently by inheritance or lawful gift."" Here
" Livre noir, no. 14. '' Ibid., no. 24.
'^ Pp. 645-647; H. P., xxiii. 699.
" ' Yolo et predpio quod si de aliqua tenedura orta fuerit contentio inter episco-
pum et aliquem de suis homrnibus, per iuramentum legitimonim hominum vidnie
in qua hoc fuerit sit recognitum quis saisitus inerat tempore Odonis episcopi, vel ipse
episcopus vel ille cum quo erit contentio; et quod inde recognitum fuerit firmiter
teneatur, nisi ille qui tenet poterit ostendere quod tenedura ilia in manus suas postea
venerit iure hereditario aut tali donatione que iuste debeat stare, et hoc in curia
episcopi vel in mea.' Livre noir, no. 16; Bigelow, p. 390, no. 43; Brunner, p. 265.
It is also provided that no officer shall enter upon the bishop's lands, for judicial or
other purposes, except in accordance with the practice of King Henry's time. The
writ is witnessed at Rouen by the count of Meulan, so that it must be anterior to
the summer of 1147 or, what is much less likely, subsequent to his return from the
East in 1149 or thereabouts.
TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 209
we have something new, so far as existing sources of infonnation
permit us to judge. Instead of a general inquest to be held once
for aU by the king's officers to ascertain the tenure of the bishop's
fiefs, the writ in question confers a continuing privilege — in any
controversy that may arise between the bishop and any of his
men the procedure by sworn inquest shall be applied. The remedy
is designed for the benefit of the bishop, not of his tenants; no
attempt is made to deprive the bishop of his court or extend the
competence of the court of the duke; but the establishment of the
principle that, not merely in this case or in that case, but in any
case between the bishop and one of his tenants the oath of lawful
neighbors shall decide, is a considerable advance in the extension
of the dtike's prerogative procedure to his subjects.**
It is in the light of this document that we should read the two
writs of Geoffrey which make mention of the duke's assize. As
they were both witnessed at Le Mans by Payne de Clairvaux**
and appear together in the cartulary, it is probable that they were
issued about the same time. One of them, resembling the later
Praecipe quod reddat, is directed to Enjuger de Bohun, this time
not as one of the king's justices but as in wrongful possession of
two fiefs of the bishop of Bayeux at VierviUe and Montmartin.
He is ordered to relinquish these to the bishop and to refrain from
further encroachments; unless the fiefs are given up, Geoffrey's
justice Richard de la Haie is directed to determine by recognition,
in accordance with the duke's assize, the tenure of the fief in King
Henry's time and to secure the bishop in the possession of the
rights thus found to belong to him. The writ adds: " I likewise
command you, Richard de la Haie, throughout your district *^ to
^ In such cases, too, the writ could be issued in the duke's name without the
necessity of his initiative in every case.
" An Angevin knight, who was one of Geoffrey's favorite companions (Halphen
and Poupardin, Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, pp. 178, 207) and frequently ap-
pears as a witness to his charters, e. g., Roimd, Calendar, no. 1394; MSS. Dom
Housseau in the Bibliotheque Nationale, iv, nos. 1503, 1567, 1387, 1614; Delisle,
Henri II, p. 410.
" The proof that Geoffrey is the author of this writ is of importance in connec-
tion with this passage because of its bearing upon the date of the institution of
bailiae in Normandy. For the discussion on this point see Stapleton, i, p. xxriv;
Delisle in B. £, C, x. 260; Brunner, p. 157; supra, Oiapter IV, note 117.
2IO NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
have the bishop's fief recognized according to my assize and to see
that he possesses it in peace as it shall be recognized according to
my assize."^ The other writ is addressed by Geoffrey to his jus-
tices Guy de Sable and Robert de Courcy, and directs them to
ascertain by recognition, according to his assize, who was seized
of the fief and service of William Bersic in King Henry's time, and
if it is recognized that the bishop of Bayeux was then seized
thereof, to secure his peaceful possession. They are also com-
manded to determine by recognition, according to the duke's
assize, who was seized of the land of Cramesnil and Rocquancourt
in Henry's time, and if it be recognized that Vauquelin de Cour-
seulles was then seized of it, to secure him in peaceful possession
and prohibit Robert Fitz Emeis and his men from doing him injury,
at the same time compelling them to restore anything they may
have taken from the estate since the duke issued his precept in
relation thereto.''
" ' G. dux Normannorum et comes Andegavie E[ngengero] de Buhvin salutem.
Mando tibi et precipio quod dimittas episcopo Baiocensi in pace feudum militis
quod Robertas Marinus de ipso tenebat Wirenille et feudum suum quod Willelmus
de Moiun de ipso apud Mmunartin tenere debet, quod hue usque iniuste occupasti;
quod nisi feceris, precipio quod iusticia mea R[icardus] de Haia secundum assisiam
meam recognosci faciat predictimi feodum episcopi quomodo antecessores sui
tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici, et sicut recognitum fuerit ita episcopum in pace
tenere faciat. Et te, Engengere, precor ne de aliquo iniuste fatiges episcopum, quia
ego non paterer quod de iure suo aliquid iniuste perderet. Tibi etiam, Ricarde
Lahaia, precipio quod per totam bailiam tuam, secundum assisiam meam, recog-
nosci facias feudimi episcopi Baiocensis, et ipsum in pace tenere sicut recognitum
fuerit secundum assisiam meam. Teste Pag[ano] de Clar[is] Vallpbus], apud Ceno-
manos.' iinre woir, no. 24; Stapleton, i, p. xxxiv; Brunner, pp. 80, 302 ; Bigelow,
p. 392, no. 46; Round, Calendar, no. 1439.
'' ' G. dux Norm[annorum] et comes Andegavie G[uidoni] de Sableio et R[oberto]
de Curc[eio] iusticiis suis salutem. Mando vobis quod sine mora recognosci fadatis,
secundum asisiam meam, de feodo Guillelmi Bersic et de servicio eiusdem quis inde
saisitus erat tempore regis Henrid; et si recognitum fuerit quod episcopus Baiocensis
inde saisitus esset vivente rege Henrico, ei habere et tenere in pace f aciatis. Preterea
vobis mando quod recognosd faciatis, secundum asisiam meam, de terra de Cras-
mesnil et de Rochencort quis inde saisitus erat tempore regis Henrici; et si recog-
nitimi fuerit quod Gauquelinus de Corceliis inde saisitus esset eo tempore, ei in pace
tenere faciatis et prohibete Roberto filio Emeis ne aliquid ei forifaciat neque sui
homines; et si Robertus filius Emeis sive sui homines aliquid inde ceperint, post-
quam precepi in Epipphania Domini quod terra esset in pace donee iuraretur cuius
deberet esse, reddere faciatis. Teste P[agano] de Clar[is] Vallpbus], apud Ceno-
manos.' LivrenoW, no. 2$; Brunner, p. 302; Bigelow,p. 393, no. 47; not in Round.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 211
If we compare these writs with the only other special writ of
Geoffrey in the Livre noir, that directing the recognition concern-
ing the banlieue of Cambremer,*" we find the essential difference
to be that whereas in the case of Cambremer it is expressly pro-
Added that the facts shall be ascertained by the oath of good men
of the vicinage (faciatis recognosci per sacramentum proborum
hominum de ■uicinio), in the two other writs no statement is made
regarding the procedure except that the facts are to be found
according to the duke's assize (recognosci faciatis secundum
asisiam meavi). The same difference appears in the writs of
Henry II for Bayeux; indeed, in a single doctunent provision is
made for the determination of one question by the verdict of
ancient men, and of others in accordance with the assize." The
absence from the cartulary of any returns from the justices who
were instructed to proceed in accordance with the assize precludes
our comparing the procedure; the analogy of the practice in re-
gard to the bishop's demesne and in the matter of his feudal
rights at Cheffreville ^^ leads us to look for the sworn inquest of
neighbors in these cases as well. The word ' assize,' as Littleton
long ago pointed out,'' is an ambiguous term. It seems to have
meant originally a judicial or legislative assembly, from which it
was extended to the results of the deliberations of such an assem-
bly, whether in the form of statute or of judgment, and was then
carried over from the royal or ducal assizes which established the
procedure by recognition to that form of procedure itself.** In
the writs in question ' my assize ' may refer to an ordinance of
Geoffrey regulating procedure, it may denote the procedure so
» No. 17.
'^ No. 27; Delisle-Berger, no. 21.
^ Nos. 89 and go (Bigelow, pp. 398, 399, nos. 54, 55; Brunner,p. 269, ascribing
them to Henry 11), the returns made by the duke's justices, Galeran of Meulan and
Reginald of Saint- Valery, of an inquest held in regard to the respective rights of the
bishops of Bayeux and Lisieux at Cheffreville. The bull of Eugene III (no. 156)
which enumerates the possessions recovered by Philip d'Harcourt mentions the
recovery of fiefs at Ducy and LouviJres by judgment of Geoffrey's coiu-t, but noth-
ing is said of the procedure and none of the documents are preserved.
"^ Tenures, c. 234.
" Brunner, p. 299. Cf. Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 614; Murray's Dic-
tionary, s. 11.
212 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
established, or it may conceivably mean only the prerogative pro-
cedure of the duke — his not in the sense of origination but of
exclusive possession. Brunner's contention, that the phrase can
refer only to an ordinance by which a particular sovereign intro-
duced the procedure by recognition as a regular remedy through-
out Normandy, involves a number of assimiptions which need
proof. Even if it be admitted that the assize here mentioned was a
ducal ordinance, the use of the same expression by Geoffrey and
Henry 11 stands in the way of ascribing the exclusive credit for
the act to either of these rulers, while it is still unnecessary to
assume that the supposed ordinance covered the whole duchy.
There is nothing in either of the writs which goes beyond the
sphere of the bishop's interests,^^ and unless new evidence can be
brought forward for other parts of Normandy, we have no right
to conclude that the supposed ordinance affected any one except
the bishop of Bayeux. Now we have just such a special privilege
for the bishop in the writ providing for the use of the sworn in-
quest in disputes between the bishop and his men concerning any
tenement.*^ This covers exactly the sort of cases which appear in
the two special writs that mention the duke's assize, and may well
be the assize to which they refer.*' So far the hypothesis that the
general writ preserved in the cartulary is the much-discussed
assize of Geoffrey seems to meet the conditions of the case, but
it is subject to modification when we examine the documents in
which the word assize appears under Henry 11.
*' It is not specifically stated in no. 25 that Cramesnil and Rocquancourt were
fiefs of the bishop, but we know from other sources that Cramesnil was, and they
were evidently connected. See the inquest of Henry I (M. A. N., viii. 427; H. F.,
xxiii. 700; Bfoiers, Memoires, i. 144); also B£ziers, i. 153; and C. Hippeau, Dk-
iionnaire topographique du Calvados, p. 90.
«« No. 16.
" There is, it is true, a discrepancy in the periods set as the basis of the recogni-
tion; in no. 16 the lands are to be held as in Bishop Odo's time, while in nos. 24 and
25 the tenure of Henry I's time is to be established. The difference is, however, of
no special importance; the documents in the cartulary do not appear to make any
sharp distinction between the two periods, and the writs may well have varied ac-
cording to circumstances. The returns concerning the feudal rights at Cheffreville
(nos. 89, 90) go back to the tenure of Henry's time, those relating to Cambremer
mention both his and Odo's, while in the latter portion of no. 16 the practice of
Henry's time is to be observed in regard to the immunity of the bishop's lands.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 213
For the reign of Henry II the Livre noir yields much less than
for that of Geoffrey, under whom the bishop would seem to have
succeeded in regaining the larger part of his lands and privileges.
The use of the sworn inquest continues — indeed Henry was
compelled to employ it repeatedly for the recovery of his own
ducal rights, which had suffered severely during the anarchy
imder Stephen,*^ so that we hear of inquests held in the early
years of his reign to ascertain the duke's demesne and customs at
Bayeux *' and in the Bessin." On behalf of the bishop of Bayetix
Henry issued not later than 1153 a general precept, which, after
reciting the proceedings imder Henry I and Geoffrey, directed the
recognition of the bishop's demesne, fiefs, Uberties, and customs by
the oath of ancient and lawful men acquainted with the facts, as
they had been sworn to in the time of his father and grandfather.'^
In 1 1 56 a similar writ was issued with reference to the bishop's
forests,'" and while no new recognition seems to have been held
for the banlieue of Cambremer, the justices were repeatedly in-
structed to secure the observance of the bishop's rights there as
defined in Geoffrey's timeJ' The bishop's multure at Bayeux
and his rights in the ducal forests of the Bessin were likewise the
object of a recognition in 1156,'* and still other inquests related
to his rights at Isigny and Neuilly '^ and his possessions at Caen.
The only matter deserving special remark among these various
inquests is foxmd in the writ of 11 56 touching the rights at Caen,
which, like the others, is addressed to the chief local officer,
William Fitz John, and runs as follows: " I command you to
have recognized by ancient men of Caen from how many and
which houses in Caen the bishops of Bayeux were wont to have
«8 Cf. Robert of Torigni, i. 284.
" Livre noir, nos. 13, 138; Delisle-Berger, nos. 68*, 76*; M. A. N., vii. 179.
"• Liwe noir, no. 35; Delisle-Berger, no. 38.
" Livre noir, no. 14; Bigelow, p. 389, no. 42; Brunner, p. 268; Delisle-Berger,
no. 33*.
'" Livre noir, no. 36; Delisle-Berger, no. 14.
" Livre noir, nos. 9, 12, 32; Delisle-Berger, nos. 13, 72, 228.
" Livre noir, nos. 28, 35; Delisle-Berger, nos. 22, 38. Cf. Chapter V, note 19,
supra.
'' Livre noir, no. 46 (also in Livre rouge, no. 46), subsequent to the accession
of Bishop Henry in 1165.
214 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
rent and profits in the time of King Henry, my grandfather, and
what services and customs they had from them. And you shall
cause Philip, bishop of Bayeux, to possess the houses fully and
justly and in peace according as the recognition shall determine.
And you shall do him full right, according to my assize, in respect
to the land where the bishop's bams used to stand, and full right
in respect to the arable land by the water, according to my assize,
and full right in respect to the tithes of woolens at Caen, accord-
ing to my assize." '* Here we have again, and three times, the
puzzling words secundum assisam meam, and Brunner drew from
them the conclusion that Henry was the creator of recognitions
in Normandy." The phrase is not found in the writ which seems
to have been issued at the same time for the recognition of the
bishop's multure and his rights in the forests of the Bessin, where,
however, there is the difference that the rights in question
touched the king's own privileges and were recognized by the
Jurors specially appointed to swear to Henry's customs and
demesne in the Bessin.'* No other Bayeux document referring to
the duke's assize has been found, and there is nothing in this one
to show that the assize included anything outside of the bishop's
possessions or involved any method of procedure different from
" the oath of old and lawful men who know the facts," as pre-
scribed in the general order for the recognition of the bishop's
" ' Henricus rex Anglie et dux Normannie et Aquitanie et comes Andegavie Wil-
lelmo filio lohaiinis salutem. Precipio tibi quod facias recognosci, per antiques
homines Cadomi, quot et quarimi domonmi in Cadomo episcopi Baiocenses solebant
habere censum et redditus tempore Henrici regis avi mei, et que servicia et quales
consuetudines inde tunc habebant; et sicut fuerit (MS. fuerat) recognitum, ita in
pace et iuste et integre eas facias habere Philippo episcopo Baiocensi. Et plenum
rectum ei facias de terra ubi grangee episcopi esse solebant (MS. esse bis) , secundum
assisam meam; et plenum rectum ei facias de terra arabili que est iuxta aquam,
secundum assisam meam; et plenum rectum ei facias de decimis (blank in MS.)
et lanifeciorum de Cadomo, secundum assisam meam. Et nisi f eceris, Robertus de
Novo Burgo faciat. Teste Toma cancellario apud Lemovicas.' Litre noir, no.
27; La Rue, Essais historigues sur la mile de Caen, i. 37s; Bigelow, p. 393, no.
48; Brunner, p. 302; Round, no. 1443 (incomplete); Delisle-Berger, no. 21.
" Schwurgerichte, p. 303.
" Writ in Livre noir, no. 28; returns, ibid., no. 33: ' per sacramenta iuratorum
qui sunt constituti ad iurandas consuetudines meas et dominica mea de Baiocensi.'
Delisle-Berget, nos, 2s, 38-
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 21 5
rights which was issued by Henry before he became king7' This
general precept may not be the assize in question, but it certainly
covers the ground of the special writ for Caen, and we are not
obliged to infer that anything broader was meant by Henry's use
of the term assize. Whether he also issued a general writ similar
to that of Geoffrey providing for the regular use of the sworn
inquest in suits between the bishop and his tenants, it is impos-
sible to say. No such document has been preserved, nor do any
of the documents of Henry's time in the Lime noir relate to cases
where the fiefs of the bishop are concerned.
Taken in themselves and interpreted in their relations to the
other Bayeux dociunents, the three writs which contain the
phrase secundum assisiam meam do not demonstrate Brimner's
thesis that a system of recognitions was created throughout Nor-
mandy by a ducal ordinance, whether of Henry II or of his father,
for they do not necessarily take us beyond the bishopric of Bayeux
and its possessions. On the other hand, there is nothing in the
writs inconsistent with such a general ordinance, and any men-
tion of a ducal assize elsewhere in Normandy would point clearly
toward some more comprehensive measure establishing procedure
by recognition. Such a reference to an assize meets us early in the
reign of Henry II in connection with the monastery of Saint-
fitienne de Caen. For this favored foundation of the Norman
dukes a series of documents, unfortunately less numerous and less
detailed than those extant for the see of Bayeux, records various
recognitions held in the period between Henry's coronation as
king and 1164. In two cases we have the reports of the justices
who held the recognition,*" in others only the royal charter con-
firming the results.'^ Thus in 1157 an inquest was held at Caen by
" Livre noir, no. 14; Delisle-Berger, no. 33*.
"' The charter of Robert de Neufbourg notifying the inquest at Dives (Valin,
p. 267; cf. Deville, Analyse, p. 42), and the charter of Rotrou of fivreux and Regi-
nald of Saint-Valery relating the recognition at Bayeux {M. A. N., xv. 197; Valin,
p. 270). Robert's report on the inquest at Avranches was preserved in the lost
cartulary summarized in Deville, Analyse, p. 18. On these justiciars see supra.
Chapter V.
" Charter of Henry II issued at Caen between 1156 and 1161: Delisle-Berger,
no. 153; extracts in Valin, p. 268. There is also a parallel writ of the king, issued
doubtless at the same time, in Delisle-Berger, no. 104; M, A. N., xv. 198. The
2l6 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
the seneschal of Normandy, Robert de Neufbourg, to determine
the obligation of the abbey's men, with those of others, to carry
in the king's hay at Bretteville and Verson.*'' Before his retire-
ment in 1 1 59 the same seneschal held a detailed recognition at
Dives-sur-Mer, on the oath of ten lawful men, respecting the
rights of the abbot at Dives and Cabourg;*' a recognition at
Avranches, " by the lawful men of the province," respecting
freedom from toll in that city; *^ and a recognition concerning
the abbey's rights and possessions at Rouen.** Before 1161 the
bishops of fivreux and Bayeux and other justices hold an inquest
concerning the abbey's rights over houses in its bourg at Caen,**
and between 1161 and 1164 it was determined by recognition
before the king's justices, in an assize at Bayeux, that various
lands in Cristot and elsewhere were fiefs of Saint-£tienne.*'
The subjects of these inquiries do not differ from those held for
the bishop of Bayeux and others, nor is the procedure in any
instance described specifically. One case, however, challenges our
special attention. At Rouen " it was recognized that the monks
should hold quit their meadows of Bapeaume, with respect to
which William, son of Thetion de Fonte, who claimed the right to
them {ius), failed as regards his claim and the decision of right
before Robert and the barons of Normandy in the king's curia
and as regards the assize which he had demanded with respect
thereto." ** The account is brief, all too brief, for we have only
argument of the editors that this is anterior to the death of Robert de Neufbourg
in 1 159 applies equally to the longer charter.
^ Robert of Torigni, ii. 250, no. 34.
** Valin, p. 267; Deville, Analyse, p. 42.
8* ' Recognitum etiam fuit in plena assisia apud Abrincas per legales homines
provincie ': Delisle-Berger, no. 153; Valin, p. 268; Deville, Analyse, p. 18, where
it appears that the inquest was held by Robert.
86 Delisle-Berger, no. 153; Valin, p. 268.
"' Delisle-Berger, no. 153; Valin, p. 268; Legras, Le hourgage de Cam, p. 75,
note I.
" M. A. N., rv. 197; Valin, p. 270. The original, with incisions for the seals
of the two justiciars, is in the Archives of the Calvados, H. 1883. The date is fixed
by the mention of Achard of Avranches (1161-1171) and Rotrou of fivreux, who
was translated to Rouen in 1164 or 1165.
8' ' Et recognitum fuit quod predictis monachis remanserunt sua prata de
Abapalmis quieta unde WiUelmus filius Thetionis de Fonte, qui in illis clamabat
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 217
the summary of the case in a royal charter of confirmation, and
language so condensed cannot be rigorously interpreted. We
should naturally interpret ius in the sense of ultimate right or
title (maius ius) which it bears in the writs of the period; but it is
clearly the claimant, William Fitz TMtion, who demands the
assize, and there was no way known to the Anglo-Norman pro-
cedure by which the plaintiff could demand an assize on the ques-
tion of right.*' If title was the question at issue here, assisia
might refer to the jury which the claimant might secure after the
tenant had put himself upon the assize, the jury then rendering
its verdict in spite of the claimant's default. It seems simpler,
however, to hold, with Valin, that ius is here employed in a
general rather than a technical sense, and that the question was
one of possession. In any case the essential point is that the party
which demanded the assize was the lay claimant, not the monas-
tery, as in the other recognitions for Saint-fitienne. The assize
in this instance, therefore, cannot be a special privilege enjoyed
by an ecclesiastical establishment, since it is demanded against
the monks, nor could such a claimant have put himself upon the
assize imless this was a regular method of trial, such as the term
comes to denote in England. This assize may, of course, be quite
different from the assisia mea of the Bayeux docimients, for there
is nothing to exclude the issuance of more than one ducal ordi-
nance on the subject or, if we take assize merely in its procedural
sense, the existence of more than one form of trial established by
ducal initiative. Whatever the Bayeux assizes may have been,
the assize in the case of Saint-Etienne is more significant, since it is
clearly open to the ordinary lay claimant, even against a rehgious
establishment protected by the duke. So far as it goes, it affords
conclusive evidence that by 11 59 the prerogative procedure has
been extended to subjects, at least for one class of cases, much as
in the Enghsh assize of novel disseisin instituted in 1166.
ius, defecit se de iure et de consideratione recti coram Roberto et coram baronibus
Normamiie in curia regis et de assisia quam inde requisierat ': Valin, p. 268;
Delisle-Berger, no. 153, from Carkdaire de Normandie, f. 2iv.
" Glanvill, bk. ii; Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 85; Brunner, Schwurgerichte,
pp. 312-314; Valin, p. 213 f. Professor G. B.Adams has convinced me that Valin
is probably correct in interpretmg ius in this passage as meaning possession only.
2l8 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
Another instance of what is apparently the ordinary and regular
use of the recognition is found, but without any mention of an
assize, in 1 159, when, in the king's court at Gavray, Osmimd, son
of Richard Vasce, " on the oath of lawful men, proved his right ta
the presentation of Mesnil-Drey and two sheaves of its tithe as his
ancestors had always had them." Neither Osmimd nor his op-
ponent, Ralph de la Mouche, was a privileged person, and this
method of trial seems to have been resorted to in the king's court
as a matter of course, and hence of right. The probability of
some regulation of such suits in Normandy is rendered stronger
by the discovery of traces of legislation by Henry in England,
between 1154 and 1158, with reference to advowson and presen-
tation.'" If we could accept the evidence of a charter of Henry
for Saint-Evroul, apparently given between 11 59 and 1162," the
existence of a form of recognition corresponding to the assize
utrum would be established for Normandy in this period, at least
two years before it appears in England. This document, however,
which is suspicious in form,'^ does not correspond to the report of
the case by the justiciar Rotrou,'* given between 1164 and 1166,
90 The notice of the suit is in Robert of Torigni, ii. 259; cf. supra, Chapter V,
note 88. ' Sacramento legalium hominum ' may conceivably mean party witnesses^
but by this time it has become the usual phrase for the sworn inquest. For Ralph
de la Mouche cf. a charter of 1158 in Pigeon, Le diocese d'Avranches, ii. 672. On
Henry's early English legislation, see Appendix I.
'^ Printed by me, from an incorrect copy from the cartulary of Saint-fivroul, MS.
Lat. 1 loss, no. 24, in ^ . H. R., viii. 634. Also in the Registres du Trfisor des Chartes,
JJ. 69, no. 194; Round, no. 641; Delisle-Berger, no. 214, where the date of Abbot
Robert's accession, 1159, is overlooked in dating the docimient.
92 The charter combines the king's style of the latter half of the reign with a
witness who caimot be later than 1162, and contains the suspicious phrase teste
me ipso, which appears in two other fabrications of this period from Saint-fivroul
(Delisle, nos. 347, 362; see pp. 226, 316 f.) and has not yet been found in an origi-
nal charter of this reign (ibid., p. 226, where too much is made of the occurrence
of the phrase in charters for different monasteries, since copyists or forgers might
easily carry back a formula common in the succeeding reign). The language of the
document is also unusual, quite unlike that of Rotrou's charter, which speaks of
but five knights and reports the determination of more limited questions of title.
As Henry's charter is also found in a vidimus of Matilda, daughter of the monas-
tery's adversary in the suit (cartulary of Saint-£vroul, no. 426; Collection Lenoir,
at Semilly, Ixxu. 17, Ixxiii. 467), its fabrication or modification cannot be placed
more than a generation later.
" ' Rotrodus Dei gratia Rothomagensis aichiepiscopus omnibus ad quos presens.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 219
and I believe it to contain a somewhat modernized version of the
transaction, prepared in the later years of the twelfth century.
Rotrou's charter says nothing of the question of lay fee or ahns,
but adjudges to the monks, after sworn inquest, full right to the
presentation, tithes, and lands belonging to the church in question.
The conclusion that the employment of the recognition was
extended and regularized by definite legislative act, rather than
by a process of gradual development, is rendered probable, not
only by the use of the word assize, but also by evidence of actual
legislation in this same period with reference to the sworn inquest
in other matters. In 1159 at his Christmas court at Falaise
Henry, besides providing that the testimony of the vicinage
should be required in support of charges brought by rural deans,
commanded his own officers, in the monthly meetings of the local
scriptum pervenerit et precipue ballivis domini regis salutem. Sciatis quod ex
precepto domini regis quando per eum per totam Nonnaimiam iusticiam secularem
exercebamus, miseratione divina time temporis Ebroicensem episcopatum regentes,
in plena assisia apud Rothomagum dieJesto Sancte CecUie Garinus de Grandivalle
ct Ricardus Faiel et Rogerus de Moenaio et Rogerus Goulaf re et Robertus Chevalier
iuraverunt quod ecclesia Sancti Ebrulfi et abbas et monachi eius anno et die quo H.
rex Alius Willebm regis fuit vivus et mortuus et postea usque modo presentationem
beati Petri de Sap pacifice et quiete habuit in demosLaam cum omnibus decimis et
aliis pertinenciis suis et masnagium Willelmi filii Hugonis cum omnibus pertinenciis
suis tarn in terris quam in aliis rebus possedit. Ipsi vero milites se fecerunt ignorantes
utrum cultura que Ardeneta noncupatur ad ius Sancti Ebrulfi vel ad ius domini de
Sap verius pertineret, et tamen quandam acram terre in eadem cvdtura per eccle-
siam Sancti Ebrulfi cultam fuisse per sacramentum se vidisse testati sunt. Post
obitum veropredicti H. regis residuum predicte culture per abbatem Sancti Ebrulfi
cultum fuisse prefati milites necnon et totam illam culturam ad abbatiam Sancti
Ebrulfi pocius quam ad dominum de Sappo secundum oppinionem suam pertinere
iuraverunt. Nos autem domini regis adimplentes mandatum de consilio baronum
ipsius qui presentes erant presentationem predicte ecclesie cum decimis et aliis
pertinenciis suis necnon et masnagium iam dictum cum cultura de Ardeneta et aliis
omnibus, que sicut dictum est secundum formam regii mandati abbati et monachis
eius recognita fuerunt, eisdem de' cetero in pace et quiete habenda et possidenda,
licet nunquam amisissent, adiudicavimus. Testibus Amulto Lexoviensi episcopo,
H[enrico] abbati Fiscannensi, Victore abbate Sancti Georgii de Bauchervilla, Gale-
ranno comite Mellenti, comite Patricio, camerario de TancarviUa, Hugone de
Gomaco, Roberto filio Geroii, Nicholao de StoteviUa, Godardo de Vallibus, Roberto
filio Hamerid, Roberto de Varvic, Raginaldo de lerponvilla, Ricardo Beverel,
Adam de Walnevilla.' MS. Lat. iioss. no- 172- A. H. R., xx. 38, note 93; now
also in Delisle-Berger, i. 353. The discovery of this document led me to modify
the view regarding an assize utrum which I had expressed in A. H. R., viii. 633 f.
(1903).
220 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
courts, to " pronounce no judgments without the evidence of
neighbors." '* The exact meaning of this comprehensive language
does not appear from the paraphrase in our only source of infor-
mation, the Bee annalist; it seems, not only to require such use
of the accusing Jury in ecclesiastical courts as is prescribed in the
Constitutions of Clarendon, but also to give it wider scope in the
ducal courts, very likely by extending it to criminal accusations
before the duke's local judges. Indeed from the language used {de
causis similiter quorumlihet ventilandis) it is quite possible that the
evidence of neighbors was there prescribed in civil cases as well.
That the justices of Geoffrey and Henry II had by this time
become familiar with this method of procedure appears from vari-
ous scattered docmnents of the period. Thus a charter of Geoffrey
in favor of Algar, bishop of Coutances, confirms the verdict of six
jvirors rendered in accordance with the duke's writ at his assize at
Valognes, to the effect that Robert Fitz Neal and his predeces-
sors had held of the bishop and his predecessors whatever rights
they had enjoyed in the churches of Cherbourg and Tourla-
ville and their appurtenances.'* Another example of a recog-
'^ ' De causis similiter quonimlibet ventilandis instituit ut, cum iudices singu-
larum provinciarum singulis mensibus ad minus simul devenirent, sine testimonio
vicinorum nichil iudicarent ' : Robert of Torigni, ii. i8o. Cf . Pollock and Maitland,
i. 151. Stubbs says {Benedict of Peterborough, ii, p. lix): " This looks very like an
instruction to the county court." On the ecclesiastical procedure, see infra, p. 226 f .,
and Appendix I.
" ' [G.] dux Normannie et comes Andegavie H. archiepiscopo et omnibus
episcopis Normannie, baronibus, iusticiis, et omnibus suis fidelibus, salutem. No-
tum sit vobis atque omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod in tempore meo et
Algari Const[anciensis] episcopi fuit iuramento comprobatum per meum preceptum
in assisia mea apud Valonias quod Robertus (MS. vob') filius Nigelli et omnes prede-
cessores sui ab Algaro Constanciensi et ab aliis predecessoribus suis Constan[ciensi-
bus] episcopis tenuerant quicquid in ecclesiis de Cesariburgo et de Torlavilla et
in omnibus possessionibus ad iUas ecclesias pertinentibus habuerant. Hoc vero
iuraverunt Ricardus de WauviUa, Willelmus monachus, Willelmus de Sancto Ger-'
mano, Willelmus de Brioquevilla, Ricardus de Martinvast, Rob[ertus] de Valonis.
Quare ego concedo quod hoc secimdum illorum iuramentum ratum sit et perpetuo
teneatur. Testes vero huius concessionis sunt: R[icardus] cancellarius, Willelmus
de Vernon, Engelg[erus] de Bouhon, Alexander de Bouhon, Jordanus Taysson,
Robertus de Novo [Burgo], Robertus de Corceio, Joisfredus de Tur[onibus], G[au-
fredus] de Cleer, P[ipinus] de Tur[onibus]. Apud Sanctum Laudum.' Cartidary B
of the cathedral of Coutances, p. 350, no. 286. Here, as in most of the other docu-
ments in this cartulary, the initial is left blank and not indicated, but in this case
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 221
nition in the duke's court, probably under Geoffrey and certainly
before 1 153, is found in a ducal charter for the dean and chapter
of Rouen declaring that their rights in the forest of AUermont,
as in the time of Henry I, had been established before the duke
by the oath of lawful knights, three of whom are mentioned
by name.'* Between 1151 and 1153 we have a writ of Duke
Henry ordering his justiciar, AmuK of Lisieux, and Robert of
Montfort to cause the appurtenances of the church of Saint-
Ymer to be recognized by lawful men.'' Another indication of
the prevalence of this method of proof appears, along with clear
evidence of the continued use of trial by battle,'* in the charters of
Geoffrey and Henry for the town of Rouen, where, in providing
that no citizen shall be held to wage combat against a hired cham-
pion, it is prescribed that the fact of the champion's professional-
ism shaU be determined on the oath of ten citizens of Rouen
selected by the justice." With regard to the abbey of Savigny,
it is supplied by a vidinvus of Philip Augustus in the same cartulary (p. 351, no.
288), printed in Delisle, Carkdaire normand, no. 162, which refers to this charter
as ' autenticum G. ducis Kormannie, cuius mandato fuit recognitum in assisia apud
Valonias.' This, the only surviving cartulary of Coutances, was still in the episcopal
archives when I was permitted to examine it in 1902, but it has since been transferred
to the departmental archives at Saint-Ld.
By following L€chaud€ and overlooking the vidimus Roimd (Calendar, no. 960)
was led to ascribe this charter to Henry II; so also Bigelow, History of Procedure,
p. 367, no. 9. The treatment of this document affords a good illustration of L€-
chaudd's carelessness. Not only does he omit the last foiu: witnesses, but he quietly
inserts Henry's name in his copies — " Henricus &" " in the ' Cartulaire de la Basse
Nonnandie,' i. 129; " Henricus R." in MS. Lat. 10068, f. 88, no. 57. Brunner, p.
269, prints the essential portion of the charter and recognizes Geoffrey as its author;
so now Delisle, Henri II, p. 509, no. 17* A; Delisle-Berger, i. 2. The lost cartulary
A, of which a partial analysis is preserved in the archives, contained a copy of the
vidimus which interpreted G as the initial of a duke William; the text as printed in
Dupont, Histoire du Cotenlin, i. 466, is apparently derived from this soiu"ce.
»« Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 7, p. 793; Valin, p. 266, where it is as-
cribed to Henry 11; Delisle-Berger, no. 39*, where the possibility of Geoffrey's
authorship is admitted. For the reasons for attributing this charter to Geoffrey,
see supra, p. 134. For the charter of Heniy I, see Appendix F, no. 17.
" Cartulaire de S.-Ymer, ed. Brfiard, no. 6; Delisle-Berger, no. 34*.
" Examples of the duel in the duke's court will be found in 1155 in Robert of
Torigni, ii. 241; and in 1157 in MS. Rouen 1193, f. 47, where we find among the
witnesses ' Mauricio pugile.'
" Charter of Geoffrey as confirmed by Henry II soon after he obtained the
duchy: Delisle-Berger, no. 14*; supra, p, 134,
222 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
trial by lawful men of the villa is prescribed by a writ of the
Empress Matilda in the case of offenses committed against the
monastery by the foresters or their servants, i"" On behalf of the
duke himself we have no examples of the employment of the in-
quest under Geoffrey, but numerous instances under Henry II,
early in his reign at Bayeux and in the Bessin, later in the syste-
matic inquiries held by his justices in 1 163 and 11 71 throughout
the whole of Normandy.'"^
That Geoffrey's reign begins a new stage in the development of
the jury in Normandy may also be argued from such rare in-
stances of the sworn inquest as we find imder his predecessors.
The great Bayeux inquest of 1133 is essentially a fiscal inquest,
since the see was then in the duke's hands and its revenues were
accordingly a matter of interest to him."^ The same holds true
of a writ of William Rufus freeing from bernagium a domain of
Bee donee ego inquiram quomodo fuii tempore patris mei: ^"^ if, as
seems probable, the inquiry was to be made by sworn inquest, it
was to determine a fiscal obligation. When we leave these fiscal
inquiries, we no longer find clear examples of inquests of the later
type. The nearest approach is the case of the abbey of Fontenay
tmder William the Conqueror, who ordered the possessions of the
monastery recorded on oath by the barons of the honor, four of
whom brought testimony of the record to the king's court at
i"" ' M. imperatricis (sic) regis H. filia, F. de Tenechebrai salutem. Mando tibi
et precor atque precipio quod permittas senioribus de Savigneio habere et tenere
suam fabricam et alia omnia que ad eos pertinent de elemosina predecessoris mei
regis H. ita libera et quiete sicut ea habuerunt et tenuerunt tempore ipsius regis. Si
autem forestarii vel aliquis alius famulorum eos (MS. eorum) in quoquam forte
molestaverint et inquietaverint, fac inde tractari causam iuste per homines legales
ipsius vUle, ita ne amplius inde clamorem audiam pro recti penuria. Si vero alius
aliquis iniuriam eis in aliquo fecerit, manuteneas eos ubique et protegas sicut nos-
trum dominicum quod habemus protegere ut nostram elemosinam. Teste Roberto
de Curc[eio], apud Falesiam.' Cartulary in the Archives of the Manche, no. 280;
in part in Brunner, p. 241; Delisle, Henri II, p. 141, no. 5.
"1 Livre noir, nos. 13, 35, 138; Delisle-Berger, nos. 68*, 76*, 38; Robert of
Torigni, i. 344, ii. 28; cf. supra, p. 159 f.; infra, Appendix K.. The inquests for
F6camp in 1162 (Delisle-Berger, no. 223) and forMortemer {H. F., xiv. 505) also
touch the rights of the duke.
'" Supra, notes 16-23. Note, however, that Hetuy's Nostell writ in note 153
was issued in Normandy.
»<» Supra, p. 82; Valin, p. 200, note 2.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 223
Caen."* In other instances of this period the men who swear are
party witnesses, rather than recognitors who render a verdict as
representing the knowledge of the community."^ Even under
Henry I the only ducal writ which has reached us (1106-1120)
defining the mode of procedure in an inquiry upon oath leaves the
monks of Saint-Pere de Chartres free to produce their own wit-
nesses or to choose the witnesses for the opposing party:
H. rex Angl[orum] Wigero de Sancta Maria Ecclesia salutem. Precipio
ut teneas rectum monachis Sancti Petri Carnotensis de terra eorum ita:
siquis earn clamaverit monachi f adant earn probare per suos probos homines,
vel illi qui earn clamaverint probare earn faciant per illos quos monachus
elegerit. Teste WUlehno de Pirou apud Cadomimi.""
From the time of Geoffrey no writs have come down prescribing
such a procedure.
It would be interesting to know just what Lucius 11 and
Eugene III had in mind when they directed Geoffrey to have the
possessions of Bayeux established ' on oath by lawful witnesses,'
for the church had its traditions in such matters, as well as the
state, and the influence of canonical ideas of proof cannot be
wholly ignored as a possibility in tracing the genesis of civil pro-
cedure. It is accordingly a matter of some interest to examine the
evidence which has reached us respecting the sworn inquest in the
ecclesiastical jurisdictions of Normandy in this period.'^"' Taking
once more the diocese of Bayeux as our point of departure, we
find Bishop Philip intervening in a controversy over the limits
of certain lands held in alms, in order to secure the consent of
the parties to its submission to the verdict of the countryside.
" There was a dispute between the canons of Bayeux and Luke,
son of Herv6, priest of Douvres, as to what pertained to the ahns
of the church of Douvres and what to the fief of Luke." After
much discussion it was agreed to submit the question to ten men,
chosen with the consent of the parties from the assembled parish-
iM Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 65; cf. Bnmner, p. 270; Valin, p. 201.
"' M. A. N., XV. 196, XXX. 681; cf. Valin, p. 198 f.
"' Original, formerly sealed sur simple quetie, MS. Lat. 9221, no. 6. William
de Pirou perished on the White Ship in 1120: Ordericus, iv. 418.
^°' inquests on the manors of monasteries, held probably by royal warrant, fall
in a different category: supra, Chapter V, note 23.
224 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
ioners, " in whose oath the truth of the matter should rest."
Standing before the parish church, this jury declared upon oath
the lands which belonged to the alms of the church; and when
Luke afterward sought to occupy some of the property of the
canons, the jurors were called together at Bayeux and again
recognized the ahns of the church, which the bishop emunerates
in his charter.'"* The proceedings in this case, though not held in
accordance with a ducal writ, show all the essential elements of
the recognition — the promissory oath, the free decision, the ver-
dict rendered by chosen men of the vicinage; and if we remem-
ber that the jury, in the narrower sense, as distinguished from the
assize, " has its roots in the fertile ground of consent " and " only
comes in after both parties have consented to accept its ver-
dict," "" the importance of this early example of such a volimtary
agreement is at once evident. In other cases the account of the
procedure is not so specific, but points to the use of the recogni-
tion, or something very like it, in connection with the bishop's
jurisdiction. In one of these instances a verdict is mentioned
incidentally in documents of the year 1153 relating to a prebend
created by the bishop out of various elements, among them the
land in Le Val de Port, in the territory of Escures, held by Alex-
ander, son of T6old, which Bishop Philip caused to be recognized
in his presence by the oaths of lawful men of the said Val as
belonging to the demesne of the bishop of Bayeux."" Another
"s ' Erat igitur contentio inter canonicos Baiocenses et Lucam, fiUum Hervei
sacerdotis de Dovra, quid ad elemosinam ecclesie de Dovra et quid ad feodum
ipsius Luce pertineret. Que controversia, cum diu multmnque ventilata agitaretur,
nunc demum in presentia nostra et parrochianonun de Dovra ante ipsius ville
ecclesiam per nos finem sortita est. . . . Vocatis igitur ipsius ville parrochianis
utriusque partis assensu electi sunt decern solum (whose names follow) . . . ia
quorum iuramento rei Veritas consisteret. Facto i^tur prius iuramento has terras
de elemosina ecclesie esse dixerunt . . .' Livre noir, no. 63. The charter is not
dated or witnessed, and more definite dates cannot be assigned than the limits of
Philip's episcopate, 1 142-1163.
i«9 Pollock and Maitland, i. 149. The following is a good example of this prin-
ciple from the year 1182: ' Coram Radulfo episcopo Lexoviensi composita est
controversia . . . que erat inter monachos Beccenses et Ricardiim Comubiensem
canonicum Lexoviensem arbitris Guillelmo presbytero et duodecim hominibus
iuratis super quasdam decimas apud Falciun et Montemfortem, cuique sua parte
pro iure suo iuxta equitatem attributa ' (MS. Lat. 12884, f- 238).
"" ' Terra quam tenuit Alexander filius Theoldi in Valle Portus in territorio de
TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 225
record, from the time of Philip's predecessor, is in the form of a
notice witnessed by the bishop and several others, knights as well
as clerks, to the effect that four men of Herils, who are named,
have recognized in the presence of the bishop and chapter that the
land which Gosselin, succentor of the cathedral, holds at Herils
and the church of the village were given to Gosselin in alms and
have always been held by him under such tenure."' It might be
maintained that these four men of HIrils were party witnesses
rather than recognitors, but the language of the document renders
it far more likely that they were giving an independent verdict on
behalf of the cormnunity. It is also possible that in these cases
the men were questioned individually, as in the canonical proced-
ure "2 and the later French enquetes, but there is no indication of
such an examination, and the use of the words recognoscere and
recognitio points rather to a collective verdict."' In a still earlier
case, likewise decided before the bishop and chapter, the uncer-
tainty is greater, as nothing is said of the residence of the ancient
men who are mentioned or of the capacity in which they appear.
Still the matters in controversy, the rights and revenues of the
chancellor of the cathedral, are "recognized by the attestation of
ancient men " as belonging to the chancellor through the act of
Bishop Odo and the continuous possession of former inciunbents
— just such a question as would naturally be submitted to a
Escvires, quam videlicet Philippus, noster episcopus, fecit recognosci esse de domi-
nico Baiocensis episCopi per sacramenta legalium hominiun predicte Vallis.' Chartei
of the chapter of Bayeux, 8 May 1153, Liwe noir, no. 149; no. 148 is a chartei of
the bishop to the same effect.
"' ' Notmn sit omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod homines de Heriz,
et nominatim isti . . . recognoverunt coram Ricardo, Roberti comitis Gloecestrie
filio, Baiocensi episcopo, et coram eiusdem ecclesie capitulo terram quam Goscelinus,
Baiocensis ecclesie succentor, tenet apud Heriz cum ecclesia eiusdem ville eidem
Goscelino in elemosina datam fuisse et eundem sic semper tenuisse. Huius autem
recognitionis testes sunt isti: . . .' Livre noir, no. 102. Richard was bishop from
113s to 1142.
'12 For an example of this from the year 1164 see Liwe noir, no. 49.
™ Of course recognoscere has other meanings, being applied to the certification of
a charter, the confession of a criminal, or the admission of another's rights on the
part of a claimant, but none of these senses seems to fit the passage in question,
where the idea of a formal declaration of fact by a body of men seems clearly
implied.
226 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
sworn verdict."^ If such was the procedure employed in this case,
it has a special interest as belonging to the pontificate of Richard
Fitz Samson and thus falling within the reign of Henry I. How
such tribunals came to decide cases of this sort and to employ
this form of procedure are questions that cannot be answered xmtil
some one has given us a careful study of the Norman ecclesiastical
jurisdictions. Indeed, the whole subject of the workings of the
ecclesiastical courts in Normandy and elsewhere in the eleventh
and twelfth centuries is an important field of investigation and
ought to prove fruitful for the history of the transmission of the
Frankish inquisitio to later times.
In one direction particularly could the history of ecclesiastical
procedure in Normandy throw important light upon the origins
of the jury, namely with respect to the jury of presentment. It
has more than once been remarked that when this makes its first
appearance under Henry II, it is as part of the procedure of
ecclesiastical courts. At Falaise in 1 159 it was ordained that no
dean should accuse any one without the testimony of reputable
neighbors."^ At Clarendon in 11 64 "* it is declared that laymen
shall be accused only by certain and lawful accusers before the
"' ' Ceterum, dilecte nobis frater Anulphe, cancellarie ecdesie nostre, cum de
hiis que ad ius personatus tui pertinent in capitulo coram Ricardo episcopo et
fratribus ageretur, antiquorum virorum et eiusdem episcopi attestatione recognitum
est ea que hie subnotata sunt ex institucione Odonis episcopi et tuorum anteces-
sorum contrnua possessione ad ius personatus tui iure perpetuo pertinere. . . .
Hec autem omnia in capitulo nostro coram Ricardo episcopo, Sansonis fiJio, et
nobis recognita simt et postmodum coram successore eius altero Ricardo publica
attestatione firmata.' Chevalier, Ordinaire de I'iglise calhedrale de Bayeux (Paris,
1902), p. 419, no. SI. The document is in the shape of a letter from the dean and
chapter to the chancellor, and is thus less formal than a charter. The mention of
the attestation of the bishop along with that of the ancient men might appear to
contradict the view that a sworn inquest was held, but the last sentence makes it
plain that the attestation spoken of is that of the subsequent bishop, Richard of
Kent, while the facts had been recognized under Richard Fitz Samson.
For similar examples imder Hugh, archbishop of Rouen (1130-1164), see the
cartulary of Saint-Georges de Bocherville (MS. Rouen 1227), f. 48V; and original
charters of Hugh for F6camp in the Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure,/(W(ij Fficamp,
series Aizier and Etretat. The ' testimonium vicinorum ' appears in the court of
theabbotof Pr€auxiioi-ii3i: LePr6vost,£«re, iii. 301; the recognition byancient
men, in Appendix H, no. 2.
'" Robert of Torigni, ii. 180. For the immediate antecedents of these measures,
see Appendix I. "« Constitutions of Clarendon, c. 6.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 227
bishop, and in the absence of such accusers the bishop shall ask
the sheriff to have the truth of the matter declared by twelve
sworn men of the vicinage. All this calls to mind the S3modal wit-
nesses of the bishop's court, as described by Regino of Priim at
the beginning of the tenth century, themselves very likely another
offshoot of the Prankish inquisitio per testes.^^'' What we should
like to know is whether the testes synodales also survived in the
Frankish lands of the west and particularly in Normandy, thus
furnishing Henry IE with the suggestion which he applied to deans
and archdeacons who used more arbitrary methods. Unfortu-
nately no one has sought to answer these questions for France,
and the studies of the genesis of the later canonical procedure in
Italy take much for granted, after the fashion of too many his-
torians of law."* Here, as so often, the Norman eA^dence is too
meager and fragmentary to fill the gap in our knowledge. At one
point, however, it offers a suggestion. In the curious arrangement
made in 106 1 between the bishop of Avranches and the abbot of
Mont-Saint-Michel,"^ the men of the Mount had complained
that they were subject to constant summons to the bishop's
court at Avranches, regardless of war or weather, and were op-
pressed by the demand for oaths as well as by the fines and for-
feitures which they there incurred:
Cogebantur enim venire Abrincas ad respondendum de quacunque ac-
cusatione contra christianitatem, nee excusare poterat eos mare insurgens
nee Britonum insidie quia preveniri ac provider! poterant, et ita sepe in
forifacta et emendationes episcopales incidebant et sepe iuramentis fatiga-
"' See Brunner, Sckwurgerichte, pp. 458-468; id., Deutsche Recktsgeschichte,
ii. 488-494; Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, v. 425 ff.; Pollock and Maitland, i. 142, 152.
^^ See particularly Richard Schmidt, Die Herkunfl des InquisiUonsprozesses, in
Freiburger Festschrift zum so. Regierungsjubilwum Grh. Friedrichs I (Leipzig, 1902) ;
id., Konigsrecht, Kirchenrecht, und Stadtrecht beim Aufbcm des Inquisitions prozesses,
in Festgabe fiir Rudolph Sohm (Munich, 1915); Zechbauer, Das mittelalterliche
Strafrecht Siziliens (Berlin, 1908), pp. 168-247; Max Hoffmann, Die Stdlung des
Konigs von SiziUen rmch den Assisen von Ariano (Miinster, 19x5), pp. 84-92.
Schmidt, and Niese, Die Gesetzgebung der normannischen Dynastie im Regnum
SicUiae (SaRe, 1910; seemyreviewsinE.H. if., xxvi. 369-371; A.H.R.,xvu. 177),
are much too sweeping in their statements as to the Norman origin of Sicilian law,
and neither of them has attempted a study of the documentary evidence for the
sworn inquest in Sicily.
"' MS. Lat 14832, f. 183V; Migne, cxlvii. 265; cf. supra, Chapter I, note 137.
228 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
bantur. . . . Episcopus vero prefatus, ut erat animo et genere nobilis,
petitioni abbatis annuit et archidiaconum suum in Monte eum fecit, ita
tamen ut quod bene non faceret vel non posset episcopus corrigeret Abrincis
et ecclesiastico iuditio terminaret. De coniugiis autem illicitis, si qui legates
testes procederent, apud episcopiun audirentur et per sacramentum ipsorum
lege dissolveretiu: quod contra legem presumptum erat. . . .
The jurisdiction here is the ordinary bishop's jurisdiction over
laymen {contra christianitatem), by the new arrangement handed
over to the abbot as archdeacon save in matrimonial cases, where
legates testes are specially mentioned. What the iuramenta were
is. not specifically stated, but it would seem probable that the
oaths required were, at least in part, the presentation of offenders
by Jama publica. If this be the correct interpretation, we have
a Norman link midway between . Regino and the decrees of
Henry II.
Examples of the use of the sworn inquest in baronial courts
meet us in other parts of Normandy in the latter part of the
twelfth century. Thus the abbot of Saint-Wandrille grants a
tenement at La CroisiUe to be held " as it has been recognized
by our lawful and faithful men," i^" and a house at Caudebec
with appurtenant rights as these have been recognized by the
oath of neighbors.'^' Lawful men are used for the division of
land 1^ or the assignment of an eqtiivalent holding,i^' and in an
'*'' ' Sciant omnes presentes et futuri quod ego Waltenis abbas S. Wandregisilis
concessi Symoni de Crudola teneuram suam quam in eadem villa de nobis tenet
dure hereditario possidendam prout per iuiidicos et fideles homines nostros recognita
fuerit. . . .' Copy of cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, iv. 2084.
There are two abbots named Walter in this period, one 1137-1150, the other 1178-
1187.
™ ' Notum sit omnibus tarn presentibus quam futuris quod ego Anfredus (1165-
II 78) abbas S. Wandregisilis et conventus concedimus Willelmo AngUco quietudi-
nem domus sue ab omni consuetudine, salvo tamen censu, et custodiam vivarii
nostri de Caldebecco et famulatum eiusdem ville ixae hereditario, que ad domum
ipsam sicut per iuramentum vidnonun recognitum est pertinent. . . .' Cartulary
in Archives of the Seine-Inf^rieure, G. iii. 24, with list of JMors at end.
"^ ' Terram de Rosello sicut est previsa et ostensa et per legales homines divisa
Sancto Martino Sagii ' : Livre blanc of Saint-Martin de Sfiez, f . 48V. Cf . the division
of land before the duke's justices: Round, Calendar, no. 607; MS. Rouen 1227, f.
13 5v; and an undated piece of the twelfth century in the Archives of the Calvados,
fonds Saint-D€sir de Lisieiix: ' De hoc autem requirimus dominum regem et
iustitias eius quod nobis haberi faciant intuitum curie.'
"* ' Tantumdem terre ad valentiam pro ipsa terra axbitiio liberorum virorum ':
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 229
agreement for the mortgage of a house at Rouen it is stipulated
that the cost of repairs shall be verified by the view of lawful
neighbors.'^* Henry, abbot of Fecamp, and Robert, count of
Meulan, make an agreement for a general inquest respecting their
several rights, six jurors being chosen by each to declare the truth
with respect thereto; ^^^ and a similar inquest by the men of
Quillebeuf and Le Marais-Vemier is related by the abbot of
Jumieges and Henry de Longchamp.*''' Robert Bertram the
yoimger even admits that he caused his men to render a verdict
regarding a presentation * not of right but by his own might and
force.' 12'
Of these baronial cases the most interesting, as regards both
date and' procedure, is one to which VaHn has called attention in
the cartulary of Preaux.'^' Two knights of £tr6vilIe-en-Roumois,
Roger de Lesprevier and Richard, son of Humphrey the priest,
claimed in lay fee the dwellings of the parish priests and other
appurtenances of the church, whereas the abbot of Preaux claimed
them in ahns. A term was set before the archbishop and the
count of Meulan, the lay lord, at which both parties " placed
themselves on the verdict and oath of lawful men, to the number
cartulary of Saint-Andr6-en-Gouffem, in Archives of the Calvados, £E. 6iv, 62,
nos. 273 f. (117s).
"^ ' Sciant tarn presentes quam posteri quod anno incamationis dominice
.M''.C''.LX°.ini°. Ricardus de Herburvilla invadiavit Simoni Anglico domiun suam
de atrio Sancti Amandi concessu uxoris sue et heredum suorum pro .Ix. et .x. solidis
Andegavensium usque ad octo annos tali conditione quod si Simon aliquid de suo
in domo reficienda per visum legalium vicinorum suorum expendiderit, Simon tail-
liabit illud in tailUa sua et Ricardus ei solvet. . . .' Original in Archives of the
Seine-Inf6rieure, fonds Saint-Amand.
^^ Fecamp cartulary (MS. Rouen 1207), f. 36V; extracts in La Roque, iii. 50;
Du Cange, under stalaria.
^' Le Provost, Eure, ii. 375; Vernier, no. 194; original in Archives of the Seine-
Inf6rieure, /o»rf.r Jumi&ges (1165-1198).
"' ' Licet in prescriptis ecclesiis instinctu diabolico seu personal! odio vel etiam
propria malitia ductus diocesiano episcopo personam aUquam aliquando presenta-
verim et super earundem ecclesiarum presentationibus in curia mea recognitionem
iniustam non de iure sed vi et potestate mea per homines meos fieri fecerim, et per
recognitionem tunc temporis factam dictarum ecclesiarum quas prior de Sancta
Maria de iure et donatione predecessorum meorum antea habuerat michi tarn
iniuste vendicaverim. . . .' Quasi-oiiginal in Archives of the Seine-Inf€rieuTe,
Jonds Saint-Ouen.
"' Valin, p. 264, no, ix; cf, p, 200 f,; and Le Privost, Eure, ii. 63.
230 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
of eight, who were sworn " "' and proceeded to view the holdings
in dispute. Their decision in favor of the abbey was opposed by
the knights, and a day was fixed in the count's court at Brionne
before William Fitz Robert and Robert de Neufbourg as his
judges, when the jurors appeared to defend their verdict and
Pr6aux was put in possession of the property as ahns. When
Richard threatened the abbot, he was locked up in the tower of
Beaumont, and only released at another session of the court at
Montfort, where he agreed to do homage and service to the abbot
for the holding. Now all of this is anterior to the retirement of
Robert of Neufbourg in 1 159 "" and quite possibly to the crusade
of 1147, so that it falls at the latest in the early years of Henry 11
and shows, like the contemporary case from Bayeux, that the
' fertile ground of consent ' was already well prepared for his
assizes.
Some measure of the progress made in Normandy by the mid-
dle of the twelfth century in the development of the recognition,
in respect to definiteness of form as well as frequency of employ-
ment, may be got by examining the use made of the sworn inquest
in the neighboring coimty of Anjou imder Geoffrey Plantagenet
and his father Fulk."^ . Although the older methods of trial find
'^ ' In hoc autem stabilito die ecclesia Pratellensis et predict! milites miserunt
se in veredicto et iuramento legalium hominum qui octo fuerunt et onmes iura-
verunt.'
^'' Robert of Torigni, i. 322, ii. 174. Valin's argument that Richard's journey
to Jerusalem mentioned in the document is the Second Crusade, is not decisive;
Reginald of Saint-Valery, for example, went to Palestine in 1158 (ibid., i. 316, ii.
166). The other judge, William Fitz Robert, is found with Galeran of Meuljui as
early as 1143 (Round, no. 380).
For another instance of Robert de Neufbourg in the court of the count of Meulan,
see supra, Chapter V, note 58, where the presence also of the bishop of fivreux indi-
cates that they were sitting there as ducal justices.
"' On the courts of Anjou see particularly C. J. Beautemps-Beauprfi, Recherches
sur les juridictions de V Anjou et du Maine pendant la pSriodefdodale (Paris, 1890 ff.),
forming the second part of his Coutumes et institutions de V Anjou el du Maine. This
elaborate work deals mainly with the later period. The account of Angevin law
during the feudal period which the author planned was left unfinished at his death;
cf. d'Espinay, Le droit de I' Anjou avant les coutumes d'apris les notes de M. Beau-
tetnps-Beaupri (Angers, 1901). For the judicial institutions of the eleventh century
there is a useful study by Halphen in the Revue historiqrte (igoi), Ixxvii. 279-307.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 231
abundant illustration in Angevin charters, one is at once struck
with the rare appearance of anything resembling the Norman
inquests. The less complete development of the administrative
system in Anjou, and the fact that in this period the count gen-
erally presided in person in his court, may serve to explain the
absence of such writs as are found in Normandy; but any men-
tion of inquests is rare, and in such accounts as we have they are
hard to distinguish from other forms of procedure, to which they
sometimes seem only accessory. The cases, too, ia which anything
hke the sworn inquest is applied are fiscal, concerning the count's
forests, his rights of justice, or his feudal dues. Thus in a con-
troversy between his foresters and the monks of Saint-Aubin
Geoffrey calls together his foresters and segrayers of the district
and adjures "those who had been brought up from infancy in the
aforesaid forest and knew the facts well " to declare faithfully and
impartially the ancient custom of the forest, neither relinquishing
the count's right to the monks nor assigning the monks' right to
him.'^^ In another case where the matter in dispute concerned the
count's right oifodrium on a piece of land belonging to the abbey
of Saint-Serge, Geoffrey referred the matter to his seneschal, who
ordered the local seneschal to take vavassors of the town with him
upon the land and render a just judgment; but the question was
finally determined by the oath of a witness produced by the
monks.i^' Sometimes we find the count selecting men to render a
verdict on the matter at issue in a way that suggests a jury of
arbitration, as in a case from Fulk's reign touching the count's
rights of justice on certain lands. The owner of the land finds
seventy-three good men of Angers that know the truth of the
None of these writers discusses the sworn inquest. Cf . the sketch of Angevin in-
stitutions in Powicke, Loss of Normandy, ch. ii.
"2 29 May 1 1 29: Bertrand de Broussillon, Cartulaire de I'abbaye de Saint-
AiMn d'Angers, ii. 408, no. 982; B. &. C, xxxvi. 426, no. 28. Cf. Beautemps-
Beaupr6, i. 131, note, 143, note. For a similar case at Venddme see Du Cange,
Glossarium, under 3. Secretarms (ed. Favre, vii. 387).
^ MS. Lat. 5446, f. 29s, no. 403 (Gaigni&es's copies from the cartulary of
Saint-Serge). Cf. Beautemps-Beauprfi, i. 203, note, where the date is fixed between
31 March 1150 and 7 September 1151. For a somewhat later case of declaration
of custom, involving the right to levy procuratio, see C. Chevalier, Cartulaire de
I'abbaye de Noyers (Tours, 1873), p. 651, no, 615,
232 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
matter, and gives the count their names; when they have all ap-
peared in court, Fulk selects twelve, who are ordered to swear
that they will not conceal the truth for love or hatred."* In other
cases, however, it does not appear that the arbiters were neces-
sarily neighbors or had any special knowledge of the facts, so that
they would seem to have acted as representing the court rather
than the countryside.''^ On the whole, while these scanty in-
stances from Anjou show that the verdict of neighbors was
occasionally sought in fiscal matters and that a sort of jury of
arbitration might sometimes be called by the count, there is
nothing to indicate that such modes of procedure were common,
clearly defined, or well understood. Compared with such rudi-
mentary institutions as these, it is evident that the Norman
recognitions of the same period represent an advanced stage in the
evolution of the jury, and that no share can be ascribed to Anjou
in its development in Normandy."^
The sworn inquest is also fovmd in the Norman kingdom of
southern Italy and Sicily, where the judicial organization was in
many respects similar to that of Normandy and England,"' and
recent writers are prone to assume that the Sicilian jury was a
direct importation from Normandy."' While it is true that no
examples have been found in the South before the Noiman con-
quest, it is also true that the information for this period is extra-
ordinarily scanty, while we have also to bear in mind the
^ Beautemps-Beaupr^, i. 117, note G.
^^ For instances of this sort see Marchegay, Archives d' Anjou, i. 409, no. 66; iii.
66, no. 87 (cf. Beautemps-Beauprfi, i. 88, 117, 141); Beautemps-Beaupr^, i. 116,
note B, 136, note B; Carhdam de S.-Pierre-de-la-Cour {Archives historiques du
Maine, iv), no. 16. On the other hand, in the Carhdaire d'Azi {ibid., iii), no. 20,
the bishop of Angers puts hunself on the verdict of three priests (1130-1135). For
fiscal inquests in Maine under Henry 11, see Delisle-Berger, nos. 200, 580.
"« As has been suggested by Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 15; and Prentout, La
Normandie (Paris, 1910), p. 57.
^'' Seemy discussion of the judicial organization in £.ff.i?.,xxvi. 641-651 (1911);
and Miss E. Jamison's criticism in her monopaph on The Norman Administration
of Apulia and Capua {Papers 0/ the British School at Rome, vi, 1913), which con-
tains a useful list of cases in the royal cotuts.
"' E. Mayer, Italieniscfte V^assungsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1909), i. 258; Niese,
Die Gesetzgetnmg der normannischen DynasUe, p. iq6; and the papers of Schmidt
mentioned above, note ij8.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 233
possibilities of derivation from the fiscal measures of the later em-
pire as well as from the procedure of the Prankish missi in Italy.
In general the legal procedure of the South, under the influence of
Roman law, makes free use of witnesses and written records, so
that it is difi&cult in many of the documents to distinguish the
individual or party witnesses from the collective jury. The testi-
mony of neighbors, especially aged men, was particularly valued
in determining boimdaries, which were regularly fixed by their
evidence, though not always in a way that clearly denotes a real
inquest. Examples of the use of old men of the region in this
indefinite fashion are foimd at Mileto in 1091,"' at Squillace in
1098,"" and in various Sicilian cases of the twelfth century, where
it is regularly stated that Saracens and Christians served together
in this capacity."' In the more specific accoimt of a boimdary
dispute between Gnmio and Bitetto in 1136, the boni senes
homines of Bitetto were called unus ante alium, although at the
end they took a collective oath as to the term of possession.'^
In 1 1 58, near Bari, what looks like a collective verdict has to be
confirmed by a party oath of twelve iuratores.^^^ On the other
hand an unmistakable inquest appears in 1140 at Atina, where
King Roger orders his chamberlain to make diligent inquiry by
suitable men concerning boimdaries and royal rights, which were
sworn on the Gospels by twelve of the older men of the dty.'**
Under William I the phrase isti iurati dixerunt points to a sworn
"" Capialbi, Memorie per sennre alia sloria della santa chiesa miliiese (Naples,
183s), p. 136.
1*" Regii Napoletani Archivii Monumenta, v. 245.
i*" Cusa, / diplond greet ed arabi di Sicilia, i. 306, 317, 403; Garufi, I documenti
inediti dell' epoca normanna in SiciUa {Documenti per la sioria di Sicilia, jcviii),
nos. 24, SI, 61, 62, 105; id., in. Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientate, ix. 34g (1912);
Caspar, Roger II, Regesten, nos; 9, 81, 145, 232.
i« Garufi, / documenti, no. 13; Caspar, p. 308, note 2; Jamison, no. 5.
"' Del Giudice, Codice diplomatico del regno di Carlo I, i. app. no. g; Jamison,
no. 47.
1" ' Precepit statim Ebulo de Mallano regio camerario ut omnia iura regia
necnon et fines tenimentorum civitatis eiusdem diligenter investigaret et per viros
idoneos inquireret solicite. Qui iussis regiis obtemperare paratus, iurare fecit ad
sancta Dei evangelia duodecim homines de antiquioribus dvitatis ut ea que idem
dominus rex preceperat fideliter intimarent, quorum nomina hec sunt. . . .' Tauleri,
Memorie istoriche dell' anUca cittd d' Atina (Naples, 1702), p. 92; Caspar, no. 128;
Jamison, no. 9.
234 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
inquest in a dispute touching the boimdaries of the dioceses of
Patti and Cefalu,'^ and a sworn inquest is held by the master
chamberlain of Calabria to determine the losses of the church of
Carbone."^ In the same reign we find a clear accotmt of a jury of
eight men who are sworn before the king's chamberlain to tell the
truth respecting the possessions of San Bartolomeo di Carpi-
neto."*' In 1 1 83 the justiciars of WilKam II hold a formal in-
quest to recover lost portions of the king's domain in the vicinity
of Gravina.'*^ It is particularly imder William 11 that we should
expect to find analogies to the Anglo-Norman assizes,"' but
nothing of the kind has been brought to light in the occasional
writs that have reached us from this king or his ofl&cers,**" and
there is no evidence that the recognition in the Norman kingdom
of Sicily was anything more than an occasional expedient for the
assistance of the fisc or of some favored church. The inquests in
criminal cases under Frederick II raise a different set of problems
which lie beyond the limits of the present inquiry.
If now we turn to England, we find an almost complete parallel
to the Norman documents. From the time of the Domesday sur-
vey examples are extant of fiscal inquests on a large scale, while
specific royal writs prescribe the determination of particular cases
by sworn inquest.'" Jurors may be used to render a verdict upon
a great variety of questions, even to the marking off of thirty
solidate of land,"^ and they also appear in baronial jurisdictions,
"^ Gaxufi, I documenti, no. 34 (1159).
"6 Minieri Ricdo, Saggio di codice diplomatico di Napoli, i. 283; Jamison, no. 58
(1163).
"'. Ughelli, Italia Sacra, a. app. 369; Jamison, no. 50.
i<8 Printed by me, from the original in the Archives of La Cava, in E. B. R.,
xxvi. 654, note 191. Less definite examples from this reign are in Studi e documenti di
storia e diriito, xxii. 278 (1178); Tromby, Storia deW ordine cartusiano, iv, p. cbd.
"' The first mention of an assize seems to be the phrase ' ante assisam domini
regis ' in a doomient of 1155: Codice diplomatico barese, v. 191. The so-called
Vatican assizes of King Roger do not meet us with this title vmtil later.
*'" See my discussion, E. H. R., xxvi. 444-447 (1911), where certain parallels
are pointed out with the Anglo-Norman writs. A mandatum of William II, since
published (Quellen und Forschungen des preussischen InstUuts, xvi. 30), should be
added to those there cited.
1" See Sir Francis Palgrave, Rise of the English Commonwealth, ii, p. clxxvi ff.;
Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica; Pollock and Maitland, i. 143.
"* Infra, Appendix F, no. 13.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 235
as when the bishop of Lincohi orders a declaration by the men of
Banbury whether a piece of land was once part of his demesne.'^
If we examine more closely the first ten years of Henry II, we find
the same practices continuing. The general measures for the
recovery of the royal demesne were carried out, it appears, by a
sworn inquest throughout the kingdom.*" The prior and monks
of Canterbury are to hold land as they proved their right by the
oath of the lawful men of Kent;'°^ the nuns of Mailing, as it was
recognized by the lawful men of the same county.*^* The rights of
the church of Ely in the port of Orf ord are to be sworn by the law-
ful men of five and one-half hundreds.**^ Twenty-four men have
sworn as to the height of the mills of Canterbury in Heiuy I's
time; '^* twenty-four of the older men of Berks are to swear in the
county court concerning the market of Abingdon at the same
epoch."' Before the sheriff and archdeacon twenty-four men
swear as to the advowson of Saint Peter's, Derby."^*" In Lan-
cashire land is delimited by the oath of thirty men in accordance
with royal writ.*" The burgesses of Guildford are to have their
liberties and customs as these have been recognized before the
king and his justices in the county court there held.*^^ In a series
of records from Rievaiilx we have the writ of Henry ordering
his sheriff and ministers of Yorkshire to have the waste below
Pickering recognized by the lawful men of the wapentake and
forest; the report, with the names of the jurors; and the royal
•confirmation of the land to the abbey as sworn to by the wapen-
take and recognized before the king's Justices in the county court
163 Eynsham Cartulary, i. 41, no. isa (1123-1148). Cf. the writ of Roger of Salis-
bury published by Massingbeid, in Associated Architectural Societies, Reports and
Papers, xxvii; and one of Henry I for Nostell priory, given by the bishop of fivreux
at fivreux, in W. Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, no. 501.
'" Gesta Ahbatum S. Albani, i. 123.
166 Delisle-Berger, no. 192.
166 Calendar of Charter Rolls, v. 59, no. 19; cf. p. s8, no. 15, which may be some-
what later.
16' B. &. C, box. sso. no- i3- "' Delisle-Berger, no. 103.
■6' Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ii. 228; Bigelow, Placita, p. 200. Cf.
Chronicon, ii. 221; Bigelow, p. 203.
i6» E. H. R., xxxii. 47.
161 W. Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 310.
i"2 Register of St. Osmund, i. 238.
236 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
at York.'" Before 1168 we find the king ordering an inquest in a
baronial court in a writ to the earl and countess of Chester com-
manding them to have recognized by their barons of Lincoln-
shire whether Amulf Fitz Peter lost the land of Hunnington by
judgment of the court of Henry I.'**
The fullest set of documents which we have from this period
concerns a number of recognitions held to ascertain the rights of
the bishop of Lincolti, as regards his justice, warren, burgage, and
various local privileges."^ The king's writs are for the most part
addressed to the justices and sheriff of Lincolnshire, although the
sheriffs of Nottingham and Derby are also mentioned, and in cer-
tain of thepi the county court is specifically indicated as the place
where the recognition is held. Thus in one instance the bishop is
to have his right of ferry at Newton on Trent as recognized in
comitatu,^^ in another the church of Chesterfield is to have its
liberties, customs, and tenements " as recognized by the lawful
men of the hallmoot of the wapentake.""^ The reeves of Lincoln
are directed " without delay to have recognized by the oaths of
the more ancient and lawful men of the city, in the presence of the
sheriff of Lincolnshire and at his stuiunons, the liberties which the
bishops of Lincoln had iti their land and burgage at Lincoln in the
time of King Henry my grandfather, and what liberties the clerks
of the dty had at the same time; and as it shall have been recog-
nized, so without delay " they " shall cause Robert, bishop of
^^ Chartulary of Rievaidx (Surtees Sodety), nos. 189, 205, 206; W. Fairer,
Early Yorkshire Charters, nos. 401-403.
'" ' H. rex Anglorum et dux Normaimorum et Aquitanorum et comes Andega-
vorum Hugoni comiti Cestrie et Matilde comitisse salutem. Precipio vobis quod
sine dilatione et iuste faciatb recognosci per barones vestros de Lincolne sira si
Amulfus filius Petri terram de Hunintona in curia H. regis avi mei iudicio amisit
et Lucia comitissa et Ran. comes Cestrie Ulam terram sanctimonialibus de Stikes-
walda in elemosinam dederint. Quod si ita recognitum fuerit, faciatis eas bene
et in pace et iuste tenere. Et nisi feceritis iustida mea faciat. Teste M. Bis[setl
dapifero meo apud Gloec' Printed, from the original in the possession of Lady
Waterford, in 11 Historical MSS. Commission's Report, Appendix vii. $9- The
letter of Earl William of Roumare which follows fixes the date as anterior to 1168.
1" Delisle-Berger, nos. 142, 217-219, 380; E. B. R., xav. 308, no. 23; Calendar
of Charter Rolls, iv. no, no. 15, 141-145, nos. 21, 23, 37, where various related docu-
ments are also given.
"« Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. no, no. 15.
'•' Ibid., iv. 141, no. 21.
THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 237
Lincoln, and his men of Lincoln and the clerks of the city to have
all those liberties, without the exaction of any new customs." '''
Here the parallelism to the Bayeux writs, the chief contem-
porary group in Normandy, is close and striking, and it should be
noted that three of the writs ordering inquests for Lincoln are
issued at Rouen and attested by the duke's Norman justiciar,
Rotrou of fivreux,'*' so that we should expect close resemblances
iu procedure. Two notable points of difference, however, stand
out. Li the first place, the English writs assvune as the normal
basis for their execution the sheriff and the county court, while in
Normandy no such assembly is mentioned. Already the sworn
inquest has entered into that intimate relation to the local courts
upon which its future history and its future importance in Eng-
land are to depend. Li the second place, the English writs make
no mention of a royal assize: secundum assisiam meam is found
only in Normandy, where the word assize occurs four times before
1 1 59, while in no English document has it been fotmd in this sense
before 1164."" It is of course possible that instances may come to
light in England, it may even be argued that the procedure was
already so well established there that reference to the royal assize
was no longer necessary; but these remain at present mere possi-
bilities. The evidence for assizes before the Constitutions of
Clarendon is Norman, not English; and, for the present at least,
Normandy can claim priority, as regards both the term and the
procedure which it denotes.
The sworn inquest was introduced into England from Nor-
mandy soon after the Conquest. Its history thereafter in the two
coimtries is for some time essentially the same, namely as a pre-
rogative procedure for the sovereign and for those with whom he
shares its benefits in particular instances. Then the exceptional
becomes general, first for one class of cases and then for another."'
In England the first clear example of this change is found in the
i«8 Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 142, no. 23.
'*' Delisle-Berger, nos. 217-219.
"" The assizes cited by Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 124, from the early
Pipe Rolls denote evidently the assisa comitatus. Not until 1166 do these rolls
use the word in the sense of royal legislation.
11 Pollock and Maitland, i. 144.
238 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS
assize utrum of 1164. In Normandy there is evidence earlier, in
the assizes of Geoffrey and Henry to which they refer their
officers on behalf of the bishop of Bayeux, and in the assize upon
which William Fitz Thition places himself against Saint-fitienne.
If we cannot be certain just what these assizes were, we can at
least see in them some systematic extension, by ducal act, of the
procedure by recognition in cases concerning land. To these we
must add the suit brought by Osmimd Vasce in 11 59, based as it
clearly was upon some regular method of procedure open to ordi-
nary litigants, and the ordinance of Falaise in the same year
respecting the accusing jury. Thus Normandy is the home of the
jury, not only ia the sense that it is the source of the sworn in-
quest so far as England is concerned, but also as the land where we
first find it employed as a regular procedure to which suitors can
appeal as a matter of right and on which the individual can rely
as a protection against arbitrary accusation. Both countries were
then to share in its rapid extension to new types of cases by
Henry II. England alone was to bring about that combination of
the royal inquest with the popular courts which was to give the
jury its unique position in the development of individual Ub-
erty and representative institutions. Where Normandy sowed,
England and all English-speaking lands were to reap.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES OF EARLY
NORMAN HISTORY '
The fundamental difficulty which confronts all students of ducal
Normandy is the paucity of docimientary evidence. The imposing
series of Norman historians — Dudo, William of Jumieges, William of
Poitiers, Ordericus Vitalis, Wace, Robert of Torigni — long served to
conceal this fact in the pages of the modem writers who, with greater
or less skill, paraphrased them into the conventional histories; but the
inadequacy of even the best of chroniclers becomes apparent as soon as
one attacks any of the fundamental problems of institutions or social
conditions. For the tenth century documentary materials never
existed,* at least in any such abundance as in the neighboring regions
of Anjou, Brittany, or Flanders; for the eleventh and twelfth centuries
what once existed has in large measure disappeared. It is indeed prob-
able that such sources were always less numerous in Normandy than
in England, where the documentary habit had not been broken in the
tenth century, and where the Norman Conquest itself produced a
monument like the Domesday Survey which was from the nature of
the case unique; but we have no reason to suppose that in the twelfth
century the records of the central administration were notably different
on the two sides of the Chaimel or that the body of charters and writs
showed any such disparity as at present. In the absence of an)rthing
' See especially Delisle, &tude sur I'agriculture et la classe agricole en Normandie
(fivreux, 1851), pp. xlv-li; the introduction to his Carlulaire normand de Philippe-
Auguste, Louis VIII, Saint Louis, et Philippe-le-Hardi, M. A. N., xvi (1852); his
Cahdogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste (Paris, 1856), pp. vi-liii, 525-569; and his
RecueU des acles de Henri II, introduction, pp. v-xiii. H. Stein, BiiUographie gSnSrale
des caftulaires frangais (Paris, 1907), lists most of the Norman cartularies, not
always accurately (cf. my review, A. H. R., xiii. 322-324). An excellent survey
of the materials in the departmental archives is given in the £m gSniral par fonds
des archives dipartemetUales; ancien regime et piriode revohitionnaire (Paris, 1903).
Cf. also H. Prentout, La Normandie (Paris, 1910), pp. 21-24. A convenient sum-
mary by dioceses and religious establishments is given by Dom Besse, in the Ab-
bayes et prieuris de I'andenne France, vii {Archives de la France monastique, xvii,
1914).
' Cf . supra, Chapter I, note 4.
S41
242 APPENDIX A
corresponding to Domesday, Glanvill, or the Dialogue on the Exchequer,
the charters acquire an added importance in Normandy, and it is their
loss and destruction which the historian has chiefly to mourn.
The loss of Norman records can be laid to no single period or cat-
aclysm. The Revolution of course did its share in the work of destruc-
tion, neglect, or dispersion, as in the case of Bee; ' but this has often
been exaggerated, and the departmental archives and local Ubraries
which were then created seem to have taken over the greater part of
what remained in existence. There were losses en route to these estab-
lishments, and further losses under the archivists of the Restoration,
when numerous pieces disappeared from public repositories only to
reappear in certain private collections, but in most instances such
material has been recovered or at least placed, so that there is small
hope of new discoveries of this sort. The great losses seem to have come
before the Revolution, for the scholars of the Old Regime, as their work
can be traced in siu^ving copies, are seen to have had at their disposal
relatively few collections which are not still in existence. The Prot-
estants did something in the work of destruction, the Hundred Years'
War did more, but much must be ascribed to the frequent fires of the
Middle Ages and to the carelessness and neglect of the clergy them-
selves. As early as the fourteenth century a scribe of Troam is making
extracts from a Vetus Cartarium long since disappeared; * as late as the
Revolution the canons of Coutances are said to have spent days in
burning charters which they could no longer read.*
Of the nature and extent of the ducal archives themselves it is impos-
sible to speak with much definiteness. An archive of some sort is
assumed in the rotulos et cartas nostras transferred from Caen to London
by order of King John in 1204,' but the handful of Exchequer Rolls
now preserved in the Public Record Office is but a sorry remnant of
what must then have been in the hands of his officers, nor have any
rolls of other types survived from earUer reigns.* With him begin the
• Le Pr6vost, Eure, i. 233 f., 241.
* Sauvage, Troam, pp. xxx-xxxiii; cf. supra, Chapter III, no. 6; infra. Appendix
H, no. 1.
' Round, Calendar, p. xxxi, note.
' Rotidi de Liberate, p. 102 f. The barons' returns in 1172 were deposited in the
royal treasury at Caen (Robert of Torigni, ii. 297), and a summary of them was later
copied into the Red Book of the Exchequer.
' Supra, Chapter V, note 6. A brief extractus memorandi from John's Exchequer
has recently been discovered and published by Legras (BMetin des Antiquaires de
Normandie, xxix. 21-31); see further the paper of Jenkinson cited supra, p. 195.
THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 243
short-lived Rotuli Normanniae and the Norman entries in the patent
and other rolls.* After the loss of Normandy the English possessions of
Norman reUgious establishments still furnished an occasion for the
enrollment of Norman charters, in the Cartae Antiquae and in the
nmnerous inspeximus of English sovereigns contained in the charter
and patent rolls, and such confirmations were natiu-ally nimierous
during the occupation of Normandy by Henry V and Henry VI.'
Certain scattered pieces and a couple of cartularies have in recent
years been acquired by the British Museum.'"
That some public records escaped the process of transfer to England
is shown by a fragment of a roll of Stephen cited in 1790 " and a frag-
ment of the roll of 1184 discovered by DeUsle in the Archives Na-
tionals." Various documents of interest to Norman administration,
like the Ust of knights' fees of 1172, were collected by the officers of
Philip Augustus and copied into his registers,'' yet the only surviving
portion of the inquest of 1 171 has come to us on the fly-leaf of a copy
of Hrabanus Maurus." A semi-official compilation of charters made in
the thirteenth century, styled by DeUsle the Cartulaire de Normandie,
should be noted." Formulations of custom, such as the Consuetudines
et iusticie and the lurea regalis,^^ owe their preservation to private col-
lections of Norman law, and the decisions of Norman courts in the
period anterior to the French conquest have reached us only in charters
preserved by the interested parties." There are no plea rolls or feet of
fines.
Next to the disappearance of the official records of Norman adminis-
tration, the most serious loss is probably the archives of the bishoprics
and cathedrals, of which none has a full series of records for the
• Supra, Chapter V, note 210.
' See the calendais of the Norman rolls of Henry V in appendices to Reports of the
Deputy Keeper, xli. 671-810, xlii. 313-452; the extracts in M. A. N., xxiii, part i;
and the Actes de la chancetterie d' Henri VI, ed. Lecacheux, Rouen, 1907-1908.
" Cartulary of the leprosery of Bolleville, Add. MS. 17307; cartulary of the
priory of Loders, Add. MS. 15605; and the series of Additional Charters.
" M. A. N., xvi, p. XXX f.
^ Ibid., pp. r09-ir3; Delisle, Henri II, pp. 334-344.
" See Delisle's introduction to his Cartulaire nomtand and Catalogue des actes de
Philippe-Auguste.
" Delisle, Henri II, pp. 34S-347> from MS. Lat. n. a. 1879; infra. Appendix K.
" Now MS. Rouen 1235. See Delisle, Cartulaire normand, p. vii.
" Appendix D; Chapter V, note 22.
" See Delisle, Mltnoire sur les anciennes collections de jugements de I'&hiquier de
Normandie (Paris, 1864); and cf. B. P., xxiv. 271*5.
244 APPENDIX A
eleventh and twelfth centuries while some have lost practically every-
thing for this epoch. Rouen is the most fortunate, with important
cartularies and an extensive Jonds of pieces in the departmental
archives. This fonds, however, admirably calendared by Charles de
Beaurepaire, contains relatively httle anterior to the French conquest,
while only two of the cartularies relate to this period,^* one containing
earlier documents having evidently been lost, fivreux is represented by
no originals but by a valuable set of cartularies in the Archives of the
Eure, extending from the destruction of the cathedral under Henry I.
There are no early archives for Seez; a cartulary, the Livre rouge, was
in the possession of the bishop before the Separation,*' and copies of
the sixteenth century are in the library at Alengon (MS. 177). Lisieux
likewise has lost everything for this period, all that remains being a late
cartulary of the see in the municipal library and a fragment of the
chapter cartulary at Paris.^" Bayeux has only cartularies, the invalu-
able Livre noir of the chapter and the Liwe noir of the see stUl preserved
in the cathedral, and the Livre rougeP- Coutances has much less, only
a few documents in the paper cartulary recently transferred from the
evfiche to the Archives of the Manche.^'' Avranches has left practically
nothing save an occasional piece of the twelfth century in its Livre
vertP
The monastic archives of the duchy have on the whole fared better.
The oldest monasteries of importance, Fecamp, Jimaieges, Saint-
Wandrille, Saint-Ouen, and Mont-Saint-Michel, have transmitted
valuable early originals as well as considerable cartularies, while the
somewhat later foundations of Caen, Lessay, Saint-Amand, and
Troarn are also well represented in the departmental archives. From
La Trinite du Mont, Saint-Pierre-de-Preaux, Saint-Evroul, Saint-
Taurin, and Saint-Martin de Seez we have only cartularies, in each
case of much value for the early period. Important cartularies for the
twelfth century are those of Foucarmont, Saint-Georges de Bocher-
viUe, the hospital of Pontaudemer, Plessis-Grimould, Saint-Andre-en-
Gouffern, Montebourg, Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, and Savigny. The
" The so-called cartulary of Philip d'AIenfon, Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure,
G. 7; and the cartulary of the chapter, MS. Rouen 1193 (copy in MS. Lat. n. a.
1363)-
" Extracts in MS. Lat. 11058.
'"' MS. Lat. 5288, ff. 68-76.
^ MS. Lat. n. a. 1828. See supra, Chapter VI, notes 4, 15.
^ im., note 9S; cf. A. H. R., viii. 631.
^ MS, Avranches 206; see Appendix K.
THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 245
list, however, is long of those houses from which little or nothing has
reached us directly for the history of these times: Bee, Bernai, Cerisy,
Conches, Cormeilles, Croix-Saint-Leufroy, Grestain, Ivry, Lonlai,
Montivilliers, Saint-Desir de Lisieux, Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, Saint-
Sauveur d'Evreux, Saint-Sever, Saint- Victor-en-Caux. In some cases,
as Cerisy, Lire, MontiviUiers, and Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, we have
iMimus of the foimdation charters or notices of their begiimings; in
others, as Bee, modem copies supply in some measure the loss of the
mediaeval pieces.
An important group of ducal charters concerns the Norman posses-
sions of reUgious houses in other parts of France. Chief among these
are Marmoutier, Cluny, Fontevrault, Saint- Julien de Tours, Saint-
Florent-les-Saumur, Saint-Benolt-sur-Loire, La Trinite de Vendome,
Chartres cathedral, Saint-Pere de Chartres, Tiron, Saint-Denis de
Nogent-le-Rotrou, Le Grand-Beaulieu-les-Chartres, Saint-Denis and
Saint-Martin-des-Champs at Paris, Saint-MaTtin at Pontoise, Saint-
Victor du Mans, Le Mans cathedral, and Saint-Benigne at Dijon.
The most important of these, Marmoutier, had its archives ^* dispersed
during the Revolution, but its Norman chartriers can in large measure
be recovered from pieces preserved in the local priories and especially
from the important series of copies in the Bibliotheque Nationale ^*
and the library at Tours.^ In nearly all the other instances mentioned
the surviving ducal charters are pubUshed in printed cartularies or
modem collections of charters.^'
The principal local repositories of documentary material relating to
early Normandy are the departmental archives of the Calvados, Eiure,
Manche, Orne, and Seine-Inferieure, supplemented by the public
libraries of Rouen, Caen, Alenjon, and Avranches. Scattered volumes
which had remained in the possession of bishops and chapters were
claimed by the pubhc archives under the Separation Law, save in the
case of the cathedral of Bayeux, which was for the time being consti-
tuted a pubhc depository. Only at Rouen do the mimicipal archives
contain material for this period; archives of hospitals are rarely of assist-
ance; there is some scattered matter in the smaller pubhc Ubraries. The
''* See P. Colmant, Les odes de Vahbaye de Marmoutier, in Positions des theses de
I'&cde des Charles, 1907.
26 MSS. Lat. S44I, 12876-12880, MS. Baluze 77. ^e Particularly MS. 1381.
" See, besides the indications in Stein's BiUiographie des cartulaires, L.-J. Denis,
Les chartes de S.-Julien de Tours, in Archives hisloriques du Maine, xii (1912);
J. Depoin, Recueil de chartes de S.-Marlin-des-Champs, in Archives de la France
monastique, ziii, xvi.
246 APPENDIX A
chief collection of originals in private hands is the important body of
eariy Fecamp charters in the Mus6e de la Distillerie de Benedictine at
Fdcamp.^* The great collection of copies made by Dom Lenoir in the
eighteenth century, now the property of the Marquis de Mathan at
Saint-Pierre-de-Semilly, is based chiefly upon the registers of the
Chambre des Comptes and comprises few early charters.^' The copies
of the abbe de La Rue, concerning especially the history of Caen, are
divided among the Collection Mancel at Caen, the libraries of Caen
and Cherbourg, and the Bibliotheque Nationale; "• the Repertoire des
charies of de Gerville relating to the Cotentin is now in the Collection
Mancel; recently Armand Benet bequeathed to the library of Evreux
his copies of ducal and other charters. An older collection of much
value for the Cotentin, the copies of Pierre Mangon, is in the library at
Grenoble.'' Of the departmental archives, those of the Eure and Ome
have published inventories of the series most important for the early
period, G and H; those of the Calvados and the Manche for a portion
of H; those of the Seine-Inferiemre only for the Rouen portion of G,
the vich fonds of series H being for the most part still unclassified.'^
The Archives Nationales are useful, so far as ducal Normandy is
concerned, chiefly for the royal vidimus contained in the Registres du
Tr6sor des Chartes.'' There are also, scattered pieces in the Layettes
du Tresor and in other series, notably S, while there is a fine set of
originals for the abbey of Savigny,'^ rescued in 1839 from the garret of
the sous-prSfecture at Mortain.
The Bibliotheque Nationale is exceedingly rich in the manuscript
materials for early Norman history.'* Its resources consist in part of a
^ Infra, Appendix B.
" The cartularies -used by Dom Lenoir are well known save in the case of a
" cartulaire de I'abbaye de Lire trouvfi parmi les mss. de la biblioth^ue du college
des jfisuites de Paris. L'6criture est du 13' siicle " (xxiii. 453; cf. bcxii, 329 ff.).
This seems to be the cartulary used by the editors of the Monasticon, vii. 1092-1095.
'" MSS. Fr. n. a. 202i8-2022r.
" Described by Delisle, in Annuaire de la Manche, 1891, pp. 11-42.
"^ For the Seine-Inf6rieure see P. Chevreux and J. Vernier, Les archives de Nor-
mandie el de la Seine-Inflrieure (Rouen, igii), which contains a collection of fac-
similes.
" See in general the introduction to Delisle, Cartidaire normani, pp. i-iv, who
notes the vidimus as far as 1314. I have searched the series of registers to 1380.
" L. 966-978, recently renumbered. Other originals are in MS. Rouen 3122.
On the history of the archives of Savigny see Delisle's introduction to his edition of
the Rouleau mortuaire du B. Vital (Paris, 1909).
'" See in general Delisle, Le Cabinet des MSS. de la Bibliothigue Nationale (Paris,
1868-1881), and the lists of acquisitions published biennially by Omont in B. £. C.
THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 247
great number of cartularies and original pieces which have been accu-
mulated since the days of Colbert and which now comprise a very
considerable portion of the materials which sUpped out of Norman
archives and libraries before, during, and after the Revolution; in
part, of the copies of modern scholars which preserve matter now lost.
The older portion of these copies include the collections of Baluze, Du
Cange, Duchesne, Brequigny, and others; ^ the transcripts accumu-
lated in the eighteenth century for the series of Chartes el dipldmes and
now chronologically arranged in the Collection Moreau; '' the numer-
ous Norman volumes among the copies of the exact and indefatigable
Gaignieres;^ ecclesiastical compilations like the Monasticon Benedic-
tinum ^' (MSS. Lat. 12658-12704) and Miscellanea MonasHca (MSS.
Lat. 12777-12780), the Nemtria Christiana of Du Monstier (MSS. Lat.
10048-10050), the Hierarchia Normanniae of Coenalis (MS. Lat. 5201),
the materials concerning the diocese of Coutances brought together by
Toustain de Billy (MS. Fr. 4900),*° and the historical collections relat-
ing to Bee (MSS. Lat. 12884, i390S)> Marmoutier {supra, note 25),
and Mont-Saint-Michel (MS. Lat. 5430A, MS. Fr. 18947 £f.). To
these have been added the papers of most of the principal Norman
scholars of the nineteenth century: AchUle DeviQe for Upper Nor-
mandy (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1 243-1 246); L6chaude d'Anisy for Lower
Normandy (MSS. Lat. 10063-10084) ; Auguste Le Prevost for the
department of the Eure (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1837-1838); C. Hippeau for
Saint-Etienne de Caen (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1406-1407) ; and finally the
Certain Norman cartularies are comprised in the considerable group acquired from
the Hbrary of Sir Thomas Phillipps in igo8 (catalogue by Omont, 1909).
For MSS. of Norman origin in the BibliothSque Sainte-GeneviSve see E. DeviUe
in the Revue catholique de Normandie, 1903 ff .
" R. Poupardin, Catalogue des MSS.des collections Duchesne et Brequigny (Paris,
190s); Catalogue de la Collection Baluze by Auvray and Poupardin (Paris, 191s).
Norman cartularies also contributed to the extracts concerning Meulan made by
de Blois ca. 1650 and now preserved in the Collection du Vexin, iv.
" Omont, Inventaire des MSS. de la Collection Moreau (Paris, 1891). The Nor-
man copies are chiefly in the hand of Dom Lenoir; volume 341 is devoted to F&.
" Chiefly in the volumes classified by monasteries; see also the collections con-
cerning Norman bishops (MSS. Lat. 17022 ff.). The extracts published by Delisle
from the collected papers (MSS. Fr. 20899-20917), in Annuaire de la Manche, 1893
and 1898, deal with the later period.
" Analyzed by Delisle, Revue des bibliotheques, vii. 241-267.
*" Cf. the similar matter in MSS. Fr. 4899-4902, n. a. 154-157. The history of
the diocese of Coutances published by the Socifitd de I'histoire de Normandie in 1874
lacks the preuves, as do also the histories of Savigny, JumiSges, and Mont-Saint-
Michel in the same series.
248 APPENDIX A
lifelong accumulations of Leopold Delisle (MSS. Fr. n. a. 21806-
2i873).«
The exploration and publication of these sources have proceeded in
an incomplete and unsystematic fashion. In the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries Norman archives were laid under contribution for
the Neustria Fia of Arthur Du Monstier, the eleventh volume of the
Gallia Christiana, La Roque's Histoire de la maison d'Harcourt, the
Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae of Bessin, and the pubUcations of
Pommeraye relating to Rouen, as well as for the more general ecclesias-
tical collections of MabiUon, Martene and Durand, and d'Achery. In
the nineteenth century leadership passed to the Societe des Antiquaires
de Normandie and the Societe de I'histoire de Normandie, supple-
mented by the Norman academies and various local ■ societies and
reviews, of which the Revue catkoliqtie de Normandie in recent years
deserves special mention. Among individual scholars Leopold Delisle
stands in a place by himself for his thorough acquaintance with Norman
history, narrative and literary as well as documentary. De Gerville, who
did much to stimulate interest in Norman history at the beginning of
the century, was a collector of documents rather than an editor; his
younger contemporary Le Prevost, besides his share in the great edi-
tion of Ordericus, left behind him a collection of Memoires et notes
pour servir d I'histoire du dgpartement de I'Eure (fivreux, 186 2-1 869)
which has not always been sufficiently utilized by his successors.
Amid the multiplicity of scattered publications relatively few Norman
cartularies have been edited, among those of the first importance only
the Cartulaire de la Sainte-Trinite-du-Mont (ed. A. Deville, 1840) and
the Livre noir of Bayeux (Antiquus Cartularitis, ed. V. Bourrienne,
1902-1903).^^ The most extensive publications of this sort (e. g., T.
Bonnin, Cartulaire de Louviers, Paris, 1870-1883) concern chiefly other
periods. Editions by trained scholars are now announced of two
important cartularies of the twelfth century, that of La Trinite de
Caen by R. N. Sauvage, and that of Mont-Saint-Michel by P. Le-
cacheux. For the present the most convenient guide to the contents of
Norman documents is the Calendar of Documents Preserved in France
of J. Horace Round (London, 1899). This is unfortunately based upon
a set of loose copies in the PubUc Record Office,*' and while the editor
supplemented these by personal investigation in France and verified a
" Also many cartularies copied by him or under his direction.
*" C£. A. H. R., viii. 615; supra, Chapter VI, note 15.
" Cf. i4. H. R., viii. 614, note.
THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 249
certain number from the originals, much material was left untouched
and in too many instances the originals were not collated. The anal-
yses of documents and the identification of persons, however, were
made with the care and competence which were to be expected from
this distinguished master of Anglo-Norman history.
At present the study of the docxmientary sources needs to be pushed
in two directions, the history of monasteries and the ducal charters.
In the field of monastic history there is need both of comprehensive
studies Uke the recent monograph of R. N. Sauvage on L'ahhaye de
Saint-Martin de Troam^* (Caen, 1911), and of critical editions of early
charters, such as Ferdinand Lot has given in his Etudes critiques sur
I'abhaye de Saint-Wandrille (Paris, 1913).^ Such studies furnish the
necessary basis for a collection of ducal charters which shall perforin
for the earher dukes the labor so admirably done by DeUsle and Berger
for Henry II. From 1066 on such work must be carried on with the
closest attention to the material in England, for which H. W. C. Davis
has begvm his Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum (i, Oxford, 1913).
" Where, pp. xlv-xlix, other monastic histories are emuuerated. One of the best
is Por€e, Histoire de I'abbaye du Bee (fivreux, 1901).
*' J.-J. Vernier, Les ckartes de I'abbaye de JumUges (Sod^tfi de rhistoire de Nor-
mandie, 1916), reached me only after this volume was in type.
APPENDIX B
THE EARLY DUCAL CHARTERS FOR FfiCAMP
The abbey of Fecamp, " the Saint-Denis of the Norman dukes," *
was from its foundation in the closest relations with the ducal house,
from which it received important grants and privileges; yet its early
charters have received singularly little attention from historians. The
series in the departmental archives at Rouen, though rich for the later
period, contains comparatively few early documents; the earliest orig-
inals passed into private hands and were finally acquired by the
Musee de la Distillerie de Benedictine de Fecamp, to the generosity of
whose proprietors I am indebted for photographs and opportunities
of study on the spot. The cartularies in the Archives of the Seine-
Inferieure (no. i6) and in the Public Library at Rouen (MS. 1207) con-
tain little on the early period, but the careful copies of Dom Lenoir
at Semilly (volume 76) and in the Collection Moreau at the BibUo-
theque Nationale (especially volume 341) are based upon a lost cartu-
lary of the twelfth century as well as upon originals then in possession
of the abbey.
An adequate study of this material can be undertaken only as part
of a history of the monastery, but the student of Norman institutions
caimot avoid an examination of the earUest ducal charters, which offer
an exceptionally full series, with several unpublished originals (see the
facsimiles in the present volume), and are of much importance for the
grants of immunity, the ducal curia, and ducal finance. The following
fist is confined to the charters of Richard I, Richard IT, and Robert I,
and to certain forgeries based upon them and ascribed to WiUiam
the Conqueror.*
In general the early charters of Fecamp show small trace of the
forger's hand, as compared, for example, with the documents of the
same period for Saint- Wandrille and Saint-Ouen. At two points, how-
ever, F& was tempted to sustain its claims by fabrication, with
respect namely to the exemption of Fecamp and certain other parishes
from the authority of the archbishop of Rouen, and to the immuni ty of
the monastery from secular jurisdiction. The documentary basis for
' Prentout, Shide critique sur Dudon de S.-Quentin, p. 326.
' For three unpublished originals of Robert Curthose, see infra. Appendix E,
no. 4.
EARLY CHARTERS FOR FMCAMF 2$ I
the exemption is not entirely dear,' and an interpolation to this effect
was attempted in the earliest charter of the monastery, that of Duke
Richard I {infra, no. i). No immunity is found in this document, but
the first charter of Richard II, issued 30 May 1006 (no. 2), has the
following clause:
Tam honmi quam eorum qug a patre meo tradita sxmt omnis ordinatio
exterius et interius in abbatis sibique subiectorum consistat arbitrio, undeque
eonun dispositioni resistat persona nuUa parva vel magna cuiuscumque
officii dignitatisve. Et non soltim in rerum ordinatione iustici sad in resti-
tuendi abbatis electione ... a nobis iuste collata utantur libertate.*
A specific grant of immtmity appears for the first time in no. 5, Rich-
ard II's charter Propitia of 1025 (1027), in exactly the same terms as in
the contemporary charters for Jumieges and Bemai and in the charters
of Robert I for Saint-Amand and La Trinite du Mont: *
Haec omnia . . . concedo . . . ut habeant, teneant, et possideant abs-
que ulla inquietudine cuiuslibet sgcularis vel iudiciarig potestatis sicuti res
ad fiscum dominicum pertinentes.
This is clearly the genuine and standard form of the Fecamp inmnmity.
The general confirmation of Robert I in its expanded text (no. loB)
gives a different statement:
Ista igitur bona et omnia alia qu§ Fischannensi monasterio olim donata
sunt sub solius abbatis potestate et iusticia constituimus ut nuUius digni-
tatis homo aliquando manum intromittere presiunat.
The fabrication based upon nos. 5 and 10 and ascribed to William the
Conqueror (no. 11) elaborates the exemption with particular reference
to Saint-Gervais:
' Documents are lacking to confinn the account in the De revelatione (Neustria
Pia, p. 214; Bessin, Concilia, ii. 21) according to which the freedom ' ab omni
episcoporum iugo et consuetudine * was granted by Richard II, King Robert,
Archbishop Robert, and Benedict VIII; but such an exemption is presupposed in
the freedom ' ab omni episcopali consuetudine . . . sicut tenet Fiscarmensiecclesia'
which was granted to Montivilliers in 1035 {Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 326; infra,
Appendix C, no. 17). For the controversies over exemption at the close of the
eleventh century see the Ordinationes facte in monasterio Fiscanni, in Mabillon,
Annates, iv, 668; and the treatises in MS. 415 of Corpus Christi College, Cam-
bridge (Bohmer, Kirche und Staat, pp. 180, 183).
* King Robert's charter of even date has: ' Sicut nulli ordini, dignitati, potestati,
hereditarieque successioni, nostre quinimmo maiestati super idem ius relinquere
decrevimus dominationis.' E. F., x. 588.
' Supra, p. 26. For the later history of the immunity of F6camp, see Valin,
p. 224; Delisle-Berger, no. 57.
252 APPENDIX B
Et ab omni servido archiepiscopali sit libera sicut Fiscanni abbacia, ut
nullus meus heres aut archiepiscopus seu alicuius potestatis persona audeat
infringere vel violare banc meam donacionem.
The second of the forgeries attributed to the Conqueror (no. 12), with
the related extract concerning Steyning, was prepared primarily for use
in England; for the Norman lands it merely repeats the clause of
Richard II with the insertion of vd diminutione, whereas for the
English possessions it repeats the clause in this form and adds
Et quod abbas et monachi ecclesie Fiscannensis vel eonun ministri regiam
habeant libertatem et consuetudinem et iusticiam siiam de omnibus rebus et
negotiis que in terra sua evenient vel poterunt evenire, nee aliquis nisi per
eos se inde intromittat, quia hoc totum regale beneficiiun est et omni servi-
tute quietiun.
Such ' royal liberty and justice ' was confirmed to the abbey by
Henry n.«
1
989-990 (?)
Charter of Richard I, with the concurrence of Archbishop Robert and aU
the bishops of Normandy, granting to Ficamp MondevUle, Argences,
(Calvados), Saint-Valery, ' Bretennoles,' and IngouviUe (Seine-In-
firieure) (together with the exemption of the abbey church and twelve
others from all episcopal jurisdiction).
A, original lost; B, copy in lost cartulary of 12th century; C, copy
of 12th century in the Public Library of Rouen, MS. 427, f. 151V.
La Roque, Histoire de la maison d'Harcourt, iii. 165 (cf. 164), ' ex-
traict des archives de I'abbaye '; Neustria Pia, p. 208, from C, omit-
ting several witnesses; Poimneraye, Sanctae Rotomagensis Ecclesiae
Concilia, p. 60; extract in factimi of 1688 (Bibliothfeque Nationale,
factum 12070, 2), where it is attributed to Richard II. Cf. Mabillon,
Annales, iv. 57 (62); Bessin, Concilia, ii. 21; Gallia Christiana, xi. 203,
where the text is corrected from B.
The charter is undated but was apparently given at the time of the
dedication, the date of which is not given by Dudo, William of Ju-
mifeges, or the F& annals (Labbe, Nova Bibliotheca, i. 325), but
appears as 989 or 990 in the later annalists (Duchesne, Historiae Nor-
mannorum Scriptores, p. 1017; H. F., x. 317; Gallia Christiana, xi.
203). The document cannot in any case be earlier than 989, the year
• Delisle-Berger, no. 57.
EARLY CHARTERS FOR FSCAMP 253
of the accession of Robert to the archbishopric of Rouen (Annals of
Junneges, in the Vatican, MS. Regina 553, part 2, f. 6; Ordericus, ii.
365, V. 156; cf . Vacandard in Revue catholiqtte de Normandie, xiii. 196) ;
it is fundamental for the dates of the Norman bishops, who are all
mentioned by name.
The exemption of the thirteen parishes from the archbishop's juris-
diction, which is found in all the printed texts, is an obvious interpola-
tion, as was pointed out by the editors of the Gallia, who note that it
does not occur in B. There is no apparent reason for doubting the
remainder of the document: a charter of Richard I is specifically cited
by Richard II {infra, no, 2), and the places here granted are recited in
the general confirmation of Richard II (no. 5). The enumeration in
this confirmation of other grants of Richard I — fitigues, etc. — may
imply other charters of his now lost.
30 May 1006, doubtless at Fecamp
Charter of Richard II granting to Ficamp freedom of election according
to the custom of Cluny, and adding to the gifts of his father possessions in
the following places: Ficamp, ' Giruinivilla' (= Vittefleur?), Arques,
Scretteville, Harfleur, Rouen, Pissy, Barentin (Seine-Infirieure),
Aizier (Eure), Hennequemlle (Calvados), and five churches in VaudreuU.
A, original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. i; B, copy in Collection
Moreau, cccxli. 2, from which the portions in brackets have been
restored.
Unpublished; see the facsimile, plate i. These privileges are con-
firmed by a charter of King Robert, issued at Fecamp on the same day:
collated copies in Musee, nos. 2, 3; printed in Gallia Christiana, xi.
instr. 8; Mabillon, Annates, iv. 170 (185); H. F., x. 587, no. xvi;
Pfister, Robert le Pieux, catalogue, no. 30.*
m NOMINE SANCTAE ET INDIVroUAE TEINITATIS DIVINA FAVENTE GEATIA
[siCAiinus] COMES ET PATRiTius.|| Hactenus locum istum vulgaris fama
Fiscamnum vocare consuevit, cuius ethimologia perspecta doctores novelli
quidam fixum scamnum quidam fixum campum volimt appeUari. ReUicto
ergo inter contentiosos iudido huius nominis, causa divim servidi quae ibi
' The original of Robert's other charter for Fecamp (B. F., x. 387, no. xv; Pfister,
no. 33) isintheMusfie,no. i; copy in Collection Moreau, cccxli. 12. For other early
giants to Fecamp, see La Roque, iii. 167; Depoin, CarUdaire de S.-Martin de
Pontoise, p. 342.
254 APPENDIX B
agitur quando vel quomodo cepta sit cognoscatur. Sicut in universis terrae
partibus sancta mater aecclesia multiplicato gaudet filiorum numero, ita in
ipsisexultare cupit openim bononun incremento. Quorum multis per alianun
exequutiones virtutimi occupatis, dum quidam ex transitoriis bonis ou-as
genmt pauperum, alii sanctorum locis edificandis invigilant, quasi decollatis
beneficiis Christo vidssitudinem reddimt,ut cum illo felicius vivant. Quorum
exemplo notmn sit presentibus et futuris in hoc loco patrem metim comitem
Richardimi fundamento construxisse aecclesiam in honore sanctae et indi-
viduae trinitatis consubstantialispatris et filii et spiritus sancti,eo intentionis
voto ut coUectus monachonun ordo sub regula Sancti Benedicti viveret et
Dei laudibus inserviret. Cuius desiderium ubi mors abstulit imperfecttun,
ego Richardus comes eius equivocus filius suscepi peragendum, nee multo
post divina providentia inventum domnum Wilelmum abbatem et precibus
et caput huius crescendg religionis preesse institui. Sub quo iam multipU-
catis monachis et multiplicandis temporalibus bonis quae a patre meo huic
loco concessa sunt et pwr cartam firmata, h§c ex hereditario iure concessa
super addo: In comitatu scilicet Calciacensi in ipsa villa Fiscamno tertiam
partem hospitum quos colonos vocant cum terra arabili quae ad ipsam ter-
tiam partem pertinet, unam partem silvae a publica strata usque ad mare
terminatam, et dimidium vectigal; in Giruinivilla cum duobus molendinis
quicquid habere visus sum; apud villam Archas tertiam partem piscariae
et duas salinas et aliqviid terrae arabilis cum prato; aecclesiam Scrotivillae
et aliquid terrae arabilis; apud Harofloz .i. mansum cum Ix. pensis salis cum
.iiii. hacreis prati; in civitate Rotomagensi mansum umun ami ca[p]ella et
XXX hacreis terrg arabilis cum vii hacreis prati; et in comitatu eiusdem
civitatis gcclesiam Piscei et aliquid terrae arabilis cum gcclesia Barentini
villae; in vallae Rologiville aecclesiam Sanctae Mariae, aecclesiam Sancti
Stephani, gcclesiam Sanctae Ceciliae, aecclesiam Sancti Satumini, aecclesiam
Sancti Quintini cum capeUis subiectis eis et quicquid terrae arabilis et prati
ad eas pertinet; super ripam Sequang Aschei villam et quicquid ibi Trostin-
cus tenuit; Heldechimvillam super mare. Hgc predicto loco perpetualiter
habenda concgdo, igitur tarn [h]orum quam eormn qug a patre meo tradita
simt omnis ordinatio exterius et interius in abbatis sibique subiectonun
consistat arbitrio, undeque eorum dispositioni resistat persona nuUa parva
vel magna cuiuscinnque officii dignitatisve. Et non solum in rerum ordina-
tione iusticia sed in restituendi abbatis electione, ubi morte subtractus
fuerit, a nobis iuste collata utantiir hbertate, ita dimitaxat ut in ipsa elec-
tione vel ordinatione abbatis ilia per omnia servetur consuetudo quae
hactenusin Cluniaco cgnobiorum servata est ilIu[s]trissimo, imde fonssanctae
monasticg religionis per multa iam longe lateque dirivatus loca ad hunc
usque Deo profluit propicio. Cuius sanctae religionis observatio ut magis ac
magis ad profectum tam meg quam genitoris ac genitricis omniumque
fideUum proficiat animarum hoc in Fixiscamnensi monasterio, sicut nuUi
ordini dignitati potestati heredetarigque successioni relinquere super idem
ius decrevimus dominationis, ita si a iam cepta, quod absit, deviaverit
rectitudine, nulH illud in pristinum reformanti mercedem denegamus recu-
perationis, sed et nostrorum super his decretorum invasores violatores sive
destructores nisi emendaverint non evadere se sciant maledictionem Dei sed
EARLY CHARTERS FOR FECAMP 255
cum diabolo et luda proditore pgnas quibunt in inferno sustinere impiorum
[ubi v]errais non morietur et ignis non extinguetur in gternum. 4-Ego
autem kichakdus Norhtmannonim dux, ut hinc mihi merces cumuletur
aeterna huiusque cartule testamentum per Widonem notarium meo rogatu
conscriptum stipulatione firmetur, subnixa propria signans manu firmavi
bisque roborari [rogans t]estibus tradidi. SS Rodulf[i] SS Wilelm[i] SS
[ego wmo] NOTAMUS lussu [domni kichardi illustrissimi ducis, qui
MISERICORDIAE OPEMBUS VALDE QUIA STUDET] ELEMOSINAKIUS VOCATUX,
HOC [testamentum] SCEIPSI anno DOMINICg INCAIINATIONIS [m. VI. INDIC-
TIONE nn. DDE TERTIO ANTE KAL. lUNH V. FEEIA DOMINIC^ ASCENSIONIS
GAUDIO] CELEBEREIMA, FELICITER.
IOI7-IO25 (?)
Charter of Richard II granting for the enrichment of Fecamp lands and
churches in F Scamp, Sassetot{ ?), Limpiville, Trimauville, Ganzeville,
Manneville (?), Dun, Barentin, Campeaux, La Carboniere, arid Villers-
Chambellan ' {Sdne-Inflrieure).
A, original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. 2 Ms; B, copy by Dom
Lenoir from A in Collection Moreau, cccxli. 6, from which blurred
words in the original have been supplied; C, another copy from A at
Semilly, Ixxvi. 165; D, copy by A. Deville, MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, f. no.
UnpubUshed; see the facsimile, plate 2. Subsequent to 1017, when
the predecessor of Maingisus attests as bishop of Avranches; anterior
to no. 5. According to Dom Lenoir, " on pense a Fecamp que cette
charte est de 1' an 1023."
+QUONIAM VEEmiCA DIVINARUM SCRIPTURARUM ASSERTIONS || prisCOrUm-
que patrum monimentis expresse edocti id certa ratione comperimus quod
quicunque omnipotentis Dei premisso timore speque animatus perhennis
vitg aliquod quantulumcumque munusculum sanctg matri aecclesig ex
propriis iureque adquisitis rebus contulerit, absque dubio in futuro ei re-
compensabitur superni bravii sterna; unde ego Richardus huiusce cespitis
monarchus, ut credo summi Dei crebrerrimis cordetenus agitatiis huiusmodi
inspirationis spiculis, quendam locum qui dicitur Fiscamus dicatum in
honore summi redemptoris sacris ordinibus monachonmi ex more mancipavi
quo perpetualiter inibi laudetur nomen Domini. Ut autem devotionis nostrg
inconvulsa permaneat ratio, decrevi locum iUum ditari et augere. Ad
augendam igitur vitam inibi Domino militantium concedo in ipso loco
Fiscanio .xii. bofi ' terrg .xii.que domes; gcclesiam Beati Stephani cum bon
' According to Dom Lenoii the last three are hamlets in the neighborhood of
Barentin. Instead of Sassetot one would expect £l6tot, as in no. 5.
' Delisle, ^ude sur I'agriadture, p. 537, found no instance of this measure of
land, the bonaria or bonata, in Normandy.
256 APPENDIX B
.vi.; gcclesiam Beati Benedict! cum terra qug est inter duos fluvios at mol-
endinouno; inSaestetothecclesiamcumxii. bonterrg; Leopini villam totam
cum ecclesia et quicquid ad earn pertinet; in Tormodi villa ecclesiam cum
terra unius carrucg; in GansanviUa ecclesiam cum terra ad earn pertinente; ad
Manonis villam fcclesiam cum xii. boil et acri terre; in viUa qug dicitur Dunus
.iii. gcclesias cum .xl.iiii. boii terrg; gcclesiam villg que dicitur Barentinus
cum duobus hospitibus et aream molendini unam aquamque villg a gordo de
PaiJiaco usque ad fagum comitissg; villam quoque qug dicitur Campelli cum
silva qug est a valle Carbonaria usque ad vaUem Villaris. Eo pacto ut hgc
qug prefata sunt inviolabiUter teneant inibi Deo miUtantes absque ullius
molestia et contradictione sub manu nostrg firmitatis fidelimnque nostro-
rumque astipulatione.
+Signum Richardi comitis+Signum Ricardi filii eius+Signum Rotberti
filii eius +Sigmmi Rotberti archiepiscopi H-Signum Hugonis Baiocensis
episcopi+Signimi Hugonis Ebroicensis episcopi+Signum Mangisi Abrincen-
sis episcopi +Signum Nigelli vicecomitis +Signum Torstingi vicecomitis.
15 June 1023, at Rouen
Grant to Ficatnp by Gaieran I ofMeulan, in the presence of Richard II,
of the toll and piage of Meulan.
A, quasi-original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. 28; B, copy there-
from by Dom Lenoir at Semilly, Ixxvi. 167.
Unpublished. ' Actum Rothomago (sic) .xvii. kal. lulii indictione
.vi. regnante Rotberto serenissimo rege Francorum ante presentiam
gloriosi Richardi Normannorum ducis et fratris eius Roberti ipsius
urbis archiepiscopi et domini Willelmi iam dicti monasterii abbatis.'
Attestations ' Waleranni, Herberti comitis Cenomannic§ civitatis,
loffredi comitis Bellimontis castri, Hilduini vicecomitis Mellensis
supradicti castri.'
August 1025 (?), at Fecamp
Great charter of Richard II enumerating and confirming the gifts of his
father, himself, and his followers to Ficamp, including the tithe of his
mint and his camera, to hold on the same conditions as his own demesne.
{Inc. ' Propitia divin§ gratiae dementia. . . .')
A, original in Mus6e de la B€n6dictine, no. 2 ter; see the facsimile,
plate 3. There is now no trace of a seal, but according to F (see Delisle,
in MS. Fr. n. a. 21819, ff. 8-12) it still had a great seal in 1503. Dom
Lenoir says: " II y avoit un sceau applique dont la figure etoit ronde.
EARLY CHARTERS FOR FSCAMP 257
H ne subsiste plus, mais on voit encore les incisions faites au bas de la
charte pour introduire la cire siu: laquelle ce sceau etoit imprime." B,
copy from A by Dom Lenoir, Collection Moreau, cccxli. 8; C, collated
copy of 1320 in Musee, no. 4; D, vidimus of Philip III formerly in
archives of the abbey (cf . Collection Moreau, cccxli. 8) ; E, copy of D
in cartulary, MS. Rouen 1 207, f . i ; F, modern copies in Archives of the
Seine-Inferieure.
Neustria Pia, p. 215, with innimierable errors; T. Bonnin, Cartidaire
de Louviers, i. 3, from E; cf. DeUsle, Cartidaire normand, no. 833.
The date in the original runs as follows, substantially as in Neustria
Pia: DATA MENSE AUGUSTO CONSmENTIBUS NOBIS FISCANNI PALATIO
ANNO AB mCARNATIONE DOMINI .1. XXVII. INDICTIONE VIII. EEGNANTE
ROTBERTO EEGE ANNO XXXVI. The same date appears, save for the
year of King Robert which is given as the thirty-eighth, in two other
charters of Richard II which also show close resemblance in the final
clauses: one a pancarta for Jumieges preserved in vidimus of 1499 and
1533 and in cartulary copies in the Archives of the Seine-Inferieure
(Vernier, no. 12, who does not discuss the date); the other the
foundation charter of Bemai, preserved only in copies from which it
has been edited by Le Prevost, Eure, i. 284 (less correctly in Neustria
Pia, p. 398; extract in La Roque, iii. 165). The impossibility of recon-
ciling the various elements in this date has been evident since the time
of Du Monstier and MabiUon (Annales, iv. 286), who ascribed the
difficulty to an error in copying 1027 instead of 1026 or 1025. We now
know that the original has, not only 1027, but a regnal year, the
thirty-sixth, which corresponds to no known style of Robert (Pfister,
£tudes sur Robert le Pieux, pp. xlii-xliv) ; yet according to the narra-
tive sources Richard II died 23 August 1026 (ibid., p. 216, note 6; cf.
Lot, S.-Wandrille, p. 50, note i). Norman scholars have generally
agreed to follow the indiction, which together with the regnal year (38)
of the charters for Jumieges and Bemai, gives August 1025 as the date
of the three charters and thus brings them into agreement with the
chronology of the period so far as it has yet been established. See
Le Provost, Eure, i. 283 (cf. however his edition of Ordericus, i. 175,
note 2, ii. 10, note 2); Sauvage, Traarn, p. 11, note 2.
258 APPENDIX B
I025-1026
Grata to FScamp by Raindd, vicomte ofArques, attested by Richard II,
of all his possessions at Argues and in the comity of Argues and at San-
tigny(?), and the churches of Saint-Aubin and Tourville {Seine-In~
fSrieure).
A, original lost; B, figured copy of ca. iioo in the Archives of the
Seine-Inferieure; C, copy of B by A. Deville, MS. Lat. n. a. 1245,
f. III.
Published with facsimile by Chevreux and Vernier, Les archives de
Normandie et de la Seine-Infirieure, plate 9, from B, which is called an
original of ca. iioo, the relation to Richard II being overlooked.
The charter belongs to the very end of Richard II's reign, as its
grants are not included in those confirmed in no. 5, while they are
specifically enumerated by Robert I in no. 10. This charter and its
confirmation by Robert I are cited in a charter of William, count of
Arques, 18 July 1047: original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. 5 bis;
printed in Martene and Diu-and, Thesaurus Anecdotorum, i. 166;
Brussel, Usage des fiefs (1750), i. 84.
zz April 1028 (or Z034), at Fecamp
Charter of Robert I authorizing an exchange between Bishop Hugh of
Bayeux and the monks of FScamp with reference to Argences, and provid-
ing that disputes respecting the agreement should be brought before his
court.
A, original lost; B, copy in lost cartulary of 12th century; C, copy
from B by Dom Lenour in Collection Moreau, xxi. 9.
Unpublished; cf. E. E. R., xxxi. 264, no. 8; infra, Appendix C, p.
272, no. 8.
The omission of any reference to the abbot makes it probable that
this charter belongs to 1028, between the resignation of William of
Dijon and the consecration of John. If the leuva of Argences included
in no. 10 had ahready been granted to the abbey, it would probably be
mentioned specifically in this charter. The prolonged difficulties be-
tween the duke and Bishop Hugh are another reason for placing the
charter early in Robert's reign (William of Jumieges, bk. vi, c. 5).
Rotbertus nutu Dei Northmannorum dux omnibus fidelibus nostris
cuiuscumque ordinis, indominicatis scilicet et vavassoribus seu ubicumque
EARLY CHARTERS FOR FMCAMP 259
in Christum credentibus, notitiam et commutuationem quam salva fide in
memoriam tam presentibus quam futuris litteris tradere disponimus. No-
tum sit igituT vobis quod Hugo Baiocacensis §cdesig episcopus venit ad
meam mercedem castro Fiscanni die Cgng Dominicg qug habita est eo anno
.iii. idus Aprilis, in quo castro in honore summg et individug Trinitatis bong
memorig avus mens et pater monasteriiun construxerunt ac villis et orna-
mentis honorifice decoraverunt et, quod meKus est, monachis pro animabus
nostris Deo cotidie servientibus deputavenmt. Deprecatus est autem mer-
cedem meam ut apud ipsius monasterii monachos impetrarem ut terram qug
didtur Argentias quam prgnotatus avus meus R. nobilis dux altario eiusdem
sanctg et individug Trinitatis in dotem tradidit ei commutuarent. Quod
post multas eorum excusationes tandem obtinui. Fecerunt itaque per tales
tamen convenientias; Episcopus debet dare monachis centum hospites ad
presens qui totas diptas reddant et liberos ab omni meo servido vel costumis
per meam auctoritatem et per memn donum in alodiun et hereditatem per-
petuam, et tres gcdesias et xx" francos homines in locis qui appellantur
BoiavQla, Brunvilla, Penloi, Lexartum cum portu piscatorio, cmn silvis,
pascuis, et omnibus pertinentiis suis, et villam qug didtur Vetus Redum cum
molendino et omnibus appendiciis eius; et debet redpere ab ipsis monachis
predictam terram, id est Argentias, per tale conventmn ut usque dum vixerit
teneat et post obitum eius monachi eam statim redpiant, id est ipsam viUam
Argentias, per meam licentiam sine contradictione alicuius potestatis cuius-
libet ordinis seu magng parvgque persong, sic ex integro ciun terris, vineis,
molendinis, silvis, pratis, aquis, et mercato forensi seu omnibus appendiciis
eius absque tilla calumnia, sicut unquam meUus tenuerunt; et ip>sos centum
hospites quos episcopxis donat, sicut prgdictmn est, in prenominatis lods
cum omnibus suis appendiciis similiter ami ipsa post obitum episcopi teneant
et possideant ivae hereditario in alodum ex mea parte concessmn sicut pre-
dictum est. Notum quoque esse volo quia iUa terra quam dat episcopus
quorundam hominiun calumniis refutata est a monachis postquam has.
convenientias incgpimus antequam perficeremus, et postea a me et ab ipso
episcopo tali convenientia est data et ab eis recepta ut si per iUam calumniam
damnmn aliquod ipsi monachi habuerint, duas redamationes in mea corte
vel curia fadant, et si time ego et episcopus non acquitaverimus eam, mo-
nachi per meam licentiam sine contradictione vel malivolentia episcopi vel
alicuius hominis reveniant ad villam suam Argentias et redpiant eam et
teneant et possideant absque ullo deinceps cambio. Si quis vero contra
hanc nostrg auctoritatis commutuationem aUquando temerario ausu inferre
calumniam presumpserit, primitus ab ipso Deo patre omnipotente et a filio
eius unigenito domino nostro et a spiritu sancto sit maledictus et excom-
municatus et a beata Dei genitrice Maria et electo archangelo Michaele,
Gabriele, Raphaele, et ab omnibtis cglestium virtutum spiritibus et omnibus
patriarchis prophetis apostolis martyribus confessoribus virginibus viduis et
omnibus electis Dd, et sit in gtema damnatione cum Dathan et Abiron quos
vivos terra absorbuit et cum luda traditore qui Dominum predo tradidit
necnon et cum his qui dixerunt Deo, Recede a nobis, scientiam viarum tuarum
nolumus, nisi digna satisfactione emendaverit. Amen.
26o APPENDIX B
8
1028-103S
Charier of Robert I restoring to Ficamp Argences and other domains.
A, original lost; B, official copy of 1688 in Archives of the Seine-
Inferieure, according to DeUsle; these archives and the fonds of the
barony of Argences in the Archives of the Calvados have been searched
without success.
Extracts in Delisle, S.-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, pieces, no. 10; cf. infra,
Appendix C, no. 9.
This charter is evidently posterior to no. 7. Argences is not one of
the places claimed by Hugh of Bayeux after Robert's death {Livre
noir, no. 21.)
9
Ca. 1034-1035
Charter of Robert I granting Saint-Taurin of &iireux in exchange for
Montivilliers as a dependency of Ficamp.
A, original lost. Printed in Martene and Durand, Thesaurus Anec-
dotorum, i. 154. Cf. Appendix C, no. 10.
Evidently not long anterior to the foundation of MontiviUiers 13
January 1035 (pallia Christiana, xi. instr. 326; infra, Appendix C,
no. 17).
10
I032-I035
Charter of Robert I enumerating his grants of lands and knights to
Ficamp, including the gifts of Rainald of Argues (no. 6).*
Supposed originals, unsealed, in Musee de la Benedictine, with iden-
tical witnesses but differences in content: A (no. 3 bis), on long, some-
what irregular, unruled piece of parchment, with frequent use of the
form ae and with crosses in different hands before ten of the witnesses;
B (no. 4 bis), on broad, ruled parchment, written in a closer hand, with
* The places mentioned, which lie chiefly in the Pays de Caux, are Petitville,
ficretteviUe, Bemai (Eure?), fil6tot, Arques, Tourville-sur-F6camp, Argences
(Calvados), Ourville, Oissel-sur-Seine, SorquainviUe, Bennetot, BiviUe-Ia-Martel,
Ypreville, Riville, Ermenouville(?), Nfiville, Anglesqueville, and Caen. Santinia-
cus villa (cf . no. 6) and Corhvilma I have not identified, unless the latter be the
'insula Oscelli que et Turhulmus dicitur' (lie de B€danne) of the cartulary of
La Trinit£-du-Mont, no. 82 ; cf. Toussaint Duplessis, Description de la Haute
Normandie,ii. i2t, 274.
EARLY CHARTERS FOR FMCAMP 26 1
crosses, apparently in the same hand, before all the witnesses; C,
copies by Dom Lenoir in Collection Moreau, cccxli. 12, 15; D, ditto at
SemiUy, Ixx. 525.
UnpubUshed; see the facsimiles, plates 4 and 5. Extracts in La
Roque, iii. 19, iv. 1323; cf. E. H. R., xxsd. 264, nos. 6, 7; infra, Appen-
dix C, nos. 6, 7.
Subsequent to the accession of Gradulf as abbot of Saint-Wandrille,
whose predecessor died 29 November 103 1. Junguene, archbishop of
Dol, whose latest attestation in charters is of 1032, seems to have been
active in the service of Coxmt Alan III for a year or two longer; his
successor cannot be traced before 1040. See Gallia Christiana, xiv.
104s; La Borderie, in Revue de Bretagne, 1891, i. 264-267; id., Histoire
de Bretagne, iii. 10 f .
The signature of Edward the Confessor as king renders it rather
likely that neither A nor B is an original, although it is not impossible
that he used this title in Canute's lifetime, as in a questionable charter
for Mont-Saint-Michel (see Appendix C, p. 273). Further doubt is
thrown upon B by the broad grant of authority to the abbot in the last
sentence. The contents of A seem to me genuine, and the royal tit'e of
Edward would be a natural addition in an early copy.
A and B
In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.' Ego Rotbertus filius secxmdi
Richardi nutu Dei Northmannorum ducis et ipse per gratiam Dei princeps et
dx (sic) Northmannorum notum fieri volo tam presentibus quam futuris ea
quae respectu gratiae Dei contuli universorum domino sanctae scilicet et
individug tieinitati in loco qui dicitur Fiscannus post decessum patris. mei
pro salute amm§ meg et predecessorum meorum fratrum quoque et sororum.
Quae omnia nominanter subter ' asscribere volui ne memorig laberentur sub-
sequent! posteritate haec sunt: Pitit villa cum omnibus sibi pertinentiis;
quidam^ homines mei scih'cet nulites cum omnibus sibi pvertinentibus; Mi
sunt Hundul filius Gosmanni et nepotes eius filii Bloc, Walterius quoque
filius Girvilfi, filti Gonfredi omnes de GerviniviUa, Torqnitil filius Adlec,
lustaldus clericus et Rodulfus laicus fratresque eorum filii Hugonis de Barda
villa. Dedi autem terram quae Scrot viUa dicitur cum omnibus sms appen-
diciis. Reddidi etiam totam medietatem Bemai villg cum omnibus que ad
ipsam medietatem pertinent ex integro. Dedi etiam viUam quae dicitiu:
Eslettot. Reddidi quoque omnem terram quam Rainaldus vicecomes apud
Areas et in Turvilla et Santiniaco villa tenere videbatur cum aeclesiis et
molendinis et bosco qui dicitur Appasilva, cum salinis, piscariis, pratis, hos-
pitibus, et onmibus appenditiis suis et omnibus hominibus qui sibi subiecti
* ' -|-rN NOMINE PATEIS EI FUJI ET SPIRITUS SANCT[i a]mEN,' B.
' Om. B. * B om. guidam . . . quae (before Scrot villa).
262 APPENDIX B
fuenint. [Dedi ' quoque silvam quae Bocolimda • dicitur iuxta Fiscannum ex
toto. Commutuavi autem eis silvam quam inter duas aquas dicunt ex utra-
que parte et omnia que ad earn pertinent. Dedi quoque terram qug Hurvilla
dicitur quam mea avia pro salute parentum nostrorum et sua Fiscanni loco
destinavit, cellarium insuper et vineam. Contuli ' etiam alios milites, scilicet]
Osbertum filium Gosmanni cum suo alodo et Ursonem et Willelmum eius
fratrem filios videlicet Anslecci. Donavi apud Argentias leuvam iuxta
morem patriae nostrae propter mercatum ipsius villae. Haec omnia pro
salute animg meae et parentum meorum soli Deo trine ' et uno vivo et vero
contuli. Siquis autem, quod fieri non credo, contra banc nostrg preceptionis
cartulam contraire aut calmnpniam inferre temptaverit, cum luda traditore
partem habeat si non emendaverit. Ut vero firma et stabilita haec descriptio
permaneat, manu propria subter affirmo et fidelibus meis firmare precipio.
Reddidi etiam decimam de feriis de Cadumo. Dedi quoque piscariam quod
vulgo gordum dicitur apud OsceUmn villam. Dedi decimas de pratis in villa
que dicitur Corhulma. Donavi nihUominus Ansfredum de Soastichin villa
cum omni terra sua ubicunque tenere videbatur.
B
Sed et terram Hugonis de Sortichin villa et de Barda villa ubicunque
tenere videbantiur de me in Calz et terram Walter filii Girulfi de Hastingi-
villa et omnem terram filiorum Bloc et terram Hundul filii Gosmanni quam
de me tenere videbantur in Calz, id est Bernetot et Buie villam ciun aliis
sibi pertinentiis et terram Osberti filii Gosmanni omne eius alodimi, id est
Ypram villam et Rivillam, et terram filiorum Anslec, id est Ermendi villam
cum omnibus qug ad ipsam pertinent et omne alodum eorum (?)videbatur
in Calz. Dedi quoque Nevillam et omne alodum filiorum Audoeni ubicumque
tenere videbantur de me. Dedi terram filiorum Turfredi, id est Anglis-
cavillam et omne alodum eorum in Calz, et terram filiorum Gonberti de
Gervini villa et terram Gazel quam de me tenebat in Fischanno, id est cam-
partum de Fischanno et aliquos hospites, et terram Murieldis de AmbHda et
in Cadomo unum burgarium ad pontum et terram Rotberti de Habvilla.
Ista igitur bona et omnia alia qug Fischannensi monasterio olim donata sunt
sub solius abbatis potestate et iusticia constituimus ut nullius dignitatis
homo aliquando manum intromittere presumat.
AandB
+Signum Rotberti Normannorum ducis. +Signum Willelmi filii eius.
+Signum domni Rotberti archiepiscopi. +Signum Rotberti episcopi.
Signum Gingoloi archiepiscopi. Signum domni lohannis abbatis. +Sigmmi
Willelmi abbatis. Signum Gradulfi abbatis. Signum Rainerii abbatis.
+Signum Durandi abbatis. +Signum Isemberti abbatis. +Signum
Edwardi regis. Signum Balduini comitis. Signum Ingelranni comitis.
' In A the three lines printed in brackets are written more closely over an erasure.
' Buculunda, B.
' B cm. contuli . . . Anslecci.
• A. caps.
EARLY CHARTERS FOR FECAMP 263
Signum Gisleberti comitis. Signum Negelli. Signum Osberti senscali( ?)
+Siginim Unfredi vetuU. Signum Richard! vicecomitis. Signum Gozilini
vicecomitis. Signiun Turstini vicecomitis. Signum Aymonis vicecomitis.
Signum Toroldi constabilarii.
11
Forged charter of William the Conqueror confirming Fecamp in posses-
sion of Saint-Gervais of Rouen, free from all subjection to the archbishop,
as granted by Richard II.
A, pretended original in a late hand, apparently of the fourteenth
century, in Musee de la Benedictine, unnumbered; see the facsimile,
plate 6. B, vidimus of Pope Benedict XIII, 28 June 1404, copied in
Fecamp cartulary (C) and in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure (D).
Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 43, from CD; Round, Calendar,
no. 113, from D. Cf. A. H. R., xiv. 459, note 41.
Delisle declared this charter a forgery because of the combination of
William's royal style with witnesses dead long before 1066. Roimd,
p. xxvi, explained the anachronism as an " interpolation by a long sub-
sequent scribe," and assigned the document to " the critical years
1035-1037," with which he found the list of witnesses " wholly con-
sistent "; while F. M. Stenton, William the Conqueror, p. 75 f., elabo-
rates from it the entourage of the young duke. The charter is a rank
fabrication of a later age. The royal style of 1066 ff . is in the pretended
original; the handwriting is painfully imitated; John, who is repre-
sented as receiving the original gift from Richard, became abbot under
Robert I. The obvious purpose was to strengthen the priory against
the archbishop, who is not mentioned in Richard II's original grant
(no. s). The penal clause is copied from Richard's charter. The
witnesses are taken bodily from Robert's charter, no. 10; Durand of
Cerisy was probably no longer abbot by 1035.
12
Forged charter of William the Conqueror confirming to Ficamp its
lands in England with royal liberty and jurisdiction, free from all secular
service, and its possessions in Normandy as granted in the charter of his
predecessor Count Richard.
A, pretended original in Mus& de la Benedictine, no. 7; B, early
copy in Public Record Office, Cartae Antiquae, S. i ; C, cartulary, MS.
Rouen 1207, f. 3.
264 APPENDIX B
Monasticon, vii. 1082, from B. Cf. Report of the Deputy Keeper,
xxix. app., p. 42 ; Davis, Regesta, no. 112. The charter in Neustria Pia,
p. 223, is apparently a truncated copy of this; there is also an extract
in La Roque, iv* 2219.
The style of the charter and the extraordinary privileges which it
purports to grant are sufficient to condemn it, quite apart from the
appearance of the pretended original. A connection with a forged
grant concerning the abbot's rights in Ste)aiing, which is abstracted in
the charter rolls {Calendar, i. 322; Davis, no. 253), has been pointed
out by Round, E. H. R., xxix. 348; this may be merely an extract from
the fuller charter. As indicated above, the inflation of no. 12 is rather
on the English than on the Norman side, where it repeats the language
of Richard's charter Propitia (no. 5).
APPENDIX C
THE MATERIALS FOR THE REIGN OF ROBERT I'
Robert I, commonly called Robert the Magnificent or, for no good
reason, Robert the Devil, is one of the less known figures in the series
of Norman dukes. His reign was brief and left few records, and it was
naturally overshadowed by that of his more famous son, yet we shall
never imderstand the Normandy of the Conqueror's time without some
acquaintance with the period immediately preceding. The modern
sketches are scanty and unsatisfactory, and while the extant evidence
does not permit of a full or adequate narrative, they can be replaced
only when the available material has been more fully utilized and more
carefully sifted. In this direction the publication of a critical edition of
William of Jumieges has at last provided the necessary point of
departure.^
The fimdamental account is, of course, the sixth book of the Ju-
mieges chronicler, who expressly declares himself a contemporary of
the events therein recounted.' For many episodes this is our only con-
temporary authority, so that it is especially important to fix its value
by checking it at the points where we have other evidence, as well as to
supplement its meager outline by information found elsewhere. On the
narrative side the contemporary material is fragmentary and scattered,
consisting of the bare mention of Robert's accession and death in the
annals, and of discoimected references in the hagiographical literature.
The dates of Robert's accession (6 August 1027) ^ and death (1-3 July
■ Revised from£. E. R., xxxi. 257-268 (1916). On Robert's reign see, besides the
older histories of Normandy, Sir Francis Palgrave, History of Normandy and Eng-
land, iii. 141-190; E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest (1877), ii. 179-igi; F. M.
Stenton, William the Conqueror, pp. 63-72.
^ Guillaume de Jumieges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. Marx (Rouen, 1914).
See my review, E. H. R., xxxi. 150-153-
° ' Quorum actus partim intuitu partim veracium relatu comperimus ' : bk. vi,
C. L.
* C. Pfister (Glides sur la vie et le regne de Robert le Pieux, p. 216, note), who does
not, however, meet all the difficulties of chronology connected with the date of
Richard Ill's death, particularly the irreconcilable elements in the dates of the ducal
charters of this period. Cf. Le Provost, Eure, i. 283. Unfortunately the two dated
charters of Robert, neither of which is an original, are not decisive as to his acces-
sion, that for Cerisy (see list below, no. 3) placing November 1032 in his fifth year,
26s
266 APPENDIX C
103s) ' are fixed by the aid of the local necrologies; the pilgrimage is
mentioned by contemporaries like Ralph Glaber ° and the Translatio
S. VulganiV The Vita Herluini speaks of his relations with Gilbert of
Brionne; * the Translatio BeaPi Nicasii places him and his followers at
Rouen on 12 December 1032;* Hugh of Flavigny'" describes his
reliance upon the counsel of Richard of Saint-Vannes. The most inter-
esting of these writers is the author of the Miracttla S. Wtdframni, a
monk of Saint-Wandrille who wrote shortly after 1053 and who
characterizes Robert as follows: "
Hie autem Rotbertus acer animo at prudens priores sues virtute quidem
et potentia exequavit; sed pravorum consultui, utpote in primevo iuventutis
flora constitutus, equo amplius attandans ragnum quod florans suscaparat in
multis debilitavit. Varum non multo post, celesti respactus gratia et bona
que inarat illi natura et consilii iutus, resipuit et eos quorum pravitate a
racto deviaverat a suo consilio atqua familiaritate sequestravit suequa iugo
potantia versa vice fortiter opprassit ac se in libertatem que se decebat
vindicavit atque ita propter pretaritorum ignorantiam profectus Hierosoli-
mam profimda panituit. Sad in redeundo malignorum perpassus insidias, qui
eius equum (quod iam axparti erant) verabantiu- imparium, vanaficio, ut
didicimus, apud urbam Niceam occubuit ibique intra sanctam civitatis illius
basilicam (quod nulli alii mortalium concessum est) honorifica donaxi sepul-
tura promaruit. Varum vir tantus non pravorum tantum malignitate quam
divino, ut credi fas est, iudicio decessit, qui iam unus aorum effectus erat
quibus, ut apostolus conqueritur, dignus non erat mundus.
Here the characterization is fuUer than in WilUam of Jumieges,*^
but the fundamental agreement is striking and shows the view of
Robert's character which prevailed among ecclesiastical writers. The
very phrase ' pravorum consultui ' recurs in William " and, substan-
and that for Montivilliers (no. 17) placing January 1035 in his eighth. Cf. the ques-
tion of the date of the charters of Richard II, dated 1027: Appendix B, no. s-
' H. P., xxiii. 420, 487, S79; P. de Farcy, Abbayes du diocise de Bayeux, i. 72.
Ordericus, i. 179, gives i July.
' Ed. Prou, p. 108. Robert is not mentioned in Ralph's life of St. William of
Dijon, who died at F6camp in 1031: Migne, Pairologia, cxlii. 720.
' Andecta BoUandiana, xxiii. 269.
« Migne, cl. 697, 699; J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, pp. 87, 90. Cf.
Robert's relations with Serlo of Hauteville: Geoffrey Malaterra, Historia Sictda,
bk. i, c. 38 f.
' Migne, cbdi. 1165 f.
'» M. G. H., Scriptores, viii. 401; cf. infra, note 17.
" D'Achery, SpicUegium (Paris, 1723), ii. 288; Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum
Ordinis S. Benedicti (Venice, 1734), iii. 353-
" Bk. vi, cc. 2, 3, 12. " Bk. vi, c. 3: 'pravorum consultu sponte sibi delegit.'
THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 267
tially, in a charter of Abbot Gradulf of Saint- Wandrille, shortly after
103s, who saw no occasion for redressing the balance by a glorification
at the end: "
Quam filius eius et ab illo tercius in regno Robertus, in etate iuvenili
perversonim consiUo depravatus, supradicto sancto abstulerat confessori.
Quo defuncto et a presentibus sublato, filioque illius succedente in regni
honore patemo, ego abbas Gradulf us, diu dampnum tarn grave perpessus,etc.
Such phrases, taken in conjunction with the troubles with Archbishop
Robert and Bishop Hugh of Bayeux described by William of Jumieges,**
show plainly that there was a strong reaction against the church at
the beginning of Robert's reign, a reaction afterwards ascribed to
evil counselors and covered up by the all-sufl5cing merit of the duke's
pilgrimage and death.'® The facts were evidently too flagrant to be
ignored by WiUiam of Jumieges, favorable as is his narrative to the
ducal house; not imtil the time of Wace could they be entirely passed
over. The story that Richard III was poisoned by Robert may be in
same way connected with the misdeeds of this period. To these years
should probably be referred the troubles between the duke and his
barons described by Hugh of Flavigny " in his curious account of the
diabolical machinations of Ermenaldus the Breton, whom Richard of
Saint- Vannes carried off to Verdim after reestablishing peace in Nor-
mandy, but who returned and by means of the wager of battle secured
the condemnation of several Norman leaders at the duke's hands.
The next set of authorities consists of the interpolators of William of
Jumieges. The first group of interpolations, assigned by Marx to a
monk of Saint-Etienne of Caen writing under Robert Curthose, com-
prises two episodes (c, 8 bis) illustrating Robert's generosity, that of
the smith of Beauvais and that of the poor knight, and (c. 11) the
story of Robert's magnificence at Constantinople, as exemplified by
the mule shod with gold and the fire fed with nuts. No source is cited
'* Lot, S.-Wandritte, p. '61. Cf. Vernier, no. 13: 'perversonim consSiis illectus.'
" Bk. vi, cc. 3, 5. Cf. Fulbert of Chartres, in Migne, cxli. 225; and the losses of
Hugh of Sayeux indicated in the Livre noir, no. 21.
" On Robert's end cf. Translaiio S. Vidganii, in Analecta Bollandiana, xxui. 269.
*' M. G. H., Scriptores, viii. 401: ' Inflanunatur princeps adversus optimates,
fiunt discidia, excitantur iurgia, et uno intestino hello tota debachatur Normannia.'
Besides the infonuation accessible to him in the east of France, Hugh had oppor-
tunity to become acquainted lyith Norman traditions during his visit to Normandy
in 1096 (ibid., 369, 393 f., 399, 407, 473, 482); his presence in Normandy is proved
by an exchange between Saint-B€nigne and Saint-£tienne of Caen which he attests
and by a charter of 24 May 1096 which he drafted: supra, p. 75 f.
268 APPENDIX C
for the last of these, which was probably, as we shall see, the common
property of the period; but the earlier episodes are recounted on the
express authority of Isembert, chaplain of the duke and later abbot of
Holy Trinity at Rouen,i* so that they have contemporary value. The
additions of Ordericus, made before 1109, are confined to a fuller ac-
count of the family of Belleme, for which he could draw on the local
traditions of the region." In his Historia Ecclesiastica he adds certain
further details respecting the reign: the foimding of Cerisy (ed. Le
Prevost, ii. 11); the reconciliation by the duke of Gilbert of Brionne
and the house of G€t€ (ii. 25); the banishment of Osmimd Drengot
(ii. 53); the death of Dreux, count of the Vexin, on the pilgrimage
(ii. 102, iii. 224 f.) ; and a fuller accoimt of the relations of the duke to
King Henry I, including the grant of the Vexin (iii. 223 f.).
If, as Stubbs thought probable,™ Orderic's contemporary William of
Mahnesbury made use of WiUiam of Jumieges, he has no confirmatory
value where the two accounts agree, as in the mention of the duke's aid
to King Henry I or his tears and gifts at the Holy Sepulchre.*' The
Mahnesbury chronicler adds the rumor that the pilgrimage was under-
taken in atonement for the poisoning of Richard III; the name of the
follower guilty of Robert's death, ' Radulfus cognomen to Mowinus ';
the guardianship by the king of France; and, in very brief form, the
story of Arlette so fully developed by Wace, including her dream and
the omen attending the Conqueror's birth.^
Of subsequent writers much the most important is Wace, who gives
a full narrative of the reign which is repeated by Benolt de Sainte-
More and the later vernacular chroniclers and has been used without
discrimination by modern writers. The question of Wace's sources,
fast seriously attacked by Gustav Korting in 1867,^ requires a more
thorough treatment upon the basis of the more abundant material and
the more critical editions now available. His dose dependence on
" ' Hoc referre solitus erat de duce Rodberto Isembertus, primum quidem eius
capellanus, postmodum vero Sancti Audoeni monachus, et ad extremum abbas
Sancte Trinitatis.'
" He also gives the name of the commander of the fleet, Rabel, in c. 11. See
infra, p. 275 and note 41.
2» Gesta Regum, p. xxi, citing the text, p. 161 f. Further investigation is desirable
on this point.
*' Ibid., pp. 211, 227. a Ibid., pp. 211, 285.
" Veber die QueUen des Roman de Rou (Leipzig, 1867). It appears from the
account of the four sons of William of Belleme (line 2461 ft.) that Wace used the
interpolations of Ordericus.
THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 269
William of Jumieges was clearly demonstrated by Korting, so that he
must not be used as an independent authority in the portions on which
they agree. At several points, however, in the reign of Robert, Wace
offers material not to be found in William, partly by way of amplifica-
tion, as in the account of the visit of Henry I and the campaigns by
land and sea against the Bretons, partly in the form of new episodes.
These are: ^ the foundation of Cerisy (ed. Andresen, lines 2305-2312) ;
the poor knight (2313-2338); the clerk who died of joy at the duke's
gift (2339-2388); the smith of Beauvais (2389-2430); the stories of
Arlette and of the Conqueror's infancy (2833-2930) ; the investiture
of William by the king of France and the guardianship of Alan of
Brittany (2979-2994); and the fuU narrative of the pilgrimage
(2995-3252). Something of the substance of the history of the reign,
as well as much of its color, depends upon the acceptance or rejection
of these elements in Wace's poem.
A professional rh)miester writing more than a centiuy and a quarter
after Robert's death does not inspire confidence as an historical au-
thority unless the sources of his information can be definitely traced, a
task which was long considered unnecessary and unfruitful. " C'est,"
wrote fidelestand Du Meril in 1862,^^ "ime question d'un trfes-mince
interet, dont la veritable reponse satisferait bien mal la curiosite:
c'etait un pen tout le monde." Such vague conclusions are not, how-
ever, in accord with the trend of more recent investigation, especially
since the publication of Bedier's studies of the mediaeval epic, and the
comfortable ' tout le monde ' of earlier belief has in many instances
been replaced by particular individuals or monasteries. Can anything
of this sort be accomphshed in the case of Wace ? The answer is easy
if we accept an emendation of Gaston Paris*' in line 3239, where,
speaking of the duke's chamberlain Tosteins who brought back to
Cerisy the relics procured at Jerusalem, he says,
De par sa mere fu sis aiues.
This does not make sense, nor does the reading of MS. B, which has
' mis aues.' K, however, we accept B and emend the first pronoun, we
have
De par ma mere fu mis aiues,
" Cf. Korting's analysis, pp. 51-53.
"^ La vie et les ouvrages de Wace, in &tudes sur qudques points d'archiohgie el
d'histoire litUraire (Paris, 1862), p. 269.
" Romania, ix. 526 ff. dSSo).
270 APPENDIX C
which is perfectly intelligible and makes Tosteins the grandfather of
Wace. If this be admitted, the whole narrative of the pilgrimage, as
well as some of the personal episodes, would come from one of the
duke's companions on the journey, not directly, for Wace could not
have known a grandfather grown to manhood by 1035, but through the
poet's mother.
In some instances the source can be further identified. Thus for
the two stories of Robert's generosity we now have the authority of the
Abbot Isembert." That of the poor knight Wace reproduces closely,
that of the smith of Beauvais he abbreviates; but the inference that he
knew them in this form is strengthened by their probable connection
with Caen, where he was a clerc lisant. On the other hand, the account
of Robert's magnificence at the Byzantine court cannot be derived
whoUy ^* from the interpolation in William of Jumieges, which sa3rs
nothing of the cloaks used by the Normans as seats and left in the
emperor's presence. In this respect the Latin text agrees better with
the saga of Sigurd Jerusalem-farer, one of the many forms in which
Gaston Paris has traced the story through mediaeval literature.^ At
this point Wace touches the broader stream of popular tradition.
In another portion of his narrative we find a definite and verifiable
local source of information. It is noteworthy that in this part of his
work Wace gives prominence to Robert's special foundation, the
abbey of Saint- Vigor at Cerisy. Whereas Ordericus and Robert of
Torigni barely mention its revival at this time,'" Wace describes the
privileges granted to the estabUshment by Robert, the sending of the
relics thither by the chamberlain Tosteins, and the gifts made early in
the Conqueror's reign by Alfred the Giant upon entering the monas-
tery. Here we can test his statements by extant documents." The
abbey's jurisdiction is described as follows:
2309 E tel franchise lur dunat,
Cume 11 dues en sa terra ad:
II unt le murdre e le larun,
Le rap, le homicide, le arsun.
" Supra, note 18. " As Marx assumes, Guillaume de Jumiiges, p. xsdi.
" Sur un ipisode d'Aimeri de Narbonne, in Romania, ix. 315-546 (1880). Cf.
Paul Idant, Les Scandinaves en Terre Sainte, p. 196 ff.
'» Ordericus, ii. 11; Robert of Torigni, ed. Delisle, ii. 195; William of Jumigges,
ed. Marx, pp. 252, 255. Cf. Wace, Chronique ascendante, line 213.
" Mcnasticon, vii. 1073 f.; incomplete in Neuslria Pia, p. 431; cf. Delisle-
Berger, no. 406. For the abbey's possessions, see the Inventaire sommaire des
archives de la Manche, series H; the index to Longnon, PouiUis de la province de
THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 2/1
These are not specified in the ducal charter, but there is abundant
evidence that such were the crimes regularly included in the grant of
ducal consueUtdines which is there made.'* Concerning the gifts of
Alfred the Giant Wace is more definite:
3593 Una vile, Luvres out nun,
Qvii art da sa garantisun,
Od tuz las apartenamenz,
£ I'eglise da Saint Lorenz,
Ovec I'eglisa da Taisia
Fist cunfermer a Carasia.
Alfred's charter enumerates likewise ' totam terram meam de Lepori-
bus . . . etiam totam terram quam Walterus presbiter de me tenebat
in villa que dicitur Taissei '; and we know that these places, the
barony of Lievres and the churches of Tessy-sur-Vire and Saint-
Laurent-sur-Mer, were part of the abbey's domain. Specific detail of
this sort could be obtained only from the monks of Cerisy, through
whom also would come the history of the relics brought by Tosteins, in
case we hesitate to identify him as an ancestor of the poet. Wace had
of course ample opportunity to converse with monks from Cerisy at
Bayeux and at the court of Henry II, from whom they secured charters;
but there can be little doubt that he visited the abbey itself, which he
locates exactly (lines 3247 f.) between Coutances and Bayeux, three
leagues from Saint-L6, particularly as it was on the natural route
between Caen and his native Jersey.^ As the special foimdation of
Robert I this monastery would be the natural repository of tradition
with respect to him, as Fecamp was for his father and grandfather,'*
and Cerisy may well be the source of other elements in Wace's narra-
tive which cannot be distinguished in the absence of any remains of
the local historiography.
Our confidence in the general credibility of Wace's account is
further strengthened by the confirmation in other chronicles of partic-
Rouen; and Farcy, Abbayes et prieures de I'eviche de Bayeux, Cerisy (Laval, 1887),
pp. 78 ff., 259-263.
^ Supra, p. 27; infra, Appendix D.
" For a later example of the confirmation of Wace by local documentary evi-
dence, compare the account of Grimoud du Flessis (lines 4219-4242) with the char-
ter in the Bayeux Liwe noir, no. 3, and the inquest in H. F., xxiii, 699 f.
" See J. B^dier, Richard de Normandie dans les chansons de geste, in Romanic
Review, i. 113-124 (1910), and in Les Ugendes ifiques, iv. 1-18, 389, 406. For Wace's
own sojourn at Fficamp and use of its local traditions, see lines 2246, 2994, 6781-
6918, and lines 1356-1359 in Andresen, i. 87; and of. Gaston Paris, in Romania,
ix. 597, 610.
272 APPENDIX C
ular statements of his which are not found in William of Jmnieges.
Thus the death of Robert by poison is mentioned by the monk of
Saint- Wandrille,'* as well as by William of Malmesbury,'* and that of
Count Drogo by Ordericus. Ordericus also relates the visit of Henry I
at Easter, the grant of the Vexin, and the guardianship of Alan of
Brittany."
There remains the question how far the chroniclers are confirmed
and supplemented by documentary evidence. Any study of such
material must be provisional, until the early Norman charters shall
have been collected and critically tested monastery by monastery.
Meanwhile a rough hst of such charters of Robert I as have come to my
notice may serve a useful purpose. In the absence of chronological
data the list is arranged by reUgious estabUshments; grants of his
reign attested or confirmed by Robert are included, but not charters
of Richard II in which he appears as a witness.
1. AvKANCHES cathedral. Grants enumerated in notice of Bishop John.
E. A. Pigeon, Le diocise d'Awanches, ii. 667, from modem copy.
2. Bec. Consents to grant by Abbot Herluin, 1034-1035. Mabillon, ^»-
nales Ordinis S. Benedicii (Lucca, 1739), iv. 361; Le Prevost, Eure, i. 234.
3. Cerisy-la-For£t. Foundation charter of the monastery of Saint-
Vigor, 12 November 1032. Viditmis of 1269-1313, in Archives Nationales,
JJ. 62, no. 96; of 1351, ibid., JJ. 80, f. 340V; Cartidaire de Normandie
(MS. Rouen, 1235), ff-sSv, 84. Netistria Pia, p. 431; Monasticon, vii. 1073,
from Norman roUs of Henry V; DeUsle, CarUdaire normand, no. 768; Farcy,
Abbayes du diockse de Bayeux, i. 78.
4. Dijon, Saint-ifitienne. Confirms grants of his predecessors in Nor-
mandy. Subsequent to the death of St. William in 1031. DeviUe, Analyse,
P- 33; cf. supra. Chapter I, note 170; Analecta Divionensia, ix. 175.
5. EvREUX, Saint-Taiuin. Gift mentioned in no. 10.
6. Fecamp. Comprehensive enumeration of his gifts to the abbey,
1032-1035. Supra, Appendix B, no. loA.
7. FfcAMP. Fuller and more suspicious form of no. 6, with identical
witnesses. Appendix B, no loB.
8. Fecamp. Charter notifying agreement between the abbey and Hugh,
bishop of Bayeux, with reference to Argences. Appendix B, no. 7.
9. FicAMP. Charter concerning the restoration of Argences to the abbey.
Appendix B, no. 8.
10. FicAMP. Charter exchanging Saint-Taurin of fivreux for Montivil-
liers as a dependency of F6camp. Appendix B, no. 9.
11. JuMi^GES. Adds Virville to his father's charter of August 1025 ( ?).
Vidimus of 1499 and 1533, and Cartulary 22, in Archives of the Seine-
Inffirieure, f. 7 flf.; Vernier, no. 12.
» Mabillon, Acta, iii. 353. »« Gesta Regum, p. 211.
" ii. 102; iii. 223-225. Whether Wace and Ordericus are entirely independent
is a matter which needs investigation.
THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 273
1 2. JuMizGES. Subscribes charter of Dreux, count of Amiens, 1031-1035.
Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 10; Neustria Pia, p. 318; F. Soehn6e, Caialogm
des actes de Henri I", no. 37; Vernier, no. 14.
13. JumiGES. Attests diarter of Roger of Montgomery. Original in
Archives of the Seine-Inferieure; copies, MS. Lat. 5424, f. 184V, MS. Lat-
n. a. 1245, f. 175. Vernier, no. 13; J. Loth, Histoire de I'abbaye de Saint-
Pierre de Jumikges, i. 158.
14. Mont-Saint-Michel. General privilege. Original in Archives of
the Manche, H. 14990 (early copy H. 14991). MSmoires de la SociSU d'
Agriculture de Bayeux, viii. 252 (1879); Round, Calendar, no. 704.
15. Mont-Saint-Michel. Grant of one-half of Guernsey and other
specified lands. Original in Archives of the Manche, H. 14992; vidimtis in
Archives Nationales, JJ. 66, no. 1496; cartulary (MS. Avranches, 210), f. 26/
M.A. N., xii. in; Round, no. 705; Delisle, S.Sauveur, pieces, no. 9; G.
Dupont, Le Cotentin (Caen, 1870), i. 463 f.; V. Himger, Histoire de Verson
(Caen, 1908), no. s (facsimile).
16. Mont-Saint-Michel. Attests, together with Archbishop Robert
(t 1037) and others, charter of Edward the Confessor as king granting to the
abbey St. Michael's Mount, Cornwall. Cartulary, f. 32V; Delisle, S.-Sauveur,
pieces, no. 18; Round, Calendar, no. 708. Robert's name does not appear in
the text printed in the Monasticon, vii. 989, ' ex ipso autographo ', and
reproduced by Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, iv. 251. Edward's title has
generally been considered to render this charter questionable (cf. Freeman,
Norman Conquest, ii. 527 f.); see, however, Round, no. 706, and infra, p. 275.
17. MoNTiviLLiERS. Foundation charter of the nunnery, with detailed
enumeration of possessions. Given at Fecamp 13 January 1035. Copies in
Bibhotheque Nationale, MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, ff. 112, 252; Archives of the
Seine-Inferieure, G. 2068. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 326, from vidimus.
18. Pkeaux. Consents to foundation of abbey. Gallia Christiana, xj.
instr. 199.
19. Pkeaitx. Attests confused notice of donation by the hermit Peter.
Le Prevost, Eure, iii. 169, from cartulary in Archives of the Eure (H. 711).
20. PiUEAUx. Notice of his gift of ToutainviUe to the abbey ' iUo aimo quo
perrexit Robertus comes Jerusalem '. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 200; H. F.,
xi. 387; MabiUon, Annales, iv. 361 (393) ; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 12;
Le Privost, Eure, iii. 300 (from cartulary).
21. Rouen cathedral. Charter of restoration issued conjointly with
Archbishop Robert. Cartulary (MS. Rouen 1193), f. 32 f.; vidimus in
Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, G. 2087, 3680. Le Provost, Eure, ii. 520; cf .
[Pommeraye] Histoire de I'Sglise catMdrale de Rouen (Rouen, 1686), p. 568,
where another form of this charter is also mentioned.
22. Rouen. La Trinit6. Confirms the foundation of the abbey and
emmierates its possessions, 1030. Cartulaire de I'abbaye de la Sainte-TrinitS,
ed. Deville, no. i; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 9; Neustria Pia, p. 412;
Pommeraye, Histoire de I'abbaye de Sainte-Catherine, p. 73.
23-26. Rouen, La Trinit6. Attests foxir grants to the monastery. Carlur
laire, nos. 3, 5, 9, 24.
27. Rouen, Saiot-Amand. Confirms foundation. Vidimus of Philip the
Fair, in 1313, in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, and in Archives Nationales,
274 APPENDIX C
JJ. 49, no. 47 ; cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, f . s f . Pom-
meraye, Histoire de Samt-Amand, p. 76; La Roque, iv. 2224 (extract);
Monasticon, vii. iioo, from Norman rolls of Henry V. The relation of this
charter to no. 22, which it closely resembles, and to the confusion respecting
the beginnings of Saint-Amand, requires investigation.
28. RotTEN, Saint-Ouen. Adds his confirmation to that of his father in
charter of ' Enna Christi famula ': ' Et hoc signum + predictus comes
Rotbertus cimi suis episcopis atque miUtibus, scilicet Nigello, Osbemo
dapifero, atque aliis nobilibus manu sua ' (breaks off). Pretended original,
with a duplicate omitting Robert's confirmation, in Archives of the Seine-
Inf6rieure; copy in the BibUotheque Nationale, MS. Lat. 5423, f. 124V.
28 a. Rouen. Saint-Ouen. Charter cited by William the Conqueror.
MS. Lat. n. a. 1243, no. 19; cf. Neustria Pia, p. 23.
29. Saint- Wandrille. Grant of the chiu-ch of Arques and its depen-
dencies, 1031-1032. Round, Calendar, no. 1422; Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 13
(from cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure).
30. Saint- Wandrille. General confirmation, 1032-1035. Lot, no. 14,
where the various copies and editions are given.
31. Sells Le Homme to his sister Adeliz. Mentioned in charter of Adeliz
for La Trinitfi de Caen. Cartulary in BibUotheque Nationale (MS. Lat.
5650), f. 17V. Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 34; Round, Calendar, no. 42i.»»
Not more than three of these documents are originals of charters
issued by Robert himself, so that no diplomatic study is possible. It is
clear that there was no ducal chancery: not only do we find no signature
of chancellor or chaplain, but the varieties of style '* and substance
" The grant of Saiht-James to Saint-Beno!t-sur-Loire mentioned in the Con-
queror's charter of 1067 (Prou and Vidier, Les chartes de Saint-Benoit, i. 203), which
was ascribed to Duke Robert by Stapleton (i, p. xci), should probably be assigned
to his uncle. Archbishop Robert. The charter for Lisieux cited in the Chronigue de
S.-Barbe (ed. Sauvage, p. 26) is probably a charter of Richard II which Robert wit-
nessed: M. A. N., xiii. 9.
" Thus the duke calls himself ' Ego Robertus Normannorum comes ' (no. 3);
• ego Robertus gratia Dei dux et princeps Normannorum ' (no. 4); • ego Rotbertus
filius secundi Richardi nutu Dei Northmannorum ducis et ipse per gratiam Dei
princeps et dux Northmannorum ' (no. 6); ' Robertus nutu Dei Northmannorum
dux ' (no. 8) ; ' ego Robertus gratia Dei dux Normannorum ' (no. 9) ; ' ego Robertus
comes filius magni Richardi gratia Dei dux et princeps Normannorum ' (no. 15;
cf. no. 14); ' Robertus divina auctoritate Normannorum dux et rector ' (no. 17);
'Robertus divina favente clemencia Normanorum dux' (no. 21); 'Robertus
divina ordinante providentia Normannorum dux et rector' (nos. 22, 27); 'ego
Rodbertus gratia Dei consul et dux Normannorum' (no. 29); 'ego Robertus
disposicione divina Normannorum princeps ' (no. 30). In the attestation he appears
as 'ego Robertus princeps Norhmannorum gracia Dei dux' (no. 15); 'signum Rot-
berti marchisi ' (no. 22); • signum Rotberti Normannorum ducis' (nos. 6, 12); "sig-
num Roberti comitis et ducis Normannorum ' (no. 30). Cf. Nouveau traits de
diplomatique, v, 760 1,
THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 275
point plainly to local authorship. As only the charters for Cerisy
and MontiviUiers are exactly dated, it is impossible to draw up an
itinerary or even to follow in the most general way the duke's progress
throughout Normandy. The Usts of witnesses, however, are sufficiently
full, to give us some notion of his entourage, in which four elements
can be distinguished. First come the higher clergy, including regularly
the duke's uncle. Archbishop Robert, cominonly three or four bishops,
and less frequently certain abbots; prelates from beyond Normandy
appear occasionally, such as the archbishop of Dol (no. 6) and Odilo
of Cluny (no. 29). The great lords of Normandy and the adjacent
lands come next: Enguerran, count of Ponthieu, Baldwin of Flanders,
Gilbert of Brionne, William of Arques, Mauger of Corbeil, Humphrey
' de Vetulis,' Galeran,*" Rabel, doubtless the commander of the fleet,**
and on two occasions (nos. 6, 30), in spite of his tender years, the
duke's son William. In this group it is possible also to trace the princes
who took refuge at the Norman court: King Henry I, ' qui time tem-
poribus profugus habebatiur in supradicta terra ' (no. 29; cf. no. 12);
and the ethelings Edward and Alfred, who appear in no. 29 with
' signum Hetuuardi ' and ' signum Alureth fratris E.', and in no. 9
with ' signum Hetwardi, signum Helwredi,' while Edward alone is
found as king in nos. 6 and 16 — a style which can be explained only by
rejecting these charters, at least in their present form, or by admitting
that he assumed the royal title during the lifetime of Canute. As com-
pared with their importance in the succeeding reign *^ the group of
household officers is small and ill-defined, comprising the seneschal
Osbem,*' who generally appears well up in the Ust but not always with
this title, the constable Turold, who is foimd at the very end of two
apparent originals (nos. 6, 15), and Robert 'pincema' (no. 15; cf.
Round, no. 709) ; the chamberlains ** and chaplains *^ mentioned else-
*" Probably Galeran of Meulan, no. 27. On his di£EicuIties with Robert, see
Neustria Pia, p. 320; Vernier, no. 16.
" Nos. 13, 30. See the interpolation of Ordericus in William of Jumi^ges, ed.
Marx, p. iss. Wace (lines 2795, 2805) calls him Tavel.
« Supra, p. so f .
*" ' Procurator principalis domus,' he is called by Ordericus: William of Ju-
mi^ges, ed. Marx, p. 156. Anfredus likewise appears as dapifer in no. 29. ' Gisle-
bertus senescallus ' in CarUdaire de la TriniU, no. 5, may not be a ducal officer. Cf .
L. W. Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward, p. 7.
" William of Jumi^ges, p. 107; Wace, line 3237. ' Radulfus camerarius filius
Geroldi ' is mentioned in no. 20.
*> Isembert, in William of JumiSges, p. 108; Emaldus, in Chapter I, note
246 (full text in Archaeologia, xxvii. 26).
276 APPENDIX C
where do not appear among the witnesses. Probably some of those who
sign without title are also members of the household. At the end come
the vicomtes, ordinarily without designation of districts, and attaining
in one case (no. 15) the niunber of seven. In some instances, as in that
of the well known Neal of Saint-Sauveur, vicomte of the Cotentin,^ it is
plain that they too may attest without title.
Whether Robert's reign was marked by any acts of legislation,
either secular or ecclesiastical, it is impossible to say. The first Nor-
man provincial council of which we have mention is not earher than
1042,*'' and the earUest formulation of ducal custom comes to us from
the sons of the Conqueror.^' Nevertheless, certain canons of the coun-
cil of Lillebonne (1080) refer to the practice of Robert's time as the
basis of customary right,*' and respecting cemeteries the reference is so
specific as to incline Tardif to the opinion that some actual document
of the period is presupposed.'" In this, as in other matters, it is likely
that the conditions of Robert's reign often furnished the norm for that
of his son.
*• On whom see Delisle, S.Sauveur, pp. 2-4, pi^es, nos. 1-16.
*' Bessin, Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae, i. 39. On the date of this council
and on all questions concerning early Norman legislation, see E.-J. Tardif, &ude sur
les sources, i. 2g f .
** Infra, Appendix D.
*' Cc. II, 13, 48, in Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, i. 2$ ; Ordericus, ii. 3i6ff.
'» Op. cil., i. 40.
APPENDIX D
THE NORMAN CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE OF
WILLIAM THE CONQUERORS
The sources for the history of Norman law before the conquest of the
duchy by Philip Augustus are, as is well known, exceedingly meager.
The earliest law-book, the first part of the Tr&s Ancien Couiumier,
belongs to the very end of the twelfth century, and the traces of custom
and legislation preserved in charters and chronicles are of the most
fragmentary and scattered sort.^ It is, accordingly, all the more im-
perative, especially in view of the great importance of Norman law in
European legal development, to treasure carefully such material as we
have; and I venture to think that a text of the year logi, containing a
brief statement of the customs of the duchy under WiUiam the Con-
queror, has not received suflScient attention from students of Norman,
and Anglo-Norman, history and institutions. The text in question was
first printed, in an incomplete and sometimes unintelligible form, by
Dom Martene ^ under the title ' Normannorum antiquae consue-
tudines et iustitiae in concUio apud Lillebonnam anno m.lxxx. cele-
brato confirmatae,' and was reproduced by Mansi as part of the canons
of the council.^ But while in all the manuscripts of the Constietudines
they follow immediately the canons of Lillebonne, they do not occur in
Ordericus or in the official version of the acts of the council, as sealed
by Henry I,' and there is nothing in the contents of the two documents
which indicates the sUghtest connection between them. It is plain
from the opening sentence that the Constieiudines are not an enact-
ment of the Conqueror's reign but the result of an inquest made by
' Revised from E. H. R., xxiii. 502-508 (igo8).
' H. Brunner, Entstehung der Schnmtrgerichte, p. 130 ff.; Pollock and Maitland,
i. 64 ff.; E.-J. Tardif, &tiide sur les sources de V ancien droit normand, i (Rouen,
191 1). On the date of the Tris Ancien Coutumier, see Tardif 's edition, pp. Ixv-
Ixxii; Viollet, in Histoire litteraire, xxxiii. 47-49.
' Velerum Scriptorum Collectio Nova (Paris, 1700), i. 226; reprinted in Mart6ne
and Durand, Thesaurtis Novus Anecdotorum (Paris, 1717), iv. 117; from a manu-
script of Mont-Saint-Michel, now MS. 149 of the library of Avranches. Reprinted
in Migne, Patrdogia, cxlix. 1329.
* Concilia, xx. 575.
" Ordericus, ii. 316; Teulet, Layettes du Trlsor des Charles, i, 25, no. 22.
278 APPENDIX D
Robert and William Rufus after his death.' As this inquest was held
on 18 July at Caen, it must be assigned to 1091 as the only year in the
July of which these princes were in Normandy and in friendly rela-
tions.' The division of territory which they had recently made fur-
nished a natural occasion for ascertaining the ducal rights, or at least
for a declaration of such of them {quia magis necessaria sunt) as had
been most persistently violated during the preceding anarchy.*
Over against the adulterine castles of recent origin the inquest de-
clares the law of the Conqueror's time, which not only forbade the
building of castles and strongholds, but placed careful restrictions on
the making of fosses and pahsades (§ 4). With this went the right, so
freely used by the Conqueror, of placing garrisons in the castles of his
barons and the right of demanding hostages for their loyalty (§ 5).
Private war had not been entirely prohibited, but it had been closely
limited (§§ 6, 8, 14), just as in 1075 William I had limited the blood-
feud without abolishing it.'
Ducal and baronial jurisdiction are carefully distinguished, although
the line which divides them is not clearly drawn. The list of matters
reserved for the duke's jurisdiction is shorter than the enumeration of
pleas of the sword which appears a century later in the Trh Ancien
CouUimier,^" but it must be remembered that the inquest of 1091
expressly disclaims completeness. Assault in the duke's court or on the
way to and from it," offenses committed in the host or within a week
• Cf. Delisle, B. &. C, x. 198; Viollet, in Histoire lUUraire, xxxiii. 41 f.
' For the events of 1091 see Freeman, William Rufus, i. 273-293; supra, pp. 64 {.,
78. H. Bohmer, Kirche und Staat, p. 34, note 2, dates the inquest 17 June 1096, mis-
taking the month and overlooking the fact that in 1096 William Rufus did not cross
to Normandy until September (Ordericus, iv. 16). Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 597, note,
has 1091.
' On conditions in Normandy under Robert see supra. Chapter II.
° ' Instituit legem sanctam, scilicet ne aliquis homo aliquem hominem assalliret
pro morte alicuius sui parentis, nisi patrem aut filium interfecisset': Duchesne,
Historiae Normannorum Scriptores, p. 1018; Ordericus, v. 138; Robert of Torigni,
i. 60. The MS. of the Annals of Saint-Ctienne in the Vatican (MS. Regina 703A,
i- S3v) has, apparently, in place of ' interfecisset,' ' interfectoref,' while one MS. of
Robert of Torigni has ' interfectorem '; the original may have read ' nisi patris aut
filii interfector esset.'
On the question of the Conqueror's earlier legislation against disorder see Tardif ,
&tude sur les sources, p. 31 f.; on the interpretation of § 4, C. Enlart, Manuel d'
archiologie franfaise, ii. 418; Haskins, The Normans in European History, p. 152 1.
" Ed. Tardif, cc. 15, 16, 3s, S3, S9. 6?, 69. 7°; Pollock and Maitland, ii. 455.
" So in the canons of Lillebonne ' assultus in ecclesie itinere ' is punished equally
with ' violatio ecclesie et atrii.'
CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE 279
of its setting forth or its rettirn, offenses against pilgrims, and viola-
tions of the coinage (§§ i, 2, 12, 13) — these place the offender at the
duke's mercy. Probably the same protection extended over mer-
chants*^ (§ 11) and over the duke's forests'' (§ 7). All such cases
belong to the duke, but franchise courts may possess jurisdiction over
attacks on houses (hainfara), arson, rape, and unwarranted seizure of
sureties (§§ 9, 10) — just as imder Edward the Confessor hainfara was
one of the pleas which were ordinarily reserved to the crown, but
might be held by a great immunist like the abbot of Westminster or
the bishop of Winchester." Arson, rape, and hainfara are mentioned
among the constietudines vicecomitatus '* in Vascoeuil which the Con-
queror granted in the year of his marriage to the abbey of Preaux: "
Eodem anno quo in coniugiiun sortitus est Normannorum marchio Willel-
mus nomine Balduini comitis fJiam deditSancto Petro Pratelli consuetudines
quas habebat in quadam terra que Wascolium vulgo vocatur, scilicet hain-
faram, ullac, rat, incendium, bernagium, helium. Pro quibus abbas eiusdem
loci Ansfridus nomine ei dignam dedit pecuniam, id est .x. libras denariorum,
et orationes loci Pratelli.
Equally interesting is the system of penalties for those in miseri-
cordia ducis. The authors of the History of English Law have made
" Merchantshadalsotheprotectionof the Truce of God in Normandy: M.G.H.,
ConstittUiones et Acta Publica, ed. WeUand, i. 601, c. 7.
" Even priests were comprehended in the forest jurisdiction, as we learn from the
coimcil of Lillebonne.
" Pollock and Maitland, ii. 454 f.; Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond,
p. 87 f.; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, pp. 111-114; Steen-
strup, Normannerne, iv. 348 ff.; Liebermann, Geseize, ii. 504-506.
" So styled in the notice of their regrant by the abbot to Thibaud, son of Nor-
man, shortly afterwards: ' consuetudines vicecomitatus quas a comite ut supra-
scriptum est emerat ' (cartulary of Pr6aux, no. 439). Compare what Wace (ed.
Andresen, ii, lines 2309-2312) says of Robert I's grant to Cerisy, the text of which
{Monasticon, vii. 1073; cf. App|endix C) merely gives freedom from every con-
suetude:
' £ tel franchise lur dunat,
Cume Ii dues en sa terre ad:
II unt le murdre e le larun,
Le rap, le homicide, le arsun.'
" Cartulary of Preaux, no. 437; now in Valin, pieces, no. 2. In 1106 Robert of
Meulan ' condonavit abbatie sue banleviam et ullac et hainfariam et incendium '
(ibid., no. 347). Ullac is a word which I have found only in the Prfiaux cartulary: in
no. 55 the form is utlach and uthlach; in Delisle-Berger, no. 675, it is uthlac. It
would seem to be connected with the Old Norse utlagi, an outlaw, which appears as
vlage or hulague in Wace, and it might then mean the harboring of an outlaw
28o APPENDIX D
clear how, in the course of the twelfth century, the old system of b6t
and wite is replaced by a new criminal law which puts the ofiender or
his property at the king's mercy." As roughly stated by the Dialogus,^^
the new system grades offenses into three classes, according as the
penalty is forfeiture of movables, of lands and rents, or of life and
limb. Now §§ 1-3 and 13 of the Consuetudines exhibit precisely the
same system, violations of the duke's peace entaihng, according to
their gravity, the forfeiture of pecunia, terra, or corpus, or of some com-
bination of them; and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the
classification of the Dialogus goes back to a Norman original. Against
the view of a Norman origin it is not enough to urge the existence of
" the preappointed b6t in Normandy when we can no longer find it in
England," ^' for the principle of amercement may well have existed in
Normandy side by side with survivals of the definite penalties which
were once found among all Germanic peoples — indeed it is not clear
that the provision of the Consuetudines in the case of the imforeseen
milee (§ 3), secundum mensuram forisfacti emendavit, does not imply the
preappointed b6t.
§ 13 contains the earliest evidence of the ducal monopoly of coinage
and the jurisdiction growing out of it.^" The Bayeux mint is not other-
wise known; ^' the Rouen mint is mentioned in a charter of Richard II,''^
and is proved by coins to have existed in the time of WiUiam Long-
sword.^ The standard of fineness prescribed in § 13 is confirmed by
" ii. 458 f . Cf. the discussion of misericordia in Liebennann, Gesetze, ii. 583 f.
" ' Quisquis enim in regiam maiestatem deliquisse deprehenditur, uno trium
modorum iuxta qualitatem delicti sui regi condempnatur, aut enim in universo
mobili suo reus iudicatur pro minoribus culpis, aut in omnibus immobilibus, fundis
scilicet et redditibus, ut eis exheredetur, quod fit pro maioribus culpis, aut pro
maximis quibuscunque vel enormibus delictis, in vitam suam vel membra ' (bk. ii,
c. 16, ed. Hughes, Crump, and Johnson, p. 149).
19 Pollock and Maitland, ii. 459.
2" There are traces of the msticia monete under Henry I. See the charter for
Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, GaUia Christiana, xi. instr. 157; Pipe Roll 31 Henry I,
p. 122; and cf. Trls Ancien Coukimier, c. 70.
^ B. A C, xiii. 104, note s; BuUeHn des Antigmires de Normandie, xiv. 211, 219.
22 ' Concedo ftiam decimas monetg nostrae ex integro.' Charter of 1025 (?) for
FIcamp, original in the Mus^e, no. 2ter, printed in Neustria Pia, p. 217; supra,
Appendix B, no. 5.
^ A. Engel and R. Serrure, Traiti de numismatique du moym-dge, ii. 380.
' Rannulf us monetarius ' witnesses an early Rouen charter of William the Conqueror
(Pommeraye, S.-Amand, p. 78) ; his son Galeran held land in Caen (GaUiaChrisiiana,
xi. instr. 60). Radulfus appears with this title in a charter of 1061 (Archives of the
Manche, H. 14994; Round, no. 711), and this name is found on coins (Engel and
CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE 28 1
analysis of extant coins of the eleventh century.^* Helmarc is prob-
ably to be interpreted as half a mark,^^ which gives a mark of sixteen
shillings. This word points to the Scandinavian origin of the mark,
which has not been found in France before 1082.^
The text of the Consuetudines which follows is based upon (A) a
manuscript of the twelfth century preserved at the Vatican among the
manuscripts of the Queen of Sweden, no. 596, ff. 4-5.^' The variant
readings are taken from (B) the Vatican MS. Ottoboni 2964, ff.
133V-134V; 2* (C) MS. Lat. 1597 B of the BibUotheque Nationale, ff.
140-141V, a miscellaneous collection of the fifteenth century; and
(D) MS. 149, f. 3, of the Ubrary of Avranches, which was used by
Martene for his edition.^' The division into paragraphs is that of C,
the only manuscript which makes any such division.
Eee ^ sunt consuetudines et iusticie qttas habet dux Normannie in eadem
provincia, et Cheillelmus rex qui regnum Anglic adquisivit maximc et mriHter
eas suo tempore teneri fecit, et sicut hie scripte sunt ^ filii eius Robertus et
Guillelmus per episcopos et barones sues Cadomi ^ recordari fecerunt.
Hec esf iusticia quam rex Guillelmus ^ qui regnum Anglie adqxusivit habuit
in Normannia, et hie inscripta '' est sicut Robertus ^ comes Normannie''
et GuiUelmus rex Anglie filii eius et heredes predicti regis fecerunt recordari^
€t" scribi*" per episcopos et barones suos Cadomi*' xv. kal. Augusti.
I . Et hec est ** iusticia " domini Normannie quod in ciuia sua vel eundo ad
Serrure, ii. 381). ' Odo monetarius ' appears in a Rouen charter (Carttdaire de la
Trinite, no. 60).
" Sambon finds 44.-7 per cent silver in a Rouen denarius of the eleventh century
found near Naples {Gazette numismatique franiaise, iii. 138, note).
2' Cf. Du Cange, s. v.; B. &. C, x. 198.
26 Guilhiermoz, Note sur les poids du moyen Age, ibid., Ixvii. 210-213. See however
Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 74, which may be slightly earlier.
" On this manuscript see Pertz's Archiv, xii. 296; Auvray in B. &. C, xlix. 637,
note 3; Liebermann, Ueber die Leges Edwardi Confessoris, p. 59, note i.
2' Described by Auvray, /. c; Tardif, Coutumiers de Normandie, ii, pp. lii-liv.
^' This manuscript is of the thirteenth century. Cf . Catalogtie des manuscrits des
dipartements, x. 68. MS. SSI (A. 373) of the library of Rouen formerly contained
' Consuetudines quas habet dux Normannie in eadem Normannia,' but this portion
has been missing since the time of Montfaucon (ibid.,i. 130). MS. Rouen 2192, f.
51, contains a modem copy by Le Brasseur, the source of which is not given.
'" Hec, CD ; Hee . . . fecerunt, om. B. If not official, the title is at least in con-
temporary language: cf. ' iusticiis et consuetudinibus ' in canon 45 of the council of
Xillebonne.
w scripte hie, C. ^ R., B. « Om. C.
'2 eadem, D. " Om. B. « eadem, D.
83 cum, D. " Om. B. reccedari, D. « Om. AC.
" Willdmus rex, B. " Om. BC. « Om. B.
^' scripta, D.
282
APPENDIX D
curiam vel redeundo de curia nullus homo habuit" gardam *' de inimico suo.
Et *« si aliquis inimico suo in via curie vel in curia forisfecit,*' ita quod ipse
sciret " quod ille cui malum fecit ad curiam iret vel inde rediret, si probatus
inde fuit" dominus Normannie habuit" pecuniam suam" et corpus eius ad
suam iusticiam faciendam et terram suam perdidit ^ ita quod nee ipse nee
aliquis de parentibus suis eam clamare potuit." Et" si defendere potuit
quod scienter hoe non fecisset, per pecuniam fuit '' in misericordia domini
Normannie sine perditione terre.
2. Et " in via exercitus et in exercitu et in " .viii." diebus " ante motum
determinati exercitus »° et .viii. diebus post exercitum si aliquis forisfeeerit,"
habuit •" inde dominus Normannie eandem iusticiam quam de forisfaeto sue
curie." Nee infra preseriptos terminos exercitus alicui licuit " nammimi '^
capere, et si fecit " per pecuniam emendavit " in misericordia domini
Normannie.
3. Et si in exercitu vel in ciuia vel in via curie vel exercitus mislata "
evenit que pro precedente " ira facta non fuerit,™ et in ea vulneratus vel
occisus fuerit '° aliquis, ille cuius culpa hoe factvun est secundum mensuram
forisfacti emendavit."
4. Nulli licuit " in Normannia fossatum faeere in planam terram " nisL
tale quod de fundo" potuisset" terram iaetare superius sine scabeUo, et ibi
non ™ licuit " faeere palicium ™ nisi in una regula et illud sine propugnaculis
et alatoriis. Et in rupe " vel '" in insula nuUi *' licuit ^ faeere fortitudinem,
et ^ nulli licuit ** in Normannia castellum faeere," et nulli licuit ** in Nor-
mannia ^ fortitudinem eastelli sui vetare domino Normannie ^ si ipse
eam " in manu sua " voluit *• habere.
5. Et si dominus Normannie filium vel fratrem vel nepotem baronis sui
qui non esset miles voluit habere obsidem " de portanc^ fide, nullus sibi
contradicere potuit.
" Om. C. " gaurdam, A; gardiam, C; gardam habebai, B; gardam habuit, D.
" S . . . suo, om. B. " suam pecuniam, D. « etiam, B.
'^ perdel, C.
» poterit, C.
^ Et . . . terre, om. B.
" erit, C.
*' forisfeeerit, B.
*' sciret quod ille, om. B
" fuerit, D.
»» habebU, C.
"' Here C has octo diebus et post exercitum octo diebus.
« -fecit, C. ™ fuit, B.
«* habebit, C.
° in .viii. diebus, om. C;.
in, om. D.
" et octo, B.
" diebus . . . viii., om. B.
" emendabit, ACD.
" Uceat, C.
" plena terra, B.
" profunda, B.
"■ popotuisset, A.
" nulli, CD; nullum, B
" licebit, C.
" palatium, B.
" ruppe, B.
" in manu sua, om. B; manum suam, D.
'» vdlet, C; voluit in mam. ««a, B. » ob fidem de portata fide, B,
" curie sue, BCD.
" licebit, C.
" namnum, C; nam-
mium, B.
" cepU, BD; ceperit, C.
" emendabit, BCD.
«» Om. B; vis iUaia, C.
" precedenti, BCD.
»» el,B.
*» et nuUi, B.
" liceat, C.
" et . . . faeere, om. BD.
" liceat, C.
" Here D inserts § 6.
" in Normannia, om.B,
" D inserts et.
«» Om. B.
CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE 283
6. Nulli " licuit " in Normannia pro calumnia terre'* domum vel mo-
lendinum ardere vel aliquam vastacionem facere vel predam'^ capere.
7 . Nulli licuit " in Normannia in f orestis ipsius domini hominem assailire '°
vel insidias ponere.
8. Nulli licuit " inimicum ^ querendo vel nanunum " capiendo vexil-
lum "" vel loricam portare vel cornu sonare neque cembeDum mittere post
quod insidie remanerent neque de membris suis hominem '"^ dampnare sine
iudicio, nisi in taU actu vel forisfacto inventus est ™ pro quo membnun per-
dere debuisset et ibidem perdidisset, at nisi per indicium curie domini i""
Normannie de hoc quod ad eum pertinet vel iudicio ciuie baronimi de hoc
quod ad barones pertinet.
9. NuUi Ucuit '•" in Normannia hanfare facere '"' vel incendium vel
raptum mulieris vel nammum '"^ capere quin fieret inde clamor apud eum qui
clamorem inde habere debuit.""
10. Et si hec facta fuerunt,'"* dominus Normannie '"' habuit "" inde
quod habere debuit "' in ^^ iUis locis in quibus habere debuit et barones inde
habuerunt "' quod ad eos pertinuit in iUis locis in quibus habere debuerunt.
II."* NuUi licuit "' in Normaimia mercatorem disturbare nisi pro suo
debito et m'si fideiussor fuisset.
12. Nulh licuit "* peregrinum "* disturbare pro aliquo anteriori foris-
facto."' Et si aUquis "' fecit,™ de corpore suo fuit ™ in misericordia domini
Normannie.
13. Nulli licuit "' in Normannia monetam facere extra domos mone-
tarias ^ Rothomagi et Baiocarum et illam mediam argenti et ad iustum
pensum, scilicet ^ .viii.'*' solidos in helmarc.'''* Et si aUquis alibi fecit ^^^
monetam vel ibi fecif ' monetam falsam, de corpore suo fuit '" in miseri-
cordia domini Normannie. Et si aliquis extra predictas domos [fecit] facere "'
monetam vel in predictis domibus fecit ^ facere "' falsam,'*' terram suam et
pecuniam forisfecit.^''
^ Nulli . . . capere, in- '' predictam, B. " in Normannia, B.
serted in § 4, D. °° assaillire,C; assailire, " nammvum, B.
" liceat, C. D; assallaire, B. ""• vexillam, C.
" Om. C. " liceat, C; licuerit, B.
'" hominem de membris suis, BC; hominem dampnare de membris suis, D.
"« fuerit, C; esset, B. ™ Om. B. "» Normanannie, A.
™ domini . . . curie, 1* namnum, C. "" hahebit, C.
om. B. 'w debebit, C. >" debebit, C.
i« liceat, C. i»8 fuerint, C. '^ in... debuit,om.BC.
"' habuerunt . . . debuerunt, om. BC; In illis locis in guilms pertinuit habuerunt
quod ad eos habere debuerunt, B; Habebunt quod inde habere debebunt in illis locis
in quibus debere habebunt et quod ad quemlibet pertinebit, C.
^* Nulli ... fuisset, ™ facto,^. '^' quis, C. ^ monetarias domos, CD.
om. D. "9 fecent, C. »» i, B.
"s liceat, C. ^o sit, C. ^* octo, C.
"' mercatorem, D. "^ liceat, C. "^^ marca, B; hdinare,C.
™ fecerit, C. From this point to the middle of the following paragraph (iustidis)
the ends of the lines are wanting in B.
^ erit,C. ^^ fecerit, C. ^^ fieri, C. "<> monetam falsam, C. ^ forisfaciet,C.
284
APPENDIX D
Hec autem que superius dicta sunt scripta sunt "^ quia ^'^ magis neces-
saria sunt. Remanet autem multum extra hoc scriptiun de iusticia mo-
nete et reliquis iusticits Normannie, sad propter hoc quod non scribitur
nichil '*• perdunt "' comes Robertus "° et rex Guillelmus ^'^ de iusticia quam
pater eonmi habuit neque barones de hoc quod habuerunt tempore regis
GuiUeImi.138
14. Nulli licuit ™ pro guerra ''"' hominem capere vel redimere nee de bello
vel conflictu pecuniam portare vel arma vel equum ducere.'^
'^ scripta sunt, cm. C. ™ Om. B. "» Uceat, C.
"^ que, B. ^ W, B. i« uuerra, B.
^ nil, B. "« WiUdmi, B. •« El sic finis, add. C.
"' perdent, C.
APPENDIX E
UNPUBLISHED CHARTERS OF ROBERT CURTHOSE^
1
Shortly after September 1087
Robert confirms to Saint-Mienne of Caen the manor. of Vains as granted
by his father in his last illness, reserving the toll from those outside the
manor.
A, original lost; B, brief cartulary of Vains, MS. Caen 104, f. 150;
C, MS. Lat. n. a. 1406, f. 58, from B.
Supra, Chapter II, no. 13. Cf. Deville, Analyse, p. 31; and, for the
toll, the inquest of 1171 in DeUsle, Henri II, p. 345.
In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Ego
Robertus dux Normannorum et princeps Cenomannonun concedo ecclesie
Dei quam W. rex Anglorum pater meus pro salute anime sue et mee, matris
mee, fratrum meorum, antecessorum et parentum nostrorum in honore Beati
Stephani prothomartyris construxit, donum de manerio de Vain ' quod idem
pater meus in infirmitate qua defunctus est eidem ecclesie fecit, ita integre
solide Ubere et quiete sicut ipse ia ea die qua defunctus est idem manerium
tenebat. Retineo tamen in manu mea ad censum mei vicecomitatus eiusdem
manerii theloneum alivmn, hoc est Ulud theloneum de hominibus qui de
foris scilicet venientes in ipso manerio aliquid emunt vel vendunt, theloneum
vero residens, hoc est de hominibus in ipso manerio manentibus ceteraque
tocius ville de Vasono, quietum et liberum relinquo et concedo predicte
ecclesie.
Ad hanc autem donationem confirmandam consilio meorum fidelium
scriptum hoc fieri precipio et manu mea firmavi firmandamque fratri meo
Henrico predictisque meis fidelibus tradidi. Huius etpam] donationis con
{sic) fieret a patre meo simt testes Robertus comes Moretonii, Robertus
comes de MeuUent, Henricus comes frater eius, Yvo Taillebosc, et alii plures.
1096
Robert attests an agreement between Gilbert, abbot of Saint~£,tienne of
Caen, and Gerento, abbot of Saint-B&nigne of Dijon, exchanging Saint-
' See the full list of Robert's charters, supra, pp. 66-70, to which the references
by number are made in the text. For convenience the alphabetical order of the
beneficiaries has been retained here. Vernier's edition of nos. 6 and 7 arrived after
they were in type.
' Vains, Manche, canton of Avranches.
28s
286 APPENDIX E
Eippolyte of ' Curtbertalt ' for Saint- Aubert-sur-Orne and Saint-
Martin de Longchamps.
A, original, never sealed, in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1847.
Supra, Chapter II, no. 17. Cf. Deville, Analyse, pp. 26, 31; Le-
chaude, M. A. N., vii. 270, no. 8; Hippeau, M. A. N., xxi. 29, 523; Le
Prevost, Eure, ii. 323.
The date is fixed by the presence of Abbot Gerento in Normandy in
1096: supra, p. 75. The grant of Longchamps to Saint-Benigne
under Richard II is mentioned in the chronicle of the abbey (Analecta
Divionensia, ix. 175), which says nothing of this exchange and gives no
means of identifying Curtbertalt among the abbey's possessions.
Notum sit omnibus futuris et presentibus quod domnus Gislebertus abbas
Cadomensis et domnus lerento Divionensis fecerunt inter se conunuta-
tiones quasdam de rebus ad utrasque §cclesias pertinentibus. Cadomensis
enim gcclesia sita in. Normannia habebat in BiKgundia §cclesiam Sancti
Ypoliti de Curtbertalt cum appenditiis datis et adquisitis, quam contulit
Sancto Stephano Cadomensi Roclenus episcopus CabUonensis. Similiter
Divionensis sita in Burgundia habebat in Normannia gcclesiam Sancti
Alberti cum sibi pertinentibus et gcclesiam de Longo Campo ^ iuxta silvam
qug dicitur Leons cum terris et decimis. Quia ergo res utraque in longinquo
posita erat et longinquitas itineris non sinebat tantumdem commodi prove-
nire quantum f aceret si esset in vicinio gcclesig, communi decreverunt consilio
ut gcclesia Cadomensis acciperet gcclesiam Sancti Alberti cum appenditiis et
gcclesiam de Longo Campo cum terris et dedmis, quod erat ixoris gcclesig
Divionensis, et gcclesia Divionensis haberet gcclesiam Sancti Ypoliti cum
omnibus Ulis qug monachi Sancti Stephani inibi habitantes videbantur pos-
sidere. Hgc itaque mutationis conventio facta est communi consilio conununi
decreto et ut in postermn servaretur stabiUtmn est cartanim antiquarum
commutatione et huius nova conscriptione et abbatum utrorumque et frat-
rum utriusque gcclesig subscriptione.
Sigmun Gisleberti abbatis Cadomensis + Signmn Rodulfi+
Signmn lerentonis abbatis Divionensis + Signum Humberti monachi +Sig-
num Hugonis capellani4- Signum Roberti monachi +
+Signum Roberti comitis Normannorum filii Willelmi regis Anglorum.
3
1101-1105
Robert grants to Saint-£iienne of Caen a Sunday market and an annual
fair at Cheux.
A, original, 42 x 19 centimeters with projecting tag of 14 centimeters,
in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1832. L6chaude, copied by Round,
' Saint-Aubert-sur-Ome, Orne, canton of Putanges; Saint-Martin de Long-
champs, Eure, canton of £tr6pagny.
CHARTERS OF ROBERT CURTHOSE 287
says, "Le sceau de cette charte, scellee en queue, est brise"; but
nothing now remains of it.
Supra, Chapter II, no. 18; Lechaude, M.A.N., vii. 271, no. 9;
Round, no. 451; cf. Deville, Analyse, p. 16, where the text gives the
names of the bishops of Bayeux and Coutances, Thorold and Ralph;
Hippeau, M. A. N., xxi. 495, who says the charter was given at Saint-
Pierre-sur-Dive (!).
IN NOMINE sanctg at individug trinitatis patris et filii et spiritus sancti.
Ego Robertus dux Normannorum concede gcclesig Dei quam Willelmus rex
Anglorum pater meus pro salute animg sug et meg, matris meg, fratrum
meorum, antecessorum et parentiun nostrorum in honore Beati Stephani
Cadomi construxit, habere mercatum ad diem dominicam in manerio de
Ceus' hereditario et perpetuo iiu:e possidendimi et unam feriam in anno ad
iUum terminum quem abbas et monachi eiusdem gcclesig elegeiint. Quod
siquis banc donationem, scilicet hoc mercatum et banc feriam qug ego pro
salute animg meg et pro salute animg patris mei et matris meg, fratrum
meorum, antecessorum et parentum nostrorum gcclesig Sancti Stephani de
Cadomo donavi, eidem gcclesig auferre aliquo modo temptaverit, concede
ego cerde et ere mee et manu mea cenfirmo ut ex auctoritate Dei patris omni-
potentis et filii et spiritus sancti sit excemmimicatus et a regno Dei in per-
petuum exclusus.
Signum Roberti cemitis Nermannig+ Signum Eustachii de Bretulie +
Signum WiUekni Rethomagensis archiepiscopi+ Signum Rannulfi episcopi
Duhelmensis + Signum WiUelmi camerarii + Signum episcopi Baiocensis +
Signum WiUelmi cemitis de WarennaH- Signum Roberti de Monteforti+
Signum Gisleberti de Aquila + Signum Rainaldi de Aurea vaUe + Signum
WUlelmi de Ferreriis+ Signum Rodulfi Taissen+ Signum episcopi
Constantiensis+ Signvun Roberti Marmion+ Signum Roberti de Gren-
tonis maisiulio+ Signum Roberti DoisneH-
1088-1091
(o) 7 Jidy 1088, Robert, when about to cross to England, restores to
Fecamp and frees from all secular dues the land of William of Bee, of
Hunspath, and of Hunloph, possessions at IgnauiMle, Bures, and
Bouteilles, and land at Ficamp which his father had taken from the
abbey.
(b) Thereafter Robert grants to the abbey a fair at Fecamp each year as
long as the catch of herrings lasts, as well as a meadow for the monks'
dairy.
' Cheux, Calvados, canton of Tilly-sur-SeuIles.
288 APPENDIX E
(c) Jo8g-iogi, Robert, having defeated Robert of Mortain, son of
William of Bee, and given his land to Gohier, again restores it to FScamp
and invests the abbot per lignum.
A, originals, tied together and retaining portion of attached seal, in
Musee de la Benedictine, no. 6 (fragment of b separately preserved as
no. 58). As they existed in 1764 they are described by Dom Lenoir as
follows: " Cette charte est en quelque fajon composee de trois parties.
... La premiere et la seconde sont sur une feuille de parchemin de 12
pouces de haut et 13 de large, et la 3^ est sur une autre feuille de par-
chemin qui a 13 pouces de haut et sept et demi de large, ce qui forme
comme deux chartes couchees Time sur 1' autre et jointes ensemble par
une laniere d'un cuir blanc fort epais et d'un pouce de large a la-
quelle est attache par derriere la grande charte im sceau de deux
pouces et demi de diametre. Ce sceau est d'une espece de pate en
mastic d'tui gris blanc qui s'emie tres facilement. H est si fort endom-
mage qu'il est impossible d'y rien distinguer." B, copy from A, by
Lenoir, Collection Moreau, cccxli, f. 21; C, copies of a and c in the
cartulary, MS. Rouen 1207, f. 14, no. 40, with several of the wit-
nesses omitted; D, copy of C, MS. Lat. n. a. 2412, no. 40.
Supra, Chapter II, nos. 20-22. a and c are analyzed from C by
Round, no. 117, and Davis, no. 297; cf. DuCange, rnider gravaria.
Extract from b in S. B. de la M. Noel, Histoire des piches (Paris, 1815),
p. 379, from Chronicon ArchimonasterU Fiscampnensis, p. 356.
b and c are anterior to the grant of Fecamp to Wilham Rufus in
1091 ; c is posterior to the accession of Abbot Ralph of Seez in 1089.
(0) [In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis. Anno ab incarnatione
Domini miUesimo] LXXXVIII mense lulio septima die mensis feria vi. [ego
Robertus] Dei gratia [dux et princeps Normannonmi pro salute] animg meg
et patris mei W. regis Anglorum matrisque meg Mathildis reging [et aliorum
predecessorum meorum reddo et] concede ecclesig Sancte Trinitatis Fis-
canni et abbati Willelmo Dei providentia [eiusdem ecclesig preordinato pas-
tori terras illas qug] antea de casamento prefatg gcclesig subtractg fuerant:
scilicet totam terram [Willelmi de Becco quam tenebat de me, simili]ter
terram Hunspathi et terram Hunloph de Mamolins et totam terram de
HisnelvUla' [et quicquid ad earn pertinet decimamque molen]dinorum de
Biuris et duos burgenses cum duabus salinis in villa qug dicitur [ButeUias ter-
ramque burgensium Fiscanni quam] pater meus ira commotus ante obitus sui
diem subtraxerat ab eadem gcclesia. Has autem [terras reddo et concedo
quietas de gravaria] et ab omni laicali consuetudine consilio et nutu Heinrici
fratris mei aliorumque [obtimatum meorum quorum subscriptione] presens
carta roboratur.
' Ignauville, canton of F6camp; Bures, canton of LondiniSies; Bouteilles,
canton of Offranville, all in Seine-Inf6rieure.
CHARTERS OF ROBERT CURTHOSE 289
[Si+gnum Rotberti comitis Signum+ Gisleberti episcopi Ebroicensis]
Si+gnum Henrici comitis +Signum [Willelmi monachi de Archis].
(6) [Ego qui supra Rotbertus Dei gratia dux et princ]eps Normannorum
[concedo] Sanctg Trinitati et gcclesig Fiscannensi in ipso loco Fiscanni [apud
gcclesiam Sancti Stepharii nundinam unam qug vulgo] feria dicitur omni anno
quandiu captura haringorum duraverit. Et ut Pigc mea concessio firma
maneat signi mei auctoritajte firmavi et fidelium meonun quorum inferius
nomina annotata sunt [attestatione roboravi. Hi sunt] Helias de Sancto
Sydonio, Bemardus de Brus, Willelmus +fi]ius Girardi, et Willelmus Grenet.
Ex parte Sanctg [Trinitatis: Willelmus abbas, lohannes cellerarius],
Willelmus Malus conductus, et Ingelrannus. Concedo etiam quoddam
pratum quod Grandis campus vocatur ad vacariam unam faciendam ad
opus monachorum.
(c) Post hgc omnia consurrexit adversum me et adversum abbatem
Fiscanni Rotbertus de Moritania filius Willelmi de Becco et in ipsa terra
quam de Sancta Trinitate et Fiscannensi abbate tenebat castrum firmavit et
servitia qug terradebebatc'ontratenuit. At egoDeo auxiliante pariter et fide-
libus meis annitentibus non solxmi eum conquisivi varum et castrum ipsiun
destruxi simul et incendi et terram Ulam Gohero dedi. Quod abbas de cuius
feodo terra erat audiens me rnde requisivit, dicens quod terra ilia de dominio
sancti antiquitus fuerit et quod ego eam quando in Angliam transire debui
cum aliis terris ecclesig reddiderim. Hoc ego verum esse cognoscens simul
et volens ut suum sancto maneret, Fiscannum veni et terram aiam cum aliis
terris ac rebus qug in alia carta annotatg sunt Sanctg Trinitati reddidi et
dedi et inde donationem hoc lignum in manus abbatis misi et utramque
cartam sigillo meo auctorizavi, et hoc ideo feci nequis de cetero existat qui
dicere possit quod terra ista de dominio sancti non fuerit et quod ego eam
gcclesig non reddiderim et donaverim.
Signum Rotberti +comitis Signum Radulfl + abbatis Sagii.
Ad hoc barones mei testes fuerunt Goherus, Rotbertus de Donestanvilla,
Radulfus de Grainvilla, Gislebertus filius Raineri, Willelmus filius Girardi,
WiUehnus Grenet, Rotbertus filius Turstini, et Gislebertus Belet. Ex parte
Sanctg Trinitatis: Willelmus abbas, Willelmus filius Teoderici, Rogerius de
Scilletot, Ricardus Harela, lohannis cellerarius, Willelmus Malus conductus,
Hugo de Ichelunt, Ancherus de Nevilla, Ansfredus Bordet, Ingelrannus et
Hugo Gohun.
5
1087-1091
Robert grants to the abbey of Ficamp the land of Hugh Mursard at
Ficamp.
A, original lost; B, copy in cartulary, MS. Rouen 1207, no. 35,
omitting the witnesses; C, MS. Lat. n. a. 2412, no. 35, from B.
Supra, Chapter II, no. 23. Probably anterior to the grant of F6camp
to William Rufus in 1091.
290 APPENDIX E
Ego Robertus comes Normannie pro salute anime mee et parentum
meorum do atque concedo Sancte Trinitati et domno Willelmo abbati tercio
et monachis in Fiscanno Deo servientibus terrain Hugonis Mursardi que est
in eodem Fiscanno cum domibus et edificiis que in ea sunt, ita liberam et
quietam et sine aliqua consuetudine sicut idem Hugo ipsam terram tenuit, ut
eam in etemum iure hereditario possideat.
6
30 March 1088
Robert attests a charter of Ralph Fitz AnserS ^ granting to JumUges the
allod of Beaunay with its appurtenances and the tithe of 'Anslevilla.'
A, original in Archives of the Seine-Inf erieure, /o«<f5 Jumieges; the
entries respecting the execution of the transaction were made in the
spaces left vacant by the signatures and list of witnesses. B, copy of the
late twelfth century, ibid. ; C, modern copy by A. Deville, in MS. Lat.
n. a. 1243, f. 185, no. 136, where the date is wrongly given as 1087.
Supra, Chapter II, no. 24; Vernier, no. 37; cf. Eistoire de S. -Pierre
de Jumikges, ed. J. Loth, i. 218.
m NOMINE SANCTE ET INDIVIDTJ5 TRINITATIS. ANNO IPSO QUO GLORIOSIS-
SIMUS ATQUE REVERENTissiMUs| | Deoque amabiUs Guilelmus rex Anglorum
comesque Nortmannig de ista vita nequam assumptus est et ut credimus
celestem patriam consecutus est, iii. kal. Aprilis, ego Radulfus filius Anseredi
stultum et vanum prospiciens et ad utilitatem meam minus proficiens quod
egomet adhuc in ista vita subsistens et potestatem mei habens ut aliis
precipiam post mortem meam dare quod vivens melius et utilius pro me pos-
simi tribuere, dedimus ego et uxor mea Sanctg Marig et Sancto Petro Gime-
giensis monachisque ibi servientibus alodiiun quod iure hereditario in
villa qug vocatur Belnaicus " habebam omne sicuti trans ripam citraque
ripam fluminis illius villg contra Reinaldum filium Rainerii et Bemardum
partior, quod alodium uxori meg in dote dedi eam accipiens. Dedi etiam
decimam Anslevillg ' pro anima mea uxorisque meg et pro animabus domi-
norum meorum ad quos hg res pertinebant, concedente et libenti animo
donante domino meo Radulfo filio Rogeri Mortemaris ad quem hg res perti-
nebant omne quod in his rebus habebat, accipiente ipso die propter istam
donationem fratemitatem atque societatem Ulius loci et quindecim libras
Rotomagensium recipiente ab ipsis monachis illius loci; et hoc quod ad istud
alodium pertinet quod adiacet in Ulfranvilla • et in Bemivoldi villa; ^ et hoc
' On whom see Lot, S.-WandriUe, no. 43 and note.
' Beaunay, Seine-Inf^rieure, canton of T6tes.
• Perhaps Anneville-sur-Scine: Vernier, i, p. cxxxiv.
* Offranville, Seine-Inffirieure, chef-lieu de canton.
' Bemouville, Seine-Inf6rieure, canton of OffranviUe.
CHARTERS OF ROBERT CURTHOSE Zgi
quod in duobus molendinis illius villg scilicet Belnaici habebam quod ad istud
alodium non pertinebat concedimus ut perpetualiter gcclesia Gemmeticensis
possideat, scilicet in terns et in silvis et in aquis etiam et in §cclesia et in
vineis post mortem Radulfi uxorisque eius in dominio; et qui de dominio
abstulerit anathema sit.
Signum Radulfi filii+ Rogeri Morte maris Signum Mabilig+ uxoris eius
Signiun Radulfi filii Anseredi+ Signum uxoris eius+ Signum Rogeri Sancti
Laurentii militis Radulfi filii Rogeri + Signum Gislebert;i Warenng+ Signum
Ricardi filii Richerii de Aquila+ Signum Vuidonis Carcois de ArenisH-
Signiun Vualteri de Wesneval+ Signum Hugonis+ Signum Bemardi BeU-
naci+ Willelmi archiepiscopi Rotoniagensis+
Signum Rotberti comitis NormannigH- Signum Hen+rici comitis fratris
eius Signum VuiUehni comitis Ebroicensis+
Isti sunt testes ex parte Rodulfi filii Anseredi: Normannus Peignardus,
Rotbertus Ivi Maisnerii, Turstenus filius Helewise, Petrus armiger eiusdem
Radulfi. Ex parte monachorum: Rotbertus filius Dut, Salomon de Chare-
celviUa, Radulfus marescaUus, Herveus filius Ricardi Oseii, Durandus cel-
lararius, Gislebertus coquulus, Radulfus vastans granum, Herbertus Maloei,
lohannes Grossus, Rotbertus presbiter, et alii multi.
Signum Engelrani filio (sic) Hilberti+ Vuilebni cubicularii+ Signum
Ricardi Bustelli+ Signiun Engelranni capellani+ Signum lohannis militis +
Signum Constantini militis + Benedicti archidiaconi+Fulberti archidia-
coni+ Ursonis archidiaconi+
Et Guarinus telonarius eiusdem Radulfi recepit easdem quindecim libras
Rotomagensium iussu eiusdem Radulfi in viUa que dicitur Sancti Victoris* et
Fulco mercator numeravit. Petrus Bassum villg famulus Radulfi Morte-
maris saisivit monachos Gemmeticenses de eodem alodio iussu eiusdem
Radulfi videntibus et audientibus hominibus illius viUg vidente etiam et
audiente Hoello homine eiusdem gcclesig Sancti Petri Genuneticensis.
Rogerius prior eiusdem loci et Rotbertus filius Dodonis RoduUusque Montis
Durclari cum eo receperunt istam saisitionem et inde habuerunt decem et
septem denarios.
1091-1095, at Lisieux
Robert confirms a charter of Ralph Fitz Anseri granting to JumUges
half of £,tables and the custom of its wood, and invests the monastery
therewith.
A, original in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, the charter proper (a)
being accompanied by a long and narrow strip of parchment con-
taining (b); modem copies in MSS. Lat. 5424, p. 38, and n. a. 1245,
f. 189.
' Saint- Victor-l'Abbaye, Seine-Inf£rieure, canton of T6tes.
292 APPENDIX E
Supra, Chapter II, no. 25; Vernier, no. 38. The date is fixed by
the accession of Bishop Serlo in 1091 and the death of Abbot Guntard
in 109s; Roland of Dol received the pallium in 1093.
(o) IN NOMINE SANCTE ET INDIVIE {sic) TRINITATIS PATEIS ET FtLII ET
spiRiTus SANCTi. 1 1 Ego Rodulf US filius Anseredi et uxor mea Girberga medie-
tatem vill§ de Stablis' tam in agris quam in aquis et unum molendinum
providentes saluti nostrarum animarum Sanct§ Masiae Gemmetici pari con-
sensu donamus. Denique oinnem consuetudinem quam in sUva habemus
videlicet pasturam nostris aniroalibus et ligna nobis nostrisque famulis ad
calefaciendum necessaria prefatf fcdesig similiter concedimus. Hanc autem
donationem ut inposterum rata foret Rotbertus dux Northmannorum in-
presentiarum baronum suorum Luxovii confirmavit. Testes denique huius
donationis hi sunt: Signum+ Roberti comitis S. Willelmi-I- archiepiscopi
S. Gisleberti+ episoopi predictf urbis S. Odonis+ episcopi Baioc[ensis] S.
Gisleberti+ episcopi Ebroic[ensis] S. Serlonis+ episcopi Sagii S. Rodulfi
Anseredi+ S. Girberge uxoris eius S. Roberti comitis Mellent S. Ingel-
ranni+ S. Rodulfi Toenei S. Rodulfi Mortui Maris S. Walteri Broc+ S.
Roberti fill Ansch[etilli]+ S. RoH- landi episcopi de Dol Willelmi de Bre-
t[olio]+ S. Ricar-f- di archidiaconi S. Walteri + S. Ful-|- berti ardudia-
coni S. Osbemi+ abbatis' + + +
(6) DONATIONEM DE STABLIS ROBERTUS DUX NorthmannOrum PER HOC
LIGNUM misit ad Sanctam mariam gemmetici. Testes autem huius rei sunt:
Engelrarmus filius Ilberti, RauUus de Mortuo Mari, Vualterus de Quercu,
Robertus filius Anschetilli, Vualterius Broc. Hgc denique facta sunt apud
Lexovium per eiusdem loci abbatem Gimtardum.
' £tables, Seine-Inf6rieure, canton of Longueville.
» Of Bernai.
APPENDIX F
UNPUBLISHED CHARTERS OF HENRY I
With two exceptions, the following documents have not been indi-
cated or analyzed by others. It was planned to print a fuller selection
from Henry I's unpublished charters, but the difficulties of copying and
collation under present conditions have led to the omission of many
documents of which pubUshed analyses are avaDable. Other charters
and writs of Henry are printed above in the text and notes of Chapter
ni and on p. 223 of Chapter VI.
1
1 106-1 107, at Rouen
Charter of William, archbishop of Rotten, confirming, with Henry's
assent, the church of Notre-Dame at Saint-Sever to Bee as the abbot and
monks proved their right before the bishops and barons of Normandy.
A, original, formerly sealed sur double queue and now much damaged
by gallstones, in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, fonds Bonne-Nou-
velle; B, modern copy in MS. Lat. 13905, f. i8v, from which the
illegible portions have been suppHed; C, modern copy in MS. Lat.
10055, f. 82, ' ex chartulario Beccensi.' Cf. Poree, Bee, i. 396, note 2.
The date is fixed by the mention of Thorold, bishop of Bayeux, who
is last found attesting in a charter of 7 November 1106 {Gallia Chris-
/?OMa,xi.uistr. 1 2 7), and whose successor came in in 1107. OnThorold's
biography see W. Tavernier, in the Zeitschrift fur franzosische Sprache
und Litterafur, xxxvi ff.
Ego Willelmus Dei gratia Rotomagensis archiepiscopus concedo et con-
firmo ut g[cclesia Sanctg Marig Becci lure hereditario] possideat ecclesiam
Sanctg Marig de ErmentrudisviUa ' sicut Willelmus abbas eiusdem loci et
monachi deraciocinati sunt earn in capitulo [Sanctg Mar]ig Rotomagensis
presente me et episcopis et baronibus Normannie, concedente domino nostro
Henrico rege Anglorum et annuentibus supradictis episcopis et baronibus,
Turoldo videlicet Baiocensi episcopo et Turgiso Abrincensi et Roberto de
Belismo et Roberto comite de Mellent et Eustachio Bononiensi et Henrico
comite Augensi et archidiaconis nostris, Fulberto videlicet. Benedicto,
[Ricardo, UrseUo, et quam plujribus aliis clericis [et laicis].
'■ £mendreville, now Saint-Sever, a suburb of Rouen.
294 APPENDIX P
After 7 October 1118, at Arganchy
Notification by Henry that, with the advice of the archbishops of Canter-
bury and Rouen and bishops and abbots, he has decided the controversy
between Samgny and Saint-£tienne of Caen concerning Mortain.
A, original, with incisions for double queue, in the Ubrary of Rouen,
MS. 3122, no. 2; B, cartulary of Savigny, in Archives of the Manche,
f. 6, no. 5. Printed in Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. in, where a line of
the text and most of the witnesses are omitted; translated in C.
Auvry, Histoire de la congregation de Savigny, i. 290-292. Cf. DeviUe,
Analyse, p. 47. The date is fixed by the council of Rouen, 7 October
1118 (Ordericus, iv. 329; cf. Round, Geoffrey de MandevUle, p. 423,
note).
Ego Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum, cum
archiepiscopis Radulfo Cantuariensi et Gaufrido Rotomagensi et episcopis
Ricardo Baiocensi, Turgiso Abrincatensi, Rogerio Constantiensi, Willelmo
Exoniensi, Ildeberto Cenomanensi, cum abbatibus etiam et aliis religiosis
viris compluribus qui nobiscum huic diffinitioni presentes interfuerunt, con-
sulentes et presentium memorig et futurorum scientig, omnibus catholicg
pacis et unitatis cultoribus nostrarum beneficio litterarum manifestare
decrevimus qualiter per Dei misericordiam et nostram instantiam inter
Eudonem Cadumensium fratnun abbatem et Vitalem Saviniensis monasterii
fundatorem super Moritoniensi elemosina quam eidem fratri Vitali ad
honorem Sanctg Trinitatis pro amore Dei Willelmus comes contulerat, pacta
sit et celebrata concordia ... [as in Gallia Christiana]
Testes enim ex utraque parte subscribi precepimus Stephamun Mori-
toniensem comitem, Ricardum comitem, Rotbertum filimn regis, Hame-
linum Meduanensem, Willelmum de Albineio et NigeUum et Hunfridum de
AIbin[eio], Willelmum camerarium de TancarviUa, Willelmum Patricium,
Thomam de Sancto lohanne, Willelmum Piperellum de Airam, Gaufridiun
de Clintona, Rotbertum de Haia Putei, Hugonem de Guilleio, Edwardum
Salesberiensem, Rannulfmn canceUarium, lohannem Baiocensis episcopi
filium, Rotbertum Peccatum, Gaufridum capeUaniun, Waltermn de Culleio,
Rannulfum de Dusseio.
Hec diffinitio fuit diffinita et hec carta sigillata ante me apud Argenteium.
Teste (sic) episcopo Luxoviensi lohanne et Eudone Cadumensium mona-
chorum abbate et monachis Wine de Allemania et Nigello et comite de
Pertica Rotroco et Rogero Marmione et Ricardo capellano et Symone de
Molins et Hamelino de Lesclusa.
CHARTERS OF HENRY I 295
1 1 19, at Rouen ' in thalamo regis '
Confirmation of charter of Robert, earl of Leicester, on behalf of Bee
and SaitU-Nicaise of Meulan.
A, original lost; B, modem copy in Bibliotheque Nationale, Collec-
tion du Vexin, iii. 171, no. 246.
Anno ab incamatione miUesimo centesimo decimo none ego Robertus
comes Leicestrie do ecclesie Sancte Marie Becci et ecclesie Sancti Nigasii de
Mellento decern libras et quinque solidatas terre in manerio de Pinpra in
escambium pro terra RaduM Piquet ^( ?) de Blinchefeld que reddebat viii
libras et quinque solidos, et pro quadraginta solidos quos debebat pater
meus eidem ecclesie Sancti Nigasii in manerio de Hungrefort.^ Et hoc feci
pro deliberatione anime patris mei. Ego Henricus rex Dei gratia rex Anglorum
hoc donum concedo et signo et sigUlo meo confirmo. Testes Galerannus
comes Mellenti, NigeUus de Albegneio, GuUlelmus de TancarviUa, Gauf ridus
de MagnaviUa, WiUelmus fiUus Roberti, Odardus dapifer de Mellento, Ra>
Pinter '( ?), Gaufridus de Curvilla, in thalamo regis apud Rothomagum.
1117-1119, at Rouen
Writ confirming the nuns of Saint-Amand in their livery at
Vaudreuil (Eure).^
A, original lost; B, copy in hand of the twelfth century, at the end of
quasi-original of foundation charter in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure;,
C, vidimus of Philip IV in 1313, ibid., and Archives Nationales, JJ. 49,
f. 26v.
' H. rex Anglorum vicecomiti de vaUe Rodolii salutem. Precipio quod
moniales de Sancto Amando ita bene et plenarie habeant liberationem de
elemosina mea Rodolii sicut unquam aliquis antecessor iUarum eam melius
habuit. Et hoc habeant a die ilia qua lohannes Rubi presbiter antecessor
earum fuit mortuus in antea. Testibus Radulfo archiepiscopo Cantuariensi
et Rannulfo canceUario, apud Rothomagum.
' MS. Piqc followed by a blank.
" Pimpeme, Blandford (co. Dorset), Hungerford (co. Berks).
' MS. Pit'.
' Cf. Stapleton, i. in.
296 APPENDIX F
1106-1120, at Rouen
Order to Hugh de Montfort to restore to the abbot of Bee certain lands of
Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle and the church of Saint-Ouen[-de-Flancourt]
(Eure)}
A, original lost; B, modern copy in MS. Lat. 13905, f. 83, with
omissions.
H. rex Anglorum Hugoni de Monteforti salutem. Precipio tibi ut facias
resaisiri abbatem de Becco de viginti acris terre que pertinent ecclesie
Sancti Philiberti et de ecclesia Sancti Audoeni quas Galefridus dapifer tuus
saisivit. Et ecclesiam et decimam fac eum tenere in pace et quiete. . . .
Nolo enim ut quis eum placitet de aliqua re unde fuit saisitus die qUa dedi
tibi honorem de Monfort nisi coram me. Apud Rothomagum.
6
1 124, at Evreuz
Confirmation to Savigny of the gift of Robert de TStes in Escures
(Calvados).
A, original sealed sur simple queue, in Archives of the Manche, a
considerable portion of the seal, in brown wax, still remaining; B,
cartulary of Savigny, ibid., i. 51, no. 197, where it is preceded (no. 196)
by the charter of Robert, witnessed by Richard, bishop of Bayeux, and
dated 11 24. Cf. Auvry, Eistoire de la congregation de Savigny, i. 404.
H. rex AngI[orum] episcopo Baioc[ensi] et omnibus baronibus et fidelibus
suis de Beisin salutem. Sciatis me concessisse ecclesig Sanctg Trinitatis
de Savinneio et monachis ibi Deo servientibus donationem terrg quam
Rotbertus de Testis habebat in viUa de Scuris et quam Rotbertus Gaufr[ido]
abbati et ipsis monachis dedit et concessit in elemosinam concessu Ricardi
episcopi Baioc[ensis] de cuius feodo terra ipsa est. Et volo et firmiter pre-
cipio ut bene et in pace et honorifice teneant sicut predictus Rotbertus earn
eis dedit et concessit in possessionem perpetuam.
T[estibus] Turstino Eboracensi archiepiscopo et fratre eius Oino Ebroi-
censi episcopo et lohanne Baioc[ensi], apud Ebroicas.
' Saint-Ouen-de-Flancourt, granted to Bee and Saint-Philbert in 1097 (Porfe,
Bee, i. 407), seems more probable than Saint-Ouen-du-Bois-Toustain, which also
belonged to Bee (now La Noe-Poulain: Le Prfivost, Eure, ii, 4.72).
CHARTERS OF HENRY I 297
1118-1126, at Rouen
Confirmation to the abbot and monks of Lire of the mills and forge of La
Neuve-Lire (Eure).
A, original lost; B, copy in lost cartulary of the thirteenth century
formerly " parmi les mss. de la bibliotheque du college des jesuites de
Paris "; C, copy from B by Dom Lenoir at Semilly, xxiii. 453, kxii.
329; D, extracts from B in Collection Moreau, xlvii. 65.
Robert became earl of Leicester on the death of his father, Robert
of Meulan, in 1118; and Ralph of Toeny was dead by 1126 (Ordericus,
ii. 404).
Henricus rex Anglie G[aufrido] archiepiscopo Rothomagensi et omnibus
episcopis et iusticiariis et abbatibus et baronibus et fideUbus suis totius Nor-
mannie salutem. Sciatis me concessisse Deo et ecclesie Sancte Marie de Lyra
et abbati et monachis ibi Deo servientibus per petitionem comitis Roberti de
Leicestria et Guheri de MoreviUa et concessionem eonmi molendina de nova
Lira et forgiam in eadem viUa in elemosinam sicut Radulfus de Witot ea eis
reddidit et concessit in elemosinam. Et vole et firmiter precipio ut abbas ea
ita bene et in pace et honorifice et quiete in elemosinam ipse et monachi sui
teneant sicut ecclesia iUa melius et honorificentius tenet aliam elemosinam
suam et sicut predictus Radulfus ea eis concessit et reddidit.
Testibus Oino episcopo Ebroicensi et lohanne episcopo Luxoviensi et
Radulfo de Todeneio et Radulfo pincerna et Roberto de Novo Burgo et
Emaldo de Bosco, apud Rothomagum.
8
1 127 (?), after 26 August
Confirmation of the gifts of Jordan de Sai and his wife in founding the
abbey of Aunay.
A, original lost; B, vidimus of Philip VI in 1335, Archives Nation-
ales, JJ. 69, no. 100. Cf. vidimus of 1347 in Archives of the Calvados;
Ms. Lat. n. a. 1245, f. 28.
If the date is correctly given in the vidimus, it should replace the date
of 1 13 1 usually given for the foundation of Aunay: Gallia Christiana,
xi. 443; G. Le Hardy, Rtude sur Aunay-sur-Odon, in Bulletin des
Antiquaires de Normandie, xix (1897). Otherwise we must emend
Mcxxxn.
298 APPENDIX F
In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis. Ego Henricus Dei gratia rex
Anglorum et dux Normannonun anno M°.C°.XXVIP. ab incamatione
Domini, pro salute anime mee ac patris et matris mee uxorumque mearum et
prolis mee, donacionem quam fecit Jordains de Saieio et Lucia uxor eius et
filii sui, videlicet Engerannus, Gilebertus, Petrus, concessu Stephani comitis
Moretoniensis et auctoritate Richardi Baiocensis episcopi, pro animabus
suis et antecessonmi suorum, ecclesie Sancte Trinitatis de Akieio et domno
Viviano abbati et monachis concedo et regali auctoritate confirmo: videlicet
ad Alneium partem foreste que est inter iuferiorem viam et torrentem, ubi et
ecclesiam predictis monachis construxerunt, et ex altera parte eiusdem tor-
rentis de propinquiori terra decem acras et decimam molendinorum suo-
rum et peccorum; et ecclesiam de Herovilla*; et in Rin villa quod habet in
ecclesia et in decima; et ecclesias de Cenilleio sicut Gislebertus filius Gun-
duini possedit, a quo predictus Jordains habuit concessione Richardi Con-
stanciensis episcopi; insuper et terram elemosinariam que pertinet eisdem
ecclesiis, et decimam molendinonmi de RoumiUeio, et ad Haneiras terram
duos modios frumenti reddentem, et in Anglia de redditu sexaginta solidos
sterlingorum. Hec autem supradicta precipio ut quiete et libere possideant
monachi, et hoc propria manu signo sancte crucis corroboro.
1123-1129, at Vaudreuil
Notification to the bishop of Worcester and the sherif and men of Wor-
cestershire that Henry has confirmed to Walter de Beatichamp the land
granted him by Adeliza, wife of Urse of Abbetot.
Subsequent to 1123, being witnessed by Geoffrey as chancellor, and
anterior to 1130, when Roger 'gener Alberti' was dead (Pipe Roll, p.
39). Eyton (British Museum, Add. MSS. 31941, f. 58, and 31943,
f. 79) dates it ca. October 1128.
A, original lost; B, copy by Dugdale in his MSS. in the Bodleian
Library, L. 18, f. 41, copied for me by the kindness of Professor H. L.
Gray.
H. rex Anglorum episcopo Wigomie et vicecomiti et omnibus baronibus et
fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis de Wirecestresira salutem. Sciatis me con-
cessisse Waltero de Bellocampo terram que fuit Adeliz uxoris Ursonis de
Abbetot, sicut ipsa Adeliz eam ei concessit. Et volo et firmiter precipio ut
teneat ita bene et m pace et honorifice et quiete de omnibus consuetudinibus,
sicut Urso antecessor suus unquam melius et honorificentius et quietius tenuit
in vita sua, cum socha et sacha et tol et theam et infangeneteof et cum omni-
bus aliis consuetudinibus suis cum quibus Urso imquam melius tenuit, in
bosco et piano, in aqua et terra et omnibus aliis lods.
' The places mentioned are Hgrouville, Ranville, and AsniSres in Calvados, and
Cenilly and Rfmilly in La Manche.
CHARTERS OF HENRY I 299
Testibus Gaufrido cancellario et Roberto de sigillo et Willelmo Pevrello
Dovre et Willelmo filio Odonis et Willelmo de Pontearcarum et Pevrello de
Bellocampo et Pagano de Bellocampo et Roberto filio Willelmi de Stochis et
Willelmo Malotraverso et Roberto de Monteviron et Gaufrido de Abbetot et
Roberto filio Radulphi de Hastingis et Roberto de Guernai et Roberto filio
Fulcheri et Rogero genero Alberti et lohanne hostiario et Henrico del Broc.
Apud Rodoliimi.
10
February rrai, at Rouen
Grant to Siez cathedral of the fief of William Goth at Laleu {Ortie).
A, original lost; B, copy in Livre rouge of Seez, f. 77, formerly in
possession of the bishop; C, copy from B in MS. Lat. 11058, f. 3.
Henricus Dei gracia rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum archiepiscopo
Rothomagensi et episcopis et abbatibus, baronibus et omnibus fideUbus et
filiis sancte ecclesie per Normanniam constitutis ^ salutem. Sciatis quod ego
Henricus per graciam Dei rex Anglormn et diix Normannonmi dedi in ele-
mosinam et concessi pro salute animarmn patris et matris mee et parentum
meorum et pro remissione peccatorum meorum et pro statu et incolumitate
regni nostri et ducatus Normanie Deo et ecclesie sanctorum martirum
Gervasii et Prothasii de Sagio in dominium ecclesie et proprium usum epis-
copi totum feodum Alodii quern tenuit GuiUehnus Goth: hoc est quicquid
ipse Guillelmus Goth habuit inter Sartam et Tancham tarn in terris quam in
pratis et aquis et molendinis et silvestribus ^ nemoribus et hominibus et the-
loneis et consuetudinibus et omnibus omnino rebus, sicut idem Guillelmus
<iuietius et hberius' tenuit tempwre patris mei. Quem feodum ego emi de mea
propria pecimia de Avelina nepte ipsius GuiUelmi et Ricardo de Luceio filio
ipsius Aveline et iustis heredibus predicti Alodii, quod ipsi, Avelina scilicet et
Ricardus et iusti heredes eiusdem feodi, eum in manu Roberti filii comitis
Gloescestrie videntibus multis reddiderunt et postea vendicionem istam
coram me cognoverunt et confirmaverunt et eam quietam de se et suis
heredibus clamaverunt. Et ego predictum feodum Alodii ita hberum et quie-
tum ab eis et omnibus heredibus concedo et confirmo Sanctis martiribus
Gervasio et Prothasio et episcopo in elemosinam sicut supra dictum est.
Hanc ergo donacionem meam factam anno ab incamacione Domini
millesimo centesimo trigesimo primo laudo et concedo, confirmo et iUi*
ecclesie in perpetuum obtinendam regia potestate et a Deo michi auctoritate
collata corroboro. Teste presencia et audiencia Hugonis archiepiscopi
Rothomagensis,' lohannis Lexoviensis, Audini" Ebroicensis episcopi, Ri-
chard! episcopi Baiocensis, lohannis episcopi tunc Sagiensis, Roberti de
sigillo et Nigelh nepotis episcopi de Saresberia, Roberti comitis Gloescestre
* MS. constitute. * MS. iUe.
' MS. silvestris. ^ MS. Hugone archid[iacono\ Rothomagensi.
' MS. quietus et liberus. ' MS. Actini.
300 APPENDIX F
filii mei, Guillelmi comitis Warenne et Walerani comitis Mellenti et Ro-
berti comitis Legrecestrie, Roberti de Haia dapiferi et Hugonis Bigot dapi-
feri et Rabelli cammerarii et Brientii filii comitis conestabularii et Gaufridi
de Clintone.' Apud Rothomagum mense Februario.
11
Summer 1131, at Dieppe
Coftfirmaiion of the establishment of Augustinian canons in Siez
cathedral, grant of land at Brighthampton, and confirmation of lands and
churches in Normandy and affixed revenues in the farm of Argentan and
the tolls of Exmes and Falaise.
A, original lost; B, collated copy therefrom in 1521 also lost; C,
copy from B in Coppies de tiltres du chartraire (1633) at Alengon,
MS. 177, f. 98; D, copy in Liwe rouge of Seez, f. 69; E, copy from D in
MS. Lat. 11058, f. 8. Extracts \a.E.H.R., xxiv. 223; Ordericus, iv.
471, note; supra, Chapter I, note 174; Chapter III, p. 106. Cf. charter
of Bishop John, MS. Lat. 11058, f. 5; incomplete in Gallia Christiana,
xi. instr. 160.
In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis patris et filii et spiritus sancti
amen. Henricus rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum archiepiscopis, epis-
copis, abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, et omnibus fidelibus suis tocius Anglie
et Normannie salutem. Quoniam regie sublimitatis insignia gerimus et iura
Christiane religionis et solicitudinem ecclesiastice defensionis adndnistramus,
oportet nos interim oronibus sancte ecclesie filiis benefacere precipueque
pauperibus et in Christo religiose viventibus misericorditer subvenire, et
quorum preces et vite sinceritas terram elevat celum incUnat imaque iungit
superius, eorum quieti atque necessitatibus clementer iatendamus ut omni-
potentis Dei servicio valeant vacare liberius. Quapropter Sagiensem eccle-
siam temporalibus et spiritualibus bonis admodum desolatam ad normam
rectioris vite studuimus erigere et ad lucem vere religionis excitare, et
quoniam reverende memorie papa Honorius per apostolicas litteras in remis-
sionem peccatorum meorum mihi iniunxerat ut ad regulares canonicos in
ecclesia Sagiensi introducendos intenderem et eos de meis facultatibus
misericorditer sustentarem; idcirco fratribus regularibus in ipsa Sagiensi
ecclesia Dei gratia iam introductis et sub regula Beati Augustini omnipotenti
Deo servire studentibus et professis, ipsis inquam eorumque successoribus
concedimus atque confirmamus in predicta Sagiensi ecclesia pontificalis sedis
potestatem libere et canonice Domino servienti atque ut post decessionem
aliorum canonicorum in communes ususregularium statimtranseantbeneficia
prebendarum, ita quod ipsis viventibus constituti redditus eorum nullatenus
minuantur.
' MS. Dint.
CHARTERS OF HENRY I 30I
Ipsis etiam fratribus regularibus damus et confirmamus in regno nostro
in Anglia decern libratas terre in manerio nostro de Bentona, videlicet Bristel-
metonam '■ que est ^ membrum ipsius manerii, et volo et regia auctoritate
confirmo ut bene et honorifice et in pace et libere et quiete teneant semper et
in perpetuum de hidagiis et geldis et dangeldis et auxiliis et operacionibus,
cum socha et sacha et tholl et theam et infangenteof et omnibus consuetudi-
nibus et libertatibus et placitis et querelis et omnibus rebus cum quibus ego
tenebam dum esset in meo dominio, et homines eorum placitent in hallmoto
suo de Bristelmetona in submonicione eonmidem canonicorum vel ministro-
rum suorum.
Ipsis quoque fratribus regularibus damus et confirmamus quindecim
libras Rothomagensis monete quas dedi in dedicacione ipsius ecclesie in
unoquoque anno habendas, scilicet septem libras et decem solidos in teloneo
meo de Falesia et septem libras et decem solidos in teloneo meo de Oximis.
Concedimus etiam atque confirmamus predictis fratribus regularibus
donationem eis factam ecclesiarum de BeUimensi pago cum omnibus rebus
ad eas pertinentibus, scilicet ecclesiam Sancti lohannis de Foresta et eccle-
siam Sancti Quintini.^
Ad dominium autem et proprium usum Sagiensis episcopi damus et con-
firmamus totum feodum Alodii * quem tenuit Guillelmus Ghot, hoc est
quicquid ipse habuit inter Sartam et Tancham tam in terris quam in pratis et
aquis et molendinis et silvis et hominibus et teloneis et consuetudinibus et
omnibus omnino rebus, sicut idem Guillelmus quietius et liberius tenuit
tempore patris mei; quem feodum ego emi de nostra propria pecunia de
Avelina nepte ipsius GuiUelnii et Ricardo de Luceio filio ipsius Aveline et de
iustis heredibus predicti Alodii, et ipsi, Avelina scilicet et Ricardus, et iusti
heredes eiusdem feodi eum in manu Roberti filii nostri comitis Glocestrie
videntibus multis reddiderunt et postea coram me vendicionem istam
cognovenmt et confirmaverunt et eam quietam de se et suis heredibus con-
cesserunt. Et ego predictum feodum Alodii ita hberum et quietum ab eis
et omnibus heredibus concedo et confirmo Sanctis martyribus Gervasio et
Protasio in dominium et proprios usus episcopi.
Quecumque etiam preter supradicta ecclesia Sagiensis hodie' possidet tam
ad proprium usum episcopi quam ad usum canonicorum, hoc est ad usum
episcopi dimidietatem burgi Sagii cum terra et pratis que in dominio habet
episcopus circa civitatem et dimidietatem telonei ipsius civitatis et villam
Floreii ' ciun omnibus suis appenditiis, preterea in Bellimensi pago villam
1 Bampton, Brighthampton (co. Oxford). The land was in the hamlet of Hard-
wicke, as appears from the heading in the cartularies: ' Charta et confiimatio
Henrici regis Anglie de redditibus canonicorum regularium in ecclesia Sagiensi et
redditibus eorundem canonicorum in Normannia et in Anglia apud Hardric (E:
Hardore) et apud Bristelametone.' Cf. Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 52, from which it
would appear that the ten librates were originally in Essex or Herts.
2 Om. C.
' Saint- Jean-de-la-For6t and Saint-Quentin-le-Petit (Ome).
* Laleu (Ome).
' Fleur6 (Orne).
302 APPENDIX F
Sancti Frogentii,' que omnia antiquitus tenuit episcopus Sagiensis; ad
usum vero canonicorum Bodevillam,' [ecclesias de Condeto et de Estretz,]* et
decimam telonei Sagii, scilicet illius partis que est episcopi, et partem mei que
dicitur Croleium,' et terram que est apud Lurieium/" que omnia tempore
patris nostri canonici eiusdem ecclesie tenuerunt; preterea duodecim libras
in firma nostra de Argentomo et viginti et unum solidos in teloneo eiusdem
ville et sexaginta solidos et decem denarios de teloneo meo de Oximis, que
dedenmt pater meus et mater mea ecclesie Sagiensi ad victum canonicorum
duorum, quod antiquitus in elemosinam statutum fuerat.
Hec, inquam, que supradicta sunt et quecumque in futurum nostra vel
successorum meorum concessione iuste poterunt adquirere ipsis, scilicet
episcopo et canonicis, concedimus et confirmamus. Preterea consuetudines et
quietudines quas a tempore patris mei habuenmt tam episcopus quam
canonici in terra et in forestis Guillelmi de Belismo ipsis, episcopo scilicet et
fratribus regularibus, concedimus atque confirmamus. Quecumque ergo
persona contra huius nostre donacionis et constitucionis decretum venire
tentaverit, secundo tercioque commonita, nisi digne satisfecerit, regie
maiestatis rea nostre vindicte subiacebit.
Et ut hec nostra donatio et constitutio certior habeatur et firmior, propria
manu nostra atque sigiUo nostro muniri fecimus. Facta est autem atque
confirmata hec pagina apud Diepam anno ab incamatione dominica mil-
lesimo centesimo trigesimo primo, me Henrico in Anglia regnante et Nor-
mannorum ducatum tenente, Innocentio papa secundo Ausonie cathedre
presidente. S. Hugonis archiepiscopi," Audini episcopi Ebroicensis, loannis
episcopi Lexoviensis, Roberti de Haia dapiferi, Unfredi de Bohun dapiferi,
RabeEi camerarii, GuiQielmi filii Odonis conestabularii, Guillelmi Maledocti"
camerarii.
12
After August 1131, at Waltham
Grant to Siez cathedral of ten Ubrates of land, namely Brighthampton,
from the king's manor of Bampton.
A, original lost; B, copy therefrom in 1521 also lost; C, copy from
B in MS. Alengon 177, f. 103; D, copy in Livre rouge, f. 71; E, copy
from D in MS. Lat. 11058, f. 11.
» Saint-Fulgent-des-Ormes (Ome).
' This I have not identified.
' 'Ecclesias . . . Estretz' is corrected in E in Delisle's hand from 'cum omnibus
appendiciis suis,' which is also the reading of C. I do not know the source of Delisle's
correction, unless it be a marginal note in D. These churches, Cond6-sur-Ifs and
Estr^es-la-Campagne (Calvados), were both dependencies of S6ez cathedral: Lon-
gnon, PouilKs de la province de Rouen, p. 232.
» Goleium, E. " Archidiaconi, CE.
" Lieurey (Calvados) ? « Maledicii, C.
CHARTERS OF HENRY I 303
Henricus rex Anglie archiepiscopb, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus,
baronibus, vicecomitibus, et omnibus ministris et fidelibus suis Francis et
Anglis salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse ecclesie sanctorum marty-
nun Gervasii et Protasii de Sagio ad usiun canonicorum in dedicatione
ipsius ecclesie decern libratas terre de manerio meo de Bentona, videlicet
Bristelmetonam que est membrum ipsius manerii, ami omnibus appendiciis
suis pro remissione peccatorvun meorum et pro animabus patris et matris mee
et predecessorum meorum et successorum meorum et pro statu regni nostri.
Et vole et firmiter precipio ut bene, honorifice, et in pace et libere et quiete
teneant semper et in perpetuum de hidagiis et geldis et danegeldis et auxiliis
et operationibus, cum socha et sacha et toll et theam et infangeteof et omni-
bus consuetudinibus et libertatibus et placitis et querelis et omnibus rebus
cum quibus ego tenebam dum esset in meo dominio, in terris et aquis et
pratis et pascuis et molendinis et nemoribus et in piano et in omnibus locis,
et homines sui placitent in haUimoto suo de Bristelmetona in submonicione
canonicorum Sagii vel ministronun suonun.
Testibus Guilielmo archiepiscopo Cantuariensi et Turstino archiepiscopo
Eboracensi et Alexandro episcopo Lincolniensi et Henrico episcopo Wi[n]to-
niensi et Gilberto episcopo Londiniensi et Rogerio episcopo Salesberiensi et
Gaufrido canceUario et Roberto de sigiUo et Roberto comite Glocestrie et
Waleranno comite de MeUent et Hugone Bigot dapifero et Unfredo de
Bouhim dapifero et Milone de Gloecestria et Roberto de Olleio et Pagano
filio loannis et Eustachio filio loannis et Henrico de Ferrariis et Gaufrido
filio Pagani et Richardo Basset. Apud Waltham videntibus et audientibus
istis confirmata est hec pagina anno ab incamatione Domini millesimo
centesimo trigesimo primo.
13
1 107-1 133, at Westminster
Order to William of Pont de I'Arche to deliver, on the oath of the men of
Bosham, thirty solidates of land in Walton {co. Sussex) in exchange for
land which the king has given to Notre-Dame-du-PrS.
A, original lost; B, copy in Public Record Office, Cartae Antiquae,
R. 22.
H. rex Anglie WiUelmo de Pontearcharum salutem. Libera WiUelmo filio
Aemulfi .XXX. solidatas terre per sacramentiun hormnum vicinitatis de
Boseham, et hoc de illis .1. solidatas terre quas Robertus tenebat in Waletona,
pro escambio terre sue quam ego dedi Sancte Marie de Prato. Et precipio
quod ita bene et honorifice et quiete teneat earn sicut melius et honorabilius
tenuit terram suam de Normannia. Teste episcopo Saresberie apud Wes-
monasterium.
304 APPENDIX F
14
1106-113S, or 1154-1173
Charter of Henry I or Henry II confirming to the monks 0} Conches
free election and freedom from customs in England and at Dieppe.
A, original lost; B, incomplete copy in CotUumier of Dieppe, Ar-
chives of the Seine-Inferieure, G. 851, f. 59.
Henricus rex Anglorum, etc. Sciatis me concessisse et present! carta mea
confirmasse pro salute anime mee et antecessorum meorum monachis et
ecclesie^ Sancti Petri de CasteUionis domino servientibus liberam et quietam
eUectionem abbatis secundam regulam Sancti Benedict! et quod homines
eorum in Anglia manentes sint Uberi et quieti de omnibus consuetudinibus
et querelis ad me pertiaentibus. Et iu Normannia apud portum qui vocatur
Deppa sint ^ monacbi et omnes res eorum et proprii famuli liberi et quieti de
omni passagio et de omni consuetudine in villa, et de omnibus hominibus
eorum ibi manentibus habeant dicti monachi les euces,' et si homines eorum
habuerint naves in mari piscantes, quicquid de navibus illis ad me pertinet
amore Dei concedo predictis monachis. In verbis predicUs est tola libertas que
in carta continetur.
15
1107-1135, at Argentan
Writ directing that the monks of Troam shall not be impleaded concern-
ing the castle church at Vire by the monks of La Couture, who defaulted in
their suit before the king at Argentan.
A, original lost; B, copy therefrom (' sigillata est ') in Chartrier
rouge, MS. Lat. 10086, f. 40V.
H. rex Anglorum omnibus baronibus, etc., totius Normannie salutem.
Precipio ne monachi de Truarcio mittantur in placitum aliquando de ec-
clesia de Vira quam dedi eis in elemosina propter clamorem monachorum de
Cultura, quoniam apud Argent[omum] coram me defecerunt de clamore
quam mihi fecerant, etc. Et ideo per finem iusti iudicii remansit monachis
de Truarcio eadem ecclesia de Vira. Teste H[amone] de Falesia apud
Argent[omum].
16
1107-1135, at Rouen
Writ of protection for Saint-P&re of Chartres.
A, original, formerly sealed sur simple queue, in MS. Lat. 9221, no. 7.
H. rex Angl[orum] archpepiscopo] Roth[omagensi] et ep[iscop]is et omni-
bus baronpbus] suis Norm[annie] sal[utem]. Precipio quod abbas S. Petri
' MS. ecclesia. ' MS. sine. ' ues?
CHARTERS OF HENRY I 305
Cani[otensis] et monachi teneant ecclesias et terras et elemosinas et omnes
decimas et redditus suos de Nonn[annia] et omnes quietat[iones] suas ita
bene et in pace et honorifice sicut melius tenuerunt tempore patris mei et
meo et sicut iuste tenere debuerint. Et prohibeo ne ullus eis super hoc quic-
quam forifaciat. T[este] ep[iscop]o Lex[oviensi] apud Rothom[agum].^
17
1107-H35, at Rouen
Grant to the chapter of Rouen of rights in the forest ofAUermont and the
king's share of pleas and forfeitures from the men of Saint-Vaast-d'-
£guiquemlle and Angremlle (Seine-InfSrieure).
A, original lost; B, copy in the Cartulaire de Philippe d'Alenqon in
Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, G. 7, p. 792; C, copy in MS. Baluze
Ixxvii. 123. Round, no. 8.
The name of Robert the mcomte places the charter in the earlier part
of Henry's reign.
Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglie dux Normannorum archiepiscopo Rotho-
magensi omnibusque comitibus baronibus et iusticiariis Normannie salutem.
Sciatis me dedisse ecdesie Beate Marie Rothomagensi in elemosinam quod
decanus eiusdem ecclesie et canonicus qui habet prebendam de Angerville
habeant in foresta nostra Dalihermont omnes consuetudines suas liberas et
quietas de vivo iacente et mortuo stante et ligna ad herbergagia sibi et homi-
nibus eorum et pasnagium et herbagium et omnes redditus foreste et quicquid
ad me pertinet ia placitis et catallis forefactis in misericordiis de omnibus de
Sancto Vedasto et de Angervilla.
Testibus lohanne episcopo Lexoviensi, Roberto vicecomite, apud Rptho-
magum.
18
Ca. 1128-1135
Writ of protection for Saint-Martin of SSez.
A, original lost; B, modern copy in MS. Fr. 18953, P- 45-
Henricus rex Anglorum Odoni vicecomiti de Pembroq salutem. Precipio
tibi quod facias abbati et monachos deSagio tenere omnes res suas in ecclesiis,
terris, decimis, elemosinis, et omnibus aliis ita bene et in pace et iuste sicut
tenuerunt tempore Amulphi et Vilfridi episcopi et Walteri Glocesteriensis,'
ne super hoc eis inde aliqua ioiuria fiat et ne super hoc clamorem audiam.
1 Two other originals of Heniy I for Saint-PSre are in the same MS.: no. 6,
printed above, p. 223; and no. 8, printed in the Cartulaire, ed. Gu6rard, p. 640.
' Walter's son and successor Miles was in office the year before the Pipe Roll of
1129-1130 (pp. 72, 76, 107).
3o6 APPENDIX F
19
1121-1135, at Rouen
Confirmation to Bee of a grant of William Peverel in Touffremlle
{Eure).
A, original lost; B, fragment of cartulary of Bee in Archives of the
Eure, H. 91, f. 35.
H. rex AngI[orum] archiepiscopo Rothomagensi et vic[ecoinitibus] et
omnibus fidelibus Francis et Anglis de Normannia salutem. Sciatis me con-
cessisse Deo et ecclesie Sancte Marie de Becco et monachis ibidem Deo
servientibus terram et res quas Willelmus Pevr[ellus] eis dedit et concessit in
elemosina de Turf reiviUa cum omnibus consuetudinibus et quietacionibus de
pannagio et omnibus rebus que terre simili pertinent et cum quibus WiUelmus
liberius tenuit. Quare volo et precipio quod ipsi eam terram et omnia que ad
eam pertinent bene et in pace et libere teneant in perpetua elemosina nunc et
usque in sempitemmn sicut Willelmus ea eis dedit et concessit, salva tamen
rectitudine parentum Willelmi si quam in ea habent.
T[estibus] R[oberto] de sigillo et G[aufrido] fil[io] Pag[ani] et A[nselmo]
vic[econiite], apud Rothom[agum].
20
1124-1135, at Argentan
Writ of freedom from toll in favor of the monks of Vignats (Saint-
A ndri^en-Gouffem) .
A, original lost; B, copy in cartulary of Saint-Andre in Archives of
the Calvados, f. 19, no. 72.
H. rex Anglorum baronibus et omnibus vicecomitibus et ministris tocius
Anglie et Normannie et portuum maris salutem. Precipio quod totum corri-
dium et onmes res monachonmi de abbatia de Vinaz quas servientes eorum
affidare poterunt pertinere suo dominico victui et vestitui sint in pace et
quiete de theloneo et passagio et omnibus consuetudinibus. Et super hoc pro-
hibeo quod nullus eos disturbet iniuste et super .x. libras forefacture. Testi-
bus episcopo I[ohanne] Sagiensi et comite de Moritonio, apud Argentomum.
21
Ca. 1130-1135, at Argentan
Grant of a house at Argentan in fief to the king's loricarii Robert and
Hamelin}
A, original, MS. Lat. 10083, no. 4; B, copy in cartulary of Saint-
1 Cf. the charter of the Empress Matilda, issued before 1141, when her brother
took the title of earl of Cornwall (Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 68, 271),
CHARTERS OF HENRY I 307
Andre-en-Gouffem, in Archives of the Calvados, f. i8v, no. 69; C,
modern copy in MS. Lat. 10084, no. 37. Cf. M.A.N., viii. 388, no. 136.
H. rex Anglorum'iustic[iis] Normannie et vicec[omitibus] et baronibus et
fidelibus suis et preposito et omnibus ministris et burgensibus de Argentom[o]
salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse in feodo et hereditate quiete
Roberto et Hamelino loricariis meis de Argentom[o] unam mansuram terre
in Argentom[o] in fossato inter burgum et calciatam sibi et heredibus suis
quietam de omni consuetudine. Quare volo et firmiter precipio quod ipsi eam
bene et in pace et quiete et hereditabiliter teneant. T[estibus] R. de Curci et
lohanne mar[escallo] et Wigan[o] mar[escaIlo] et Rain[aIdo] fil[io] comptis],
ap[ud] Argentom[um].
22
1131-1135 (probably after 1133),* at Seez
Confirmation to SSez cathedral of a gift by Enguerran Oison of land f of
the housing of the canons regular.
A, original lost; B, copy therefrom in 1521 also lost; C, copy from
B in MS. Alenjon 177, f. 104; D, copy in Livre rouge, f. 71V; E, copy
from D in MS. Lat. 11058, f. 12.
Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum archiepiscopo
Rothomagensi Hugoni, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, iusticiariis, baronibus,
vicecomitibus, et omnibus fidelibus suis tocius Normannie salutem. Sciatis
quoniam Ingebannus Oison et Guilielmus filius eius coram me et baronibus
meis apud Sagium in perpetuam elemosinam concesserunt Deo et ecclesie
Sagiensi tres mansuras terre quas idem Ingelrannus de episcopo tenuerat,
scilicet mansuram que fuerat Gualteri filii Constantini et aliam que fuit
Rogeri Britonis et terciam ^ que fuit Roberti canonici, ad domos regulariimi
et' canonicorum eiusdem ecclesie edificandas. Has vero mansuras dedit cum
Ingelranno filio suo quem episcopus canonicum regularem fecit ibidem, et pro
hac donacione dedit ei episcopus vi. boves et imiun palefridum in pretiimi
centiun solidorum Cenomannensium. Hanc itaque concessionem' in perpe-
tumn valituram eis regia auctoritate confirmavi et sigilli mei impressione
munivi.
Testibus loanne episcopo Lexoviensi et Galtero filio Pagani et Goscelino de
BaUleul et Roberto de sigillo,' apud Sagium.
which grants to Robert loricarius a house in Caen: original in MS. Lat. 10083,
no. 3 (cf. Delisle, Henri II, p. 141, no. 4, M. A. N., viii. 388, no. 137).
' Subsequent to the general confirmation of 1131 (no. 11), issued apparently on
the eve of the king's departure for England, whence he returned in 1133.
' etiam, C. • So MSS. * cessionem, C. ' MSS. Sagio.
308 APPENDIX F
23
1133-113S1 at Falaise
Grant of freedom from toll to the nuns of VUlers-Canivet.
A, original, torn at the right, formeriy sealed sur simple queue, in
Archives of the Calvados, no. 47-66; B, vidimus of G., bishop of Seez,
in the sa,mt fonds, no. 48, from which the gaps have been supplied.
H. rex Anglforum] iustic[iis] et omnibus vic[ecomitibus] et ministris
[tocius Normannie] et portuum maris salutem. Predpio quod totum corre-
dium et [omnes res sanctimon]ialiiun Sancte Marie de Vilers quas homlDes
earum poterunt [affidare suas] esse dominicas sint quiete de theIon[eo] et
passag[io] et omni [alia consuetu]dine. Et nullus eas nee homines earum
super hoc iniuste [distiurbet super] .x. libras forifacture. Testibus A. episcopo
Carlolii et R. comite [Gloecestrie et R. de Ver], apud Falesiam.
APPENDIX G
THE NORMAN ITINERARY OF HENRY I, 1106-1135
Or the twenty-nine years of Henry I's reign as duke more than half
were spent in Normandy, so that the history of these Norman so-
journs constitutes an essential part of the general history of his rule as
well as a not inconsiderable portion of the annals of the duchy. In the
absence of any connected narrative of these Norman years, a founda-
tion must be laid by constructing a detailed itinerary, such as Canon
E)rton prepared for Henry II, in which the fragmentary statements of
the chroniclers shall be supplemented by the evidence of such docu-
ments as can be dated and placed with suflScient exactness. Nothing
definitive of this sort can be attempted before the completion of this
portion of Davis's Regesta, but in the meantime the following pro-
visional itinerary may prove of service. A distinction is made between
such events and documents as can be assigned to a specific date, and
those which can be assigned only to a given year or a particular royal
sojourn. No attempt has been made to group the charters which
require wider limits: many of Henry's documents can never be dated
with any degree of definiteness, while others must await a comprehen-
sive collection and a diplomatic analysis of the more abimdant records
on the EngUsh side of the Channel.'
I: 1106-U07
1106 28 September. Battle of Tinchebrai. 5«^a, Chapter III, note 6.
Falaise. Ordericus, iv. 232.
RoxTEN. Ibid., iv. 233.
ca. 15 October. Lisieux. Council. Ibid.,iv. 233.
7 November. Rotten. Court. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 127.
• No special study has been made of Henry's charters. See the notes to Warner
and Ellis, Facsimiles of Royal and Other Charters in the British Museum, i; many
scattered observations of Round; and Birch's paper on his seals in the Journal of the
British Archaeological Association, xxix. 233-262 (1873). The best study of his
itinerary is that of "Eytan, British Museum, Add. MS. 31937, f. 122 ff. See also
H. F., xii. 934-937; Andrew, in Numismatic Chronicle fourth series, i; and Ramsay,
Foundations of England, u
3IO APPENDIX G
1106 30 November. Rouen. Chapter III, note 14.
25 December. In NoKiiANDY. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
1 107 January. Falaise. Coimdl. Ordericus, iv. 239(?), 269.
Maxch. LisiEUX. Council. Ihid., iv. 269.
1106-1107 Rouen. Charter for Bee: Appendix F, no. i.
LiLLEBONNE. Writs Concerning York issued with
Queen Matilda {Historians of York, iii. 31; Mon-
asticon, viii. 1179) belong to this year if this (An-
nales Monastici, Winton, ii. 42) was the Queen's
only visit to Normandy.
Rouen. The same holds true of a charter for
Longueville: Round, Calendar, no. 219.
1107 Before 14 April. Departiwe, reaching Windsor before Easter (Ead-
mer, p. 184; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 236; A. S.
Chronicle).
H: 1108-1109
1108 July-August, Arrival. Eadmer, p. 197; Robert of Torigni, i. 134;
probably CO. i August. A. S. Chronicle.
25 December. In Normandy. A. S. Chronicle.
1 109 March. Neaufles. Meeting with Louis VI: Luchaire,
Louis VI, no. 72.
Rouen. Letter to Ansehn: Epistolae Anselmi, bk.
iv, no. 93.
25 April. In Noemandy. A. S. Chronicle.
1108-1109 Argentan. Charter for Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive:
Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 156; Neustria Pia,
p. 503; DeUsle, Cartulaire normand, no. 1219.
Caen. Vernier, no. 49; Round, no. 156.
Rouen. Charter for William d'Aubigny: Calendar
0} Patent Rolls, 1327-1330, p. 20.
No place. Letter to Anselm: Eadmer, p. 205.
Sainte-Vaubourg. Charter for Ramsey {Chroni-
con, p. 215), attested by Ranulf as chancellor and
addressed to Simon I, earl of Northampton, which
must be placed in this year if Simon died before 1 1 1 1
(see Warner and Ellis, Facsimiles, i. no. 26).
1109 ca. I June. Departvu:e.* Florence of Worcester, ii. 59; cf.
A. S. Chronicle.
' A grant of 30 June made with Henry's consent to La Trinity de Caen (MS.
Fr. n. a. 20221, end), does not require his presence in Normandy at that date.
NORMAN ITINERARY OF HENRY I
3"
III2 2 March.
DI: 1111-U13
I II I August. Aitivsl. A. S. Chronicle; Calendar of Charter Rolls,
iii. 471, no. 4 (charter of 8 August at Waltham
* in transitu ')■
AvRANCHES. Charter confirming the foundation of
Savigny: Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. iii; Auvry,
Histoire de la congregation de Savigny, i. 157-160
(translation) ; Round, Calendar, no. 792, where the
date is incorrectly given as 7 March 1113, a date
inconsistent with the chronological elements in the
charter, save the regnal years, and with the proba-
bilities of Henry's itinerary.' To the long Ust of
witnesses given by Round should be added Nigel d'
Aubigny and ' Ricardus sigiUi custos.' Cf. the foun-
dation charter of Ralph of Fougeres, 25 January
II 1 2, in Martene and Diurand, Thesaurus, i. 332;
and the confirmation of Turgis of Avranches wit-
nessed by Henry in the cartulary of Savigny in
Archives of the Manche, f. 170V, no. 657.
4 November. Bonne ville-sttr-Touques. Condemnation of Rob-
ert of BellSme: Ordericus, iv. 305.
Vakkeville. Grant of freedom from toll to Sa-
vigny: M. A. N., XX. 256.
No place. Approves grant by Robert of Meulan
to Bee of the manor of Chisenbury* (co. Wilts):
Porfie, Bee, i. 467.
Saint-£vroul. Ordericus, iv. 301 f.,v. 196; Round,
no. 624.
Bec. Confirms and seals charter of Hugh of Gour-
nayforBec: Por6e, 5ec, i. 339. (The year is prob-
ably incorrectly given).
Near ALENgoN. Meeting with Fulk of Anjou:
Ordericus, iv. 306, v. 196.
Rouen. Ibid., iv. 302, v. 196; Round, no. 624.
Near Gisors. Interview with Louis VI: Luchaire,
Louis VI, no. 158.
1-3 May. Belleme, siege. Ordericus, iv. 308.
' Most of the elements of date can be reconciled by assuming that the style
is that of Easter, but the difficulties of the king's itinerary would still stand in
the way of 11 13.
* ' Chilingueburia super Avram ' in MS. Lat. 13905, f. 2iv; the correct form
Chesingebery in Heniy II's confirmation, Delisle-Berger, no. 433.
II 13 2-3 February.
[11 February]
23-28 February.
Early March.
23-30 March.
312 APPENDIX G
1113 July. Departure (Florence, ii. 66), having spent Christ-
mas, Easter, and Pentecost in Normandy {A. S.
Chronicle).
1 1 14 21 September.
25 December.
"IS
IV: 1114-1115
Arrival, via Portsmouth. A. S. Chronicle; cf. char-
ter given 13 September at Westboume (Calendar of
Charter Rolls, iii. 346, iv. 170; Monasticon, ii. 444).
Rotten. Court at which barons swear allegiance to
Prince William. A. S. Chronicle; Henry of Hunt-
ingdon, p. 239; charter for Tiron in Cartidaire, ed.
Merlet, i. 27; Round, no. 994.
(year only) No place. Charter of confirmation for Saint-Georges
de Bocherville: Round, no. 196 (also in vidimus in
Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure and Archives
Nationales, JJ. 64, no. 667).
" No place. Consents to grant of Stephen of Aumale
for Aumale: Monasticon, vii. 1103 (original in
Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure).
Mid-July. Departure. Florence, ii. 68; ^4. 5. Chronicle. (The
king was at Westminster 18 September: Calendar
of Patent Rolls, 1358-1361, p. 7.)
V: 1116-1120
11 16 Just after 2 April. Arrival.
P- 239;
1117
1118 July-August.
Early September.
September.
October.
October.
A. S. Chronicle; Henry of Huntingdon,
Robert of Torigni, i. 150; cf. Eadmer,
P- 237-
No place. Confirms grant to Bee by William Malet
of Menil-Josselin (Eure): MS. Lat. 12884, i- 165;
MS. Lat. 13905, f. 2iv; Porfie, Bee, i. 334.
Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, Maiassis. Ordericus, iL
453, iv. 311.
ALEN50N and vicinity. War with Angevins; cession
of territory to Thibaud of Blois. Ibid., iv. 323 f.
Siege of Laigle. Ibid., iv. 325-327.
Rouen. Ibid., iv. 327; cf. 316.
Campaign against La Fert£-en-Brai and Nettp-
BOtJRG. Ibid., iv. 327 f.
Council of RotJEN. Ibid., iv. 329 f.
Rouen. Settlement of dispute between Savigny and
Saint-Etienne: Appendix F, no. 2.
NORMAN ITINERARY OF HENRY I
313
1 1 18 October.
10-16 November.
December.
1 1 19 16-22 February.
After 18 May.
June.
(probably)
Summer.
tt
20 August.
September.
October.
Between 22 and
27 November.
25 December,
(year only)
1117-1119
Arganchy. Charter approving this settlement:
ibid.
Caen. Grant to Saint-fitienne by William d'Au-
bigny in presence of Henry and his barons at the
castle: Deville, Analyse, p. 47; 'Emptiones
Eudonis,' Chapter III, no. 5.
Siege of Laigle. Ordericus, iv. 331.
Siege of Alencon. Ibid., iv. 333; Chroniques des
comtes d'Anjou, ed. Halphen and Poupardin, pp.
Breteuil, Falaise, Chateau de Renouakd.
Ordericus, iv. 337-339.
La Ferte-Fresnel. Ibid., iv. 345.
LisiEUX. Court; betrothal of Prince William. Ibid.,
iv. 347 f.; cf. A. S. Chronicle.
Rouen. Charter for Colchester: Carhdarium S.
lohannis BapHMe de Colecestria, p. 10.
Rouen. Charter for Colchester: tSwi., pp. 4-10; cf.
Round, in E. H. R., xvi. 723 ; Geofrey de MandeoUle,
pp. 423-427-
Pont-Saint-Pierre. Ordericus, iv, 348.
fivREUx, siege and burning. Ibid., iv. 350-352.
Battle of Bremule. Ibid., iv. 354-363; Luchaire,
Louis VI, no. 259.
Breteuil. Ordericus, iv. 367 f.
Glos, Lire. Ibid., iv. 371.
Rouen. Ibid.
Siege of £vreux. Ibid., iv. 393.
ViEUX-RouEN. Ibid., iv. 395.
Instructions to bishops going to coimcil of Rheims.
IMd., iv. 373.
GisoRS. Interview with Calixtus II. Historians of
York, ii. 168 ff.; Jaffe-Lowenfeld, nos. 6788-6789;
Eadmer, p. 258; Henry of Himtingdon, p. 242.
Bayeux. Charter for Savigny: Round, no. 793.
Rouen. Charter for Bee: Appendix F, no. 3.
Rouen. Charter for Bee: ' MS. Lat. 12884, f. 167;
Neustria Pia, p. 484.
' The date of this and the three following documents is fixed by the attestation of
Archbishop Ralph of Canterbury, who spent these three years in Normandy,
leaving 4 January 11 20: Ordericus, iv. 430; Florence of Worcester, ii. 74.
514
APPENDIX G
1117^1119
1119
1120
Lent.
30 May.
Before June.
October.
1116-1120
1116-1120,
probably 11 20
1119-1120
1120 21 November.
25 November.
Rouen. Agreement in his presence between Saint-
Wandrille and Cerisy: Lot, S.-WandrUle, no. 60.
RotTEN. Writ for Saint-Amand: Appendix F, no. 4.
Rouen. Charter for Saint Albans: Matthew Paris,
Chronica Majora, vi. 39.
No day or place given. Meeting with Louis VI and
homage of Prince William. Luchaire, Louis VI,
no. 298; Lot, FidUes ou vassaux?, p. 202.
Arganchy. Charter for Colchester: Cartularium,
i. 42; d.E.H.R.,xvi. 728.
Caen. Charters for Colchester, probably about the
same time: Cartttlarium, i. 21, 23.
Vernon ( ? ' apud Vercionem ')• Interview with the
papal legate Conon. Historians of York, ii. 186 f.
Rouen. Letter to Archbishop Ralph on behalf of
Eadmer: Eadmer, p. 281.
GisoRS. Second interview with Conon. Historians
of York, ii. 189; for the date cf. Mansi, Concilia,
xxi. 259.
MoRTAiN. Charter for Tiron: Cartulaire, ed. Mer-
let, i. 42; Round, no. 995.
Sainte-Vaubourg. Charter for Tiron: Cartulaire,
i. 41 ; Roimd, no. 996.
Rouen. Charter for Nostell: W. Farreis, Early
Yorkshire Charters, no. 1433.
Bonneville. Charter for Nostell: ibid., no. 1424.
Rouen. Writ for Archbishop Thurstan of York:
ibid., no. 1822.
Barfleur. Charter for Cerisy: Neustria Pia, p.
432; Monasticon, vii. 1075; Farcy, Abbayes du
diocise de Bayeux, pp. 86, 89; Toustain de Billy,
Histoire du diocise de Coutances, i, 166; cf. Revue
catholique de Normandie, x. 441; M. A. N., xxiii,
part I, no. 1474.
Bareleur. Departure; loss of White Ship. Orderi-
cus, iv. 411-419; A.S. Chronicle; Henry of Hunt-
ingdon, p. 242; William of Malmesbury, Gesta
Regum, ii. 496; John of Worcester, ed. Weaver,.
P-iS-
NORMAN ITINERARY OF HENRY I
3IS
1123 II June.
June or July.
October.
October, November.
1124
26 March.
After 6 April.
16 April.
18 May-i June,
(year only)
II2S
1126 21 March,
(year only)
VI: I 123-1 126
Arrival, from Portsmouth. Simeon of Durham, ii.
273; A. S. Chronicle; Florence, ii. 78; John of Wor-
cester, p. 17; cf. Henry of Himtingdon, p. 245;
Annales Monastici, i. 11; Rovmd, Ancient Charters,
no. 10; id., Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 432 f.
Confers with archbishops of Canterbury and York
on their return from Rome. Florence, ii. 78.
Rouen. Ordericus, iv. 442.
MoNTFORT, Brionot, Pontaudemee, Gisors.
Campaign against Hugh de Montfort, Galeran de
Meulan, etc. Ordericus, iv. 443-453; Robert of
Torigni, i. 163; Simeon of Durham, ii. 274.
Invasion of the Vexin. Suger, Louis le Gros, ed.
Molinier, p. 106.
Caen. Robert of Torigni, i. 166.
Rouen. Court; condemnation of those taken at
battle of Bourgtheroude. Ordericus, iv. 459-463.
Bec. Vita Willelmi tertii ahhatis, Migne, Patrologia,
cl. 722.
Brionne, SAiNTE-VAUBorrRG. Poree, Bec, i. 287.
Rouen. Ihid., i. 288.
fivREUX. Charter for Savigny: Appendix F, no. 6.
Rouen. Charter for Athelney: Cartulary (Somer-
set Record Society), p. 133.
No place. Charter for Bec: Porle, Bec, i. 657.
No place. Charter for Reading, with many wit-
nesses: Monasticon, iv. 40; J. B. Hurry, Reading
Abbey, p. 151.
Seez. Dedication of cathedral. Ordericus, iv. 471.
Sainte-Vaubourg. Decision of controversy be-
tween John, bishop of Seez, and Marmoutier: early
copy in Archives of the Ome, H. 2159; M.A.N.,
XV. 197; Round, no. 1191; Barret, Cartulaire de
Marmoutier pour le Perche, no. 23.
No place. General confirmation for Lessay: original
in Archives of the Manche, H. 4607; Round, no.
923. From the names of the witnesses, the confirma-
tion of a charter of Reginald d'Orval for Lessay
probably belongs to the same time and place:
original in Archives of the Manche, H. 6449;
printed in Inventaire somtnaire; Round, no, 924,
3i6
II23-II26( ?)
1125-1126 (probably)
1 1 26 II September.
APPENDIX G
No place. Privilege for Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive:
original in Archives of the Calvados; GaUia Chris-
tiana, xi. instr. 157.
Rouen. Charter for Hyde Abbey: Monasticon, ii.
44S (cf. the witnesses to the charter for Reading,
ibid., iv. 41).
Departure. Simeon of Durham, ii. 281 (as of 1127);
cf. A. S. Chronicle; Henry of Himtingdon, p. 247;
William of Mahnesbury, Historia Novella, p. 528.
II27
26
August.
(probably)
(?)
II28
10
June.
17 June.
Before the end
of July.
October.
November.
(year only)
a a
II27-II28
1 1 29 2 June.
Vn: 1127-1129
Arrival, via Eling. Simeon of Durham, ii. 282 (as
of 1 1 28); cf. Henry of Huntingdon, p. 247; Round,
Feudal England, p. 268 f.
Saint-Pierre-stjr-Dive. Charter for Ely: Monas-
ticon, ii. 617; cf. Roxmd, op. cit., p. 269.
No place. Charter for Aunay: Appendix F, no. 8.
Rouen. Knighting of Geoffrey Plantagenet. On
the year see Norgate, Angevin Kings, i. 258-260;
Chroniqiies des comtes d'Anjou, ed. Halphen and
Poupardin, pp. 178-180.
Le Mans. Marriage of Geoffrey and Matilda. See
the authors just cited.
fipERNON. Invasion of the Mantois. Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 247; Robert of Torigni, i. 175; cf.
Luchaire, Louis VI, no. 414.
Rouen. Council. Ordericus, iv. 495.
Rouen. Uncertain charter for Saint-fivroul:
Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 204; supra, Chapter I,
pp. 11-14.
No place. Charter for Sainte-Barbe: early figured
copy in Archives of the Calvados.
S£ez. Attests charter of John, bishop of Slez, for
Marmoutier. Barret, Carttdaire de Martnoutier
pour le Perche, no. 25; Round, no. 1192.
Probably in Normandy. Confirmation of charter of
Count Stephen for Fumess Abbey, with incon-
sistent year, indiction, and epact: Monasticon,
V. 247.
Falaise. Whitsuntide court. Supra, Chapter HI,
no. 3.
NORMAN ITINERARY OF HENRY I
317
1129 (year only)
I I 28-1 I 29
1129 IS July.
Rouen. Charters for Fontevrault: Round, nos.
1052 f., 1459.
Rouen. Grant to MUes of Gloucester of the lands
and coDstableship of his father: original in British
Museum, Cotton Charter xvi. 33. See above, p. 305.
Departure. Simeon of Durham, ii. 283; A. S.
Chronicle; John of Worcester, p. 29. (Henry was in
London i August: Henry of Huntingdon, p. 250.)
Vni: H30-1131
1 130 ca. I September. Arrival, from Portsmouth. Robert of Torigni, i.
182; Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 125; cf. Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 252 (Michaelmas); A. S. Chronicle.
8 September. Bec. Robert of Torigni, i. 182.
14 September. Rouen. Probably present at consecration of Arch-
bishop Hugh. Robert of Torigni, i. 183.
after 14 September. Rouen. Assents to charter of Archbishop Hugh for
Aiunale: Archives of the Oise, H. 1302; G(^lia
Christiana, xi. instr. 22.
(?)
1 13 1 13 January.
S February.
February.
Rouen. Charter for Ramsey:' Warner and EUis,
Facsimiles, i, no. 11; Ramsey Cartulary, i. 242;
Chronicon, p. 224.
Rouen. Charter for Notre-Dame-du-Desert: Le
Prevost, Eure, i. 251; Gumey, Record of the House oj
Gournay, ii. 739; Roimd, no. 411.
Chartkes. Meeting with Innocent II. Ordericus,
v. 25; Round, no. 1460; cf. Henry of Hunting-
don, p. 252; Robert of Torigni, i. 184; William
of Malmesbury, Historia Novdla, p. 534; Jaff6-
Lowenfeld, i. 846.
Rouen. Neustria Pia, p. 387.
Rouen. Charter for Seez: Appendix F, no. 10.
' The appearance together in this charter of Archbishop Hugh, consecrated 14
September 1130, and William of Tancarville, who died in 11 29 (Histoire littiraire,
xxxii. 204), raises an unsolved problem, unless Hugh was already designated be-
fore the king's departure from Normandy in 11 29. On the custom of prelates
attesting before their consecration see Eyton, Add. MS. 31937, f. 148V; Round,
in Victoria History of Hampshire, i. 527. A charter of 1133 is dated in the fourth
year of Archbishop Hugh: Cartukire de Tiron, i. 205.
3i8
1131
9, 10 May.
5 or 12 May.
May (113 1 ?)
(year only)
Summer.
1130-1131
1130-1131 ( ?)
1131 August
APPENDIX G
Rouen. Meeting with Innocent 11. JaflfS-Lowen-
feld, nos. 7472 f., 7476; William of Malmesbury,
Eistoria Novella, p. 534; Robert of Torigni, i. 185;
id., in William of Jumieges, ed. Marx, p. 309; cf.
Round, Ancient Charters, p. 30.
Rouen. Charter for Climy: Bruel, Charles de
CUmy, V, no. 4016; Round, Calendar, nos. 1387 f.
Vernon. Meeting with Count Thibaud. Ordericus,
iii. ii8f.
Vaudreuil. Charter for fivreux cathedral: Round,
no. 287.
Aeques. Charter for Beaumont-le-Roger: vidinms
in Archives of the Eure, H. 814; copy in cartulary in
Biblioth6que Mazarine, MS. 3417; Cartidaire, ed.
E. Deville, p. 7; Round, no. 373.
Dieppe. Charter for S6ez: Appendix F, no. 11; of.
Ordericus, iv. 471, note 4.
Aeques. Charter for the cordwainers of Rouen:
copies in MS. Lat. 9067, f. iS4v; MS. Rouen 2192,
f. 189; La Roque, iii. 149; Round, no. 107.
Arques. Charter for Saint-Georges de Bocherville:
Round, no. 197.
Dieppe. Charter for Saint- Wandrille: Lot, 5.-
Wandrille, no. 64; Round, no. 168.
Caen. Charter for Saint-fitienne: Monasticon,
vii. 1071.
Caen ( ?). Charters for Saint-£tienne and con-
firmation of ' Emptiones Eudonis ': supra. Chapter
III, no. s.
Rouen. Charters for Fecamp: Round, nos. 122,
123; facsimile of no. 123 in Chevreux and Vernier,
Les archives de Normandie, no. 33.
Rouen. Charter for Salisbury cathedral: Register
of St. Osmund, i. 349.
Departure, from Dieppe. A. S. Chronicle; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 252; Robert of Torigni, i. 185.
NORMAN ITINERARY OF HENRY I
319
1 133 3 August.
"34
(year only)
Shortly after
IS April.
3 June.
IX: 1133-113S
Arrival. Annals of Rotten, in Labbe, Bihliotheca, i.
368; Annals of Canterbury, in Liebermann, Anglo-
normannische Geschichtsqttellen, p. 79; Robert of
Torigni, i. 192; John of Hexham, ii. 285; John of
Worcester, p. 37. Wilham of Malmesbury, p. 535,
gives 5 August, but the eclipse was on the 2d.
Rotten. Charter for Bee: Round, no. 374; Poree,
Bee, i. 460.
MoRTEMZE. H. F., xiv. 510.
RotTEN. Birth of Henry's grandson Geoffrey, the
king being probably at Rouen. Robert of Torigni, i.
192; cf. Por6e, Bee, i. 293 f., 650.
(year only) RotTEN. Charter for Bee: Por6e, i. 377-380, 658 f.
(two versions); Round, no. 375.
" Rotten. Charter for Coutances cathedral: cartu-
lary now in Archives of the Manche (cf. Chapter VI,
note 9s), p. 348, no. 284; copy in MS. Fr. 4900, f. sv;
Dupont, Histoire du Cotentin, i. 472; Round, no.
959-
1 13 5 Makes three vain attempts to cross to England.
Ordericus, v. 45.
Caen. Charter for Saint-Andre-en-Gouffem: Round,
no. 590.
Rotten. Ordinance concerning the Truce of God:
Tris Ancien Coutumier, ed. Tardif, c. 71; Round,
no. 290.
August-i November. Seez, Alencon, Argentan, etc. Ordericus, v. 47,
63-
No place. Confirms grant of WiUiam of Warren for
BeUencombre: Monasticon, vii. 1113.
No place. Renews charter of 1121-1131 for Le
Grand-Beauheu de Chartres: Cartidaire, ed. Merlet
and Jusselin, no. i; supra. Chapter HI, no. 17.
1133-1135 Arganchy. Writ to custodians of the bishopric of
Bayeux: Livre noir, no. 37. No. 34 is probably of
the same period.
Caen. Writ for Bayeux cathedral: ibid., no. 8
(probably during the same vacancy).
320 APPENDIX G
1133-113S Falaise. Charter for Ramsey: Carttdary, i. 250;
Chronicon, p. 284.
Faxaise. Charter for ViUers-Canivet: Appendix
F, no. 23.
Rouen. Charter for the bishop of fivreux: supra,
Chapter III, no. 18; Round, no. 289.
RotTEN. Charter for Lincohi: E. H. R., xxiii. 726,
no. 4; MonasHcon, viii. 1275.
S£ez. Charter for Slez cathedral: Appendix F,
no. 22.
1 135 25 November. Lions castle. Ordericus, v. 49.
I December. Lions. Death. Ihid., v. 50.
APPENDIX H
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING NORMAN COURTS, 1139-1191 '
1 139, at Lisieuz
Notice of suit before John, bishop of Lisieux, between Richard and
Anselm of Dives and the abbey of Troarn concerning the church of Dives
(Calvados).
A, original lost; B, copy in lost cartulary of Troam; C, copy from
B (' in veteri cartario folio .xxix. hec repperi ') in Chartrier rouge, MS.
Lat. 10086, f. IS9V.
Anno .M'-CXXXIX. defuncto Herluino presbitero de Diva movenmt
Ricardus de Diva et Anselmus frater eius contencionem de ecclesia de Diva
contra nos. Dicebant enim quandam partem eiusdem ecclesie esse suam et
maxime presentacionem presbiteri. Fro qua causa iussu lohannis episcopi
Lexoviensis perrexerunt in curiam Sancti Petri ante ipsum episcopiun,
scilicet domnus abbas Andreas et monachi eius cum eo Rannulfus cellararius
et Radulf us de Waravilla et Rogerius de Sancto Wandregisilo et Ricardus de
Diva et Anselmus frater eius. Et diraciocinati sunt idem abbas et monachi
eius quod tota ecclesia Sancte Marie de Diva sua erat et presentacio presbi-
teri, per testimonium et iudiciiun predict! episcopi et indicium qui curiam
tenebant et per cartam suam quam inde habebant firmatam manu Willelmi
senioris regis et Rogerii de Belmont et Roberti filii eius et manu Hugonis
episcopi Lexoviensis et per guarantores suos quos ibi habebant, scilicet
Rogerium de Spineto et filios eius et Jordanum de Sulleio; et saisiti redierunt
a curia abbas et monachi eius. His interfuerunt Herveus archidiaconus,
Normannus archidiaconus, decanus, Rogerius de Monasteriolo, Hugo
Teillardus, Willelmus de Capella.'
' For other such documents seeM.A.N., xv. ig6 B.; Valin, piSces justificatives;
and the texts cited supra. Chapters V and VI.
' Of. the following letter of Galeran of Meulan: ' I. reverendo Dei gratia Lex-
[oviensi] episcopo domino suo et patii G. comes Mellenti salutem. Fiecor vos quod
Dei amore et meo teneatis et custodiatis ecclesiam Sancti Martini de Troamo et
monachos et onmes les eorum et nominatim ecclesiam de Diva quam antecessores
mei concesseiunt et cum Willelmo rege AnglorumaduceNonnannorumconfirma-
verunt predicte ecclesie et monachis, et ut [non] permittatis quod Ricardus de Diva
vel Anselmus faciat eis inde aliquam contumeliam vel [blank in MS.]. Teste Ro-
berto de Novoburgo.' Chartrier rouge, f. 152; Chartrier blanc in Archives of the
Calvados, no. 366.
321
322 APPENDIX H
20 January 1148, at Lisieuz
NoHficaHon by Fulk, dean of Lisieux, that in the presence of Rotrou,
bishop of £vreux, then administering the see of Lisieux, a piece of land at
Mesnil-Mauger (Calvados) has been recognized as alms by the giiardian
of the honor and the old men of the manor and restored to the priory of
Sainte-Barbe.
A, original, with incisions for attachment of seal, in Archives of the
Calvados, /owds Sainte-Barbe.
Fulco Sancti Petri Lexoviensis ecdesig decanus totusque eiusdem ecdesig
conventus dilectis in Christo fratribus Guillelmo priori de Sancta Barba
totique ipsius ecdesig conventui salutem et fratemam dilectionem. Quia
Hberante nos Christo non sumus ancillg filii sad libera, rarum etiam ecdesi-
asticarum libertati quantum possiunus dacet nos providere, quatinus eas et
ab iUicita possessione laicorum libarare studeamus et ab invasione sacrilega
premimire. Terram igitur quam Rannulfus et Turulfus filius eius tota vita
sua tenuisse dicuntur in elemosina apud Maisnilmalger tempore Rad[ulfi]
filii Serlonis et heredum eius GuiUelmi et Gatif[radi] et sic, in presentia
domini Rotroci Ebroicensis episcopi Lexoviensis episcopatus curam nunc
agentis, per Rog[eriimi] de Hotot qui tunc honorem et heredem de Maisnil-
malger habebat in custodia et per antiques homines eiusdem manerii pro
elemosina recognitam, et per manus tam ipsius Rog[erii] quam Gauf[redi]
filii Theoderici in manum prefati Rot[rocl] episcopi quibusdam ex nobis
videntibus et audientibus ut elemosinam radditam, vobis et ecdesig vestrg
per manus ipsius episcopi datam in perpatuam elemosinam, assensu et beni-
volentia predictorum Rog[aru] et Gauf[redi] ceterorumque qui in eorum
erant consilio, protestamur. Quandam etiam partem elemosing de ecdesia
Saiicti Stephani de Maisnilmalger quam predicti Rannulfus et Turulfus
et post eos Guill[elmus] Burgamissam tenuerunt, quam Robertus decanus
habebat in custodia, redditam in manu eiusdem episcopi hberam a predictis
Rog[erio] et Gauf[redo], vobis nichilominus ab ipso episcopo datam et in
perpetuam demosinam concessam partim vidimus partim audivimus.
Huic actioni presentes affuimus ego Fulco decanus, ex archidiaconis Nor-
mannus et Robertus de Altaribus, ex canonicis Rad[ulfus] de Floreio, Ro-
g[erius] filius Amisi, lohannis archidiaconi vicarius, Gmllelmus archidiac[oni]
Ricardp] fihus, Gislebertus de Furcis, Turgisus, et alii plures. De exteriori-
bus quoque dericis, Robertus de Hotot decanus qui totius predicti negocii
mediator et actor fuit, Rogerius de Dotvilla decanus, Guilldmus de Teber-
villa, et Paganus de Grandvilla. Predictam igitur pactionem terrg recognitg
et redditg in elemosinam predictus Rog[erius] de Hotot affidavit in manu
episcopi Rot[roci] se legitime et fidditer servaturum et contra omnes qui
Vellent advarsari toto posse suo defensurum. Quod totum sicut supra
scriptum est testificantes, ex precepto etiam domini Ebroicensis episcopi
Rot[roci] conscriptione et sigillo capituli nostri corroboramus, ut Domino
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE COURTS 323
cooperante et sermonem confirmante ratum et indissolubile maneat in per-
petuum. Amen. Actum Lexovii in festivitate sanctonui martirum Fabiani
et Sebastiani anno incamationis dominicg M''.C'*.XL°.Vin°.
1154-1158, at Caen
Notification by Robert de Neufbourg, seneschal and justiciar of Nor-
mandy, that Robert,^ son of Ralph of Thaon, had, in the king's court at
Caen, restored to the abbot and monks of Savigny the tithes and lands at
Thaon (Calvados) to which the abbot had proved his right before the king at
Domfront, and that Robert has given surety for the observance of this.
A, original lost; B, cartulary of Savigny, in Archives of the Manche,
no. 219.
A. H. R., XX. 32, note 56.
Robertus de Novoburgo sinescallus Normannie archiepiscopo Rothoma-
gensi et episcopis Normannie et consulibus et baronibus et omnibus fidelibus
Henrici regis Anglie salutem. Notum vobis fieri volumus quod Robertus
filius Radulfi de Ttiaun Cadomo in curia regis coram me qui eram iusticia
Normannie et coram baronibus regis Ricardo abbati et monachis Savigneii
reddidit in pace ac dimisit et in manu abbatis posuit decimas terre eorum de
Thaun et quatuor acras terre, quas ipse Robertus et fratres eius adversus
abbatem et monachos antea calumniabantur et quas ipse abbas et monachi
disrationaverunt in curia regis et coram ipso ad Danfront, et de chatallis
suis misit se in miseratione abbatis et monachorum pro malefactis que ipse et
fratres eius fecerant eis. Et pepigit legitime quod faceret si posset fratres
suos facere et tenere eundem finem cum abbate et monachis quern ipse facie-
bat, et si non posset quod legitime se teneret cum abbate et monachis contra
fratres, et affidavit in manu mea et iuravit super sancta quod ipse hec omnia
que hie diximus legitime teneret et conservaret abbati et monachis. Et hoc
ipsum affidavit Vitalis de Sancto German© et Ricardus de BabainviUa et ah'i
amici eius quos abbas voluit. Huius finis et pacis inter Robertmn et abbatem
et monachos fuerunt testes Godart de Vans et Robertus de Sancta Honorina
qui erant in loco episcopi Luxoviarum et Willelmus filius lohannis et Aitart
Polciti qui erant baiUivi regis et Robertus abbas Fontaneti et Ricardus filius
comitis Gloecestrie et lordanus Taisson et Rualen de Sal et lohannes de
Guavrei et WiUelmus de Vilers et Gaufredus filius Mabile et Robertus fiUus
Bemardi et Rannuhus Rufellus et Nicholaus de Veieves et Robertus de
Chemellia et multi alii.
^ He also appears in a suit in the king's court under Richard: cartulary of
Savigny, no. 220.
324 APPENDIX H
1154-1158
WrU of Amtdf of Lisieux and Robert de Neufbourg [the king's principal
justices], ordering WilUam Fitz John to cause the friends of Robert of
Thaon to give such surety as Robert had given in the preceding document,
and directing him further to have Robert's brothers proclaimed in the
markets of Caen and Bayeux as under the king's ban.
A, original lost; B, cartulary of Savigny, no. 273.
A. H. R., XX. 33, note 56.
Emulfus Dei gratia Luxoviensis episcopus et R. de Novoburgo Willelmo
filio lohannis salutem. Mandamus tibi atque precipimus ut facias amicos
Roberti de Thaun quos abbas Savigneii tibi nominaverit facere fidudam
eidem abbati et monachis ipsius quam ipse Robertus fecit Cadomi coram
nobis, et ut facias fratres Roberti forisbanniri in communi foro Cadomi et
Baiocis sicut forisfactos regis.
I154-IIS9
Notification by Robert de Neufbourg, seneschal of Normandy, that
Robert Poisson of Fotdbec {Eure) has in the king's court and before the
king's barons renounced all claim to the church of £paigjies (Eure) in
favor of the monastery of Priaux, and has received from the abbot the fief of
Ralph the priest subject to the customs which a vavassor owes his lord.
A, original lost; B, cartulary of Preaux in Archives of the Eure,
H. 711, no. 78; C, copy from B in MS. Lat. n. a. 1929, no. 75. Cf.
Brunner, Schwurgerichte, p. 148, note i; Le Prevost, Eure, ii. 125.
Notum sit tarn presentibus quam futuris quoniam in curia regis cum ego
Robertus de Novoburgo dapifer essem Normannie Robertus Piscis de Fule-
becco calumpniam suam de ecclesia de Hispania quietam clamavit ecdesie
Sancti Petri Pratellensis tempore MichaeUs abbatis. Ipse vero abbas pre-
dicto Roberto Pisci feodum quod tenuit Radulfus sacerdos in Hispania red-
didit salvis omnibus consuetudinibus quas vavasor compatriota domino
facere debet. Et quoniam hec ante meam presentiam in regis curia et ante
regis barones factum est, sigilli mei munimento ratum fore in posterum con-
firmo. Testibus Laurentio archidiacono, Willelmo de AnsgerviUa, Godardo *
de VaUibus, Roberto filio Hemerici, Etardo Pulcin, Roberto de luvineio,
Gaufredo de Novoburgo, Henrico de Warewic, Gisleberto de Hotot, et aliis.
' MS. Godardus.
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE COURTS 325
6
1154-1164, at Rouen
Notification that before Rotrou, bishop oj£,vreux, and Richard du Horn-
met, constable, as justiciars, the presentation of Brucourt (Calvados) was
quitclaimed to Michael, abbot of Preaux, in full assize at Rouen.
A, original lost; B, cartulary of Preaux, in the Archives of the Eure,
H. 711, no. 18; C, copy from B in MS. Lat. n. a. 1929, f. gv.
^.ff.2?., XX. 33, notes9.
Notum sit tarn presentibus quam futuris quoniam cum ego R. episcopus
Ebroicensis at Ricardus de Hmmneto constabularius regis essemus iusti-
ciarii regis, Galfredus de Bruecourt et Gislebertus de Bniencourt et Robertas
filius Matildis in presentia nostra in plena assisia apud Rothomagum da-
maverunt quietam imperpetuum presentationem ecclesie de Bruencourt
Michaeli abbati et ecdesie PrateUensi, de qua diu controversia inter eos
fuerat. Testibus Hugo [sic] de Gomaio et Matheo de, Gerardivilla et Nidio-
laus [sic] de Stutevilla et G. de Vallibus et Roberto de Pessi et Gisleberto de
Vascoil et Roberto de luveneio.
1154-1175, probably ca. 1160, at Rouen
Grant by the dean, Geoffrey, and the chapter of Rouen of their mill at
Maromme {Seine-Inferieure) to the hospital of Saint- Jacques, made in
the presence of the king's justices.
A, original, injured, in Archives Nationales, S. 4889, no. 6; B,
modem copy, ibid., from which the missing portions of the original
have been supplied.
A.H.R.,XK.S5, note 79. Frequently cited by DeUsle, Henri II, who
makes the sUp of attributing the document to Geoffrey's successor,
Robert, and thus placing it after Geoffrey's death in 1175; this error
vitiates several of DeUsle's biographical notes (pp. 100, 377, 417, 422,
449. 491)-
Gaufridus Rothomagensis gcdesig decanus et tocius eiusdem ecdesif
conventus presentibus et futuris salutem. [Not]um esse volumus sancte ma-
tris ecdesie filiis quod m[olendinu]m nostrum de Marrona concedimus
domui infirmorum de Rothomago [in ec]desia Sancti lacobi tenendum in
perpetuum sicut tenuerunt iure hereditario Macharius et heredes eius a
quibus ipsum emerunt pro .xv. marcis argenti, salvo ibi censu nostro scilicet
tribus solidis usualis monete singulis annis in festo Sancti Remigii reddendis.
Hec autem em[ptio publice] celebrata est in presentia nostra cui interfuerunt
326 APPENDIX H
etiam [iustitie regis] Rainaldus de Sancto Walerico, Godardus de Vallibus,
[Adam de W]aniievilla, Willelmus de Malapalude/ Radulfus filius Urselini,
Ro[celin filius] Clar embaldi, Rainaldus de Sancto Philiberto.
8
1160-1164, at Rouen
Notification of a decision, in the king's court at Rouen, before Rotrou,
bishop of £,weux, and Reginald of Saint^Valery as justiciars, adjudging
to Gilbert, abbot of Conches, rights in the granary of Varengeville {Seine-
Infgrieure).
A, original lost; B, cartulary of Conches in the Archives of the
Eure, H. 262, f. loiv; C, copy among Delisle's papers from a MS.
relating to the family of Chambray, from which the gaps in B have
been filled in.
A. H. R, XX. $2, note 59; extract in Delisle, Henri II, p. 455.
Rotrodus Dei gratia Ebroisensis episcopus universis sancte matris ecclesie
filiis salutem. Notificamus vobis quod Gilbertus Sancti Petri Castellionensis
abbas stramen grangie de Warengevilla et palleas cum revaneis iudicio curie
domini regis' obtinuit contra Mathilde[m] de Monasteris et contra Matheimi
filiimi eius disracionavit, quoniam monachos prefate ecclesie inde multum
diu placitis et altercationibus indiscussis vexaverant. Hoc autem judicium
factum est apud Rothomagum in monasterio Sancti Gervacii me presente,
Reinnoldo de Sancto Walerico iusticia in curia existente plenissuna pliui-
monim virorum qui huius rei testes fuerunt: Amulphus Luxoviensis episco-
pus, Frogerius Sagiensis episcopus, Henricus abbas Fiscannensis, Hugo de
Gumaio, Godardus de Vallibus, Robertus de Freschenes, Adam de Martine-
villa, Goselinus Rossel, Robertus Harenc de WaldeviUa, Rogerius Mahiel,
et alii multi.
9
1164-1178
Letter of William de la Seule ^ to Rotrou, archbishop of Rouen, asking
him to do justice to the monks of Aunay in their appeal from Richard,
bishop of Coutances, with respect to the champart of Saint-Martin-de'
Bon-Foss6 (Manche), and referring to a recent decision of the king
concerning the division of the champart.
* William de Malpalu also appears as justice in a document of Richard Talbot for
Mont-aux-Malades (Archives of the Seine-Inffirieure), where an agreement is sworn
to ' coram Willelmo de Mala Palude tunc regis iusticiario.'
' On William de la Seule, see Delisle-Berger, i. 278, 301, ii. 365; Deville, Analyse,
p. 2S; H. F., xxiii. 696.
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE COURTS 327
A, original in Archives of the Manche, H. 3.
A. H. R., XX. 27, note 13.
Reverentissimo patri suo et domino carissimo R. Rothomagensi archiepis-
copo et omnibus hoc audientibus et recte iudicantibus Willebnus de Sola
salutem. Testimonixmi cuiusdam donationis quam feci monachis de Ahieto
vobis per Utteras meas significare curavi. Habebam quondam in manu mea et
adhuc habere poteram si voluissem duas garbas decime in parrochia de Bono
Fosseio, ex quibus unam dedi monachis et aliam ecdesig eiusdem viUe, per-
sona vero ecclesie suam terciam garbam habuit sibi in pace et habet. Verum
tunc temporis talis erat consuetudo circa nos quod tercia tantum garba red-
debatur persone, de iUis sciUcet terris que pro campardo tradebantur, due
vero cum eodem campardo tenebantur, que nunc Deo donante et domino
rege nostro iudicante ubique in territoriis nostris reddimtur, quas monachi et
gcdesia in suam partem volunt habere. Quod quidem rectissimimi videtur
sed persona contradicit ill[is]. Quam contentionem declarandam domino
Ricardo Constantiensi episcopo commiseram et non semel aut secundo me
donationem attestante coram ipso indicium distulit facere. Qua de causa
monachi in eius curia aggravati cmn Gaufrido mihte persona vestram appel-
laverunt presentiam. Unde obnixe vestram deprecor auctoritatem quatinus
vos pro Deo quod unicuique pertinet, et persone et monachis et ecclesie, recta
consideratione restituatis. Valete.
10
1176-1178, at Montfort
NoUjkation by William de la Mare of an agreement between Robert
Neveu of Trouville and Gilbert of Yainville made before him and the other
justices of the king after judgment rendered at an assize at Montfort}
A, original, formerly sealed sur simple quette,ia Archives of the Seine-
Inferienre, fonds Jumieges; B, copy thence by Delisle among his
papers in MSS. Fr. Printed, with serious errors and omissions, by
Valin, p. 271, no. xviii (cf. p. 114); now in Vernier, no. 115.
Ego Willelmus de Mara presentibus omnibus et futuris notam facio con-
cordiam que facta est inter Robertxim Nepotem de Turovilla et Gislebertum
de Eudonis vxUa in assisia de Montfort coram iusticiis regis, me scilicet vice-
comite Sancte Marig Ecclesig et WiUehno Maleth constabulario de Ponte
Abdomari et Hugone de Creissi constabulario Rothomagi et Seherio de
Quenci constabvJario de Nonantcort et Alvredo de Sancto [Martino] con-
stabulario de Drincort, et quibusdam ahis. Robertus siquidem movebat
calumpniam contra Gislebertum de hereditagio suo de Turovilla, sciUcet de
hospite suo WiUehno Cave et de terra quam habet apud maram de Becco et
iuxta domiun Morini Planchun. Sed quoniam in eadem assisia coram predic-
' For the justices mentioned in this document see the biographical notices in
Delisle, Benri II; and the list of assizes, infra. Appendix J.
328 APPENDIX H
tis iusticiis recoidatum est et recognitum hoc esse rectum hereditagium
Gisleberti, pro concordia et pace ab utrisque partibus definitum est ita,
Roberto et Gisleberto consencientibus et iusticiis confinnantibus: Gisle-
bertus hominium fecit Roberto et singulis annis ad festum Sancti Michaelis
dabit ei duodecim denarios publice monete ut sit inter eos indicium et agmen-
tum firmissime pads, nichilque amplius faciet ei; et ita hoc modo Gislebertus
de ista querela finivit in assisia de Montfort, in curia domini regis coram pre-
dictis iusticiis eius. Presentibus his testibus: Rogerio Cellarario, Falche-
ranno monacho, Roberto Fychart, Radulfo Maisnerio, Rogero Filiolo,
Roberto Clarel, Roberto de Leuga, Roberto Belfit, Hermanno Anglico,
Matheo Marescal, Hugone de ConteviUa, et ahis pluribus. Quo tempore
Ricardus Wintoniensis episcopus in Normannia post regem iudex erat et
maior iusticia.
11
1189-1191,^ at Caen
Grant by William de Motdt to the nuns of Almentches of a rent of
twenty-five sous Angevin in Moult {Calvados) and all claim to the tithe of
Ingowiille (Calvados), done at the Exchequer at Caen before William Fitz
Ralph, seneschal of Normandy.
A, original, formerly sealed, in Archives of the Ome, H. 3916. Cf.
A. H. R., XX. 282, note 28.
Omnibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit Willelmus de Mool miles
salutem. Noscat universitas vestra quod ego Willelmus intuitu caritatis et
antecessorum meorum remedio ecclesie Sancte Marie de Almanesches et
monialibus ibidem Deo servientibus dedi et concessi .xxv. soUdatas Ande-
gavensium monete in feodo meo laicali apud Mool assignatas, scilicet: in
Willelmo filio Leiardi viii. solidos et ii. gallinas, in Gauchero Escorchechine
.iii. solidos, in Ricardo Musel .xii. denarios, in Serlone Buffei .ii. sextarios
avene ad magnam mensuram de Argentiis et .iii. panes et .iii. gallinas et
.XXX. ova, in Hugone filio WiUelmi .xii. denarios; prefatis monialibus in
puram et perpetuam elemosinam hbere et pacifice possidendas. Preterea
omni iiuri quod Simon filius meus persona ecdesie de Mool super duabus
garbis decime de feodo sanctimonialium vendicabat apud Ingulfrevillam
penitus renunciavit. Et ut hoc rescriptimi perpetue firmitatis robur futuris
temporibus optineat nee aliqua possit oblivione deleri, pro me et Simone
filio meo sigilli mei munimine roboravi. Actum est hoc apud Cadomum
ad scacarium coram Willehno fiho Radulfi tunc Normannie senescallo,
testibus his: Anschetillo de Arre, Radulfo de Lexoviis, Daniele, magistro
Gaufredo de Cortone, dericis de scacario, R. abbate Sancti Andree de
Gofer, Ricardo Haitie, Turofredo de Cyemi, Willehno filio comitis lohannis,
Henrico de Mool, Radulfo de Rupetra, Ricardo de Argenciis, Radulfo
Martel, et aliis pluribus.
1 Robert became abbot of Saint-Andr6-en-GoufEem ca, 1189; William succeeded
his father John as count of Ponthieu in iigi.
APPENDIX I
THE EARLY LEGISLATION OF HENRY H
The record of Henry II's legislation is lamentably incomplete. The
chief reason is doubtless that indicated by Maitland, ' the administra-
tive character of his reforms,' embodied usually in instructions to his
justices and quickly absorbed ' as part and parcel of the traditional
common law '; ^ but the result is none the less fatal for the study of
constitutional and legal development. We know nothing, for example,
of the estabUshment of the grand assize, even its date must be re-
covered by inference;'' while no formulation of law has reached us
anterior to the Constitutions of Clarendon, and no formal ordinance
anterior to 1 166. The recovery of any texts for these early years is per-
haps a vain hope, but it is none the less important to search out all
traces of legislative activity on both sides of the Channel, even if its
formal expression still escapes us.
The fullest report of any early legislation is given by the Bee annaUst
in 1159:'
Rex Anglorum Henricus ad Natale Domini fuit apud Falesiam, et leges
instituit ut nuUus decanus aliquam personam accusaret sine testimonio
vidnorum circuminanentium qui bone vite fama laudabiles haberentur. De
causis similiter quorumlibet ventilandis instituit ut, cum iudices singularum
provinciarum singulis mensibus ad minus simul devenirent, sine testimonio
vicinorum nichU iudicarent, iniuriam nemini facere, preiudicium non irro-
gare, pacem tenere, latrones convictos statim punire, quemque sua quiete
tenere, ecdesias sua iura possidere.
This account reads like a rapid summary, by headings, of the ordi-
nance, and could hardly have been written in this form without some
reference to the act itself. Its chief importance, as has aheady been
indicated,* consists in its requirement of the accusing jury, which here
makes its first appearance under the Anglo-Norman kings. Especially
noteworthy is the evident connection between the first provision of
this ordinance and § 6 of the Constitutions of Clarendon:
» Pollock and Maitland, i. 136. * See Round, E. B. R., xxxi. 268.
' Robert of Torigni, ii. 180.
* Supra, Chapter VI. Cf. Stubbs, Coftsiitutionai History, i. 497; Pollock and
Maitland, i. 151.
330 APPENDIX I
Laid non debent accusari nisi per certos et legales accusatores et testes in
presentia episcopi, ita quod archidiaconus non perdat ius suum nee quicquam
quod inde habere debeat. Et si tales fuerint qui culpantur, quod non velit
vel non audeat aliquis eos accusare, vicecomes requisitus ab episcopo fadet
iurare duodedm legales homines de visneto seu de villa, coram episcopo,
quod inde veritatem secundum conscientiam suam manifestabimt.'
It is true that only the court of the archdeacon is here mentioned,
while the ordinance of Falaise speaks only of deans; but the cases
which have reached us show both dignitaries associated in the abuses
of which the king complains,* and in the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) he
groups them together without distinction.^ The subject was not new
in 1164 nor, as we shall see, in 1159.
The exactions of the archdeacon's jurisdiction were one of the serious
abuses of the twelfth century. Appointed usually when very young
and by family interest, learning their law in the schools of Paris or
Bologna, laymen often in all but name, the English archdeacons of the
period were notorious for their cupidity and extortion.^ Men even dis-
cussed whether they could be saved — an possit arckidiacotms salvus
esse.^ Archbishop Theobald, one of their patrons, had twinges of con-
sdence respecting their exactions and seems to have instituted a check
upon them in his diocese by the appointment of John of Salisbury as
his secretary,*" in whose correspondence may be found many instances
of their misdeeds in the early years of Henry II." It is not surprising
that the sixth section of the Constitutions of Clarendon was one of
those ' tolerated ' by Alexander III,*^ who was subsequently informed
that the archdeacons of the diocese of Coventry, among other things,
' Stubbs-Davis, Select Charters, p. 165.
' See the cases from Scarborough and London mentioned below, and Gilbert
Foliot, Ep. 24. Cf. also c. 7 of the council of Tours of 1163 (Mansi, xxi. 1178),
which shows that the archdeacon's jurisdiction was often sublet to rural deans. For
the jurisdiction of a Norman dean in criminal matters see Barret, Cartulaire de
Marmoutier pour le Perche, no. 18 (1092-1100); for Maine, Celier, Catalogue des
actes des Svlques du Mans, nos. 81, 266, 267.
' ' Et similiter inquiratur per omnes episcopatus quid et quantum et qua de
causa archidiaconi vel decani iniuste et sine iudido ceperint, et hoc totum scribatur ' :
c. 12, Stubbs-Davis, p. 177.
' Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediaeval and Modem History
(1900), pp. 152 f., 160, 347-349; id-> introduction to Ralph of Diceto, i, p. xxvi f.;
L. B. Radford, Thomas of London (Cambridge, 1894), p. 163 f.
• Cf. John of Salisbury, Ep. 166.
" Id., Ep. 49; Stubbs, Lectures, p. 347 f.
" John of Salisbury, Epp. 27, 34, 69, 80, 89, 93, 107, 118, 166.
" Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, v. 75; Mansi, xxi. 1194.
EARLY LEGISLATION OF HENRY n 33 1
were in the habit of extorting 30 d. from every man or woman who
went to the ordeal of fire or water.**
Just when these abuses first attracted the attention of Henry II is
not clear, but it was quite early in his reign. At the outset he was
hardly favorably disposed by the fact that he had inherited from
Stephen a controversy respecting the punishment of Archdeacon
Osbert of York, accused of poisoning his archbishop;" and he soon took
up the case of a citizen of London despoiled by a dean et longe aliter
iniuriatus quam civem Londoniensem oporteret}^ By the beginning of
1 1 58 he had legislated on the subject, as we learn from Fitz Stephen.*'
The narrative teUs how a burgess of Scarborough complained to the
king at York that the local dean had, without any supporting accuser,
accused his wife of adultery and taken twenty-two shillings from him,
twenty of which the dean subsequently declared had gone to the arch-
deacon. Such accusations had already been forbidden by the king,
-who had the dean brought before him and demanded judgment from
his prelates and barons, declaring that the archdeacons and deans of
the kingdom got in this way more money in a year than the king
himself received:
Quidam decanus abstulerat ei viginti et duos solidos, uxorem ipsius in
capitulis plurimis vexans et deferens sine alio accusatore ream adulterii,
■contra quam consuetudinem rex legem prohibitionis ediderat.
John, treasurer of York, gave it as his opinion that the money should be
returned to the burgess and the dean should be at the archbishop's
mercy with respect to his office, whereupon Richard de Lucy asked,
-Quid ergo domino regi iudicdbitis, in cuius iste incidii constitutionem ?;
and upon the answer that the king had no claim from a clerk, he left the
court. The king appealed to the archbishop but did not follow up the
matter, being called over seas in July by the death of his brother
Geoffrey.
Here we have two distinct references to previous legislation, the men-
tion of the king's law in the narrative and the reference of Richard de
" C. 3, X. 5, 37; Jaff^Lowenfeld, no. 14315 (1174-1181); cf. Maitland, Domes-
■day Book and Beyond, p. 282. That some payment was due the archdeacon at such
times is assumed by Henry of Huntingdon, himself an archdeacon: Liber Eliensis,
p. 170. For otiier forms of archidiaconal exactions see Cartulary of St. Frideswide's,
i. 33, no. 31; Ramsey Cartulary, ii. 152.
" John of Salisbury, Ep. 122; cf. Epp. 108, no, in. " Id., Ep. 80.
" Materials, iii, 44 f.; cf. Radford, Thomas of London, pp. 193-195. For the
presence of the king and Richard de Lucy at York see Farrers, Early Yorkshire
■Charters, no. 419.
332 APPENDIX I
•
Lucy to the constiMio regis. The first is specific enough to show that
this ordinance dealt with the same problem as that of 1159 and the
Constitutions of Clarendon, unsupported accusations against laymen in
ecclesiastical courts. That the king intended to pursue the question is
further shown by the fact that in all probability he repaid the burgess
of Scarborough and thus took over his interest in the case, for in the
Pipe Roll of 1 1 58 we find a payment to a merchant of Scarborough in
camera curie of 225., the exact amount in question." The problem was
postponed by Henry's long absence on the Continent from 1158 to
1163, but it was not forgotten. At Falaise the provision of the earlier
constitMtio is repeated and the requirement of the testimonium vicinorum
is extended to his own local officers; and soon after his return, he makes
the conduct of the archdeacons the first of his grievances against the
church at the conference at Westminster."
Another of the ' customs and dignities of the realm ' which Henry
asserted in 1164 was the trial of all questions of advowson and pre-
sentation in the king's court.** Some Norman precedents for this
claim have been cited above,'" but the English evidence still awaits
investigation. That Henry II had busied himself with this question in
England before 1158 appears from a letter of John of Salisbury^ to
Pope Adrian IV with reference to a dispute concerning the church of
Henton between Arnold of Devizes on the one hand and Earl Roger
and his clerk Osbert on the other. The archbishop had secured Arnold's
restoration to the church, pending a decision of his court:
Cum ergo partibus super hoc dies esset prefixa, ea die iam dictus O. et
procuratores comitis adversus prenominatum E. petitorium instituenmt,
dicentes ipsum iniuste occupare ecclesiam, quam sine assensu comitis et
advocatorum eiusdem ecdesie, quam contra consuetudinem totius ecdesie et
regni Anglorum, contra constitutionem regis et antiquam omnium procerum
dignitatem ingressus erat manu et violentia predonis, qui prefato comiti
totimi fundimi in quo sepe dicta ecclesia sita est diu abstulerat. Piofeiebatur
insuper mandatum regis quo precipiebamur comiti super advocatione ec-
desie sue iustitiam exhibere aut O. pretaxatam ecdesiam restituere, qua post
decessum regis contra ipsius edictum fuerat destitutus.
Whereupon Arnold, fearing the influence of his opponents and the king,
appealed to the Pope, and Osbert gave up the fight. Evidently the
proceedings had begun under Stephen, but the edictum was of Henry U
" Pipe Roll 2-4 Henry II, p. 146.
" Summa cause, in Materials, iv. 201; cf. Anonymus II, ibid., iv. 95.
» C. I. »» Supra, Chapter V, p. 171 f. a Ef. 6.
EARLY LEGISLATION OF HENRY II 333
and so also, apparently, was the constUuHo. We cannot press too
closely the terms of the writer's classical Latinity, yet while the
edictum may relate only to the particular case, like the mandatum, the
consUtuHo is evidently a decree of general scope respecting advowson.
K we may turn the classical iustitiam exhibere back into the legal
rectum tenere, the writ to the archbishop (mandatum) is also interesting
for the early history of the writ of right.
The procedure in such cases in these years is illustrated by the
recently pubUshed report of an inquest respecting the church of St.
Peter, Derby (1156-1159). Twenty-four men, including burgesses,
knights, and priests, were summoned by royal writ before the sheriff
and the archdeacon; their declaration awarded the advowson to
the successors of the lord in whose patrimony the church had been
founded.^
" F. M. Stenton, An Early Inquest relating to St. Peter's Derby, in E. B. R., xxm.
47 f- (1917)-
APPENDIX J
NORMAN ASSIZES, 1176-1193 »
Assizes of the early part of Henry II's reign are noted in Chapter V
(supra, pp. 165-168). The following Ust includes such assizes * as I
have noted in the latter part of this reign and the early years of Rich-
ard; when he appears in them William Fitz Ralph regularly has the
title of seneschal. The list is based almost entirely upon charters, for
the roll of 11 80, imlike the contemporary Pipe Rolls, throws no light
upon the judges' circuits, save for the mention of William Fitz Ralph
on page 57 and of Geoffrey le Moine on page 52 (cf. p. 78 and Round,
no. 517); such indications are more abundant in the roU of iigS-
1. 1 1 77, January; Caen. Richard, bishop of Winchester, Simon de
Tomebu, Robert Marmion, William de Glanville as justices. Livre noir,
no. 9S; Delisle, p. 347; Round, no. 1446.
2. 1176-1178; MoNTPORT. Justices: William de Mara, j/icowfe of Sainte-
Mdre-£glise, William Malet, Hugh de Cressi, Seher de Quinci, Alvered de
Saint-Martin, constables respectively of Pontaudemer, Rouen, Nonancomt,
and Neufchatel (Drincourt). Supra, Appendix H, no. 10.
3. No date; Montfort. ' Ista autem donatio facta est apud Montem-
fortem et recitata in plena asisia coram iusticiis domini regis, scilicet Seherio
de Quenceio, Alveredo de Sancto Martino, etc' Fragment of Bee cartulary
in Archives of the Eure, H. 91, f. 88v, no. 4.
4. 1178-1179; Neutchatel. William Fitz Ralph holds coiut. Staple-
ton, i. S7-
5. 1 180; Argentan. Agreement 'in plena assissa . . . coram iusticiis
domini regis.' Witnessed by William Fitz Ralph, ' qui preerat assisse loco
domini regis,' WiUiam de Mara, Richard Giffart, John, coimt [of Ponthieu],
Fidk d'Aunou, Ralph Tessun, and others. MS. Lat. 5424, p. 91; Collection
Moreau, kxxiv. 76; Vernier, no. 128.
5a. Ca. 1180; Caen. Fine ' in curia mea coram iusticiis meis.' Roimd,
no. 303; Delisle-Berger, no. 564.
6. Before 1182; Rouen. Judgment ' in assisa apud Rothomagum in
curia mea.' Valin, p. 271; Roimd, no. 26; Delisle-Berger, no. 586.
7. 1 183, January 20; Caen. ' In curia domini regis ... in plenaria
assissa ' before William Fitz Ralph and many others. Valin, p. 274; Roimd,
no. 432; Delisle-Berger, no. 638.
' Revised from A.H.R., xx. 289-291 (1915).
' General mentions of an assize without indication of date, place, or judges
(e. g., Sauvage, Troarn, p. 141, note 6) are not included. The list of cases before
the Exchequer (Chapter V, note 12s) should be compared with this list of assizes.
334
NORMAN ASSIZES 335
8. 1183; Caen ( ?). William Fitz Ralph and many others, none styled
justices, but including WiUiam de Mara, Hamo Pincema, Geoffrey Du-
redent, Jordan de Landa, Richard Fitz Henry, William de Calux, and
Roger d'Arri. Delisle, p. 349; Valin, p. 276; Round, no. 437.
p. 1 1 78-1 183; LoNGTTEViLLE. William Fitz Ralph and many other jus-
tices. Valin, p. 273.
10. 1184; Saint-Wandrille. Grant ' in plenaria assisia coram Willelmo
filio Radulfi senescallo et iustitia Normannie et multis aliis iusticiis, scilicet
Willelmo de Mara, Seherio de Quinceio, GosceUno Rusd.' Collection
Moreau, kxxvii. 157 (cf. f. 159), from lost cartulary of Lire; Le Prevost,
Eure, ii. iii.
11. 1 1 84; Caen. 'Hec finalis concordia facta fuit apud Cadomum in
assisia coram WiUelmo filio Radulfi senescaUo Normannie et pluribus aliis
qui time ibi aderant inter Robertum abbatem Sancte Marie de Monteborc
et Henricum de TiUeio de ecclesia Sancte Marie de TeviUa, unde placitum
erat inter eos in curia domini regis. . . . Testibus W. de Mara, Hamone
Pincema, W. de Romara, Radulfo de Haia, Rogero de Arreio, magistro
Paridi, Radulfo de Wallamint, lordano de Landa, Roberto de Curie, W. de
Sauceio, lohanne de Caretot, Willelmo Quarrel et pluribus aliis.' Cartulary
of Montebourg (MS. Lat. 10087), no. 474.
12. 1185; Caen. William Fitz Ralph and other justices hold assize; the
final decision is given at the Exchequer before an important series of wit-
nesses. Valin, p. 277; Round, no. 438; Delisle-Berger, no. 647.
isa. 1185; LoNGTJEViLLE. Recognition concerning presentment 'in
assisia domini regis.' Delisle-Berger, no. 651.
13. 1186, 30 January; Bayeux. Henry, bishop of Bayeux, William de
Mara, Archdeacon John d'firaines, and other justices whose names are not
given. Liwe noir, no. 240.
14. 1 1 86; Rouen. Agreement before William Fitz Ralph and Robert
d'Harcourt (without title). Collection Moreau, lix. ro6, from the original;
cartulary of Fecamp (MS. Rouen 1207), f. 8iv; Round, no. 140.
Z5. 1186; Caen. Grant in presence of WiUiam Fitz Ralph, William de
Mara, WiUiam Calviz, Richard Fitz Henry, Geoffrey de Rapendun ' tunc
baiUivus regis,' and others. MS. Lat. n. a. 1428, f. 18, from original at
Carleton Castle.
16. 1187; Seez. Grant in assize ' coram iusticiariis domini Henrid regis,
scilicet coram lohanne archidiacono de Arenis et WiUelmo de Mara et aliis
pluribus.' Livre hlanc of Saint-Martin of Seez, f. ii8v.
i6a. 1188-1190; probablyatRoTJEN. Grant of WiUiam, abbot of Morte-
mer, ' testibus hiis: lohanne de Constantiis decano Rothomagensi, WiUelmo
fili n Radulphi senescaUo Normannie, Roberto de Harecort, Ricardo de
Montigneio, WiUelmo de Martigneio, Ricardo Ospinel, WiUelmo Tolemer,
..." Original in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, fonds Saint-Ouen.
17. 1189-1190; Bernai. Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de la Trappe (ed.
Charencey), p. 199; d. Valin, p. 116, note.
18. 1 190, August 10; Argentan. Question of presentation 'in curia
domini regis. . . . Testibus lohanne archidiacono Arenensi, Richardo de
Argentiis, Willelmo de ObviUa constabulario Falasie, qui prefatam assisiam
336 APPENDIX J
tenuerant die festi Sancti Laurentii anno primo peregrinationis Philippi
regis Francie et Ricardi regis Anglorum.' Cartulary of Saint-Evroul (MS.
Lat. iioss), no. 250.
ig. 1 190, August; S£ez. Agreement in assize ' coram iusticiariis domini
regis lohanne Oximensi archidiacono, Ricardo de Hummez comestabulario,
W. de Ovilla, Ricardo de Argentiis.' lAvre blanc of Saint-Martin of Seez,
f. 134.
20. 1190; Bernai. * Coram Robert de Harecourt et Willelmo de Mara
tunc iusticiis, Willelmo Tolomeo clerico, Richardo Sylvano, comite de
Alengon, Richard Deri, et pluribus aliis.' An assize at Montfort under
Henry II is mentioned. Archives of the Calvados, H. suppl. 486, f. 9; cf.
supra, Chapter V, note 95.
21. 1190; Caen. Ardiivesof the Calvados, H. 1872; Jf. il. iV., xv. 199;
Roimd, no. 461.
22. 1191, October; Caen. William Fitz Ralph, Richard SUvain, Richard
d'Argences, Hamo Pincema, Richard Fitz Henry, Robert, abbot of Fon-
tenay, Roger d'Arri, Eudo de Vaac, Turstin of Ducey, Geoffrey the chamber-
lain, ' Lucas pincema, et alii multi ' witness transaction in assize. Archives
of the Calvados, H. 1868 (no. 46-18).
23. 1 191; RoDEN. Valin, p. 279.
24. 1 191; Caen. Agreement 'in curia domini regis apud Cadommn
coram Willelmo filio Radulfi tunc temporis senescallo Normannie et Willelmo
de Humetis constabulario domini regis et Roberto Wigomiensi episcopo et
Ricardo Selvain et Ricardo de Argentiis, Willelmo Caluz, Ricardo filio
Henrici, et pluribus aliis.' Roger d'Arri is among the witnesses. Archives of
the Calvados, H. 7077.
25. 1 192; Rouen. Agreement in presence of WiUiam Fitz Ralph, William
de Martigny, Richard d'Argences, Durand du Pin, and other justices.
Chevreux and Vernier, Les archives de Normandie et de la Seine-InfSrieure,
no. 3S; Vernier, no. 164.
2(5. 1187-1193; Caudebec. Agreement ' in plena assisia.' Lot, SaitU-
WandrUle, p. 179, no. 114.
27. Undated; Caen. Grant of Richard Avenel in curia before William
Fitz Ralph and the king's justices and barons, witnessed by William du Horn-
met constable, WiUiam de Mara, Hamo Pincema, Jordan de Landa, Richard
Silvain, Richard d'Argences, and others. Archives of the Manche, H. 212.'
28. No date; Bayeux. Grant ' coram iustitiariis scilicet Willelmo
Tolemeir et Ricardo de Argentiis dictam assisiam tenentibus.' Archives of
the Manche, H. 309.
2p. No date; Bayedx. Grant in assize before William Pesnel, arch-
deacon of Avranches, WiUiam Tolomert, Hamo Pincema, justices. Reper-
toire of de GerviUe (Collection Mancel at Caen, MS. 296), p. 275, no. 21.
• Cf. Richard d'Argences, Hamo Potelier, and William de Caluz as witnesses in
a document of this period: Farcy, Abbayes de I'ivichi de Bayeux, Fontenay, p. 96.
APPENDIX K
DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN
The destruction of the records of the bishop and chapter of Av-
ranches, scarcely less complete than the destruction of the cathedral
itself, has left us no original documents of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries. The only surviving cartulary, the Lkre vert (MS. Avranches
206), has Uttle that is early; the Livre blanc is known only through
scattered extracts; the modern copies are few and unsatisfactory.^
Were it not for the monasteries of Mont-Saint-Michel and Savigny>
the whole diocese would have little to tell us of this epoch in its history.
Curiously, however, certain documents which have reached us from
this region are of unusual significance. The earliest extant notice con-
cerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction is the agreement drawn up between
Bishop John and the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1061.^ One of the
clearest pieces of evidence regarding early knight service is found in a
document of the same bishop in 1066.' A few years later Mont-Saint-
Michel gives us an important convention respecting feudal tenure and
jurisdiction,* and for the inquest of miUtary tenures in 1 172 the only
detailed statement is that of its abbot.* The only surviving portion of
the returns from the great royal inquest of 11 71 is that relating to the
Avranchin.
' See Archives de la France monastique, xvii. 91-95; the extracts from documents
in E. Le Hericher, Awanchin monumental el hislorique (Avranches, 1845-1865); and
the additional pieces in E. A. Pigeon, Le diocise d' Avranches (Coutances, 1888),
who has utilized the copies of Gu^rin in his possession. P. Chesnel, Le CotenUn et
I' Avranchin sous hs dues de Normandie (Caen, 19 12) adds nothing new. A few late
copies are in MS. Regina 870 of the Vatican. No ducal charters for Avranches are
known save one of Henry II (Pigeon, ii. 661). What once existed may be inferred
from later enumerations of the grants of Robert the Magnificent (Pigeon, ii. 667;
supra. Appendix C, no. r) and the mention by Lucius III of grants of Henry I: 'Ex
done Henrici primi regis Anglie dimidiam partem nundinarum Sancti Lamberti,
decimam nundinarum Sancti Andree, decimam nundinarum de Ponte; in Campo
Cervorum duas garbas decime de terra Igerii de Lohf et Ranulfi de Burganoles;
decimam molendini de Cantarana; duas . . . (where a gap follows in the MS.,
Livre vert, i. 2v). Cf. Stapleton, ii, p. vi.
2 Migne, cxlvii. 265; Pigeon, ii. 658; see supra. Chapter I, note 137.
» Le Prfivost, Eure, iii. 183; supra, Chapter I, note 58.
* Supra, p. 21. ' Robert of Torigni, ii. 296-303,
337
338 APPENDIX K
This fragment, copied on the fly-leaf of a text of Hrabanus Maurus
from the abbey of La Luzerne, was first published by Delisle in 1909.*
Headed by a list of twenty-six milites iuratores and nine burgenses
iuratores de Abrincis, it is clearly the return of an inquest. It contains
a clear and orderly statement of the royal rights in the vicomte of
Avranches, including the farm, the proceeds of tolls and the fair of
St. Andrew, the parcels of demesne in city and country, and the hold-
ings of the tenants in capite in the Avranchin. The pleas of the crown
appear as a part of the demesne under a special custodian, who gives
us our only glimpse of a Norman coroner.^ As regards the date of the
dociunent, Delisle * placed it imder Heiuy II but after the death of
Hugh, earl of Chester, in 1181, apparently on the theory, for which
the text itself gives no support, that the mcomtS was in the king's hands
at the time of the inquest. Powicke at first ' assigned it to the reign of
Richard because of the phreise tempore regis B.; but under Henry H
this is constantly used to designate Henry I and can be actually con-
nected with him in the inquest itself, which refers to the grant of the
vineyard at Avranches to Savigny by a rex Henricus who is in this
instance known to have been Henry I.'" Not only does the inquest
belong to the reign of Henry II, but it can be specifically dated therein.
It is subsequent to 3 March 11 70, for the fief of Gilbert d'Avranches,
who was then drowned," has passed to his heir, likewise so retmned on
the roU of military tenants in 1172; "^ yet this heir, his brother-in-law
Fulk Painel, has not yet got possession of the rights over the king's
demesne which he enjoys in 1180." Similarly William de Ducey,
mentioned in the text as lord of Ducey, died before 1180, when his suc-
cessor, WiUiam de Hueceon, owes a relief for this honor." Certain of
• Henri 77, pp. 345-347. The bishop's fiefs are of course not mentioned; theyare
enumerated when in the king's hands in 1 198: Stapleton, ii. 361. v
' Powicke, The Pleas of the Crown in the Avranchin, E. H. R., xxv. 710 f.
« Henri II, pp. 333, 387, 420, 423, 448.
' E. H. R., xxv. 710. Later he accepted the date here proposed: ibid., xxvi. 326;
Loss of Normandy, p. 68.
"> Cartulary of Savigny, in Archives of the Manche, no. 6. Cf . M. A . N., xx. 256;
Delisle, &ludes sw la dasse agricole, pp. 443, 445; Delisle-Berger, no. 80.
" Robert of Torigni, ii. 17; Benedict of Peterborough, i. 4.
^ Red Book of the Exchequer, ii. 640. The abbot's record, however, has been
brought up to date: Robert of Torigni, ii. 297.
" Stapleton, i, pp. Ixviii, 11.
" Ibid., i, pp. kv, II. Evidence that William de Ducey was dead by 1182, if not
by 1 1 79, is also contained in charters of Richard, bishop of Avranches (d. 1182),
reciting gifts made in William's last illness to Savigny (cartulary, no. 127; Auvry,
DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN 339
the items recovered by the mquest evidently served as the basis for the
corresponding entries in the Exchequer Roll of ii8o.>^ There can be
no question that the inquiry was held between 11 70 and 1180, and
these limits can be drawn much closer if we identify the ' Robertus
fihus Regis ' of the inquest with the Robert Fitz Roy who married
Matilda of Avranches and is said by the chronicle of Ford Abbey to
have died 31 May 1172.^* In any case, between 11 70 and 11 80 there is
every reason for ascribing it to 1171, when, according to Robert of
Torigni,"
Rex Henricus senior fecit investigari per Normanniam terras de quibus
rex Henricus avus eius fuerat sasitus die qua obiit. Fecit etiam inquiri quas
terras et quas silvas et que alia dominica barones at alii homines occupa-
verant post mortem regis Henrici avi sui; et hoc mode fere dupUcavit
redditus ducatus Normamue.
No other records of this investigation are available for comparison, but
the Avranchin document is in exact accord with the accoimt of the
chronicler, himself writing at Mont-Saint-Michel, and there can be no
reasonable doubt that we have here a contemporary, or nearly contem-
porary, copy of the original retmrns of the inquest of 11 71 in the
Avranchin.
The following notice relates to the ecclesiastical rather than to the
political institutions of the diocese of Avranches, but it is here printed
because it appears to have escaped the attention of local historians.
It is found in a manuscript of co. 1200 in the Vatican,'* MS. Regiiia 946,
Histoire de la congregation de Savigny, iii. i88; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. SQi) also
anterior to 1182) and to Montmorel (Cariulaire, ed. Dubosc, no. 113). Both are
attested by Ralph, prior of Montmorel, who according to the Gallia Christiana
(xi. 537) became prior before 1171 and ruled eight years. For other references to
William's donations see Carttdaire de Montmorel, nos. 8, 10, 12, 109, 110-115, p. 305;
Round, no. 72r; Pigeon, Le diocese d' Avranches, ii. 671 f.; Le H^richer, L' Avranchin,
»■ 371. 376 f., 387, 423 i; ii- 26, 587.
" Stapleton, i. 11; cf. Powicke, E.H.R., xxv. 710.
" Monasticon, v. 378. Matilda, between 1162 and 1171, grants as ' uxor Robert!
filii regis ' to the bishop of Avranches: Pigeon, Le diocese d' Avranches, ii. 339; cf.
Delisle-Berger, no. 214. Too much weight must not, however, be attached to the
Ford chronicle, which is not earlier than the fourteenth century. The entries which
follow in the Avranchin inquest would lead us to expect a possessive in place of the
nominative: ' Reinaldus de Cortenai feodum Roberta filii R. in Valle Segie.' This
emendation is the more probable since Reginald de Cortenay married the daughter
or stepdaughter of Robert {Monasticon, v. 378; Stapleton, ii, p. cxlv f.),'and Robert
may well have died before 1171.
" ii. 28.
" On the MS. see Pertz's Archiv, xii. 311; Liebermann, Gesetze,i, p. xMi. This
340 APPENDIX K
S. 72V-74V ; certain additions in a different and slightly later hand
are printed in itaUcs. The date can be fixed only in general by the
age of the codex and by the reference to William de Saint- Jean, who
is mentioned in Norman documents from 1133 to 1203.^' Anterior
to the death of William, the text is subsequent to his endowment of
La Luzerne in 1162 *" and to the erection of Montmorel into an abbey
not long after ii^i.^ The monasteries mentioned are well known, so
that special annotation is unnecessary.
(F. 72v). Prior et conventus monachorum Sancte Mari§ de Moretonio ab
antiquis temporibus, quia in eius iurisdictione sunt, debent episcopo Abrin-
censi sollennem processionem et annuam procurationem et tarn episcopo
quam gcclesig Abrincensi obedientiam. Similiter sanctimoniales de More-
tonio debent sollennem processionem episcopo et tam episcopo quam
gcclesig Abrincensi obedientiam.
Priorissa autem et conventus sanctimonialiiun de Moutons subditi sunt
episcopo et gcclesig Abrincensibus.
Abbatia de Liicema subdita est episcopo et gcclesig Abrincensibus duplici
de iure, quia fundata est et sita in episcopatu Abrincensi et quia sita est in
feodo Beati Andrgg et episcopi Abrincensis, quem feodum tenet et habet
Guillelmus de Sancto lohanne ab episcopo et inde facit ei ut domino suo
hominagium. Abbas vero predicti cenobii debet interesse duabus sinodis et
festo hiemali Beati Andrgg, vel si interesse non potest duos mittere de
canonicis ecdesie sue. Similiter debet facere et tenetur abbas de Monte
Morelli.
Abbatia vero Montis Morelli subdita est episcopo et gcclesig Abrincen-
sibus duplici ratione, quia sita est in episcopatu Abrincensi et constituta et
funddta in feodo Beati Andrgg et episcopi. Isti duo abbates debent et pro-
mittunt obedientiam ecdesie et episcopo Abrincensibus cum ipsi sunt bene-
dicendi.
(f. 73r). Notiun sit indubitanter tam presentibus quam futuris quod
abbatia Sancti Michaelis de periculo maris tam episcopo quam ecdesie
Abrincensi multum est obnoxia, quia de bonis et prediis Beati Andree sibi
coUatis a Beato Auberto Abrincensi episcopo fundamentmn et institutionem
accepit et in episcopatu Abrincensi sita est. Unde de antiqua consuetudine
ratione obnoxietatis abbas et conventus predicti cenobii singulis annis in
hiemali festo Beati Andree debite reddunt ecdesie Abrincensi ut matri
gcdesig novem pondera cere secundum pondus predicti cenobii, que equiva-
lent et equiponderant quatuor magnis ponderibus communibus et dimidio pon-
is doubtless one of the two MSS. relating to Avranches whidi ate mentioned by
Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Mamiscriptorum, i. 80.
" Tardif, Tfis Ancien Coutumier, p. iii f.; Delisle, Eenri II, p. 500 f.
'" Cartulairede La Luzerne, eA.'Du\>os,c,'D.a^. 6, T, NeustriaPia,p.jgii.; Pigeon,
Le diocise d'Awanches, ii. 374-376.
" GaUia Christiana, xi. 536 f.; cf. Cartulaire de Montmorel, ed. Dubosc.
DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN 34I
deri. Sumnja harum librarum est triginta et sex libre cgre.' Reddiint etiam
predictus abbas et monachi debite ecclesie Abrincensi in predicto festo tres
libras incensi et episcopo tres libras piperis.' Reddit insuper predicta abbatia
singulis annis ecclesie Abrincensi in purificatione Beate Marie tres cereos
formatos continentes ad minus quatuor libras cere. Reddit preterea decano
Abrincensi singulis annis in Pascha Domini .vi. libras Andegavensium
monete pro pellitia grisia. Tenetur etiam abbas predicte abbatie interesse
hiemali festo Beat! Andree nisi legitimam habuerit excusationem, quam si
habuerit mittet pro se duos de dignioribus ecclesie sue. Predictus vero abbas
quando benedicitur professionem facit et canonicam obedientiam promittit
et propria manu firmat et earn obedientiam promittit episcopo et successori-
bus eius et ecclesie Abrincensi. Monachi autem predicti monasterii singulis
annis ecclesiam Abrincensem de antiquo usu, ut matrem ecclesiam cui
honorem debent, in die martis post octavas Pentecostes cum soUenni pro-
cessione tenentur adire et missam in honore Beati Andree sollenniter
celebrare. Confirmatio autem electionis abbatis predicti monasterii ad epis-
copum Abrincensem pertinet. Tenetur etiam predicta abbatia electum
Abrincensem in episcopum consecratum cum soUenni processione recipere.
Confirmatio vero populi et consecrationes ecclesiarum predicti Montis et
ordinationes monachorum et dericorum ad soliun episcopum Abrincensem
pertinent. Clerici autem predicti Montis bis in anno tenentur interesse
sinodo ecclesie Abrincensis. Similiter et abbas Montis Sancti Michaelis
eisdem sinodis debet interesse. Preterea abbas et conventus predicti monasterii
debent et tenentur singulis annis reddere episcopo Abrincensi in octavis Pen-
thecostes apud Abrincas per nuncios suos sine requisitione .vii. libras Ande-
gavensium monete.
(f. 73 v). Consuettido autem est antiqua ut episcopus Abrincensis si vo-
luerit singulis annis ad predictam accedat et veniat abbatiam in ultimo festo
Beati Michaelis ad celebrandum ut episcopus ibi divina. In vigilia vero
Beati Michaelis habet ex debito antiquo et procurationem et mansionem cum
comitatu suo episcopus. In die autem festivitatis post sollennitatem et cele-
brationem misse habet episcopus cum comitatu suo procurationem et inde
post quo voluerit debet recedere. Consuevit preterea episcopus de antiquo
usu predicttmi monasterium adire si voluerit in quarta feria ante Pascha
Domini annuatim causa absolvendi monachos et clervun et populum a
sarcina peccatorum, et tunc habet ibi episcopus procurationem suam cum suo
comitatu. Salva est autem episcopo Abrincensi in predicta abbatia in omni-
bus canonica iusticia.' Prioratus autem predicte abbatie in episcopatu
Abrincensi constituti debent de consuetudine episcopo Abrincensi annuam
procurationem et priores eorum debent ei obedientiam.
Abbas Sancti Stephani de Cadomo de consuetudine debet interesse hiemali
festo Beati Andree in propria persona vel debet mittere unum monachorum
suorum cum litteris suis ad probandam rationabilem excusationem sue
absentie. Hac vero de causa debet interesse abbas predicto festo ut episcopus
' Cf. Longnon, Pouillis de la province de Rouen, p. 162 (1412).
' Cf. the abbot's render to the king: Delisle, Henri II, p. 346.
' For the bishop's justice over the men of the Mount, see Chapter I, note 137
342 APPENDIX K
Abrincensis prioratum suum Sancti Leonard! et priorem et monachos ibi
manentes et possessiones eorum manuteneant et contra eis iniviriantes
ecclesiastica censura eos def endat et tueatur.
Similiter abbas Sancti Severi debet interesse hiemali festo Beati Andr§§
de consuetudine vel mittere debet cum litteris suis sufficientem et idoneimi
excusatorem cum assignatione rationis sue absentig. Hac veto de causa
debet interesse abbas Sancti Severi predicto festo quia habet in episcopatu
Abrincensi capellam quandam et prioratum cum quibusdam decimis prope
Haiam Paganelli, que omnia pertinent ad iurisditionem et defensionem
episcopi et ecclesie Abrincensium.* Et in eodem episcopatu habet ecclesiam
de Lucerna.
(f . 74r) .' Sciant proculdubio omnes tam presentes quam f uturi quod inter
episcopales ecclesias et sedes provintie Rotomagensis prima et dignior est
ecclesia Baiocensis, secunda sedes et dignior post Baiocensem est ecclesia
Abrincensis, ut legitur scriptum in quodam libro qui nocte et die est super
altare Beate Marie Rotomagensis. Baiocensis vero episcopus est decanus
Rotomagensis provintie, subdecanus autem eiusdem provintie est episcopus
Abrincensis. Vacante autem sede Baiocensi vel eius episcopo in remotis
partibus existente, superstes episcopus Abrincensis sanctum crisma et oleum
et sacros ordines et cetera spiritualia ecclesie Baiocensi et eius clericis admi-
nistrat nee ecclesia Baiocensis aliunde debet ea accipere, et econverso.
In supradicto vero libro qui vocatur Tabule ° sic scriptum legitur in ecclesia
Rothomagensi: Rodomus vel Rothomagus metropolis est. Continet enim sub
se sex episcopales civitates, primam scilicet Baiocatarum, secundam scilicet
civitatem Abrincatarum, tercia civitatem Evatinorum que dicitur Ebroicas,
quartam civitatem Solarium que dicitur Sagium, quintam civitatem Lexovi-
arum, sextam civitatem Consianciarum.
(f, 74v). Cum omnes ecclesie in quolibet episcopatu constitute in potes-
tate sint diocesanorum episcoporum et subdite sint matri §cclesi§, indubi-
tanter sciatur ab omnibus ecclesiam Sancti Guillelmi Firmati de Moretonio
in episcopatu Abrincensi constitutam esse subditam episcopo et gcclesi§
Abrincensibus. Debent autem et tenentur canonici predicte gcclesig episco-
pum Abrincensem consecratum de antiqua consuetudine cum sollenni pro-
cessione recipere et ei debent annuam procurationem; cessare vero tenentur a
divino servitio et officio ad eius mandatum, quia ei debent obedientiam
exhibere ut subditi prelato. Mittunt preterea de inveterata consuetudine
duos de canonicis suis ad duas sinodos gcclesig Abrincensis. Consecratio
autem gcclesig sue et aliarum ecclesiarum suarum et altariiun suorum et
ordinationes canonicorum et clericorum predicte gcclesig ad solum episcopum
Abrincensem pertinent.
Abbatia Savigneii in episcopatu Abrincensi sita debet episcopo Abrincensi
soUennem processionem et annuam procurationem et tam episcopo quam
* Cf . Le H6richer, ii. 40.
' Evidently this folio or its contents has been reversed, as the two final para-
graphs belong here.
' Probably the Liber ebumeus, now MS. Rouen 1405, in which this paragraph
is found (p, 26),
DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN 343
§cclesi§ Abrincensi canonicam obedientiam, quam abbas cum benedicendus
est in ecclesia Abrincensi publice profitetur. Dedicatio autem ecclesie Savig-
neii et consecratio altarium eius et ordinationes monachorum ad solum
episcopum Abrincensem pertinent. Abbas vero Savigneii et abbas Sancti
Michaelis de Monte et alii abbates diocesis Abrincensis et omnes principales
persone conventualium ecclesiarum episcopatus Abrincensis debent interesse
processioni Abrincensis ecclesie ad recipiendum cum honore episcopum
Abrincensem redeuntem a sua consecratione, vel debent mittere duos de
dignioribus ecclesiarum suarum pro se si non possunt interesse.
INDEX
INDEX
Mediaeval names of persons aie arranged alphabetically under the English form of the Christian
name. When names of places have been identified, the modem form is given; otherwise the form
occurring in the document is used.
Abacus, 17s, 176.
Abbot, see Monasteries.
Abingdon (co. Berks), 235.
Achard, bishop of Avranches, 216.
Adam, 7.
de Beaunai, 127.
de Martainville, 326.
de Sottevast, 138.
de Wanneville, 166, 168, 219, 326.
Adams, G. B., 6, 56-58, 97, 179, 217.
Adela, wife of Richard III, 59.
Adelard of Bath, 131.
Adelehn, 7.
Adeliza of Abbetot, 298.
countess of Aumale, 29.
daughter of Richard II, 274.
Adelolf, chamberlain of Bayeux, 63.
bishop of Carlisle, in, 120, 124,
308.
Adrian IV, Pope, 332.
Advowson, 171-174, 218, 332, 333.
Agy (Calvados), 109.
Aids, feudal, 19, 21, 22, 187.
Aimo, see Haimo.
Aiulf du March6, 96.
Aizier (Eure), 93, 226, 253, 254.
Alan, 20.
Ill, count of Brittany, 261, 269;
272.
Alberic, bishop of Ostia and legate, 154.
Aldwin, ' forbator,' 118.
Alenfon (Ome), 124, 311-313, 319; MSS.
at, 42, 60, 70, 106, 244, 245, 300, 302,
307; see Ome, archives of.
Alexander de Bohun, 138, 139, 142, 145,
162, 220.
bishop of Lincoln, 124, 303.
II, Pope, 30.
Alexander III, Pope, 181, 330.
son of Theold, 224.
Alfred, etheling, 275.
the Giant, 270, 271.
brother of Godebold, 92.
de Ludreio, 63.
Malbedenc, 22.
de Saint-Martin, constable of
Neufch^tel, 327, 334.
Alg', 102.
Algar, bishop of Coutances, 130, 146,
220.
de Sainte-Mfere-figlise, 100.
Alice Trubaud, 173.
Ahermont (Seine-Inf.), 140, 148, 149,
151, 221, 305.
Allod, 6, 290.
Almeneches (Ome), abbey, 132, 133, 328.
Alvered, see Alfred.
Amfreville-la-Mi-Voie (Seine-Inf.), 70.
Ancher de Neville, 289.
Andrew of Baudemont, 108.
abbot of Troam, 98, 321.
Andrew, W. J., 122, 309.
Angers (Maine-et-Loire), 129; bishop of,
35, 232-
Saint-Aubin, abbey, 231.
Saint-Serge, abbey, 231.
Anglesqueville-sur-Saane (Seine-Inf.),
260, 262.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 61, 78, 128, 310-
317-
Angoht, 7.
Angreville (Seine-Inf.), 305.
Anjou, 4, 35, 44, 46, 47, 56, 123, 124, 136,
137, 142, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151, 154,
155, 162, 230-232, 241, 312. Counts:
Fulk, Geoffrey Plantagenet.
348
INDEX
Anneville-sur-Seine (Seine-Inf.), 69, 290.
Anquetil d'Arri, 180, 328.
de Hotot, 96.
priest, 7.
Ansaud de Beauvoir, 108.
Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, 86,
93. 310.
de Dives, 321.
vicomte, 306.
Ansfred Bordet, 289.
abbot of Prfiaux, 279.
abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 228.
seneschal, 5°, 275.
de Sorquainville, 262.
Anslec, sons of, 262.
Anslevilla, 290.
Appasilva, 261.
Aragon, 195.
Archdeacons, hereditary, 7; jurisdiction
of, 31, 34, 35, 88, 171, 227, 228, 23s,
329-332.
Archives, 221, 241-246; see Paris, and the
several departments.
Ardeneta, 219.
Ardevon (Manche), 69, 185.
Arganchy (Calvados), 94, 95, 294, 313,
319-
Argences (Calvados), 4, 39, 49, 252, 259-
261, 272, 328.
Argentan (Ome), 42, 70, loi, 105-107,
119, 121, 124, I2S, 128, 132, 134, 136,
139, 141-143, 151, 152, i6s, 176, 183,
184, 300-302, 304, 306, 307, 310, 319,
334, 335-
Arlette, 268, 269.
Arnold of Devizes, 332.
Amulf, 305.
chancellor of Bayeux, 226.
of Choques, chaplain of Robert II,
74-
bishop of Lisieux, 125, 130, 153,
IS4, 158, 163, 165-168, 1 71-173,
188, 203, 219, 221, 324, 326.
of Montgomery, 70.
fitz Peter, 236.
Arques (Seine-Inf.), 42, 100, 129, 131,
140, 143, 149, iSi, 152, 253, 254, 258,
360, 261, 274, 318,
Arras (Pas-de-Calais), abbey of Saint-
Vaast, 59-
Arriire-ban, 8, 23, 24, 187.
Ars (Manche), 21.
Asnifires (Calvados), 298.
Asselin, chaplain, 91.
Assize, 105, 149, 150, 159, 165-169, 172-
174, 179, 180, 184, 187-189, 198-201,
209-219, 234, 238, 325-327, 334-336;
of Arms, 23, 159, 192, 193; of Claren-
don, 188.
Athelney (co. Somerset), 315.
Atina (province of Caserta), 233.
Atto, 40.
Atzelin, 7.
Auberville (Calvados), 63.
Aubrey de Vere, chamberlain, 121.
Auchy (Seine-Inf.), 67.
Audoin, bishop of £vreux, 111, 170, 296,
297, 299, 302.
Audrieu (Calvados), 70.
Auffai (Seine-Inf.), 49.
Auge, 108, 181.
Aumale (Seine-Inf.), 29, 78, 312, 317.
Count: Stephen. Countess: Adeliza.
Aunay-sur-Odon (Calvados), abbey, 13s,
163, 297, 316, 326, 327. Abbot:
Vivian.
Auvers (Seine-et-Oise), 45.
Auvray, L., 247, 281.
Avelina, niece of William Goth, 299, 301.
Avoui, 36.
Avranches (Manche), 34, 35, 43, 129,
165, 166, 180, 311; archives, 244;
bishop of, 8, 18, 19, 34, 35, 37, 76,
87, 167, 227, 228; his rights over
monasteries, 340-343; chapter, 43,
180, 272; fair, 191, 337, 338; MSS.
at, 33, 41, 59, 69, 128, 142, 244, 245,
273, 277, 281, 337; vineyard, 338.
Bishops: Achard, Herbert, John,
Maingisus, Michael, Richard.
Avranchin, 8, 9, 128, 129, 160, 185, 188,
191, 337-343-
Bacqueville (Seine-Inf.), 20.
BaW, bailliage, baUlivi, 105, 147, 151,
152, 163, 168, 177, 182-186, 2og.
INDEX
349
Baldwin of Beaumont, 68.
son of Clare, 91, 92.
bishop of fivreux, 51.
count of Flanders, 262, 275.
Bampton (co. Oxford), 300, 301, 303.
Banbury (co. Oxford), 235.
Banlieue, 8, 29, 49, 117, 152, 153, 206,
262, 279.
Bapeaume (Seine-Inf.), 216.
Barcelona, county, S-
Barentin (Seine-Inf.), 253-255.
Barfleur (Manche), 43, 119, 314.
Bari (province of Bari), 233.
Barons, of curia and Exchequer, 89, 95,
179, 180, 185.
Barony, 9-24.
Bastebourg (Calvados), 128.
Bateson, Mary, 48, 49, 114.
Bath priory (co. Somerset), 66.
Battle abbey (co. Sussex), 49.
Baudri, 20.
de Bocquencfi, 7, 11, 12.
son of Nicholas, 11, 12.
Serjeant, 118.
Bavent (Calvados), 63.
Bayeux (Calvados), 7, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23,
34, 39, 42, 43, 71, 75, 85, 86, 118, 124,
128, 129, 143, 159-161, 163, 166, 167,
183, 202, 205, 207, 213, 215, 216, 222,
270, 280, 324, 335, 336; archdeacon,
32, 34; bishop of, 6, 14-18, 22, 37, 76,
87, 91, 98, 103, 104, 133, 135-137, 149,
ISO, 152, IS4. 161, 171, 199, 201-215,
244, 319, 342; chapter of, 66, 73, 99,
100, 137, 180, 222-224; chaplains of,
51, 52, 181; Livre noir, 133, 149, 197-
215, 224-226, 244, 248; other MSS. at,
67, 244. Bishops: Henry, Hugh, Odo,
Philip, Richard of Kent, Richard fitz
Samson, Thorold.
Saint-Vigor, 66, 67, 73, 75, 76.
Beaubec (Seine-Inf.), 94, 126.
Beaumont-le-Roger (Eure), 68, 230, 318.
Beaunay (Seine-Inf.), 69, 290, 291.
Beaurepaire, C. de, 45, 151, 160, 244.
Beautemps-Beaupr£, C.-J., 123, 136, 146,
230-232.
Beauvais (Oise), 267, 269, 271.
Beauvais, Saint-Lucien, 67.
Bec-Hellouin (Eure), Le, abbey, 10, 29,
34, 49, 68, 71, 74, 80, 82, 87, 89, 104,
126, 127, 131-133, 136-138, 143, 159,
166, 220, 224, 242, 245, 247, 272, 293,
29s, 296, 306, 310-313, 31S. 317, 319,
329, 334. Abbots: Herluin, Roger,
William.
Becco, ' mara de,' 327.
B£danne (Seine-Inf.), He de, 260.
Bfidier, J., 269, 271.
Beeding (co. Sussex), 83.
Bell^me (Ome), 268, 311.
Bellencombre (Seine-Inf.), 319.
Bellou (Ome), 33.
Below, G. von, 25.
Benedict VIII, Pope, 251.
of Peterborough, 193.
archdeacon of Rouen, 68, 291, 293.
Benet, A., 246.
Bennetot (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262.
Benoit de Sainte-More, 268.
Berger, E., 130, 132, 133, 138, 158, 162,
201, 249.
Berkshire, in, 121, 235.
Berlin, MS. at, 76.
Bemagium, 39, 63, 70, 77, 80, 82, 222.
Bemai (Eure), 8, 9, 26, 27, 59, 60, 184,
24s, 251, 257, 260, 261, 335, 336.
Abbot: Osbert.
Bernard de Beaunay, 291.
de Brus, 289.
de Clairvaux, 154.
bishop of St. David's, 94.
de Saint-Valery, 187.
the scribe, 88.
Bemer, 82.
Bemeval-sur-Mer (Seine-Inf.), 9, 10, 25,
26.
Bemouville (Seine-Inf.), 291.
Besse, Dom J.-M., 241.
Bessin, 9, 43, 47, 129, 159-161, 167, 168,
213, 214, 222, 296.
Beuville (Calvados), 63.
B6ziers, M., 206.
Bigelow, M. M., 196, 197, 221, 234, 237,
Binbrook (co. Lincoln), 81.
Birch, W. de G., 309.
3SO
INDEX
Bishops, appointment and control of,
36, 37, 153, 154; in curia and admin-
istration, 37, S4-S8, 60, 77, I4S, 146,
149, IS4, 181, 27s; military service of,
8, 9, 14-19; rights over monasteries,
340-343. See Church, Courts, eccle-
siastical.
Bitetto (province of Bari), 233.
Biville-la-Martcl (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262.
Blandford (co. Dorset), 295.
Bloc, sons of, 261.
Blood feud, 32, 38, 60, 278.
Bocherville, Saint-Georges de (Seine-
Inf.), abbey, 106, 183, 226, 244, 312,
318. Abbots: Louis, Victor.
Bocolunda, 261.
Bocquencfi (Ome), 11-14.
Bodevilla, 302.
Bohmer, H., 9, 30, 35, 36, 66, 86, 130,
153. 154, 251, 278.
Boiavilla, 259.
BoUeville (Manche), 243.
Bologna, 330.
Bonaria, bonata, 255.
Boniface, 122.
Bonneville-sur-Touques (Calvados), 70,
77, 93, 186, 311, 314.
Bonnin, T., 248.
Borrelli de Serres, 182.
Bosc-Lehard (Seine-Inf.), 81.
Bosham (co. Sussex), 303.
Bdt, 280.
Bougy (Calvados), 16, 17.
Boulogne (Pas-de-Calais), 126. Counts:
Eustace, Stephen.
Bourges (Cher), 45.
Bourgtheroude (Eure), 315.
Bourrienne, V., 66, 67, 146, 197, 200, 201,
206.
Bouteilles (Seine-Inf.), 287, 288.
Brfimule (Eure), 313.
Bresslau, H., 52.
Breteuolles, 252.
Breteuil (Eure), 313; laws of, 49.
Bretteville-sur-Odon (Calvados), 216.
Brian fitz Count, constable, 120, 300.
Brighthampton (co. Oxford), 300-303.
Brionne (Eure), 49, 166, 168, 230, 315.
Briouze (Ome), 77.
Briquessart (Calvados), 129.
Brittany, Bretons, 35, 128, 227, 241, 269.
Counts or dukes: Alan III, Geoffrey,
Odo.
Brix (Manche), 102.
Brucourt (Calvados), 325.
Brunner, H., 3, 7, 25, 26, 56, 150, 157,
189, 196-200, 204, 207, 209, 211, 214,
217, 221, 223, 227, 277.
Brunville (Seine-Inf.), 259.
Brussel, N., 27, 36.
Bures (Seine-Inf.), 138, 287, 288.
Burgage, 186.
Burgus, 48, 49.
Bur-le-Roi (Calvados), 183.
Butler, SI, 77, 81, 89, 113, 180, 275.
Cabourg (Calvados), 216.
Caen (Calvados), 39, 41-43, 48, S8, 71,
78, 81, 86, 94-98, 104, 107, 118-120,
I2S, 128, 129, I4S, 151, 159, 165-168,
174, 176-178, 179. 182-184, 199, 213-
216, 223, 242, 260, 262, 270, 271, 278,
280, 307, 313-31S, 323, 324, 328, 333-
336; council of, 37, 276; MSS. at, 69,
91, 126, 24s, 246, 28s, 336; see also
Calvados, archives of.
La Trinity, abbey, 33, 43, 62-64,
69, 74, 161, 188, 244, 248, 274,
310. Abbess: Cecily.
Saint-fitierme, abbey, 9, 14, 19, 33,
34, 40, 43, 57, 69, 74, 78, 80, 81,
94-96, 98, 103, 127, 166, 169, 173,
179, 215-217, 238, 244, 267, 278,
285-287, 294, 312, 313, 318, 341,
342. Abbots: Gilbert, Odo,
William.
Cailly (Seine-Inf.), 153.
Calabria, 234.
Calixtus II, Pope, 313.
Calloenses, 92.
Calvados, archives of the, 13, 34, 40, 57,
69, 9°, 91, 93, 96, 108, 109, 133, 142,
164, 172, 179, 2i6, 228, 229, 245, 246,
260, 286, 287, 297, 306-308, 316, 321,
322, 336.
INDEX
351
Cambremer (Calvados), 49, 206, 207,
211-213.
Camera, ducal, 40, 41, 44, 58, 108, 113,
180, 194, 257.
Campeauz (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Cannon, H. L., 190.
Cantaiana, 337.
Canterbury (co. Kent), 161, 183, 235.
Archbishops: Anselm, Lanfranc,
Ralph, Theobald, Thomas Becket,
William.
Canute, king of England, 261, 275.
Capdlaria, 52.
Carbone (province of Potenza), 234.
Carcagny (Calvados), 207.
Carentan (Manche), 165.
Cartellieri, A., 193.
Castles, 38, 60, 64, 6s, 86, 107, 118, 119,
14s, 176, 191, 194, 278; castle guard,
8, 19-21.
Catalogus baronum, 23, 24.
Caudebec (Seine-Inf.), 228, 336.
Caux, 168, 181, 254, 260, 262.
Ceaux (Manche), 41, 81.
Cecily, daughter of WiUiam I and abbess
of Caen, 75.
Cefalu (province of Palermo), 234.
Celestine II, Pope, 203.
Celibacy, sacerdotal, 35, 66.
Celier, L., 148, 330.
Ceneau (Coenalis), R., 247.
Cenilly (Manche), 163, 298.
Census, 41.
Centena, centenarius, 25, 46.
Cerisy-la-Foret (Manche), abbey of
Saint-Vigor, 9, 10, 43, 48, 245, 265,
269-272, 27s, 279, 314. Abbots:
Durand, Hugh.
Cesny-aux-Vignes (Calvados), 63.
Chamberlain, 41, 50, 51, 77, 8g, 90, 112,
113, 116, 119-121, 162, 183, 275.
Chambray (Eure), 326.
Champart, 103, 326, 327.
Champcervon (Manche), 337.
Chancery, Angevin, 136, 140, 142;
Anglo-Saxon, 53; Prankish, 51; in
Normandy, 51-54. 59. 74-76, 82, 112,
IIS, 13S-143, iSS, IS7, 162, 191, 274.
Chandai (Ome), 172.
Channel Islands, 129, 189; jee Guernsey,
Jersey.
Chanteloup (Manche), 21.
Chapel, chaplains, ducal, 51-54, 74-76, 88,
89, no, 112, 118, 136, 137, 181, 275.
Charentonne, the, 11.
Charts aux Normands, 190.
Charters, see Chancery, Diplomatics, and
the several dukes.
Chartres (Eure-et-Loir), 317; chapter of,
33, S9, 80, 108, 162, 245. Bishops:
Fulbert, Ives.
lepros^ry, 106, 107, 125, 126, 151,
24s, 319-
Saint-Pere, abbey, 7, 33, 43, 59,
100, 171, 223, 245, 304.
Chslteau-du-Loir (Sarthe), 27.
Ch4teau-rHermitage (Sarthe), 129.
Chefifreville (Calvados), 207, 211, 212.
Cherbourg (Manche), 43, 78, r46, 152,
167, 180,. 183, 186, 220; canons of, 43,
53; MSS. at, 246.
abbey De Voto, 116, 136, 186.
Chesnel, P., 21, 47, 337.
Chester, 121; earl of, 161, 236. Earls:
Hugh, Ranulf, Richard. Countesses:
Lucia, Matilda.
Chesterfield (co. Derby), 236.
Cheux (Calvados), 68, 286, 287.
Chevreux, P., 246, 258.
Chisenbury (co. Wilts), 311.
Church, Norman, 6, 7, 30-38, 60, 65, 66,
80, 86, 125, 126, 129, 130, 146, 153,
154; see Bishops, Councils, Courts,
Jurisdiction, Monasteries.
Circada, 170.
Clare of Rouen, 91, 92.
Clarendon, Assize of, 188; Constitutions
of, 169, 171-174, 198, 220, 226, 237,
329, 330, 332-
Clerks, jurisdiction over, 31, 32, 171.
Clermont (Puy-de-D6me), council of,
65, 66.
Cluny (Sa6ne-et-Loire), 106, 133, 245,
253, 254, 318. Abbots: Odilo, Peter.
Coinage, 28, 29, 38, 39, 60, 65, 86, 113,
171, 182, H87, 280, 281.
3S2
INDEX
Colchester (co. Essex), 313, 314.
Colmant, P., 245.
Colombelles (Calvados), 63.
Comes palaiii, 51.
Conches (Eure), abbey, 49, 79, 245, 304,
326. Abbot: Gilbert.
Cond6-sur-Ifs (Calvados), 302.
Cond6-sur-Noireau (Calvados), 49.
Conon, bishop of Palestrina and legate,
314-
Conquest, Norman, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, 61.
Constable, 50, 31, 89, 95, 121, 152, 162,
180, 182, 184, 186, 187, 27s, 317-
Constantine, knight, 291.
Constantinople, 267, 270.
Constilutio domus regis, 108, 1 13-120.
Consuetudines, ducal, 27-29, 33-39, 46,
271, 279; episcopal, 33-3S, 251.
Consuetudines et iusticie, 4, 28, 29, 38, 48,
64, 65, 78, 243, 276-284.
Corbuzzo, chamberlain, 50.
Corhulma, 260, 262.
Cormeilles (Eure), 49; abbey, 10, 187,
245. Abbot: William.
Coronation, 190.
Coroner, 188, 338.
C6te-d'0r, archives of the, 66, 67.
Cotentin, 9, 43, 47, 63, 64, 71, 87, 100-
102, 124, 127, 129, 136, 141, 149, 246,
276.
Councils, ecclesiastical, 4, 6, 30-38, 65,
66, 170, 276, 294, 309, 310, 312, 313,
316, 33°-
Count, as title of Norman dukes, 26, 73,
274.
Counterfeiting, 86, 171, 187.
Courb€pine (Eure), 8.
Courcy-sur-Dive (Calvados), 143.
Courts, baronial, 22, 24-30, 89, 97, 103,
150, 166, 172, 184, 187, 228-230, 278,
279; ducal, see Assize, Curia, Exche-
quer; ecclesiastical, 30-37, 169-174,
179, i8s, 188, 220, 223-228, 321-3231
327, 329-332; forest, 48, 103; suit of
court, 22, 24. See Jurisdiction.
Coutances (Manche), 43; bishop of, 6,
8, 30, 36, 39. 43. 76, 133. 137. 141,
149, 171, 220,319,342; ecclesiastical
archives, 220, 221, 242, 244, 247.
Bishops: Algar, Geoffrey, Ralph,
Richard, Robert, Roger.
Coutumier des forSls, 160; de Normandie,
see Tres Ancien Coutumier.
Coventry (co. Warwick), 330.
Coville, A., 5S, 190.
Cramesnil (Calvados), 210, 212.
Creech (co. Somerset), 81.
Cristot (Calvados), 70, 216.
Croix-Saint-Leufroy (Eure), 24s.
Croleium, 302.
Crusades, 65, 71. 74. 7S. 79. iS9, 205,
230.
Cullei (Ome), 11-14.
Curia, Capetian, 49; of Norman dukes,
32, 33, 47. 49-60, 70, 76, 77. 83, 87-
100, 104, 114, I2S, 147-149, ns, 163-
165, 171-174. 178-189, 194, 27s, 323-
326, 334-336. See Assize, Court,
Household.
Curtbertalt, 286.
Customs, see Consuetudines.
Danegeld, 40, 116, 166, 177.
Daniel, Master, 328.
Danvou (Calvados), 16.
Dapifer, see Seneschal.
Darrein presentment, 172.
David, C. W., 62, 76.
Davis, H. W. C, s, 31, Si, SSSS, 81, 82,
8S. 87, I2S, 249, 309.
Deans, rural, 37, 171, 226, 329-332.
Delisle, L., 4, 36, 39, S7, loi, 117, 130,
132-134. 137. IS7. 158, 162, 166, 174,
178, 190, 191, 197, 199-201, 209, 218,
221, 241, 243, 246-249, 2SS-2S7. 263,
276, 278, 325-327, 338. 340.
Derby, 23s, 333-
Deslandes, E., 197.
DeviUe, A., 5, 144, 193, 247, 248, 25s,
2S8.
E., 97, 248.
Dialogue on the Exchequer, 40, 43, 113,
114, 158, 174-178, 191. 242, 280.
Dieppe (Seine-Inf.), 42, 118, 119, 130,
131, 14s, 149, 131, 152. 178, 300, 304,
318.
INDEX
353
Dijon (CAte-d'Or), 75; see C6te-d'0r.
Saint-B6mgne, abbey, 40, 60, 66,
67, 69, 7S, 76, 24s, 267, 28s, 286.
Abbots: Gerento, William I of
Fecamp.
Saint-£tienne, abbey, 272.
Diplomatics, Norman, 53, 72-76, 82, 83,
13S-143. 274, 27s.
Dipte, 259.
Dispenser, 77, 116.
Dives (Calvados), 95, 173, 215, 216, 321.
Diwan, 112.
Dol (Dle-et-Vilaine), archbishops: Jun-
guen€, Roland.
Domain, ducal, 39, 86, 151, 159, 160.
Domesday, 3, 4, 22, 29, 40, S7, 121, 207,
234, 241, 242.
Domfront (Ome), 64, 124, 163, 165, 183,
186, 323.
Dopsch, A., 26.
Douvrend (Seine-Inf.), 6.
Douvres (Calvados), 223, 224.
Dover (co. Kent), 78.
Dreux, Drogo, coimt of Amiens, 273.
count of the Vexin, 268, 272.
Dublin; 183.
Ducy (Calvados), 147, 211.
Dudo of Saint-Quentin, 4, s, 38, 52, 241,
252.
Duel, judicial, 28, 56, 97, 98, 104, 221.
Dufayard, C, 190.
Dugdale, W., 298.
Duke of Normandy, ecclesiastical su-
premacy of, 36-38, 66, 80, IS3, 154;
income of, 39-45; jurisdiction of, 24-
29, 39, 187, 188, 278-280; limitations
on, 190; maintenance of order by, 38;
military service due, 8-23. See As-
size, Chancery, Coinage, Curia, Do-
main, Household, Jurisdiction.
Du M€ril, E., 269.
Du Monstier, A., 248, 257.
Dun (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Duplessis, Dom Toussaint, no, 260.
Durand, 7.
cellarer, 291.
abbot of Cerisy, 262, 263.
du Pin, 336.
Durham, 66, 78, 81, 119. Bishops:
Ranulf Flambard, William of Saint-
Calais.
Eadmer, 36, 75, 79, 114, 115, 314.
Easter, curia, 55, 60; style of dating, 125,
138, 3"-
Eaui, forest of (Seine-Inf.), 140, 151.
Ebulus de Mallano, 233.
£crammeville (Calvados), 63.
ficretteville (Seine-Inf.), 253, 254, 260,
261.
Edward the Confessor, king of England,
48, 261, 262, 273, 27s, 279.
of Salisbury, 294.
fiWtot (Seine-Inf.), 255, 260, 261.
Elias of Saint-Saens, 289.
Eling (co. Hants), 316.
Elisabeth, 20.
Ely (co. Cambridge), 23s, 316. Bishop:
Neal.
fimalleville, (Seine-Inf.), 8.
fimendreville, 68, 81 (?), 82 (?), 293.
Emma, abbess of Saint-Amand, 93.
Emptiones Eudonis, 94-97, 318.
Engel, A., 280.
England, 4, 19, 29, 33, 36, 37, 40; in re-
lation to Norman institutions, 3, 5, 6,
30, 34, 36, 40. 46-49, S2-S4, 57, 58,
82, 83, 85, 86, 94, 100, 103, 107, 108,
1x2-122, 142, 143, 186, 188-193, 196,
226, 227, 234-238, 241-243, 263, 264,
277-280. Kings: Edward, Ethelred II,
Henry I, II, HI, V, VI, John, Richard,
WiUiam I, II.
Englesqueville (Calvados, canton Isigny)
63.
Enguerran, 63, 289.
chaplain, 29 x.
son of Enguerran, canon of S£ez,
307-
son of Ilbert, 76, 289, 291, 292.
Oison, 307.
count of Ponthieu, 262, 275.
de Vascoeuil, 92, 127, 145, 148.
Enjuger de Bohun, 138, 145, 148, 149,
207, 209, 210, 220.
Enlart, C, 278.
354
INDEX
Enna, ' Christ! famula,' 274.
Envenneu (Seine-Inf.), 68, 100.
£paignes (Eure), 324.
£paney (Calvados), 173.
£pemon (Eure-et-Loir), 316.
Episcopal laws, 30-32.
Ennenaldus the Breton, 267.
Ermendi villa (Seine-Inf.?), 262.
Ermenouville (Seine-Inf.), 260.
Emald du Bois, 297.
chaplain, 52, 275.
Ertald, 69.
Escures (Calvados), 147, 148, 224, 296.
Esmein, A., 24.
Esnecca, 121, 122.
Essex, 301.
Estr£es-la-Campagne (Calvados), 302.
£tables (Seine-Inf.), 69, 291.
£tampes (Seine-et-Oise), 45.
£tard Poulain, 167, 168, 173, 323, 324.
Ethelred II, king of England, 48.
£tienne, see Stephen.
£tigues (Seine-Inf.), 133, 253.
£tretat (Seine-Inf.), 226.
£tr£ville-en-Roumois (Eure), 229.
Eu, 29, 66, 78, 79, 81, 82. Counts:
, Henry, Robert.
Eudo, see Odo.
Eugene III, Pope, 154, 203-205, 211, 223.
Eure, archives of the, 7, 29, 30, 42, 5°,
68, 70, 82, 109, III, 126, 134, 140, 166,
170, 172, 244-246, 273, 279, 306, 318,
323, 324, 326, 334-
Eure-et-Loir, archives of the, 106, 125.
Eustace, count of Boulogne, 68, 87, 293.
of Breteuil, 287.
fitz John, 303.
fivrecy (Calvados), 17.
fivreux (Eure), 86, 105, 106, 124, 296,
3^3> 315; archdeacon of, 87, 109;
archives and MSS. at, 244, 246, see
Eure; bishop of, 8, 37, 57, 76, 87, 121,
133, 140, iSi> 181, 244, 320, 342;
chapter, iii, 318; counts of, 29, 42,
54, 167. Bishops: Audoin, Baldwin,
Gilbert, Hugh, Rotrou. Counts:
Richard, WilUam.
Saint-Sauveur, abbey, 245.
£vreux, Saint-Taurin, abbey, 10, 26, 29,
42, 87, 104, 244, 260, 272.
Exchequer, English, 40, 106, 111-113,
174-178, 181, 191; Norman, 39-4S.
64, 84, 88, 89, 94, 9S, 97-99. lOS-iii,
119, 120, 151, IS7, 158, 167, 174-182,
191, 192, 194, 242, 328, 334, 335-
Exeter (co. Devon), 103. Bishop:
William.
Exmes (Ome), 42, 105, io6, 124, 151,
300-302.
Eyton, C, 298, 309, 317.
F. de Tinchebrai, 222.
Falaise (Calvados), 39, 86, 91, 105-107,
113, 119, 121, 125, 129, 151, 159, 176,
183, 186, 206, 219, 222, 226, 238, 300,
301, 308-310, 313, 316, 320, 329, 330,
332.
Falcheran, monk, 328.
Farm, of viconUS and prSvdte, 43-47, 105-
107, 126, 151, 176-178, 186, 191.
Fauguemon (Calvados), 143.
Fealty, liege, 22.
Fficamp (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 7-10, 25, 29,
33> 41-43, SO, 52, 5S, S9, 60, 64, 69, 71,
72, 78, 80, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 93, 103,
104, 129-131, 133, 140, 147, 160, 163,
179, 181, 185, 188, 222, 226, 229, 244,
246, 247, 250-264, 266, 271-273, 280,
287-290, 318, 335; Mus6e, 246, 250-
263, 287-289. Abbots: Henry, John,
Roger, WiUiam.
Felony, 188.
Feudalism, Norman, 5-30, 60.
Finance, see Exchequer, Farm.
Fish, rights over, 39, 94, 161.
Flach, J., 5, 27.
Flanders, 4, 5, 36, 37, 44, 53, 56, S7, i93,
241. Count: Baldwin.
Fleurfi (Ome), 301.
FUche, A., 49, 64, 79, 80.
Florence of Worcester, 78.
Fodrium, 231.
Fontenay abbey (Calvados), 222. Ab-
bot: Robert.
Fontenay-le-Pesnel (Calvados), 69.
Fontenay-Saint-P6re (Seine-et-Oise), 33.
INDEX
3SS
Fonteviault (Maine-et-Loire), abbey,
io6, 126, IS4, 24s, 317.
Ford abbey (co. Devon), 339.
Forests, 32, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 102, 103,
117, 118, 140, 152, 160, 181, 182, i8s,
207, 213, 214, 222, 279.
Formeville, H. de, 36, no.
Foucannont (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 83, 166,
244.
Foucarville (Manche), loi.
Foulbec (Calvados), 63.
France; its government compared with
Normandy, 44, 45; Norman influence
on, 3, 178, 193; Norman relations
with, s, iS> 20, 130. 243. Kings:
Henry I, Louis VI, VII, X, Philip I,
II, Robert.
Franchises, 24-30.
Franks, Lastitutions of the, 25, 46, 48,
52, 54, 196, 197, 227, 233.
Frederick 11, emperor, 234.
Freeman, E. A., 30, 31, 57, 58, 62, 75,
78-80, 265, 273, 278.
Fresnay-sur-Sarthe (Sarthe), 69.
Fr^ville, E. de, 48.
R. de, 9r, 96, 178, 184.
Froger, bishop of S£ez, 181, 326.
Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, 33, 267.
archdeacon of Rouen, 68, 291-293.
Fulk, 19.
archdeacon, 7.
of Jerusalem, count of Anjou, 123,
136, 141, 230-232, 311.
the Red, count of Anjou, 123.
d'AsniSres, 63.
d'Aunou, 149, 334.
dean of fivreux, 7.
son of Fulk, 97, 98.
dean of Lisieux, 173, 322.
merchant, 291.
Painel, 338.
abbot of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, 68.
Fumess abbey (co. Lancaster), 316.
Fyrd, 23.
Gac6 (Calvados), 63.
GaigniSres, R. de, 247.
GaiUon (Eure), 186.
Galeran I, count of Meulan, 256, 275.
II, 92, 94, 961 121, 127, 129, 145,
148, 152, 153, 162, 166, 167, 173,
187, 205, 208, 211, 219, 228, 229,
29s, 300, 313, 315, 321.
Galley, royal, 121, 122.
Ganzeville (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Garin de Grandval, 219.
Gaucher Escorchechine, 328.
Gautier, see Walter.
Gavray (Manche), 43, 172, 218.
Gazel, 262.
Genest (Manche), 185.
G^nestal, R., 22, 48.
Geoffrey d'Abbetot, 299.
Plantagenet , count of Anjou and
duke of Normandy, 316; char-
ters of, IS, 8s, 93, 129, 131-14S,
I47-IS3, 197, 199-201, 204-212,
220, 221; and the jury, 199-238;
Normandy under, 53, 123-155,
162, 192, 193.
count of Beaumont, 256.
duke of Brittany, 183, 331.
de Brucourt, 325.
de Bru6re, 147, 148.
chamberlain, 336.
chaplain and chancellor of Henry
I, 294, 299, 303.
de Clairvaux, 147.
de Clefs (Cleers) (Maine-et-Loire),
14s, 146, 153, 220.
de Clinton, chamberlain, 89, 113,
294, 300.
de Courtonne, Master, clerk, 328.
de CourviUe, 295.
de Montbray, bishop of Cou-
tances, 34, 36. 54, 57, 68.
Duredent, 335.
de Fontenay, 95.
brother of Henry II, 319.
son of Mabel, 323.
Malaterra, 266.
de Mandeville, 107, 295.
le Moine, 334.
de Neufbourg, 324.
son of Payne, 107, 120, 303, 306,
307.
3S6
INDEX
Geoffrey, priest, 104.
de Repton (Rapendun), 335.
archbishop of Rouen, 92, 109, 294,
297.
dean of Rouen, 13, 138, 325.
• de Sablfi (Subles), justice, 95, 99.
de Sai, 22.
abbot of Savigny, 296.
son of Thierry, 322.
de Tours, 220.
priest of Vesli, 32.
Gerald 'ad barbam,' 92.
de Barri (Giraldus Cambrensis),
131. 1S3-
butler, SO-
abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 68.
seneschal, 50, si, 56, S8.
Gerard de Goumay, 68.
archdeacon of Rouen, 68.
bishop of S6ez, 153
G€r6, 268.
Gerento, abbot of Saint-B€nigne, 75,
79, 28s, 286.
Gervase of Canterbury, 130, 132.
de Fresnay, 164.
Gerville, C. de, 246, 248, 336.
Gilbert, 7, 20.
archdeacon, 139.
of Avranches, 338.
Belet, 289.
son of Bernard, 68, 109.
count of Brionne, 263, 266, 268,
27S-
de Brucourt, 32s.
abbot of Conches, 326.
cook, 291.
Crispin, 68.
d'fivreux, treasurer, 108, log.
bishop of fivreux, 68, 289, 292.
— — de Fourches, 322.
— — son of Gunduin, 298.
de Hotot, 324.
de La Hogue, 185.
de Laigle, 92, 287.
bishop of Lisieux, si, 292.
Foliot, bishop of London, 330.
the Universal, bishop of London,
303-
Gilbert de la Mare, 92.
'nummarius ' (?), 140.
Pipart, 180.
son of Rainier, 289.
chanter of Rouen, 109.
abbot of Saint-£tienne, 68, 69, 75,
286.
' scolasticus,' 68.
seneschal, 275.
de Vascoeuil, 325.
Warren, 291.
d'Yainville, 327.
Giraldus, see Gerald.
Girberga, wife of Ralph fitz Anser6, 292.
Giruinivilla, 253, 254, 261, 262.
Giry, A., 144.
Gisors (Eure), 64, 311, 313, 31s.
Gisulf, scribe, 113.
Glanvill, 97, 158, 186, 189, 191, 198, 217,
242.
Glastonbury (co. Somerset), 161.
Gloucester, 236.
Gloz (Eure), 313.
Godard de Vaux, 167, 168, 219, 323-326.
Godebald de Saint- Victor, 92.
Gohier, 288, 289.
de Morville, 297.
Goldsmith, duke's, 1S2.
Goleium, 302.
Gonbert de Gervinivilla, 262.
Gonfred de Gervinivilla, 261.
Gonnor, wife of Richard I, 59.
Gosselin, see Joslin.
Goumay (Seme-Inf.), 78, 153.
Gradulf, abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 261,
262, 267.
Grandcamp (Calvados), 63.
Gravaria, gravarms, 40, 47, 63, 131, 177,
182, 288.
Graverend d'fivrecy, 167.
Gravina (province of Bari), 234.
Gray, H. L., 298.
Graye (Calvados), 63.
Grenoble (Is6re), MSS. at, 72, 82, 100-
103, 246.
Grestain (Eure), abbey, 24s.
Grimald du Plessis, 16, 17, 271.
Gross, C, 188.
INDEX
357
Grumo (province of Bari), 233.
Gu6rin, C, 337.
Guernsey, 7, 33, 43, 69, 185, 273.
Guildford (co. Surrey), 235.
Guilhieimoz, P., 19-23, 193, 281.
Guntard, abbot of JumiSges, 292.
Guy Caicois, 291.
notary, 32, 255.
count of Ponthieu, 18.
de Sable, 134, 140, 142, 145, 147-
149, 210.
Haimo, butler, 180, 335.
d'Evrecy, 17.
de Falaise, 304.
vicomte, 263.
Hainfara, 28-30, 279.
Hainovilla, 63.
Hall, Hubert, 53, 108, 114, 115.
Halphen, L., 44, 46, 47, 56, 123, 136, 137,
230, 316.
Hamelin de l'£cluse, 294.
loricarius, 306, 307.
de la Mayenne, 294.
Hamfred, 127.
Harcourt, L. W. Vernon, 49, 51, S8, 97,
99, 162, 16s, 27s.
Hardwicke (co. Oxford), 301.
Harfleur (Seine-Inf.), 29, 253, 254.
Hastings (co. Sussex), 79, 121.
Haur€au, B., 131.
Haute justice, 28, 89.
Hauville (Eure), 7, 162.
H^auville (Manche), 71, 100, 102, 134,
13s, 140, 141. 162-
Hector of Chartres, 160.
Helleville (Manche), 102.
Eehnarc, 281, 283.
Helto, constable, 202.
Hemmeon, M. de W., 49.
Hennequeville (Calvados), 253, 254.
Henry, 171.
d'Aigneaux, 167.
bishop of Bayeux, 160, 172, 213,
335-
del Broc, 299.
son of Corbin, 167.
Henry I, king of England and duke of
Normandy, 29, 3r, 37, 63-65, 71,
78, 79, 83, 127, 134, 137, 139-
142, 146-148, 150-153, iSSf 170,
17s, 176, 192, 194, 202-210, 214,
226, 23s, 236, 244, 28s, 291;
charters of, 11-14, 42, 64, 65, 68,
69, 77, 81, 85-87, 89, 90, 93-96,
98-107, III, 118, 135, 140, 142,
144, 190, 197, 221, 223, 277, 280,
293-320, 337, 338; Norman itin-
erary of, 309-320; Normandy
tmder, 85-122, 126, 166.
n, king of England, duke of Nor-
mandy and Aquitaine, count of
Anjou, 8, 22, 23, 28, 31, 40, 48,
74. 93. 94. "3. "4, "i. 130-
132, 146, 147, 150, 151, 155, 323,
327; charters of, 12, 13, 15, 59,
81, 94, 96, 107, 109, 116-118, 120,
130-135. 140. 144. 148, 154, 158,
161-169, 173, 182, 186-191, 197-
202, 205, 207, 208, 213-217, 221,
23S-237, 249. 252. 270, 304, 337;
early legislation of, 329-333; jury
under, 196-238; Normandy un-
der, 156-195, 334. 335. 337, 338.
HI, king of England, 189.
V, 243.
VI, 243.
count of Eu, 293.
abbot of Fecamp, 129, 134, 219,
229, 326.
de Ferri6res, 303.
I, king of France, 45, 49, 268, 269,
272, 275.
of Huntingdon, 331.
de Longchamp, 229.
the marshal, 134, 152.
de Moult, 328.
of Pisa, cardinal priest of SS. Nereo
ed Achilleo, legate, 173.
de la Pommeraye, 88, 89.
privSt, 108.
de Kichebourg, 108.
the Lion, duke of Saxony, 183.
de Tilly, 335.
earl of Warwick, 285, 324.
358
INDEX
Henry, bishop of Winchester, 124, 303.
the Young King, 183.
Henton (co. Oxford), 332.
Herbert, 96.
bishop of Avranches, 127.
count of Maine, 256.
' Maloei,' 291.
Poisson, 197.
Herfast, chancellor of William I, 51-53.
H6rils (Calvados), 224.
Herluin, founder of Bee, 7, 10, 38, 266,
272.
priest of Dives, 321.
Hermann ' AngUcus,' 328.
H6rouviIle (Calvados), 298.
Hertfordshire, 301.
Hervey, archdeacon of Lisieux, 321.
son of Richard, 291.
Hiesmois, 42, go, 186.
Hildebert, bishop of Le Mans and arch-
bishop of Tours, 131, 294.
abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, 59.
Hilduin, vicomte of Meulan, 256.
Hinschius, P., 227.
Hippeau, C, 96, 212, 247, 287.
Hoel, 291.
Hoffmann, M., 227.
Honor, 17-19.
Honorius H, Pope, 300.
Hospital, Knights of the, 133.
Hospites (hdtes), 254, 256, 259, 262, 327.
Hostiarius, 51, 77, 163.
Household, Capetian, 49; imperial, 50;
of the Norman dukes, 49-58, 77, 114-
121, 192, 275.
Hubert de Port, 22.
de Ryes, 22.
Hugh, 291.
d'Allemagne, 97.
archdeacon, 7.
de Bardeville, 261.
Bardulf, 186.
bishop of Bayeux, 17, 256, 259, 260,
267, 272.
de Bee, 121.
Bigod, seneschal, 8, 13, 120, 300,
303-
de Bricqueville, 21.
Hugh, abbot of Cerisy, 68.
chancellor of Richard 11, 52.
earl of Chester, 236, 338.
de Clefs (Cleers), 146-148.
de Conteville, 328.
de Cressy, constable of Rouen, 327,
334.
bishop of fivreux, 256.
of Flavigny, monk of Dijon and
chronicler, 67, 74-76, 79, 266,
267, 286.
Gohun, 289.
de Goumay, 92, 166, 177, 185, 219,
311, 325, 326.
de Guilleio, 294.
d'Ichelunt, 289.
d'lvry, butler, 50, 51.
bishop of Lisieux, 321.
de Longchamp, 185.
I de Montfort, constable, 51.
II de Montfort, 95, 96, 296, 315.
Mursard, 69, 289, 290.
Painel, 69.
Payen, 63.
de Revers, 63.
of Amiens, archbishop of Rouen,
109, 120, 121, 125, 129, 130, 138,
146-148, 153, 172, 220, 226, 229,
299, 302, 317.
de Sorquainville, 262.
dean of Saint-Martin, 147.
Teillard, 321.
archbishop of Tours, 133.
vicomte, 91.
son of William, 328.
Humbert, monk, 286.
Humphrey de Adevilla, 102.
d'Aubigny, 102, 294.
de BeuzeviUe, 139.
de Bohun, seneschal, 22, 112, 121,
162, 302, 303.
fitz Odo, 162.
' vetulus,' 263, 275.
Hundul, son of Gosman, 261, 262.
Hungerford (co. Berks), 295.
Hunloph of MesmouUns, 287, 288.
Hunnington (co. Lincoln), 236.
Hunspath, 287, 288.
INDEX
359
Iger de Lohf, 337.
Ignauville (Seine-Inf.), 287, 288.
nbert, marshal, 51.
Imams, legate, 154.
Imbart de la Tour, 36.
Immunity, 25-27, 89, 140, 250-252.
Ingouville (Calvados), 328.
Ingouville (Seine-Inf.), 252.
Innocent II, Pope, 91, 106, 203, 317, 318.
Inquest, sworn, 47, 56, 58, 83, 105, 149,
ISO, iSS. 169. iQij 329-333; inquest
of 109 1, see Consueitidines el iusticie;
Sayeux inquest of 1133, 15, 16, 20, 23,
85, 109, 202, 212, 222; Bayeux in-
quests imder Geoffrey and Henry II,
204-215; Inquest of Sheriffs, 160, 330;
other inquests under Henry II, 8, 9,
24, 44, 159-161, 188, 191, 215-222,
243, 285, 337-339; under Philip Au-
gustus, 173. See Jury.
Investiture, 73.
Ireland, 49.
Isembert, bemer, 82.
chaplain, and abbot of La Trinity,
SI, 262, 268, 270, 275.
Isigny (Calvados), 213.
Italy, Normans in, 23, 61; sworn inquest
in, 227, 232-234; Italian (?) ship-
master of Henry I, 122. See Sicily.
lurea regalis, 160, 243.
lustaldus, derk, 261.
Ives, or Ivo, bishop of Chartres, 79.
TaiUebois, 70, 285.
Ivry (Eure), 245.
Jamison, Evelyn, 23, 232.
Jenkinson, H., 195, 242.
Jersey, 271.
Jerusalem, 266, 268, 269, 273.
John, count of Alenjon, 336. See John,
count of Ponthieu.
bishop of Avranches and arch-
bishop of Rouen, 18, 272, 337.
of Beaiunont, 92.
de Cartot, 335.
cellarer, 289.
of Coutances, archdeacon of Rouen,
33S.
John Cumin, 167.
king of England, 187, 189, 190, 193-
19s, 198, 242, 243.
d'£raines, archdeacon of the Hies-
mois, 184, 335, 336.
abbot of Fficamp, 29, 57, 258, 262,
263.
de Gavray, 323.
Grossus, 291.
knight, 291.
archdeacon of Lisieux, 173.
bishop of Lisieux and justiciar of
Henry I, 87-90, 92, 94-100, 107,
no, 129, 130, 146, 163, 294, 297,
299, 302, 30s, 3°7, 321.
de Lunda, 92.
of Marmoutier, 128, 132, 155, 193.
marshal, 307.
son of Odo of Bayeux, 294, 296.
peril, 172.
count of Ponthieu, 91, 328, 334.
Rubi, 295.
of Salisbury, 330-332.
bishop of Sfiez, 13, 96, 299, 300,
306, 314, 316.
usher, 299.
treasurer of York, 331.
Jordan de I'fipesse, 172.
de la Lande, 180, 335, 336.
de Sai, 297, 298.
de Sully, 321.
Taisson, 167, 172, 220, 323.
Joslin of Bailleul, 307.
succentor of Bayeux, 225.
Rosel or Rusel, 326, 335.
of Tours, 138, 145, 146.
vicomte, 263.
Joui (Aisne), 45.
Jouvelin-Thibault, J., 68.
Judith, wife of Richard II, 59.
Juhel, 92.
Jumi6ges (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 7, 8, 17, 25,
27. 28, 37, 42, 49, 50, 53, 59, 69, 71, 87,
91, 92, 109, 173, 229, 244, 247, 251,
253, 257, 265, 272, 273, 290-292.
Abbots: Guntaid, Urse, WiUiam.
Junguen€, archbishop of Dol, 261, 262,
27s.
36o
INDEX
Jurisdiction, baronial, 22, 24-30, 89, 97,
103. ISO. 166, 172, 184, 187, 228-230,
278, 279; ducal, 27-30, 89, 97, 170-
174, 186-189, 278, 279; ecclesiastical,
30-37, 104, 170-174, 18s, 321-323,
327, 337, 341- See CourU, Curia,
Inquest.
Jury, 149, ISO, 169, 188, 189, 195-238,
329-332.
Justices, S7. 83, 87-105, 148-150, 163-
169, 173, 179-188, 194, 199, 205-219,
221, 228, 323-328, 334-336-
Justiciar, chief, 57, 58, 87-99, "4, 127,
146, iSS, 163-166, 189, 323-326.
Kent, 235.
Knight, equipment of, 20; knight's fee,
8-19, 24, 186, 192; knight service,
7-24.
Korting, G., 268, 269.
Kroell, M., 26.
La Borderie, A. de, 261.
La Carboni&ie (Seine-Inf.), 255.
La Cava &)rovince of Salerno), 234.
La Croisille (Eure), 228.
La Croix (Manche), 7.
La Fert6-en-Brai (Seine-Inf.), 153, 312.
La Fert6-Fresnel (Ome), 313.
Lagouelle, H., 7.
La Haie-Pesnel (Manche), 342.
La Hougue (Manche), 124.
Laigle (Ome), 312, 313.
La Lande (Manche), 21.
Laleu (Ome), 299, 301.
La Luzerne (Manche), abbey, 338, 340,
342-
Lancashire, 235.
La Neuve-Lire (Eure), 297.
Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, 30,
32, S7-
Laon (Aisne), 87, 175.
Lappenberg, J. M., 26.
Larderer, 116, 182.
Larson, L. M., 55.
La Rue, G. de, 246.
Latouche, R., 48, 80.
Lavidande (Manche), 21.
Law, Norman, 4, 182, 189, 194, 243, 277.
See Assize, Consueludines et msiicie.
Courts, Jury, Legislation, Tris Ancien
Coutumier.
Lawrence, archdeacon, 324.
Le Bosguet (Eure), 70.
Le Brasseur, P., 281.
Lecacheux, P., 243, 248.
L€chaud£ d'Anisy, 197, 202, 221, 247,
286.
Le Faulq (Calvados), 224.
Legates, papal, 154; see Albericus,
Conon, Henry of Pisa, Imams.
Legislation of Norman dukes, 4, 6, 85, 86,
114, 120, 150, 158, 159, 169-171, 198-
201, 211, 212, 218-220, 238, 276, 277,
327, 329-333-
Legras, H., 39, 48, 161, 242.
Le Hardy, G., 62, 297.
Le Hfiricher, E., 337, 339, 342.
Le Homme (Calvados), 63.
Le Homme (Manche, now L'lle-Marie),
46, 274.
Le Houlme (Ome), 34.
Le Mans (Sarthe), 48, 146, 147, 205, 209,
210, 316; chapter of, 81, 245. Bish-
ops: Hildebert, William.
La Couture, abbey, 304.
Saint-Victor, priory, 245.
Saint- Vincent, abbey, 69.
Le Marais-Vemier (Eure), 229.
Lenoir, Dom J., 218, 246, 247, 250, 255-
258, 288, 297.
Le P16, near Rouen (Seine-Inf.), 118, 144.
Le Provost, A., 12, 15, 46, 140, 242, 247,
248, 257, 265, 296.
Leregant, 133.
Les Andelys (Eure), 182.
Le Sap (Ome), 172, 173, 219.
Lessay (Manche), abbey of, 33, 132, 13s,
138, 244, 315.
Le Val de Port (Calvados), 224.
Lexartum, 259.
Liebermann, F., 3, 30, 37, 48, $$, IS, "4,
17s, 176, 278-281, 339.
Lieurey (Calvados), 302,
Lieuvin, 108, 181, 186.
Li^vres (Manche), 271.
INDEX
361
320.
"S.
Lillebonne (Seine-Inf.), 81, 116; council
of, 30-3S. 37, 46, 48, SS, 104. 170,
276-279, 281, 310.
Limoges (Haute-Vienne), 214.
Limpiville (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Lincoln, 81, 125, 126, 235-237,
Bishops: Alexander, Robert.
Lions-la-Foi£t (Eure), 119, 121,
286, 320.
Lire (Eure), abbey, 10, 72, 245, 246, 297,
313, 33S-
Lisiard, bishop of S€ez, 172.
Lisieux (Calvados), 69, 124, 129, 134,
136, 141, 143, 163, 168, 206, 291, 292,
309> 313. 321-323; bishop of, 8, 14, 36,
S7, 66, 76, no, IS3, 181, 187, 211, 274,
321, 322, 342; chapter of, S9, i73;
councils at, 32, 36, 38, 86, 309, 310;
treasurer of, 130. Bishops: Amulf,
Gilbert, Hugh, John, Ralph, William
de Fad.
leproseiy, 172.
Saint-D£sir, abbey, 27, 133, 228,
245-
Littleton, Sir Thomas, 211.
Liveries, court, 114-119.
Loders (co. Dorset), 82, loi, 243.
London, 48, 242, 317, 330, 331. Bishops:
Gilbert Foliot, Gilbert the Universal.
British Museunl, MSS. 79, 82, loi-
104, 122, 174, 179, 243, 298, 309.
Public Record Office, 90, 94, 197,
203, 221, 242, 243, 248, 263, 303.
St. Paul's, MSS. of, 89, 116, 161.
Longchamps (Eure), 286.
Longueville, 184,' 335.
Longueville (Manche), 21.
Longueville, Sainte-Foi de (Seine-Inf.),
priory, 81,310.
Longueville (Autils), Saint-Pierre de
(Eure), priory of, Sg.
Lonlai (Ome), abbey, 70, 77, 245.
Loricarii, 119, 306, 307.
Lorraine, 175, 176.
Lot, F., 4, s, 36, 249, 2S7, 314-
Louis the Pious, king and emperor, 25.
Louis VI, king of France, 310, 311.
VII, I2S, 130, 143. iS4> 205.
Louis X, 190.
abbot of Saint-Georges de Bocher-
ville, 92.
LouviSres (Calvados), 147, 211.
Luchaire, A., 27, 48, 49, 311, 313, 314,
316.
Luchon (Calvados), 207.
Lucia, countess of Chester, 236.
wife of Jordan de Sai, 297.
Lucius II, Pope, 15, 130, 202-205, 223.
ni. Pope, 337.
Liiders, W., 52.
Luke, butler, 92, 336.
son of Hervfi, 223, 224.
Mabel, wife of Ralph de Mortemer, 291.
Mabille, E., 136.
Mabillon, Dom J., 257.
Maeelina, abbess of Saint-Amand, 93.
Magister mUiium, 51.
Magna Carta, 185, 190.
Maine, 80; institutions of, 27, 48, 82,
146, 232, 330. Counts: Herbert,
Robert Curthose.
Maingisus, bishop of Avranches, 255, 256.
Maitland, F. W., 3, 5-7, 22-24, 29, 37,
SS. S6, 158, 165, 173, 185, 187, 194,
196, 198, 220, 224, 227, 234, 238, 277-
280, 329, 331.
Malassis, near Gasny (Eure), 312.
Mailing (co. Kent), abbey, 235.
Manasses Bisset, seneschal, 162, 236.
Manche, archives of the, 21, 59, 82, 93,
100-104, 127, 128, 134, 138, 142, 147,
148, 168, 172, 186, 187, 221, 222, 244-
246, 270, 273, 280, 294, 296, 311, 315,
319, 323, 324, 327, 3361 338.
Mangon, Pierre, 100, 246.
Manneville (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Manonisvilla, 255.
Mansi, Cardinal, 277.
Mantes (Seine-et-Oise), 46.
Manteyer, G. de, 143.
Mantois, 316.
Mark, 281.
Markets and fairs, 39, 42, 49, 69, 70, 72,
80, 93, loi, i8i, 182, 188, 191, 259,
262, 286, 287, 289, 324, 337, 338.
362
INDEX
Marlborough (co. Wilts), 126.
Marmoutier (Indre-et-Loire), abbey, 18,
32, 59, 69, 72, 134, 141, 24s, 247, 314,
316.
Marolles (Calvados), 172.
Maromme (Seine-Inf.), 325.
Marshal, 51, 89, 118, 119, 121, 152, 162,
182, 192.
MartSne, Dom E., 277, 281.
Martin, scribe, 88.
Marx, J., 265, 267, 270.
Mathan (Calvados), 88; Marquis de,
246.
Matilda d'Avranches, lady of Le Sap,
218, 219, 339.
countess of Chester, 236.
empress, 124, 130, 132, 136, 144,
147, 151, 152, 222, 306, 316.
queen, wife of Henry I of England,
310.
queen, wife of Stephen of Blois,
124.
queen, wife of William the Con-
queror, 20, so, Sh S4> 68, 106,
279.
Matthew de Gerardivilla, 325.
marshal, 328.
du Moutier, 326.
Mauduit chamberlainship, 113.
Mauger de Beuzeval, 95.
of Corbeil, 275.
Maurice, 108.
■ pugil,' 221.
' de sigillo,' 162.
Maurilius, archbishop of Rouen, 19.
Mayer, E., 46, 232.
Mayet (Sarthe), 129.
Meister, A., 25.
Merlet, R., 108.
Merton priory (co. Surrey), 88.
Mesnil-Don (Calvados), 63.
Mesnil-Brey (Manche), 171, 218.
Mesnil-Eudes (Calvados), 8, 130.
Mesnil-Josselin (Eure), 312.
Mesnil-Mauger (Calvados), 322.
Metearius, 19.
Meulan (Seine-et-Oise), 29, 93, 150, 247,
256, Counts: Galeran, Robert.
Meulan, Saint-Nicaise, priory, 295.
Michael, bishop of Avranches, 22.
abbot of Prfiaux, 166, 323, 324.
Miles of Gloucester, 303, 305, 317.
Mileto (province of Catanzaro), 233.
Mills, ducal, 39, 43, 117.
Ministri, ico, loi, 152.
Mint, ducal, 106, 113, 256, 281.
Mirebeau (Vieime), 133.
Moeller, C, 75.
Monasteries, control by duke, 36, 125;
as holders of immunities and consuetu-
dines, 25-30; military service of, 8-14;
rights of bishops over, 337-343.
MondeviUe (Calvados), 252.
Moneyer, duke's, 152, 280, 281.
Montbouin (Calvados), 63.
Montebourg (Manche), abbey, 9, 80, 81,
93, 100-103, I2S, 134, 13s, 139. 244-
Abbot: Robert.
Montfarville (Manche), loi.
Montfaucon, B. de, 281, 340.
Montfort (Eure), 72, 174, 224, 230, 315,
327, 334. 336.
Montgaroult (Ome), 151.
Montivilliers (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 9, 10,
29,43. 60, 24s, 251, 260, 266, 272, 273,
27S-
Montmartin (Calvados), 209.
Montmorel (Manche), abbey, 339, 340.
Prior: Ralph.
Montpin£on (Calvados), 16.
Montreuil-Bellay (Maine-et-Loire), 131,
137. 147-
Montreuil-sur-Mer (Pas-de-Calais), 45.
Mont-Saint-Michel (Manche), abbey,
7, 9, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 32-35, 59,
69. 71. 74. 78, 128, 153, 161, 191, 227,
228, 244, 247, 248, 261, 273, 277, 337-
341, 343- Abbots: Hildebert, Robert
of Torigni.
Moiin, Dom G., 66.
Morin Planchun, 327.
Morris, W. A., 46.
Morsalines (Manche), 102.
Mortain (Manche), 124, 129, 168, 294,
314; count of, 29, 48, 54, 57, 127, 187.
Counts; Robert, Stephen, William,
INDEX
363
Mortain, Dames Blanches, abbey, 127,
34°-
Notre-Dame, priory, 126, 340.
Samt-£vroul, collegiate church,
126, 342.
Mortemer (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 134, 182,
205, 222, 319. Abbot: Wilham.
Moulins (Ome), 43.
Moult (Calvados), 328.
Moutons (Manche), convent, 127, 340.
Muriel d'Amblie, 262.'
N' (?), bishop of Meaux, 171.
Neal, or Nigel, 41.
d'Aubigny, 12, 90, 294, 295, 311.
monk, 294.
seneschal of Mortain, 168, 185.
d'Oilly, 63.
nephew of Roger, bishop of Salis-
bury, and bishop of Ely, 108,
114, 120, 229.
vicomtes of Saint-Sauveur, 7, 46, S7,
103, 256, 263, 274, 276.
Wireker, 181.
Neaufles-Saint-Martin (Eure), 32, 46, 70,
310.
Neubourg (Eure), 312.
Neufchatel (Seine-Inf.), 184, 334.
NeuiUy (Calvados), 213.
Neville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262.
Newton-on-Trent (co. Lincoln), 236.
Nicaea, 266.
Nicholas d'Estouteville, 219, 325.
abbot of Saint-Ouen, 68, 70.
des Veys, 167, 323.
Niese, H., 227, 232.
Nigel, see Neal.
Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure-et-Loir), 245.
Nonancourt (Eure), 140, 144, 149, 151,
152.
Norgate, Kate, 128, 130, 174, 316.
Norman, archdeacon of Lisieux, 173,
321, 322.
Peignard, 291.
Jformandy, feudalism in, 5-30; Prank-
ish institutions in, s, 25, 48, 54, 196,
197, 227; local government in, 45-48;
municipal institutions of, 48, 49; in
the Plantagenet empire, 156; rela-
tions with England, see England;
with France, see France; Scandinavian
influence on, 5, 28, 65, 279, 281.
See especially Church, Courts, Duke,
Exchequer, Law. Dukes: Geoffrey,
Henry I, II, John, Richard I, II, III,
IV (Coeur de Lion), Robert I, II,
Stephen, WilUam Longsword, William
the Conqueror, William Rufus.
Nostell (co. York), 314.
Notre-Dame-du-D6sert (Eure), priory,
317-
Notre-Dame-du-Parc (Seine-Inf.), 70.
Odard, seneschal of Meulan, 295.
Odilo, abbot of Cluny, 275.
Odo of Bayeux, 99.
bishop of Bayeux, is~i8, 22, 34,
66-68, 7S, 76, ISO, 201, 204, 208,
212, 225, 226, 292.
count of Brittany, 57.
chancellor, 52 j
constable, 50.
of Falaise, 163.
hostiarius, 163.
moneyer, 281.
sheriff of Pembroke, 305.
abbot of Saint-£tienne, 34, 94-96,
294.
seneschal, 83.
son of Thurstin du Cotentin, 68.
de Vaac, 336.
vicomte, 63.
Odoin de Malpalu, Serjeant, 117.
OffranviUe (Seine-Inf.), 291.
Oise, archives of the, 67, 317.
Oissel-sur-Seine (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262.
Oliver d'Aubigny, 139.
Omont, H., 201, 246, 247.
Orbec (Calvados), 46.
Ordeal, 31, 34, 35, 56, 58, 88, 267.
Ordericus VitaUs, 18, 62, 64, 65, 78-80,
86-88, 113, 128, 132, 241, 268, 270, 272.
Orford (co. Suffolk), 235.
Ome, archives of the, 12, 19, 24, 46,
173. 179, 187, 228, 244-246, 315, 328,
33S. 336.
364
INDEX
Osbern, Osbert, archdeacon of Bayeux,
34-
abbot of Bemai, 292.
de Cailly, 92, 145.
clerk, 332.
Giffard, 77.
son of Gosman, 262.
de la Heuse, constable of Cher-
bourg, 152, 167, 180.
de-Pont-de I'Arche, 108, 114.
priest, 70.
seneschal, 50, $1, 263, 274, 275.
archdeacon of York, 331.
Osmund d'Arri, 180.
chancellor of William the Con-
queror, S3, 54-
Drengot, 268.
Vasce, 171, 218, 238.
Ouen, sons of, 262.
Postel, 92.
Ouistreham (Calvados), 69.
Ourville (Seine-Inf.), 260.
Outlaws, 188, 279, 324.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, 298.
Pagus, 46.
Palestine tax, 159.
Palgrave, Sir Francis, 234, 265.
Pantler, pantry, ducal, at Rouen, 117,
182.
Parage, 22, 159.
Paris, G., 269-271.
Master, 335.
Paris, 330; Archives Nationales, 19, 31,
S8, 59, 89, 93, 94, 101-103, 134, 147,
152, 170, 218, 243, 246, 272, 273, 29s,
297i 312. 325-
Biblioth^ue Mazarine, MSS. at,
68, 318.
Bibliothdque Nationale, MSS. at,
S-7, 12. IS. 19, 27, 29, 30, 32, 3S,
37. 42, 46, S2, S3, 58. 60, 63, 68-
70, 72, 80-82, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94,
96, 98, 100-103, IDS, 106, 108-
iio, 117, 126, 127, 130-134, 139,
141, 143, 144, 148, IS2, 161, 162,
165, 172, 173, 179, 182, 188, 193,
197, 201, 202, 218, 219, 223, 227,
243-248, 250, 2S3, 255-258, 273,
274, 281, 285, 288-292, 295-300,
302, 304, 305, 307, 310, 312, 318,
319, 321, 324-327, 334-336, 338.
Paris, Bibliothdque Sainte-GeneviSve,4i'.
98, 109, 247.
Jesuits' Library, 246, 297.
Saint-Magloire, abbey, 45.
Saint-Martin-des-Champs, 245.
Paschal II, Pope, 66.
Patrick, earl of Salisbury, 219.
Patti (province of Messina), 234.
Pavilly (Seine-Inf.), 256.
Payne Beauchamp, 299.
de Clairvaux, 139, 145, 209, 210.
de Granville, 322.
fitz John, 303.
de Mfidavy, 91.
Peasants, revolt of, in 996, 182.
Penli (Seine-Inf.), 259.
Perche, 45. Count: Rotrou.
PerriSres (Calvados), priory, 173.
Perrot, E., 89, 161, 187.
Peter, 108.
of Bassonville, 291.
of Blois, 182.
Brown, iii.
abbot of Cluny, 154.
hermit, 273.
squire, 291.
Petit-Dutaillis, C, 48.
Petitville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 261.
Petra, G. de, 23.
Pevrel de Beauchamp, 299.
Pfister, C, 44, 257, 265.
PhiUp I, king of France, 29, 44, 45, 49, 52,
64, 72, 79-
II (Augustus), 12, 178, r8o, 185,
193. 195. 243, 336.
d'Harcourt, bishop of Bayeux, 66,
109, 129, 137, 146, 147, 149. IS3.
167, 203-216, 222-225.
d'Alenfon, archbishop of Rouen,
244.
brother of Vitalis, 167.
Philippa Rosel, 174.
Pickering (co. York), 235.
Pierreval (Seine-Inf.), 70.
INDEX
36s
Pigeon, E. A., 19, 337, 339, 340.
Filatenses, 92.
Pilgrims, 28, 35.
Pimpeme (co. Dorset), 295.
Pincerna, see Butler.
Pipe Rolls, 40, 107, 114, IIS, 121, 158,
177, 184, 188, 191, 237.
Pippin of Tours, 138, 145, 220.
Piienne, H., 44, 53-
Pissy (Seine-Inf.), 253, 25^,
Placita treuge, 37.
Pleas, of the crown or sword, 28, 29, 89,
104, 153, 186-188, 191, 278, 279;
various, 182.
Plessis-Grimoult (Calvados), 16, 17, 129,
244.
Plow, peace of the, 28, 6s, 187.
Poissy (Seine-et-Oise), 45.
Pollard, A. F., i8s.
Pollock, Sir Frederick, see Maitland,
F.W.
Pontarlier (Doubs), 73.
Pontaudemer (Eure), 127, 168, 244, 315.
Pont-de-l'Arche (Eure), 81, 82.
Ponthieu, 90, 91, 97, 98, 124. Counts:
Enguerran, Guy, John, William.
Pontoise (Seine-et-Oise), 24s.
Pont-Saint-Pierre (Eure), 313.
Poole, R. L., 40, 106, III, 114-116, 131,
171, 174-177.
Porchester (co. Hants), 113.
Por€e, E., 249.
Port, C, 20s.
Portsmouth (co. Hants), 12s, 312, 315,
317-
Possession, protection of, 89, 104, 189. '
Poupardin, R., 136, 137, 247, 316.
Powicke, F. M., 22, 28, 37, 46, 89, los,
119, 123, 146, isi, IS7. 160, 161, 176-
178, 187, 191, 193, 231, 232, 338, 339.
Prfiaux (Eure), abbey, 7, la, 17, 29, 30,
SO, 70-72, 134, 148, 166, 172, 226, 228,
229, 244, 273, 279, 324, 32s. Abbots:
Ansfred, Michael.
Pi^aux (Seine-Inf.), 153.
Freisia, 186.
Prentout, H., 4, s, 26, 39, 232, 241, 2S0.
Presentation, 171-174, 179, 218, 332, 333.
Prfivost, M., 160.
Prevdt, prSvSte, 41-44, 47, los, 106, 151,
177, 182.
Procurator, 51, 168.
Prou, M., 44, 48, 49, 52, 72, 136.
Pseudo-Isidore, 30.
Quatre-Puits (Calvados), 63.
Quettehou (Manche), 63.
Quillebeuf (Eure), 229.
R., son of Richard, 94.
Rabasse, M., 6.
Rabel, 268, 27s.
son of Joslin, 92.
of Tancarville, 94, 109, 300, 302.
Radford, L. B., 330, 331.
Radulfus, see Ralph.
Raginaldus, Rainald, see Reginald.
Rainier, abbot, 262.
Ralph fitz Anserfi, 69, 90-92.
son of Ansfred, 95.
d'Arri, chancellor of Robert Curt-
hose, 67, 74.
de Beaumont, 92.
de Bee, 70.
du Bosc-Lehard, 92.
butler, 297.
Calcaterra, 92.
archbishop of Canterbury, 294, 29s,
3i3>3iS; fee oistf Ralph, abbot of
S^ez.
de Conches, 68.
de Courlandon, 63.
bishop of Coutances, 287.
de Diceto, 176, 193.
de Duclair, 291.
priest of £paignes, 324.
de Fleury, canon of Lisieux, 322.
de Fougfires, 311.
son of Fulbert, 97.
Glaber, 266.
de Grainville, 289.
de la Haie, 33s.
of Hastings, iii.
son of Herluin, 20.
de Hotot, 96.
366
INDEX
Ralph d'lvry, i8.
de Juvigny, 96.
de Lisieux, clerk, 328.
Maisnier, 328.
du Marchfi, 108.
de Marchia, cook, 116.
marshal, 291.
Martel, 328.
moneyer, 280.
prior of Montmorel, 339.
de Mortemer, 291, 292.
de la Mouche, 171, 218.
Mowinus, 268.
Pinter (?), 295.
Piquet (?), 29s.
son of Raimbold, 92.
son of Robert, 92.
le Robeur (Forbeur ?), 118.
nephew of Roger, 96.
de Rupierre, 328.
abbot of S6ez, 288, 289; see also
Ralph, archbishop of Canter-
bury.
son of Serlo, 322.
Taisson, 24, 96, 287, 334.
of Tancarville, chamberlain, 41, 50,
SI, 27S-
de Thaon, sons of, 323.
de Toeni, 292, 297.
de Tomeio, 173.
son of Urselin, 326.
de Valmont, 129.
de Varaville, 321.
de VameviUe (Wanneville), chan-
cellor of Henty II and bishop of
Lisieux, 180, 181, 224.
' vastans granum,' 291.
de Vitot, 297.
de Wallamint, 335.
Ramsay, Sir James, 125, 128, 177, 309.
Ramsey abbey (co. Huntingdon), 161,
310, 317, 320.
RanuU, 322.
de Bourguenolles, 337.
cellarer, 321.
chancellor of Henry I, 294, 29s,
310.
earl of Chester, 22, 236.
Ranulf de Ducy, 294.
Flambard, bishop of Durham, 66,
76, 81, 87, 287.
de Grandval, 180.
brother of Iger, 63.
moneyer, 280.
des Pieux (de Fodiis), 71.
Rufell, 323.
scribe. III.
de Tessel and sons, 96.
vicomte, 63.
Ranville (Calvados), 63, 298.
Raoul, see Ralph.
Reading (co. Berks), 315, 316.
Recognition, 149, 188, 196-238.
Regarders of forests, 102, 103, 117,
118.
Reginald of Arganchy, 95.
vicomte of Arques, 258, 260, 261.
son of Asa, 95.
chaplain, 52.
earl of Cornwall, 132, 306, 307.
de Cortenay, 329.
son of the count, 307.
de Gerponville, 167, 219.
Landun, 63.
d'Orval, 287, 315.
de Saint-Philbert, 326.
de Saint- Valery, 130, 133, 140, 145-
148, iS3> 162, 166, 167, 206, 211-
21S, 23O1 326.
' Vulpis,' 92.
Regino of Priim, 227.
Relief, 19, 21, 22.
Rfimilly (Manche), 298.
Renouard, Ch&teau de (Calvados), 313.
Rfiville (Manche), 94.
Rheims (Mame), 132; council, 313.
Riant, P., 270.
Richard d'Angerville, 102, 103.
d'Argences, 194, 328, 335, 336.
Avenel, 336.
I (de Beaufage), bishop of Avran-
ches, 120, 126, 127, 129.
Ill, bishop of Avranches, 338.
mcomte of Avranches, 58.
de Babainvilla, 323.
Basset, 303,
INDEX
367
Richard II (fitz Samson), bishop of Ba-
yeux, IS, 90, 96, 137, 201, 226,
294, 296, 297, 299.
in (of Kent, son of Robert, earl of
Gloucester), bishop of Bayeux,
34, 120, 203, 225.
de Beaufou, 7.
Beverel, 219.
de Bohun, chancellor of Geoffrey
Plantagenet and Henry II, 131,
136-138, 162, 220; see Richard
n, bishop of Coutances.
de Boiavilla, 20.
Bustel, 291.
chaplain, 294.
earl of Chester, 294.
of Cornwall, 224.
de Courcy, 63.
I, bishop of Coutances, 94, 96, loi,
102, 298.
n, bishop of Coutances, 326, 327;
see Richard de Bohun.
de CuUei, 11.
Deri, 336.
de Dives, 321.
I (Coeur deLion), king of England,
177, 179. 183, 189, 190. 193, i94>
334, 336, 338.
d'fivreux, 109.
count of fivreux, 29.
Faiel, 219.
Giffard, 180, 184, 334.
de la Haie, 139, 145-148, 162, 207,
209, 210.
Haitie, 328.
Harela, 289.
son of Henry, 335, 336.
de Herbouville, 229.
son of Herluin, 63.
du Hommet, constable, 162, 166,
324, 336.
— ■- — son of Humphrey, 229.
de Lucy, 127, 299, 310, 331.
de Montigny, 335.
Musel, 328.
fitz Neal, 176; see Dialogue on the
Exchequer.
Richard I (the Fearless), duke of Nor-
mandy, 2S, 42. 49, S5, 250-254.
II (the Good), 5, 7, 9, 25-27, 32, 35,
40-45, 48-53, 55, 56, S9, "6,
177,261,286; chartersof, 52, 59,
60, 92, 250-258, 263, 264, 266,
272, 274, 280.
Ill, 256, 265, 267, 268.
IV, see Richard I of England.
Ospinel, 335.
proconsid, 22.
de Revers, 87, 103.
son of Richer of Laigle, 291.
son of Robert earl of Gloucester,
107, 167, 323.
archdeacon of Rouen, 292, 293.
de Saint- Vannes, abbot of Verdun,
266, 267.
abbot of Savigni, 323.
brother of Serlo, 88.
' sigiUi custos,' 311.
Silvain, 180, 336.
Talbot, 326.
de Vauville, 139, 220.
de Vaux, vidame of Bayeux, 167.
vicomte, 263.
son of William, 68.
of Ilchester, bishop of Winchester,
174-176, 180, 192, 195, 328, 334.
Richer de Laigle, 172.
Richer', 186.
Richmond, countess of, 181.
Rievaulx abbey (co. York), 235.
Riville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262.
Robert, son of Alward, 68.
son of Anquetil, 292.
des Authieux, archdeacon of Lisi-
eux, 322.
Belfit, 328.
of Belleme, 19, 24, 46, 87, 88, 105,
293, 311-
fitz Bernard, 96, 167, 323.
Bertram, 229.
Blund, 34.
de Bonebos, 63.
Boquerel, constable of Mortain,
168.
Bordel, 139.
368
INDEX
Robert de Bothes, 20.
de Brucourt, 179.
butler, 275.
Carbonel, 96.
chamberlain, so-
de Chanteloup, 21.
chaplain, 51.
de Chemelles, 323.
Chevalier, 219.
Clarel, 328.
de Courcy, seneschal, 88-90, 94,
95. 99. 107, 120, 139, 14S-149,
162, 206, 207, 210, 220, 222, 307.
bishop of Coutances, 6, 262.
de Curie, 335.
de Denestanville, 289.
son of Dodo, 291.
Doisnel, 82, 287.
son of Dut, 291.
fitz Emeis, 210.
count of Eu, 66, 87.
d'fivreux, 88, 89, 108-110, 126.
archdeacon of fivreux, 109.
archdeacon of Exeter, 120.
Filleul, 92.
abbot of Fontenay, 323, 336.
II, king of France, 29, 44, 45, 251,
2S3. 256, 257.
Frella, 95.
de Freschenes, 326.
son of Fulcher, 299.
de Genz, 63.
son of G€r6, 219.
earl of Gloucester, 17, 96, loi, 102,
106, 120, 121, 129, 132, 197, 201,
202, 294, 299, 301, 303, 308.
de Grainville, 95, 96.
Grentemesnil, 287.
de Guemai, 299.
de Guz, 63.
de la Haie, seneschal and justiciar,
88-90, 94-96, 99, loi, 102, 108,
121, 146, 294, 300, 302.
fitz Haimeri, 166, 219, 324.
d'Harcourt, 335, 336.
Harenc, 326.
de Havilla, 162, 262.
de Hgtot, 95.
Robert, brother of Hugh, 91.
Ivi Maisnerii, 291.
de Juvigny, 324, 325.
earl of Leicester, in, 120, 121, 127,
29s. 297, 300.
de Leuga, 328.
bishop of Lincoln, 79, 237.
chaplain of Lisieux, 88.
dean of Lisieux, 322.
loricarius, 306, 307.
Marin, 210.
Marmion, 287, 333.
de Martinvast, 220.
son of Matilda, 325.
Mauduit, chamberlain, 113.
coimt of Meulan, 29, 68, 70, 76, 83,
87, 90-92, 229, 279, 28s, 292,
293. 297, 3". 321-
■ money-changer, 152.
monk, 286.
de Montbrai, 63.
abbot of Montebouig, 335.
de Montfort, 68, 76, 138, 173, 221,
287.
of Mortain, son of William of Bee,
288, 290.
count of Mortain, 57, 285.
fitz Neal, 220.
de Neufbourg, seneschal and justi-
ciar, 92, loi, 107, 134, 138, 142,
145-149. 162, 165-167, 206, 207,
214-217, 220, 230, 297, 321, 323,
324-
de NeuviUe, 149.
Neveu, 327.
I (the Magnificent), duke of Nor-
mandy, 10, 29, 32, 33, 38, 43, so-
55. 59. 71, 87, 103, 116, 250, 236;
charters of, 4, 7, 26, 29, 33, 41,
42, 251, 2s8r-263, 26s, 266, 272-
275. 337; sources for his reign,
263-276.
II (Curthose), duke of Normandy,
22, 37. 43. 46, 78-80, 8s, 86, 92,
267, 278; charters of, 66-78, 80,
82, 250, 285-292; date of ac-
cession, 67; Normandy under,
62-78.
INDEX
369
Robert d'Oilly, S4, 3°3-
Pantolf, 63.
Peche, bishop of Litchfield, 115,
294.
de Pessi, 325.
Pigache, 167.
pincema, i86.
Poisson, 324.
porter, 9S.
priest, 291.
Pychart, 328.
fitz Kalph, 162, 299.
archbishopof Rouen, 27,33,63,190,
251-253, 256, 262, 267, 273-275.
chaplain at Rouen, 118.
dean of Rouen, 325.
fitz Roy, son of Henry I, 339.
abbot of Saint-Andi^-en-Gouffem,
328.
abbot of Saint-£vroul, 218.
de Sainte-Honorine, 323.
scribe, S3.
bishop of S^ez, 22; of. 96.
canon of S&z, 307.
seneschal, 50.
'de sigillo,' 96, 106, 107, 119, 120,
299> 303, 306, 307.
of Stokes, 299.
de Thaon, 323, 324.
son of Thurstin, 289.
of Torigni, abbot of Mont-Saint-
Michel, 78, 79, 128, 132, 158,
176, 203, 241, 270, 278, 339.
de Totes, 296.
de Turpo, 94.
d'Ussy, 90.
d'Uz, 63.
de Vains, 179.
de Valognes, 139, 220.
de Vera, constable, 93, 103, 107,
121, 308.
vicomte, 305.
de Warwick, 219.
de Wesneval, 92.
bishop of Worcester, 336.
Roca, ' pons de ', 19.
Roclenus, bishop of Chalon-sur-Sadne,
286.
Rocquancourt (Calvados), 210, 212.
Rodulfus, 255, 261, 286; see Ralph.
Rohricht, R., 141.
Rossler, O., 125, 132.
Roger, earl, 332.
son of Ainus, 173.
'generAlberti,' and his family, 120,
121, 298, 299.
son of Amisus, canon of Lisieux,
322.
d'Arri, clerk, 167, 180, 335, 336.
d'Avesnes, 63.
de Beaumont, 22, 28, 57, 68, 70,
321.
abbot of Bee, 166.
de Bocquenc€, 12.
Brito, 307.
Brun, III.
: of ' Bumes,' 121.
cellarer, 328.
chamberlain, 95, 128.
de Clairvaux, 153.
de Clera, 19.
bishop of Coutances, 294.
dispenser, 63.
de Dotvilla, dean, 322.
d'fipinay, 321.
de Fecamp, chaplain, 107, 110, iii.
abbot of Fgcamp, 90.
Filleul, 328.
brother of Gilbert, abbot of Caen,
68.
Goulafre, 9, 219.
de Gratte Panche, 91.
earl of Hereford, 4.
hostiarius, 51.
de Hotot, dean, 322.
d'lviy, butler, 50, 77.
larderer of Henry I, iij.
de Lassi, 77.
de Lesprevier, 229.
Mahiel, 326.
de Mandeville, 98, 100.
Marmion, 95, 96, 294.
MauCouronne, dispenser, 77.
de Monnay, 219.
de Montgomery, 22, S4, 94, 273-
de Montieuil, 321.
37P
INDEX
Roger de Montviron, 299.
de Pavilly, 92.
Peilevilain, 97.
son of Peter of Fontenay, 9s.
prior, 291.
de Rufo Campo, 104.
de Saint-Laurent, 291.
abbot of Saint-Ouen, 166.
de Saint-Wandrille, 321.
abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 166.
bishop of Salisbury, 125, 136, 235,
303-
de Scilletot, 289.
' de scuteUa,' 63.
secrelarius, 68.
II, king of Sicily, 23, iii, 112, 144,
233. 234-
Suhart, 103, 104.
Terricus, 188.
treasurer, 106, 120.
vicomte, 96.
vicomte of Saint-Sauveur, 91, 127.
Roland, archbishop of Dol, 292.
d'Oissel, 118.
Rollo, 7.
duke of Normandy, 10.
Rolls, Norman, 138, 159, 193, 194, 242,
243;, Exchequer, passim.
Rome, and the Norman church, 30, 36,
125, 154; see Legates, and the indi-
vidual Popes.
Rosay (Seine-Inf.), 81, 82.
Roscelin, son of Clarembaud, 326.
Rosel (Calvados), 228.
Rotrou, bishop of fivreux, archbishop of
Rouen, ajid justiciar of Henry II, 166,
167, 172, 21S, 216, 218, 219, 230, 237,
322, 325-327.
count of Perche, 121, 294.
Rotselinus, chamberlain, 50.
Rouen (Seine-Inf.), 16, 39, 5$, 69, 75, 80,
8i, 87, 90-92, 101-103, 107, 108, I2S,
126, 128-130, 133, 134, 136, 140-144,
148, 150, IS9, 162, 163, 165-168, 171,
176, 184, 186, 205, 208, 216, 219, 237,
2S3f 2S4, 256, 266, 280, 281, 293, 295-
297. 300, 3°4-3°6, 309-320, 325, 326,
334-336; archbishop, 6-8, 32, 33, 57,
87, III, 173, 179, 181, 250-252, 263,
342; archdeacons, 68, 87; chapter, 41, ^
70, 82, 107, 109, no, 134, 147-149.
180, 221, 273, 305; cordwainers of,
126, 134, 144, 318; councils at, 6, 28,
33. 37, 6S, 66, 170, 294, 316; MSS. at,
21, 30. 37, SS, 70, 81, 90, 109, no, 118,
133, 134, 144, 166, 168, 172, 179, 180,
188, 190, 221, 228, 229, 243-246, 250,
257, 272, 273, 281, 288, 289, 294, 318,
33S, 342 {see also Seine-Inffirieure);
mint, 280; modiatio, 43, 45; modius,
115,120; Palmers, 134; park of duke,
68, 105; town of, 48, 86, 134, 135, 144,
148, 150-153, 187, 221; treasurer at,
180. Archbishops: Geoffrey, Hugh,
John, Maurilius, Philip, Robert, Ro-
trou, William. Archdeacons: Bene-
dict, Fulbert, Gerard, John, Richard,
Urse.
Rouen, La Trinit6-du-Mont, abbey, 9, 26,
70, 87, 244, 248, 251, 273. Ab-
bot: Walter.
Mont-aux-Malades, priory,
142, 151, 326.
Notre-Dame-du-Pr€, priory,
104, 105, 133, 138, 303.
Saint-Amand, abbey, 7, 10, 20, 26,
43. 45. Si, 93. 134, 140, 151, 229,
244, 251, 273, 295, 314. Ab-
besses: Emma, Maeelina.
Saint-Cande-le-Vieux, chapelry,
no.
Saint-Gervais, church, 251, 263,
326.
Saint-Jacques, hospital, 325.
Saint-Ouen, abbey, 7, 9, 19, 26, 27,
SO, 52, 58, 59. 70, 81,87, 131. 134.
229, 244, 250, 274, 335. Abbots:
Nicholas, Roger.
Roumare (Seine-Inf.), 93, 105, 160.
Earl (of Lincoln) : WiUiam.
Roumois, 181.
Round, J. H., 3, 8, 18, 19, 22, 40, 49, 51,
57, 81, 82, 88, 95, loo, 106, 107, m,
113, 114, n6, 117, 120, 131-133, 160,
177, 188, 200, 221, 242, 248, 263, 264,
286, 294, 306, 309, 3n, 314-317, 329.
134.
68,
INDEX
371
Rouvres (Calvados), 63.
Ruallon de Sai, 138, 323.
Sackur, E., 10.
St. Albans abbey (co. Herts), 314.
Saint-Andi€-en-Gouffem (Calvados), ab-
bey, 130, 134, 142, 151, 229, 244, 306,
319. Abbot: Robert.
St. Aubert, 340.
Saint-Aubert-sur-Ome (Ome), 280.
Saint-Aubin (Seine-Inf.), 258.
Sainte-Barbe (Calvados), priory, 94, 108-
110, 183, 316, 322. Prior: William.
Saint-Benolt-sur-Loire, abbey, 29, 24s,
274.
Saint-Clair-sur-Epte(Seiiie-et-Oise),3i2.
Saint-CjT-de-Saleme (Eure), 70.
Saint-Denis (Seine), abbey, 9, 10, 25, 58,
24S-
Saint-fitienne-l'Allier (Eure), 68.
Saint-fivroul (Ome), abbey, 9-14, 24, 55,
70, 71, 81, 134, 141, 171-173, 17s. 218,
219, 244, 311, 316, 336. Abbots:
Robert, Theodoric.
Saint-Fulgent-des-Ormes (Ome), 302.
Saint-Hippolyte, 286.
Saint-James (Manche), 43, 274.
Saint-Jean-de-la-Foret (Ome), 301.
St. Lambert, fair of, 337.
Saint-Laurent-sur-Mer (Calvados), 271.
Saint-Lfionard (Manche), 179.
Saint-L6 (Manche), 133, 143, 220; see
Manche, archives of.
Saint-Marcouf (Manche), 100, loi.
Saint-Martin-de-Bon-Foss6 (Manche),
326, 327.
Saint-Mesmin de Micy (Loiret), abbey,
29. 59-
St. Michael's Mount (co. Cornwall),
priory, 273.
St. Nicaise, Translatio, 266.
Saint-Opportune (Manche), 138.
St. Ouen, 92.
Saint-Ouen-de-Flancourt (Eure), 296.
Saint-Ouen-du-Bois-Toustain(Eure),296.
Saint-Pair (Manche), 21, 59.
Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle (Eure), 8, 18, 19,
68, 296.
Saint-Pierre-de-Saleme (Eure), 29, 30.
Saint-Pierre-de-Semilly (Manche), 246,
250, 297.
Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive (Calvados), 287,
316; abbey, 29, 93, 164, 245, 280, 310.
Abbot: Fulk.
Saint-Quentin (Aisne), 60.
Saint-Quentin-le-Petit (Ome), 301.
Saint-Riquier (Somme), abbey, 60.
Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (Manche), ab-
bey, 103, 244; vicomtes, 35. See Neal,
Roger.
Saint-Sever (Manche), abbey, 245, 342.
Saint-Sever (Seine-Inf.), 68, 81, 82, 293.
Saint-Vaast d'fiquiqueville (Seine-Inf.),
305-
Saint-Valery-en-Caux (Seine-Inf.), 252.
Sainte-Vaubourg (Seine-Inf.), 118, 310,
314. 313-
Saint- Victor-en-Caux (Seine-Inf.), ab-
bey, 24s.
Saint-Victor-l'Abbaye (Seine-Inf.), 291.
St. Vulganius, Translatio, 266, 267.
Saint-Wandrille (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 7, 9,
a, 42, 60, 131, 134, 151, 166, 167, 184,
244, 250, 266, 267, 272, 274, 314, 318,
33S. Abbots: Ansfred, Gerald, Gra-
dulf, Roger, Walter.
St. Wulfram, Miracula, 266.
Saint- Ymer-en-Auge (Calvados), priory,
7, 133, 221.
Saladin tithe, 159, 192.
Salisbury (co. Wilts), 318. Bishop: Roger.
Sallen (Calvados), 63.
Sambon, A., 281.
Samson de Montfarville, loi.
chaplain, later bishop of Worcester,
52.
San Bartolomeo di Carpineto (province
of Teramo), abbey, 234.
Santigny (?), Santiniacus villa, 258, 260,
261.
Saracens, 233.
Sarthe, the, 299, 301.
Sassetot (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Saumur (Maine-et-Loire), 131, 134, 138.
Saint-Florent, abbey, 70, 77, 80, 83,
IS4, 245.
372
INDEX
Sauvage, R. N., 7, 36, 77, 109, 161, 242,
248, 249, 2S7.
Savigny (Manche), abbey, 127, 130, 134,
13s, 142, 147, 148, i6s, 187, 221, 222,
244, 246, 247, 294, 296, 311-313, 315.
323. 324, 337, 338, 342, 343- Abbots:
Geoffrey, Richard, Vitalis.
Scabini, 24.
Scarborough (co. York), 330-332.
Schmidt, R., 227, 232.
Schubert, P., 50.
Seal, ducal, S3, 72, 73, io4, 124, i43, 256,
257, 287, 288, 309.
Secqueville-en-Bessin (Calvados), 96.
Sfie (Manche), Val de, 339.
Seeliger, G., 26.
S6ez (Ome), 124, 307, 314, 316, 319, 320,
33S, 336; archdeacon of, 88; archives
of, 244; bishop of, 6, 8, 13, 35, 76, 77,
130, 173, 299-303, 342; chapter of,
42, 43, 60, los, 106, 299-303, 307, 317,
318, 320. Bishops: Froger, Gerard,
Jolin, Lisiard, Radbod, Robert.
Saint-Martin, abbey, 19, 70, 71,
13s, 141, 187, 228, 244, 30s, 335,
336. Abbot: Ralph.
Seher de Quincy, constable of Nonan-
court, 327, 334, 335.
Seine-Infdiieure, archives of the, 7, 17,
20, 27, 4S, so, SI, S8, S9, 68, 70, 81, 91-
93, 94, lOS, 109, 118, 126, 130, 133,
i34> 138, I4S, 152, 160, 166, 167, 173,
221, 226, 228, 229, 244-246, 250, 257,
258, 260, 272-274, 290-292, 29s, 304,
30S, 312, 327, 335.
Seneschal, 50, 51, S8; 77, 89, gi, 99, "2-
114, 120, 121, 146-148, iss, 162, i6s,
183, 184, 232, 275.
Senn, F., 36.
Serjeanties, 115-119, 152, 153, 182, 194.
Serlo, canon of Bayeux, 66, 86.
Buffei, 328.
chaplain, 91.
the Deaf, 88.
de Hauteville, 266.
bishop of S£ez, 68, 70, 292.
Serrure, R., 280.
Service, forty days', 20,
Seniientes, 152, 206.
Servitium debitum, 9, 18.
Sheriff, 46.
Sicily, Norman institutions in, 3, 23, 61,
III, 112, 19s, 232-234.
Sigurd Jerusalem-farer, 270.
Sigy (Seine-Inf.), priory, 50.
Silly (Ome), abbey, 132.
Simon Anglicus, 229.
dispenser, 112.
d'Escures, 167.
de La Croisille, 228.
money-changer, 182.
de Moulins, 294.
de Moult, 328.
seneschal, 68, 77.
I, earl of Northampton, 310.
de Tomebu, 334.
Simony, 66.
Soehnfie, F., 44.
Solomon de Charecelvilla, 291.
SorquainviUe (Seine-Inf.), 262.
Southampton (co. Hants), 121, 122.
Squillace (province of Catanzaro), 233.
Stapleton, T., no, 115, 147, 151, 158,
177, 197, 209, 274, 337-339.
Stein, H., 241, 245.
Steenstrup, J., 279.
Stengel, E., 26.
Stenton, F. M., 263, 265, 333.
Stephen fitz Airard, 121.
count of Aumale, 67, 312.
de Beauchamp, 162.
of Blois, count of Boulogne and
Mortain, king of England, and
duke of Normandy, 91, 92, no,
n4, 120, 124-127, 129, 130, 146,
IS3, 154, 213, 243, 294, 297, 316,
331, 332; charters of, 94, 106-
109, 13s, 144, 316; Normandy
under, 124-129.
chaplain at Bayeux, 52; at Mont-
Saint-Michel, SI.
vicomte of Mortain, 127.
son of Ralph, 92.
of Rouen (£tienne de Rouen), 148.
'stirman,' 121.
Stevenson, W. H,, 53.
INDEX
373
Steyning (co. Sussex), 83, 252, 264.
Stixwould priory (co. Lincoln), 236.
Stow abbey (co. Lincoln), 81.
Stubbs, W., 46, so, 57, 58, 100, 164, 188,
190, 196, 211, 220, 268, 268, 329, 330.
Subinfeudation, 6, 16.
Suffolk, III.
Surcy (Eure), 80, 82.
Taillebois, 9.
Tait, J., 185.
Tallies, 103, 117, 175, 177, 229.
Tanche, the, 299, 301.
Tardif, E.-J., 4, 31, 37, 38, 54, 86, 158,
IS9. 161, 17O1 182, 189, 193, 276-278,
281, 340.
Tassilly (Calvados), 63.
Tavel, 275.
Tavemier, W., 293.
Tessy-sur-Vire (Manche), 271.
Thaon (Calvados), 233.
Thayer, J. B., 196.
Thelonearius, 47, 291.
Theobald of Blois, 124, 312, 318.
archbishoi) of Canterbury, 330.
chaplain, 51.
son of Norman, 279.
Theodoric, abbot of Saint-£vioul, 11.
hostiarms, 51.
Th6ville (Manche), 335.
Thi^ville (Calvados), 63.
Thimme, H., 48.
Thomas Becket, chancellor of Henry II
and archbishop of Canterbury, 121,
iS3> 170, 214-
Brown, Master, in, 112, 195.
chaplain, later archbishop of York,
52-
d'fivreux. Master, 109.
de Loches, chaplain of Geoffrey
Flantagenet, 136-141.
de Pont-r£v6que, 102.
de Saint- Jean, 294.
son of Stephen, 121.
Thomey abbey (co. Cambridge), 81.
Thoiold, bishop of Bayeux, 66, 201, 287,
293.
chamberlain, 50-
Thorold, constable, go, 263, 275.
hostiarms, $1, 77.
Thurstin, chamberlain, grandfather (?)
of Wace, 269, 271, 275.
de Ducy, 336.
son of H^loise, 291.
vicomte, 256, 263.
archbishop of York, 296, 303, 314,
315-
Tinchebrai (Ome), 86, 309.
Tiron (Eure-et-Loir), abbey, 106, 245,
312, 314-
Tison, forest, 153.
Tolls, 39-43, 285.
Torquetil, son of Adlec, 261.
Touffreville (Eure), 127, 306.
Touffrfiville (Calvados), 98.
Touquettes, Les (Ome), 11.
Tourlaville (Manche), 149, 220.
Tours (Indre-et-Loire), council of, 330;
MSS. at, 46, 245. Archbishops: Hil-
debert, Hugh.
Saint-Julien, 7, 33, 80, 245.
Tourville (Seine-Inf.), 258, 260, 261.
Toustain de BiUy, 247.
Toustin, Tosteins, see Thurstin.
Toutainville (Eure), 273.
Treasurers, treasury, Norman, 89, 107-
iio, 113, 118, 176, 180, 181.
Tr^mauville (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Tres Ancien Coutumier, 4, 28, 38, 158-
160, 173, 182-189, 193, 198, 217, 277,
278, 280, 319.
TreviSres (Calvados), 128.
Troam (Calvados), abbey of Saint-
Martin, 10, 19, 39, 81, 87, 90, 91, 94,
97. 98, 167, 173. 242, 244, 304, 321.
Abbot: Andrew.
Truce of God, 31, 35, 37, 38, 46, 65, 85,
104, 120, 140, IS4, 279, 319.
Tunbridge (co. Kent), 49.
Turfred, sons of, 262.
de Cesny, 328.
Turgis, 322.
bishop of Avianches, 74, 96, 293,
294. 311-
de Tracy, 22.
Turold, see Thorold.
374
INDEX
Turstin, see Thurstin.
Turulf, 322.
UIger, bishop of Angers, 130.
Vllac, 30, 279.
Unbeina, 7.
Urse d'Abbetot, 298.
abbot of Jumidges, 91, 92.
archdeacon of Rouen, 291, 293.
Urselin de Wanteria, 92.
Vtrum, assize, 173, 189, 198, 219, 238.
Vacandard, E., 33, 2^3.
Vadum Fuhnerii, see Vieux-Fumfi.
Vains (Manche), 43, 44, 68, 98, 179, 285,
342-
Val des Dunes (Calvados), 16.
Valin, L., 4, 27, 36, 49, 55, 56, 83, 88, 89,
97, 102, IS7, i6s, 174, 178, 184, 186,
187, 190, 196, 201, 217, 223, 228, 230,
251, 327-
Valognes (Manche), 100, 116, 149, 153,
165, 220.
Varengeville (Seine-Inf.), 326.
Vaneville (Manche), 100, 101, 311.
Vascoeuil (Eure), 279.
Vassalage, 6.
Vatican, MSS. at, 35, 233, 278, 281, 339,
340.
Vaudreuil (Eure), 119, 181, 253, 234,
2S4, 29s, 298, 299, 318.
Vauquelin de Courseulles, 210.
Vavassor, 9, 11, 19, 103, 324.
Velterer, 82, 116.
Vendfime (Loir-et-Cher), abbey of La
Trinite, 70, 140, 231, 245.
Vercio, 314.
Verdun (Meuse), 267. Abbot: Richard
of Saint- Vannes.
Vemai (Calvados), 181.
Verneuil (Eure), 104, 119, 140, 144, 145,
149, 151, 152-
Vernier, J.-J., 246, 249, 257, 258.
Vernon (Eure), 63, 66, 314, 318.
Verson (Calvados), 59, 216.
Vesli (Eure), 32.
Vetus Redum, 259.
Vexin, 46, 80, 268, 272, 315. Count:
Breux.
V6zelay (Yonne), 205.
Viaria, vicaria, mcarius, 25, 46, 47.
Vicomte, vicomti, 36, 37, 41-47, 5°, S4,
S6> S7, 59. 60, 77, los, 106, 108, 116,
126, 150-152, 163, 175, 177, 181-186,
191. 27s, 338.
Victor, abbot of Bocherville, 219.
VierviUe (Calvados), 209.
Vieux-Fum6 (Calvados), 27.
Vieux-Rouen (Seine-Inf.), 313.
Vignats, see Saint-Andrfi-en-Gouffern.
Villers, ancient suburb of Caen, 179.
Villers-Bocage (Calvados), 129.
Villers-Canivet (Calvados), abbey, 308,
320.
Villers-Chambellan (Seine-Inf.), 255.
Vinogradoff, Sir Paul, 3, 23, 29, 40, 196,
279.
VioUet, P., 158, 188, 193, 277, 278.
Vire (Calvados), 119, 129, 304.
Virville (Seine-Inf.), 272.
Vitalis de Saint-Germain, 323.
abbot of Savigny, 294.
Vittefleur (Seine-Inf.), 253.
Vivian, abbot of Aunay, 298.
Vorges (Aisne), 45.
Vouilly (Calvados), 207.
Voyer, 46, 47.
Wace, 16, 18, 23, 41, 42, 86, 117, 177,
182, 241, 268-272, 275, 279.
Waitz, G., 7, 48.
Walchelin, chamberlain, 89.
Waldtic, chancellor of Henry I, 87.
Wallop (co. Hants), 122.
Walter, 292.
de Beauchamp, 122, 298.
Broc, 292.
de Canteleu, 92.
son of Constantine, 307.
de Coutances, Master, 180.
. de Cully, 294.
Giffard, 120, 134, 167.
son of Girulf, 261.
of Gloucester, 305, 317.
son of Goubert d'Auffai, 70.
INDEX
375
Walter de Hainou, 104.
abbot of La Trinit6-du-Mont, 70.
Map, IIS, IS7, 183.
money-changer, 152.
de Quercu, 292.
de Saint- Valery, 187.
abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 228.
de Wesneval, 291.
d'Yainville, 92.
Waltham (co. Essex), 302, 303, 311.
Walton (co. Sussex), 303.
War, private, restrictions on, 38, 65,
278.
Warin Cepel, 95.
de Dives, 95, 96.
fitz Gerald, chamberlain, 162.
idonearius, 291.
Warner, Sir George F., 72, 160, 309, 310.
Warwick, 121.
Wesman, 39.
Westboume (co. Sussex), 312.
Westminster, 279, 303, 312, 332.
'White Ship,' 13, 112, 121, 223, 314.
Wido, see Guy.
Wigan, marshal, 88, 89, 307.
Wiger de Saint-Mere-£glise, 223.
Wigo de Marra, 80.
Wilda, G., 28.
Wilfrid, bishop of Worcester, 305.
William, 255.
d'Angerville, 324.
AngUcus, 228.
fitz Ansger, 98.
fitz Amulf, 303.
of Arques, 76, 258, 275, 289.
d'Aubigny, 16, 17, 87, 89, 96, loi,
102, 294, 310, 313.
Avenel, 139, 187.
Baivel, 63.
de Bee, 287, 288.
abbot of Bee, 293, 315.
Becheth, 21.
de Belleme, 268, 302.
Bersic, 210.
Bertran, 63, 68, 76.
Bigod, 13.
de Botevilla, 147.
de Breteuil, 68, 76, 292.
William de Bricqueville, 220.
de Briouze, 187.
de Brix, 102, 103.
Brown, clerk, in, 112.
Burgamissa, 322.
Cade, 181.
Calix, 180, 335, 336.
archbishop of Canterbury, 303.
de Capella, 92, 321.
Cave, 327.
chamberlain, $0, 63, 66, 287, 291;
see William of Tancarville.
chancellor of Henry II, 162.
chaplain, 113.
Clarel, 92.
of Conches, 131.
cook, 95.
abbot of Cormeilles, 68.
de Courcelles, 91.
de Courcy, 174.
Crassus, 167.
Crispin, 46, 68.
de Daraio, 19.
de Ducey, 338, 339.
(of Saint-Calais), bishop of Dur-
ham, 68, 69, 76.
of Ely, III.
king of England, see William, duke
of Normandy.
son of Enguerran Oison, 307.
count of'fivreux, 63, 68, 76, 94,
291.
bishop of Exeter, 294.
I, abbot of Fecamp, 254, 256, 258,
266, 272.
II, abbot of F6camp, 288-290.
de Ferrieres, 192, 287.
de la Fert6-Mac6, 33, 71.
Fort, 167.
de Fraxineto, 108.
son of Gerard, 289.
Gfir6, II.
Gemon, 63, 167.
Giffard, chancellor of William
Rufus, 82, 83.
de Glanville, 334.
of Glastonbury, 88-go, 99, loi, 121.
Goth, 299-301.
376
INDEX
William Grenet, 289.
son of Henry 1, 312-314.
du Hommet, 161, 167, 180, 336.
of Houghton, chamberlain, 121.
de Houguemare, 162.
de Huechon, 186, 338.
son of Hugh, 219.
fitz John, 120, 160, 161, 167, 168,
199, 213, 214, 323, 324.
— — Judas, 63.
of Jumifiges, chronicler, 4, 241, 252,
265-270.
abbot of JumiSges, 92, 262.
fitz Leiard, 328.
bishop of Le Mans, 147, 148.
earl of Lincoln, see William of
Roumare.
Lovel, 140, 149.
Malet, constable of Pontaudemer,
237, 312, 334-
of Malmesbury, 114, 115, 128, 268,
272.
de Malpalu, 326.
Maltravers, 299.
de la Mare, 180, 184, 327, 334-336-
marshal, 162.
de Martigny, 33s, 336.
Mauduit, chamberlain, 113, 289,
302.
de Moiun, 210.
monk, 220.
count of Mortain, 294.
abbot of Mortemer, 335.
de Morville, 168.
de Moult, 328.
of Newburgh, 128.
Longsword, duke of Normandy,
280.
the Conqueror, duke of Normandy
and king of England, 156, 262,
269, 275, 285, 287; charters of,
6, 7i 12. 19. 27. 29. 40, 43-4S.
48-56, 68, 72, 80, 81, 94, IIS,
126, 144, 251, 252, 263, 264, 274,
279, 280, 321; his Constietudines
et iusticie, 277-284; Normandy
under, 3-61, 83, 84, 86, 103, 121,
ISO, i7S> 178, 192, 265, 276.
William Rufus,king of England and ruler
of Normandy, 40, 64, 75, 278, 288,
289; charters of, 66, 69, 77-83,
93, 134, 222; Normandy under,
78-84.
fitz Odo, constable, 88, 89, 1 11 , 1 20,
299, 302.
son of Ogier, canon of Rouen, 70,
83.
d'Orval, 138.
fitz Osbem, seneschal, 50, 51, 54,
S8.
d'OuviUe, constable of Falaise,
335. 336.
de Pad, 66.
Painel, 9, 21, 22, 24.
Painel, archdeacon of Avianches,
336.
Patric, 96, 160, 165, 294.
Peverel, 95, 127, 306.
Peverel de Aira, 294.
Peverel of Dover, 299.
Pichard, 186.
du Pin, 92.
de Pirou, seneschal, 113, 233.
of Poitiers, 4, 32, 61, 241.
de Pont-de-1'Arche, 113, 115, 119,
299, 303-
count of Ponthieu, 91, 97, 98, 124,
130, 142, 145, 328.
priest, 224.
Quarrel, 335.
Rabod, 95.
fitz Ralph, seneschal, 159, 179, 180,
183, 184, 192, 328, 334-336-
son of Richard, 322.
son of Robert, 230, 295.
archbishop of Rouen, 32, 34, 68, 76,
93, 287, 291-293.
of Roumare, earl of Lincoln, 91-93,
107, 127, 128, 14s, 162, 236, 335.
de Rupierre, 63.
de Sai, 13, 138.
abbot of Saint-£tienne, 57, 179.
de Saint-Germain, 102, 220.
de Saint- Jean, 340.
de Saucey, 335.
de la Seule, 326, 327.
INDEX
377
William I, king of Sicily, 233.
II, king of Sicily, 234.
fitz Stephen, 331.
de Tancarville, chamberlain, 77,
92. 94, 95. "2. 183, 219, 2g4,
29s, 317; see also William the
chamberlain.
Tanetin, justice, 97, 100.
fitz Thfition, 216, 217, 238.
de ThiberviUe, 322.
son of Thierry, 289.
Tolemer, 335, 336-
de Tomebu, 68, 80.
— - the Treasurer, founder of Sainte-
Barbe, 109, no, 322.
Trossebot, 162.
de Varaville, 167.
de Vatteville, 68.
de la Ventona, 108.
deVemon,i38,i39,i4S,i48,i49,22o.
de Vieuxpont, 63.
de Villers, 323.
earl Warren, 92, 120, 121, 287, 300,
319.
William Werelwast, chaplain, 83.
— — son of William fitz Osbem, 72.
of Ypres, 127.
Winchester, 79, 87, 106, in, 113, 279.
Bishops: Henry, Richard.
Hyde abbey, 316.
Windsor (co. Berks), 81, 310.
Winus d'Allemagne, monk, 294.
Wissant (Pas-de-Calais), 126.
Wite, 280.
Witnesses, synodal, 35, 227.
Worcestershire, 23, 298.
Wreck, rights over, 39, loi, 161.
Writ, S4, 77, 82, 83, 104, I2S, 13s, 136,
140, 163, 164, 186, 189, 191, 234; of
right, 97, 186, 223, 333.
York, 236, 310, 331. Archbishops:
Thomas, Thurstin.
Yorkshire, 235.
Ypreville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262.
Zechbauer, F., 227.
FEINTED AT THE HARVAKD UNIVEKSITY FSESS, CAUBKIDGE, MASS., U. S. A.
InH^L „- Ti. .■-\
1 iJ f
r^i
' s '■*
o
<!
u
SI
o
O
s
o
153
«
w
H
<
It
V
fiFiiisiliii,
*■ Plate 2. Charier Quoniam i
■BWD/c^ OF Richard II for Fecamp (p. 255, no. 3).
l;j3 ?-=■■= .E fr = ' -
-IK--!-! V E I ^ ,,,s
?. JS-i I ? f 5 & r i
'■%
■H-
ai,omibuS SuifAj jmdiciiiJ. j^JJicli a'
fAakmd.ctiS. J^fdJ.a.A'tX.n^a^u-ntor) Bcpiiiu.lif.cuomk'J^X'ttA"'"!'
imiiciTiTCiLimryo'Tcllil'ixmuilUi^iac. JiciTur'dlo :/r IvcdJiJi tjuoi|:omon«rn. i|IU Ram-uduln
1 Xun/rtm. auxibcroruiL
lacccmnc
aux 1)30. iuiABSlla-ip jmmt^^Ai'^f'^'1^^4'^^'^'^'^^'^^^'% uCifma!' f ^niiol.
USotjtupUuCioSmiroT.cuSuoxloao c5^urSoiion<v.*f'i'.ulmuauSfraqTn) |iu^^i<):lia<'jn$LaciL'cnim
mcxcA'pifCTrmmeDfTm So^«^^w>^ooUlno.Mtuy^Oll^conmU 'DicwiTxuatncmpaTUrinimcftaortmiTaitw
nmJ^TXCpnomSajtuu aym^unXuTCi[upni\,]nfzryTzi:[b^c^'Tr.aitud\TrMitwpriHmM
Llniq-ofinnx iJt'ftitt nikxocflc(cnt^pc]-miii«T;irjiwpT'Tr"-Si««iT^-i)^V™o*^chouSnicLSfip,A|-C' '
pycctpio ■TvfJtuclidiiifi JAuiu. Jcfrpii o«culan)4 ' ■f.Ifqirod-.piSctTl.v iTiit'duuUnj mjun'i Jf '^DlJIa^rlmJ^^rtlp^TIS.(^ulU
^ Tu^fl,.
S,<; Oft.'- -|
J
Plate 4. Charter of Robert I for Fecamp (p. 260, no. ioa).
o
P^
<
O
o
H
P4
W
cq
O
Pi
u
o
M
H
O
w
H
<
i-l
o
<
o
o
«
o
P
O"
o
O
w
o
u
a
o
o
^f ,^j^ ^ '^
-*'2-
i ?
P H
O H
P^ -
^ u
h w
O fC|
^ <
o «
g O
P^ r
>H O
^ u
O P
a <