OX F OR D M E D I E V A L T E X T S

General Editors
D. E. G R E E N W A Y B. F. H A R V E Y
M. L A P I D G E

W ILLIAM OF PO ITIERS

GESTA GVILLELM I

THE DEEDS OF W ILLIAM

 The
G E S T A G V I L L E L M I
o f W illiam o f Poitiers

E D I T E D A ND T R A N S L A T E D BY

R . H. C . D A V I S f
AN D

MARJORIE CHIBNALL

CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD

1998
 Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0X2 6dp
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay
Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam
Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne
Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore
Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan

Oxford is a trade mark o f Oxford University Press

Published in the United States

by Oxford University Press Inc., New York

© Marjorie Chibnall 1998

A ll rights reserved. No part o f this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted', in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing o f Oxford University Press.
Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect o f any fair dealing for the
purpose o f research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case o f
reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms o f the licences
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning
reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be
sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press,
at the address above

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Library o f Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

Gulielmus, Pictaviensis.
[Gesta Guillelmi. English (5 Latin]
The Gesta Guillelmi o f William o f Poitiers/edited and translated
by R. H C. Davis and Marjorie ChibnalL
p. cm.— (Oxford medieval texts)
English and Latin parallel text.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
I . William I, King o f England, 1027 or 8-1087. 2 - Great Britain—
History— William I, 1066-1087. 3 • Great Britain—Kings and rulers—
Biography. 4. Nobility— France—Normandy— Biography.
5. Conquerors—Great Britain— Biography. 6. Military history.
Medieval. 7. Normans—England—History. I. Davis, R. H. C. (Ralph
Henry Carless), iç t8 - . II. Chibnall, Marjorie. III. Title.
IV. Senes.
DA 1 97. G813 1998
942.02'i '092—dc2i 97-15372
[B ]
ISB N 0-19-820553-8
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Typeset by Joshua Associates Ltd., Oxford

Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by
Biddles Ltd., Guildford (5 King's Lynn
 PREFACE

A n e w edition o f the Gesta Guillelmi o f William o f Poitiers was

first planned by R . H. C. Davis. At the time o f his death he had
carried out a prolonged, but unsuccessful, search in European
libraries for the lost manuscript, and had completed a literal
translation. H is research had also produced several important
papers on the author and his work. M rs Eleanor Davis most
kindly made all her husband’s papers available to me. The text
now published is, inevitably, based on the 1 619 edition o f
Duchesne. I have revised and rewritten the translation. The
notes and introduction in their final form are mine; and though
I have used R .H .C .D .’s work, in particular his published papers,
where possible, the responsibility for any errors must be wholly
mine.
I owe a particular debt to Pierre Bouet, o f the University o f
Caen, for making available to me the concordance o f the Gesta
Guillelmi which he had prepared with the collaboration o f J. Potier
and Ph. Fleury. M y thanks are due to Elisabeth van Houts for
lending me the proofs o f Volume II o f the G N D o f William o f
Jum ièges before publication, and for many helpful suggestions; to
Diana Greenway, who showed me parts o f the Introduction to her
edition o f Henry o f Huntingdon in proof; and to David Bates, for
information about the charters o f William I. T he 1952 edition o f
Raymonde Foreville has proved invaluable, particularly for the
identification o f classical references.
At its best the Latin o f the eleventh-century schools was still
true to its classical roots; but it was a living language, open to new
influences. Not a great deal o f it has survived. So the task o f any
editor and translator is far from easy. I have been fortunate in
having the generous and learned help o f Michael Lapidge and
J. W. Binns over the problems o f editing and translating, and to
both I am deeply grateful.
A ll three general editors and the learned staff o f Oxford
VI PREFACE

University Press have been characteristically patient and helpful

in suggesting improvements and bringing the volume to comple­
tion.
Clare H all, Cambridge M .C .
October, 1996
 CONTENTS

ABBREVIATED REFERENCES ix

INTRODUCTION

1. T he author xv
2. T he Gesta Guillelm i xix
3. T he sources used by William o f Poitiers xxvii
4. T he battle o f Hastings xxxii
5. T he use o f the Gesta Guillelmi by Orderic Vitalis xxxv
6. The language o f the Gesta Guillelmi xxxix
7. Textual tradition xliii
8. Previous editions xlv
9. Editorial practice xlvi

GESTA G VILLELM I

Sigla i
Part i 2
Part 2 100

INDEX OF QUOTATIONS AND ALLUSIONS 1 89

GENERAL INDEX 1 91
 ABBREVIATED REFERENCES

ASC Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Two o f the Saxon Chroni­

cles parallel, ed. C. Plummer and J. Earle, 2 vols.
(Oxford, 1892-9). Translation: The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock, D. C. Douglas, and
S. Tucker (London, 1961)
Barlow, Confessor F. Barlow, Edw ard the Confessor (London, 1970)
Bates, Norm andy D. Bates, Normandy before 1066 (London, 1982)
Battle Proceedings o f the Battle Conference on A nglo-
Norman Studies, i-iv (1979-82), ed. R. Allen
Brown (Woodbridge, 1983-9); from v (1983)
published as Anglo-Norm an Studies
Bayeux Tapestry The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. F. M . Stenton
(London, 1957)
Brevis relatio Brevis relatio de origine W illelmi Conquestoris, ed.
J . A. G iles, Scriptores rerum gestarum W illelmi
Conquestoris, Caxton Society, iii (London, 1845)
Brooks, Canterbury N. Brooks, The E a rly History o f the Church o f
Canterbury (Leicester, 1984)
Brown, D over Castle R. A. Brown, D over Castle (2nd edn., H M SO ,
1974)
Brown and Cum ow R. A. Brown and P. Cum ow, The Tower o f
London (H M SO , 1984)
BSA N Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie
Camden T. Sm ith, Camdeni et illustrium virorum ad
Camdenum epistolae praem ittitur Camdeni vita
(London, 169 1)
Carmen The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio o f G uy Bishop o f
Amiens, ed. C. Morton and H . Muntz (OM T,
1972)
Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’ M . Chibnall, ‘L a carrière de Geoffroi de
M ontbray’, in Les évêques normandes du X I e
siècle, ed. P. Bouet and F. Neveux (Caen, 1995),
PP- 279- 93 -
Councils and Synods Councils and Synods and Other Documents relating
to the English Church, /. A .D . 8 7 1-12 0 4 , ed. D.
Whitelock et a l., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1981)
CP The Complete Peerage o f England, Scotland,
Ireland . . ., by G . E. C ., rev. V. Gibbs et a l,
13 vols, in 14 (London, 19 10 -59 )
X ABB RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S

David, Curthose C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke o f Norm andy

(Cambridge, M ass., 1920)
D avis, ‘William o f R. H . C . D avis, ‘William o f Poitiers and his
Poitiers’ History o f William the Conqueror’, in The
Writing o f History in the M iddle Ages: Essays
Presented to Richard W illiam Southern , ed.
R . H. C. Davis and J . M . Wallace-Hadrill
(Oxford, 19 8 1), pp. 7 1-10 0
Dorey, Latin Biography Latin Biography , ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967)
Douglas, Conqueror D. C. Douglas, W illiam the Conqueror (London,
1964)
Duchesne André Duchesne, Historiae Normannorum scrip-
tores antiqui (Paris, 1619 )
Dudo De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum
auctore Dudone Sancti Q uintini decano, ed. J . Lair,
Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm, xxiii (Caen, 1865)
Dunbabin J. Dunbabin, ‘G eoffrey o f Chaumont, Thibaud
o f Blois and William the Conqueror’, Battle , xvi
(1994), 10 1- 16
Eadmer, H N Eadm eri Historia Novorum in A nglia , ed. M . Rule
(R S, 1884)
EH R English H istorical R eview
Encomium Encomium Emmae reginae, ed. A. Campbell,
Camden 3rd ser., lxxii (London, 1949)
Fauroux Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie (9 1 / -
10 6 6 ), ed. M . Fauroux, Mém. S o c Ant. Norm,
xxxvi (Caen, 1961)
Flori, L'essor J. Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie x i‘- x i ï siècles
(Geneva, 1986)
Foreville Guillaum e de Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaum e le
Conquérant, ed. R. Foreville, Les classiques de
l’histoire de France au moyen âge (Paris, 1952)
Foreville, ‘Synod’ R . Foreville, ‘The synod o f the province o f
Rouen in the eleventh and twelfth centuries’ , in
Church and Government in the M iddle Ages, ed.
Christopher Brooke et al. (Cambridge, 1976),
*9-39
Freeman E . A. Freeman, The History o f the Norman
Conquest o f England , 6 vols. (Oxford, 1867-79)
FW Florentii Wigomiensis monachi chronicon ex chron­
icis, ed. B. Thorpe, 2 vols., Eng. Hist. Soc.
(London, 1848-9)
GC G allia Christiana (Paris, 17 15 -18 6 5 )
 ABB RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S XI

GG Gesta G uillelm i (this edition)

Gibson, Lanfranc M . Gibson, Lanfranc o f Bec (Oxford, 1978)
Gillingham J . Gillingham , ‘William the Bastard at war’, in
Anglo-Norm an W arfare, ed. M . Strickland
(Woodbridge and Rochester, N Y, 1992),
pp. 143-60
Glaber, Histories Radulfus Glaber, Opera, ed. J. France, N. Bulst,
and P. Reynolds (OM T, 1989)
GND The ‘Gesta Normannorum Ducum’ o f W illiam o f
Jum ièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert o f Torigni,
ed. E . M . C. van Houts, 2 vols. (O M T, 1992-5)
GP W illelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis pontifi­
cum libri quinque, ed. N. E . S. A. Hamilton (RS,
1870)
GR W illelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum
Anglorum libri quinque, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols.
(R S, 1887-9)
Greenway, Huntingdon Henry, Archdeacon o f Huntingdon, Historia
Anglorum , ed. D. Greenway (O M T, 1996)
Guibert de Nogent Guibert de Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. E .-R .
Labande (Paris, 1981)
G uillot, Anjou O. G uillot, L e comte d'Anjou et son entourage au
xi* siècle, 2 vols (Paris, 1972)
Halphen, Anjou L . Halphen, L e comté d ’A njou au x ie siècle (Paris,
1906)
Halphen, Recueil Recueil d ’annales angevines et vendômoises, ed. L .
Halphen (Paris, 1903)
van Houts, ‘Ship-list’ E . M . C. van Houts, ‘T he ship-list o f William
the Conqueror’ , Battle , x (1988), 159-83
van Houts, E . M . C . van Houts, ‘Historiography and hagio­
‘Historiography’ graphy at Saint-W andrille; the Inventio et M ir­
acula Sancti V ulfranni\ Battle , xii (1990), 2 3 3 -5 1
Ilia s latina Homerus latinus, id est Baebii Italici Ilias latina
ed. F. Vollmer, Poetae latini minores, 5 vols
(Leipzig, 19 13 -14 ), 1 —55-
Inventio Inventio et miracula sancti Vulfranni, ed.
J . Laporte (Rouen, 1938)
JW The Chronicle o f Jo h n o f Worcester, vol. ii, ed.
R. R . Darlington and P. M cGurk (O M T, 1995)
Keynes, ‘Æ thelings’ S. Keynes, ‘The Æ thelings in Normandy’,
Battle , xiii (19 9 1), 173-20 5
Körner S. Körner, The Battle o f Hastings, England and
Europe 10 3 5 -10 6 6 (Lund, 1964)
XU ABB RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S

Latouche, M aine R . Latouche, Histoire du comté du M aine pendant

les x e et x iie siècles (Paris, 1910)
Liber Eliensis Liber Eliensis, ed. E . O. Blake, Camden 3rd ser.,
xcii (London, 1962)
Louise G . Louise, L a seigneurie de Bellêm e, x '- x i e siècles:
Dévolution des pouvoirs territoriaux et construction
d ’une seigneurie de frontière aux confins de la
Normandie et du M aine à la charnière de l ’an m il
[= L e Pays bas-normand, lxxxiv (1990)], 2 vols.
(Fiers, 1992)
Marchegay and M abille Chronique des églises d ’A njou , ed. P. Marchegay
and E. M abille (Société de l’histoire de France,
1869)
M athieu, Geste Guillaum e de Pouille, ‘L a geste de Robert G uis-
card\ ed. M . M athieu, Testi e monumenti
Istituto siciliano di studi bizantini e neollenci,
iv (Palermo, 196 1)
Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm. Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de
Normandie
M GH SS Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores
M igne, P L J.-P. M igne, Patrologia latina , 221 vols. (Paris,
1844-64)
M usset, Abbayes L . M usset, Les actes de Guillaum e le Conquérant
caennaiscs et de la reine M athilde pour les abbayes caennaises,
Mém. Soc. Ant. Norm, xxxvii (Caen, 1967)
NMT Nelson’s Medieval Texts
OMT Oxford Medieval Texts
Orlandi G . Orlandi, ‘Some afterthoughts on the Carmen
de Hastingae proelio\ in M edia Latinitas , ed.
R. I. A. N ip et al. y Instrumenta Patristica,
xxviii (Tum hout, 1996), pp. 117 -2 7
OV The Ecclesiastical History o f Orderic Vitalis, ed.
M . Chibnall, 6 vols. (O M T, 1969-80)
RD Radulphi de Diceto decani Londoniensis opera
omnia, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (R S, 1876)
Renn, ‘Burgeat’ D. Renn, ‘Burgeat and Gonfanon: two sidelights
on the Bayeux Tapestry’, Battle, xvi (1994), 17 7 -
98
Renoux, Fécamp A. Renoux, Fécam p: Du palais ducal au palais de
Dieu (Paris, 199 1)
RS Rolls Series
Strickland M . Strickland, War and C hivalry (Cambridge,
1996)
 A B B RE VI A TE D R E F E R E N C E S Xlll

Tanner, ‘Counts H. J . Tanner, ‘T he expansion o f the power and

o f Boulogne’ influence o f the counts o f Boulogne under
Eustace II’, Battle , xiv (19 9 1), 251-8 6
T ard if L e très ancien Coutumier de Normandie, ed. E. J .
Tardif, 2 vols. (Paris, 18 8 1-19 0 3)
TRH S Transactions o f the R oyal H istorical Society
Vegetius F la v i Vegetii Renati Epitoma rei m ilitaris, ed.
C . Lang (Leipzig, 19 10)
Vita Edw ardi The L ife o f K ing Edw ard who rests at Westminster,
attributed to a M onk o f S t B erlin, ed. F. Barlow
(2nd edn. O M T, 1992)
Wace, Rou L e Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. J . Holden, 3
vols., Société des anciens textes français (Paris,
1970-3)
Waltham Chronicle The Waltham Chronicle, ed. L . Watkiss and
M . Chibnall (OM T, 1994)
WJ William o f Jum ièges
WP William o f Poitiers
Yver, ‘Châteaux-forts’ J . Yver, ‘Les châteaux-forts en Normandie jus­
qu’au milieu du xii* siècle’, B S A N liii (1957 for
1955-6), 2 8 - 115 , 604-9.
 INTRODUCTION

THE AUTHOR

T he Gesta Guillelm i o f W illiam o f Poitiers has survived only in an

incomplete form. It was edited in 1 61 9 by André Duchesne from
a unique, but damaged, manuscript, whose first and last folios
were missing. The manuscript subsequently disappeared, prob­
ably in the fire in the Cottonian Library (17 3 1). So the preface
and concluding chapters, which may have contained information
about the author, are now lost; and almost all that is known about
him comes from the Ecclesiastical History o f Orderic V italis.1
According to Orderic, he was a Norman by birth, who came
from Préaux. He was evidently well born; his sister became
abbess o f Saint-Léger-de-Préaux, a house planned by Humphrey
o f Vieilles and founded by Roger o f Beaumont.2 T he house
attracted postulants from wealthy families; W P’s father may have
been a vassal o f the Beaumonts. Like many young men o f noble
and knightly families in the mid eleventh century, W P trained as
a knight and fought for a time in secular warfare.3 H e turned,
however, to the Church, and studied for a time in the schools o f
Poitiers, from which he took his name. W P himself, in one o f his
rare autobiographical notes, corroborates this by saying that he
was ‘in exile in Poitiers’ at the time o f the siege o f M ouliherne
(1049).4 I f his fighting took place during Duke W illiam’s
minority in about 10 4 2-3, he might have been bom r.1020.
H is accomplished Latin style, and his thorough fam iliarity with a
wide range o f classical authors, are clear proof that he studied for
several years at Poitiers before returning to Normandy. There he
1 OV ii. 78-9, 184-5, 258-61.
2 OV ii. 258-9; G C ix. 853; Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. J. Mabillon, 6 vols
(Paris, 1703-39), iv. 36 1-2; Neustria pia, ed. A. du Moustier (Rouen, 1663), pp. 520-3,
526. His sister has sometimes been assumed to have been Emma, the first abbess. But
Emma, who was old enough to be made an abbess f.1040, must have been considerably
older than William; her successor, Ansfrida, who became abbess f.1075 (Annales O SB, v.
655, no. Ixxxiv; Neustria pia, p. 523) and may have been a professed nun at Préaux for
many years, could have been William’s sister.
2 OV ii. 258-61. G G i. it .
 XVI INTRO DU CTIO N

^served for many years as one o f Duke W illiam’s chaplains.5 He

was also at some time archdeacon o f Lisieux, serving under both
Bishop Hugh, who died in Ju ly 1077, and Hugh’s successor,
Gilbert Maminot.6 T he date o f his appointment is not known.
T he first probable reference to William as archdeacon o f Lisieux
in any charter occurs in an agreement (r.1075) whereby W illiam,
son o f Anschetil, granted land in Eturquereye and Colletot to
Saint-Léger in return for a payment which he received from the
abbess, Ansfrida, to enable him to go to Spain. Witnesses to the
charter include W illiam, archdeacon o f Lisieux,7 and this is most
likely to be William o f Poitiers, particularly in view o f his
connection with Saint-Léger, though William de Glanville is a
possibility.8
In his later years, Orderic wrote, W P was forced by unfavour­
able circumstances to abandon his work on the Gesta Guillelmi,
which he would have continued until the death o f K in g W illiam.
He gave him self up to silence and prayer, and composed verses
and sermons; he was so far from envy that he invited his juniors
to criticize and improve his verses.9 Evidently he lived until after
1087, the date o f the king’s death; but whether failing health or a
fall from favour forced him into retirement is not known. Possibly
he retreated to a monastery, and the ‘juniors’ mentioned by
Orderic were young monks. Since Orderic went to Saint-Evroult,
which was in the diocese o f Lisieux, in 1085,10 it is just possible
that he met the old archdeacon. He could certainly have derived
his information from those who had known him.
Apart from W P’s probable attestation o f the transaction at
Saint-Léger f.10 7 5 , there is no trace o f him as a witness in any
Norman ecclesiastical charters that have yet come to light.
Although he was one o f the chaplains o f William the Conqueror

5 OV ii. 184-5.
6 OV ii. 258-9.
7 Ncustria piay p. 523 . 1 am grateful to Professor David Bates for sending me a copy o f the
pancarte of Saint-Léger (no. 2 17 in his forthcoming edition o f the charters o f William I).
8 See the list o f archdeacons in David Spear, ‘L ’administration épiscopale normande.
Archidiacres et dignitaires des chapitres’, Les évêques normands du xi* siècle, ed. Pierre
Bouet et François Neveux (Caen, 1995), pp. 8 1-10 2 , at 85.
9 OV ii. 184-5, 258-61.
10 OV iii. M -
 TH E AUTHOR XVII

he has proved equally elusive in ducal and royal charters.11 In

Domesday Book, however, there is a statement that the prebends
o f the church o f St M artin’s, D over, formerly held in common,
had been divided between the canons by Bishop Odo o f Bayeux;
and one o f the canons is ‘W illelmus Pict[avensis]\ T he close
connection between St M artin’s and the English royal chapel
makes the identification o f this William with the Conqueror’s
chaplain all the more likely.12 M oreover the possibility o f a
connection between WP and Bishop Odo is consistent with his
fulsome praise for the bishop,13 and may help to explain why a
panegyric dedicated to the Conqueror was never completed.
Odo’s close connection with Robert Curthose, whose first rebel­
lion against his father began in 1077, and his later disgrace and
imprisonment, must have caused many o f those closely associated
with him to fall from favour.14 The connection cannot be proved
conclusively; but if it existed it would suggest that some o f W P’s
information about the actual battle o f Hastings originated with
Odo himself, and consequently had a partial slant towards the
Bayeux version o f the Conquest.

Something o f W P’s character and ability can be deduced from his

writing. Orderic was certainly justified in admiring his learning,
for he was an unusually accomplished Latinist, and clearly
enjoyed showing o ff his learning. T he schools o f Saint-H ilaire-
le-Grand in Poitiers, where he may be presumed to have studied,
had been made famous under the direction in 1024-8 o f H ildegar,
the pupil o f Fulbert o f Chartres.15 Hildegar had connections with
Norm andy.16 And the church o f Saint-H ilaire, dedicated on
i November 1049, had been built largely at the expense o f
Emma, daughter o f Duke Richard I o f Normandy and wife

11 A Willelmus Pictavensis witnessed a charter o f Serlo of Lingèvres (1079-82) making a

grant to Saint-Etienne-de-Caen; but he is not described as a clerk (Musset, Abbayes
caennaisesy nos. 7, 18).
12 Davis, ‘William of Poitiers*, p. 90, n. 2.
13 G G ii. 37.
14 Davis, 4William of Poitiers*, pp. 90-3.
15 Ibid., pp. 86-7.
16 The Letters and Poems o f Fulbert o f Chartres, ed. F. Behrends (OMT, 1976), nos. 67,
68.
W ill IN TR OD UC TIO N

successively o f K ing Æ thelred and K in g Cnut o f England.17 As a

result o f his studies, W P had a thorough mastery o f Caesar’s De
bello gallico and De bello ciuili and Vergil’s Aeneid, and he
modelled his style on these and on a number o f other Latin
authors. He used Sallust as well as Caesar for battles, Cicero and
St Augustine for moral dissertations; he also made use o f the
Satires o f Juvenal, the Agricola o f Tacitus, the Thebaid o f Statius,
the Lives o f Suetonius and Plutarch, Lucan’s Pharsalia, and
Justin ’s Epitome. Some o f his knowledge o f legends o f the
Trojan war may have come from the Ilias latina.1* H is references
to legal principles are too general to indicate any serious legal
studies at Poitiers; but he was certainly fam iliar with Norman
customary law as it was enforced by the dukes, and was aware o f
some at least o f the different English custom s.19 H e showed
him self a supporter o f church reform in so far as it was
encouraged by Duke W illiam; his interest in the eucharistie
controversy and the condemnation o f the views o f Berengar
appears only obliquely in his comments on the duke’s devotion
to the sacraments.20
H is years in Poitiers left one other mark on his work:
knowledge o f events in the region and an interest in Poitou. In
his account o f the revolt o f G uy o f Brionne he points out that
G uy, who was a nephew o f W illiam, count o f Poitou, went after
his defeat to Burgundy, where he plagued his brother, W illiam
Tête-H ardie, for ten more years.21 He also twice mentions Aim eri,
vicomte o f Thouars (the most important castle in the marches
between Poitou and Anjou), stating that Aim eri both took part in
the Conquest o f England and was the spokesman o f those who
wished Duke William to be crowned king.22 Surprisingly, he

17 ‘Istud monasterium magna ex parte construxerat regina Anglorum per manus

Gauterii Coorlandi’, Chronicort Sancti M axentii Pictavensis, in Chroniques des églises d*Anjouy
ed. P. Marchegay and E. Mabille (Société de 1’histoire de France, 1869), p. 397.
18 For deuils, see Foreville, pp. xxxviii-xliii, and below, Index o f Quoutions and
Allusions.
19 G G ii. 33.
20 G G i. 49-56.
21 Davis, ‘William o f Poitiers’, p. 87; G G i. 9, 29.
22 G G ii. 22; for Aimeri, see G. Beech, ‘The participation o f Aquitanians in the
Conquest of England 10 6 6-110 0 ’, Battle y ix (1987), 1-24 , at pp. 6 -15 .
 THE G E S T A G V I L L E L M I XIX

makes no mention o f the interests o f the lords o f Bellême in the

region. T h is drastic simplification o f the situation o f Domfront in
particular may have been politically motivated; he wished, both
there and more generally in M aine, to make a case for the claims
o f the earlier Norman dukes, which had been actively taken up by
Duke W illiam.23 There is no indication that W P ever held office
in the schools o f Poitiers, or returned there after his departure for
Normandy in the early 1050s. H is life thereafter was spent in
Normandy, with an interlude for some years after 1066 in
England. T he date o f his death, not before 1087, is unknown.

2. TH E GESTA G V ILLE LM I

Secular clerks, unlike monks, did not have the resources o f a

monastic library at their elbow. The Gesta Guilelmi is full o f
echoes o f classical texts; but it is difficult to be certain what
library resources WP had at hand when he was actually writing it.
H is close comparison o f the British campaigns o f Ju liu s Caesar
with the campaigns o f William the Conqueror24 suggests that he
may have had a copy at least o f De bello gallico with him; on the
other hand, the occasional slips over names could mean that he
relied on an almost, but not quite, perfect memory o f what he had
studied intensively at Poitiers. M ost o f the echoes o f other
classical sources could have been remembered from his student
years; the occasional phrases and aphorisms are o f the kind that
memory most readily retains. Contemporary works, such as the
histories o f Dudo o f Saint-Quentin and William o f Jum ièges,
could have been seen in the great abbeys, particularly at Fécamp,
adjacent to a favoured ducal castle,25 or at Jum ièges or Saint-
Wandrille. I f he finally settled at Lisieux and was writing there he
would have had the resources o f the cathedral library to draw
upon. On the whole, the originality o f the Gesta Guillelmi suggests
that it is above all a book o f memoirs, written by a man o f letters
who had been well drilled in youth in such o f the classics as were

23 See Louise, pp. 290-5, 30 1-3.

24 G G ii. 39, 40.
25 For Fécamp, see Renoux, Fécamp, pp. 481-2.
XX IN TRO DU CTI ON

then available, but had spent his mature years nearer to the seats
o f power, both secular and ecclesiastical. Remote as W P’s
preconceptions were from those o f the nineteenth century, his
work has, in some ways, more in common with the reminiscences
o f a Victorian statesman than with the monastic chronicles o f his
own day.
T he Gesta Guillelmi, even in its unfinished form, is the earliest
extended biography o f any duke o f Normandy. It was planned
after 1066 to show how Duke William prepared for, and achieved,
the Conquest o f England; and to justify his succession to the
throne. In an early chapter describing Earl Godwine’s responsi­
bility for the murder o f the ætheling A lfred, W P refers to the
retribution that was to come with the defeat and death o f
Godwine’s son H arold.26 He continued his history, as Orderic
Vitalis tells us, up to the death o f Earl Edwin (in 10 7 1), and was
then obliged to leave it unfinished.27 Although he may have begun
writing o f the Conqueror’s Norman campaigns at any time after
the Conquest, most o f the evidence points to a date after 10 7 1 for
the bulk o f the writing. H is statement that Stigand was tolerated
for a time as archbishop o f Canterbury because o f his influence,
and was removed only when the king was ready to appoint
Lanfranc,28 supports this dating. He wrote o f Hugh, bishop o f
Lisieux, who died on 17 Ju ly 1077, as though he were still alive;
and although a reference to the dedication o f Saint-Etienne-de-
Caen (on 13 September 1077)29 seems to imply that this had taken
place, W P may have had in mind a dedication that was planned,
but not completed, or may have added the reference in a late
revision. The evidence suggests outside limits o f between 10 7 1
and 1077 for the bulk o f the writing. H e certainly wrote after
William o f Jum ièges had completed his G N D .30 It is perhaps
worth noting that the last dated reference to Gilbert fitz Osbern

26 G G i. 4. 27 OV ii. 260-1. 28 G G ii. 33.

29 G G i. 52; OV iii, 14 -17 . R. Foreville, following Lemarignicr, gave the date o f the
dedication as 1073 (Foreville, p. 128 n. 2); but Musset, Abbayes caennaisesy pp. 14 -15 , has
since proved that the date was 1077, as stated three times by Orderic (OV ii. 148; iii. 10;
iii. 158-60).
30 Elisabeth van Houts has shown that WJ finished his chronicle early in 1070 (G N D i.
p. xxxii).
 TH E G E S T A G V I L L E L M I XXI

as archdeacon o f Lisieux is 10 7 1.31 I f W P took up more o f the

archidiaconal duties at that date, at the same time ceasing to be
K in g W illiam’s chaplain, he may have wished both to leave a
record o f what he knew and, by dedicating the work to the king,
to earn future promotion. T h is, however, is speculation.
In planning the G G he was strongly influenced by classical
models, and to a lesser extent by the shorter accounts o f dukes
put together by Dudo o f Saint-Quentin and W J. He knew
Suetonius and Plutarch, even if he had never read Einhard.
Something may have been derived from a different type o f
biography: the Vitae o f the bishops and archbishops o f Rouen,
though these would have suggested little more than the church
benefactions to be included in any eulogy o f the duke.32 For the
most part he was innovating. The classical influence is apparent
in his general plan. H is division o f the work into an account o f the
deeds o f William the duke and those o f W illiam the king echoes
the rhetorical device o f partitio or divisio.33 There is, too, a certain
amount o f arrangement by topic. Duke W illiam’s character and
relations with the church are treated separately from his cam­
paigns. Even within the more political parts o f the narrative,
arrangement is not sim ply chronological: themes are important.
Besides this, W P was writing from memory some twenty years
after the events. A fter a description o f the disturbances during
W illiam’s m inority, relations with Anjou are outlined in a section
which begins over a decade earlier.34 Any attempt to date the long
sieges o f Domfront and Arques from the sequence o f events in
W P’s narrative is bound to lead to confusion and contradiction.
For the most part, the classical influence is indirect and subtle.
It appears in his style; he enjoyed imitating Caesar, Cicero,
31 Spear, ‘ L ’administraton épiscopale normande* (above n. 8), p. 85.
32 He may not have known the Acta episcoporum rothomagensium o f which one copy was
written in the late eleventh century (E. Martène, Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum
collectio nova (Rouen, 1700), ii. 233-43), but Vitae based on the lives o f the popes in the
Liber Pontificalis, ed. L . Duchesne (3 vols., Paris, 1886-1957), were becoming common.
33 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Augusti, c. Ixi: ‘Now that I have shown how he conducted himself
in civil and military positions and in ruling the State . . . I shall next give an account o f his
private and domestic life.’ The principle o f divisio is discussed by G. B. Townsend,
‘Suetonius and his influence’, in Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967), pp. 79 -
i i i , at 84-5.
34 G G i. i i .
XXII INT RO D UC TI ON

Sallust, or Vergil. In particular, consciously or unconsciously, he

wrote with two different kinds o f rhetorical conventions, o f
panegyric and o f history.35 He claimed that, unlike the poets,
he did not wander over the fields o f fiction, but stated only what
was true history.36 Granted that he did not claim to tell the whole
truth, this may approximate to his aim in the historical parts o f
his narrative. But no eleventh-century historian ever aimed at
Lord Acton’s unattainable ideal o f writing history ‘just as it
happened’ . Grammar itself was an art, and some rhetoric was
bound to seep into even the most sober historical work o f any
writer trained in the schools. T he declamatory passages used a
much more exaggerated rhetoric. When, for example, W P
apostrophizes Harold after his death and burial, and comments
that his body lies in a tumulus on the seashore,37 he seems to
forget that he has just expressly said that the proposal to bury
Harold on the seashore had been made in jest.38 Sim ilarly, he
reproaches the English for rebelling against their new king in
terms that do not quite square with his comments on the justice
and moderation o f the measures taken by W illiam, and on his
warm reception during his progress through the country. H is
lavish praise o f the king stretches credulity to such an extent that
within a generation Orderic Vitalis, who had been in England as a
boy and knew the truth about W illiam’s acts o f brutality, omitted
it in recording the history o f the years after 1066, largely from the
pages o f WP.39 Yet this does not invalidate W P’s more sober
assessments, or the value o f his more straightforward historical
passages. These Orderic thought worthy o f repeating, and they
give a precious insight into many topics, particularly the cam­
paigns o f the duke and his skill as a m ilitary commander.40
As a former knight, WP could write o f campaigns with
authority. Like most o f his educated contemporaries, he knew
and cited Vegetius, though many o f the general principles laid
down by Vegetius could as well have been reached by practical
35 Classical biographies were written under the influence o f the rhetorical technique o f
encomium; sec A. J. Gossage, ‘Plutarch’, in Dorey, Latin Biography, p. 47.
36 G G i. 20. 37 G G ii. 25. 38 G G ii. 25.
39 Gillingham, pp. 143-60, assesses the value o f WP for military history.
40 Ibid., pp. 145-9.
 TH E G E S T A G V I L L E L M I XX111

experience combined with common sense. T he qualities he

admired in the duke were his speed, his prudence, and above
all his careful planning. Duke William could move rapidly from
one trouble-spot to another so as to appear without warning,
leaving a small contingent o f men in quickly constructed siege-
castles to carry on a siege in his absence. He was prudent in not
risking the doubtful outcome o f battle except as a last resort;41 he
had, indeed, though W P does not openly admit as much, no
practical experience o f commanding an army in any major battle
before 1066. At Val-ès-Dunes, as W J makes clear, the rebels were
routed by an army led by the king o f France; and there are
grounds for thinking that Varaville was not really a pitched battle.
At M ortem er battle was forced on the Normans by French
aggression; and the duke him self was not present when victory
was won by Count Robert o f Eu. It is possible that, on some
occasions (as W P suggests), enemies were so impressed by
W illiam’s reputation in war that they retreated before he appeared
on the scene.42 In general, up to 1066, Duke William succeeded
by concentrating on castles and starving out his opponents in a
series o f resolute and successful sieges. T he invasion o f England,
however, demanded an aggressive policy. William must have
known that nothing but success in a battle in which his rival
had to perish could win him the crown o f England. As a
churchman, writing after Erm enfrid o f Sion’s penitential ordi­
nances had imposed severe penances on all guilty o f bloodshed
even in battle,43 W P could hardly say so openly. He could,
however, attempt to show Harold’s duplicity in taking the
crown, and adding (perhaps because o f a lingering suspicion
that Harold’s coronation may have conferred some regality on
him) direct references to the classical doctrine o f the virtue o f
tyrannicide.44 He could also bring out in vivid detail Duke
W illiam’s meticulously careful preparations for an extremely
hazardous enterprise. As he pointed out, Caesar was not always

41 Cf. Vegetius, iii. 8.

42 G G i. 33.
43 Councils and Synods, i. 581-4.
44 G G ii. 25; cf. ii.32.
XXIV IN TR OD UC TIO N

sufficiently careful in laying his plans; but W illiam never failed to

prepare for all eventualities.45
In the light o f this, it is reasonable to ask whether in fact thé
duke was delayed for a month at the mouth o f the D ives by
unfavourable winds. Since a similar story occurs in the Carmen de
Hastingae proelio46 it is likely that rumours to that effect spread
among the troops preparing for the invasion. But they may have
been spread deliberately by the duke, in order to confuse Harold’s
spies. W P tells how one o f these spies was caught and sent back to
Harold with a defiant message.47 It is not unreasonable to suppose
that a leader who certainly made use o f m ilitary intelligence48
would have been aware o f the value o f a little misinformation to
confuse his enemies. Certainly Harold had to keep his forces
spread out along the south coast from the Isle o f Wight to Kent,
ready to intercept a landing at any point, until his food supplies
ran out, many o f the men went home, and the English fleet
withdrew to the river Tham es.49 Duke William meanwhile, as his
biographer shows, organized and paid for food supplies for his
men.50 He knew that once across the Channel he could, as an
invader, feed them by ruthlessly ravaging the lands o f Harold
him self and his men,51 whereas Harold could not afford to do so.
Duke William may not have intended necessarily to move to the
adequate, but less good, moorings at Saint-Valery-sur-Som m e;
but he kept his options open. M oreover the crossing was shorter
from Saint-Valery than from the estuary o f the D ives; and the
monks o f Fécamp, one or more o f whom accompanied him ,52 had

45 G G ii. 40. Nevertheless here and elsewhere in describing William’s preparations, WP

may have had in mind the comments of Suetonius, Vita Caesaris, c. lviii: ‘In obeundis
expeditionibus dubium cautior an audactior, exercitum neque per insidiosa itinera duxit
umquam nisi perspeculatus locorum situs, neque in Britanniam transvexit, nisi ante per se
portus et navigationem et accessum ad insulam explorasset.’
46 G G ii. 6; Carmen, lines 40-63. 47 G G ii. 4.
48 J. O. Prestwich, ‘Military intelligence under the Norman and Angevin kings’ , in Lam
and Government in M edieval England and Normandy, ed. G. Garnett and J. Hudson
(Cambridge, 1994), pp. 1-30 , discusses (pp. 3-9) William the Conqueror’s use o f military
intelligence from 1067 onwards.
49 A S C (C) s.a. 1066. 50 G G ii. 2.
51 The ravaging by William’s army around Hastings is illustrated in the Bayeux
Tapestry, pi. 47, 52.
52 G G ii. 12.
 TH E G E S T A G V I L L E L M l XXV

lands in Sussex and knew the landing places and the hinterland.53
Above all, he needed to assemble his ships and train the men who
made up his motley army.
Successful warfare in the eleventh century depended partly on
small disciplined troops o f mounted men under the command o f
an experienced leader, and partly on the skilful use o f foot-
soldiers and archers.54 The duke’s army was made up, not merely
o f his own well-trained household troops, Norman vassals, and
auxiliaries like the men o f the count o f Boulogne, but o f
adventurers from other regions who had joined the enterprise
through hope o f gain. Nothing but rigorous training could have
•welded them into a force sufficiently disciplined to overcome the
heavy, but unknown, odds that they were bound to encounter.
William must have known that, though he might tempt Harold
into battle by deliberately ravaging his lands, Harold, as the
defender, could choose where to make his stand. William could
hardly have imagined a site more unfavourable to the attacker
than the hill at Battle, where tightly packed crack troops could
form a solid shield wall that could not be by-passed. H is
achievement was to be capable o f winning against formidable
odds. W P’s narrative makes clear, sometimes only by implication,
how he achieved this.
N aturally W P made much o f the story o f the wind that
changed as the result o f prayers at Saint-Valery; this was what
his master wished to be believed. It would be a sign that God
favoured a just enterprise. Winds that yielded to prayer were a
stock element in miracle stories. Yet, sometimes indirectly, W P
shows other factors that were important. He mentions that during
the wait boats were being built in harbours near to the D ives.55
He shows the care taken to procure adequate provisions. And he
mentions the monk o f Fécamp: a reminder, surely, that although
53 Pierre Chaplais, ‘Une charte originale de Guillaume le Conquérant pour l’abbaye de
Fécamp: la donation de Steyning et de Bury (1085)’, in P. Chaplais, Essays in M edieval
Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981), ch. xvi.
54 See Stephen Morillo, Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 10 6 6 -113 s (Woodbridge
and Rochester, NY, 1994). pp. 182-5, 187-8.
55 G G ii. 6. This alleged delay must be compared with William’s swift crossing on his
return from Normandy to England in bitter weather and rough seas on 6 December 1067
(OV ii. 2 0 8 -11, quoting WP; see below, p. xxxvii and n. 99).
XXVI IN TR OD UC TIO N

winds might blow from the wrong direction for a few days, in the
long run what mattered was good seamanship and a knowledge o f
the Channel crossings. T h is was something possessed by the
sailors in the little ports controlled by Fécamp, experienced as
they were in cross-Channel trading in all weathers.56 The reality
o f the dangers appears in W P’s mention o f the ships that were
wrecked during the move from the D ives to Saint-Valery,57 and o f
the fate o f the men who became separated from the fleet during
the crossing, and landed on the wrong beach at Rom ney.58 The
amount o f training that must have taken place during the six
weeks o f anything but idle and fretful waiting is shown by the
remarkable manoeuvres carried out during the battle itself, which
led to a hard-fought victory against courageous and formidable
forces fighting for their freedom.
T he rhetorical passages need to be interpreted with caution. WP
was stating the case for Duke W illiam’s claim to the English
throne, as it was promulgated in Normandy. There are elements
common to the accounts o f W J, WP, and the Bayeux Tapestry,
which were probably derived at least in part from a written
statement. T h is may have been a claim sent to Rome to obtain
papal support.59 But part o f the case had been made earlier, for the
Inventio Sancti Wulfranni, written before 1053, had stressed the
blood-relationship between K in g Edward and the Norman dukes,
had claimed that Edward returned to England with Norman
support, and had blamed Earl Godwine, Harold’s father, for the
murder o f Alfred.60 W P gives the most complete and coherent
statement o f William’s case, stressing right o f inheritance, victory
in battle as a sign o f divine approval, election by Normans and
English, and coronation by a properly-constituted archbishop. He
insists that Edward designated William as his heir; that Harold,
who had become W illiam’s vassal during his visit to Normandy,
56 See L . Musset, Autour du pouvoir ducal normand en Normandie du xi * au xiii* siècle,
Cahiers des Annales de Normandie xvii, ch. vii, pp. 113-2 8 , at pp. 114 - 18 , 127.
57 G G ii. 6.
58 G G ii. 27.
59 As suggested by G. Garnett, (Coronation and propaganda: some implications o f the
Norman claim to the throne o f England in 1066’ , TRHS> 5th ser., xxxvi (1986), 9 1 - 1 1 6 , at
pp. n o - 1 1 . See also van Houts in G N D y i. pp. xlvi-xlviii.
60 Van Houts, ‘Historiography’, pp. 248-51.
 TH E SOURCES US ED BY W IL L IA M OF POITIERS xxvii

perfidiously broke his solemn oath and seized the crown.61 W P is

alone in knowing the English custom that gave special importance
to death-bed bequests, and the use o f that custom to justify
Harold’s claim .62 He met the objection head-on and rejected it,
by suggesting that William had been prepared to defend his claim
by proceedings under either English or Norman law, or in single
combat; and that Harold had spumed the offer and insisted that
the issue must be decided in battle. W P wavers only very slightly
in his statement o f the case, by occasionally (but only occasionally)
calling Harold ‘king’ .63 There is a slight illogicality here, if
coronation by the excommunicate Stigand invalidated the cere­
mony, as was asserted by the Normans within a year. But, for the
first months after the victory, Harold had been called king even by
his conquerors,64 and perhaps memories o f that slipped into W P’s
narrative. He was careful, however, not to call William king until
after his coronation; this was the Church’s case, to which WP, like
W J,65 gave full support.

3. TH E SO URCES USED BY W ILLIA M OF

P O IT IE R S

The written sources which could have been used by W P consisted

mainly o f histories o f the dukes o f Normandy by Dudo o f Saint-
Quentin and William o f Jum ièges. Elisabeth van Houts has shown
that W J finished the greater part o f his G N D by 1060, and revised
and extended it between 1067 and 1070.66 Besides the ducal
histories, the Inventio et miracula Sancti Vulfranni, which was
completed by 10 53/4 , included a short chapter on Anglo-Norman
relations. Raymonde Foreville demonstrated that W P certainly
cited one or two short passages from G N D in his early chapters;
but she was hesitant in attributing any deliberate use o f the work
for the events o f which he had independent oral reports.67 There

61 G G i. 14, i. 41, ii. 12. 62 G G ii. n . 63 G G ii. 23, ii. 25, ii. 30.
64 See V. H. Galbraith, Domesday Book: Its Place in Administrative History (Oxford,
1974), pp. 176-9; Garnett, ‘Coronation and propaganda", pp. 98-9.
65 G N D ii. 170-3.
66 G N D i. pp. xxxi-xxxiv.
67 Foreville, pp. xxxiv-xxxv.
xx vin IN TR OD UC TIO N

is every reason to accept this. Indeed the debate between Jean

M arx and Louis Halphen on whether W P enlarged upon W J or
W J abbreviated W P is merely tilting at windm ills.68 Eleventh-
century chroniclers in search o f facts did not as a rule pay much
attention to the written work o f their contemporaries, when they
had independently heard reports o f the same events.69 Sim ilarities
often occur because two writers heard sim ilar oral testimony,
whether reliable or unreliable. Earlier influences were potent in
building up traditions o f writing. Both Dudo and W J developed
the theme o f the perfect warrior duke, who adds piety, wisdom,
and justice to his m ilitary virtues; and W P improved upon it in
his biography.70
Verbal echoes occurring in two sources are often due to
common knowledge o f classical authors.71 Such echoes are most
noticeable in G G and the Carmen de Hastingae proelio; and they do
not imply direct imitation, and do not help to solve the problems
o f whether either author knew the work o f the other, or when the
Carmen was written. T he date is a controversial question. Internal
evidence, such as the mention o f two archbishops as participants
in K ing W illiam’s coronation,72 makes it likely that the Carmen
was written either before Stigand’s disgrace in 1070, or in the
twelfth century, when memories might have been dim. A number
o f scholars, notably the editors o f the Carmen, supported by van
Houts, favour the earlier date; R . C. H. Davis’s argument for a
twelfth-century date has been accepted by a few others. Some
more recent work, notably that by Giovanni Orlandi, supports the
early date and accepts G uy, bishop o f Amiens, as the author.73
T he balance is now inclined towards the earlier date.
68 Foreville, p. xxvi.
69 This was a very well-established tradition of historical writing, first clearly enunciated
by Thucydides. See A. D. Momigliano, Studies in Historiography (London, 1969), pp. 2 14 -
18.
70 See Jean Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie xi*-xiie siècles (Geneva, 1986), pp. 144-8.
71 See e.g. G G ii. 15, and Carmen, lines 32 1-2 .
72 Carmen, lines 801-4.
73 See Orlandi, pp. 117 -2 7 ; Greenway, Huntingdon p. cvi; and the debate led by R. H. C.
Davis and L . J. Engels, in Battle, ii. (1980), 1-20. Davis argued for a twelfth-century date
in 4The Carmen de Hastingae proelio\ EH R xciii (1978), 2 4 1-6 1, reprinted in R. H. C.
Davis, From Alfred the Great to Stephen (London and Rio Grande, OH, 1991), pp. 79-100,
with a postscript (p. 100) still maintaining his position after E. M. C. van Houts, 4Latin
 TH E SOURCES US ED BY W IL L IA M OF POITIERS XXIX

Since G uy o f Amiens came to England in the household o f

Queen M atilda,74 it is difficult to believe that WP, as one o f the
king's chaplains, would not have known about his poem. W P
may even have had it in mind when he spoke o f the poets who
roam freely through the fields o f fiction. T h is, however, does not
prove conclusively that the poem by G u y, which was mentioned
by Orderic Vitalis, was the Carmen. There were other poems
about the conquest o f England; Baudri o f Bourgeuil later wrote
one for Adela o f Blois,75 and there could have been other songs
o f Hastings. Words and phrases common to both G G and the
Carmen might have been picked up from the works o f Juvenal,
Justin, or other earlier writers. I f the two authors had heard the
same stories, they decided independently what was reliable and
worth recording. Both had heard and believed that Duke
W illiam was delayed at the mouth o f the D ives by unfavourable
winds.76 Both had heard the suggestion that Harold might
appropriately be buried on the seashore; but whereas W P took
this to be a jest the author o f the Carmen gave full vent to his
imagination, and described the burial with all the trimmings o f
saga.77 I f W P had seen the accounts o f the Carmen on the death
o f Harold and the negotiations leading up to the surrender o f
London,78 he did not regard them as reliable, and preferred
independent information, or, in the case o f Harold’s death, lack
o f information. The possibility that no survivor o f the battle
knew exactly when or how Harold died should never be over­
looked. On the other hand, i f W P deliberately rejected the
Carmen’s account o f the surrender o f London, in which

poetry and the Anglo-Norman court, 10 6 6 -1135; the Carmen de Hastingae proelio* yJournal
o f M edieval History, xv (1989), 39-62, had put the case for Guy o f Amiens as author.
74 OV ii. 184-7, 2 14 -15 .
75 Baudri’s poem, written before 1102, has been published most recently by K . Hilbert,
Baldricus Burgulianus: Carmina (Heidelberg, 1979), no. 134. For recent discussion, see S. A.
Brown and M. W. Herren, (The Adelae Comitissae o f Baudri of Bourgeuil and the Bayeux
Tapestry’, Battle, xvi (1994)» 55- 73*
76 G G ii. 6; Carmen, lines 40-63.
77 G G ii. 204; Carmen, lines 585-92. The influence o f saga is discussed by K.-U.
Jäschke, Wilhelm der Eroberer: Sein doppelter Herrschaftsantritt im Jah re io66y Vorträge und
Forschungen, xxiv (Sigmaringen, 1977), pp. 39-45. Jäschke (ibid. pp. 46-7) also notes
classical parallels in Statius and the Iliad.
78 Carmen, lines 673-750.
XXX INT RO D UC TI ON

Ansgard79 was said to have taken part, he may have thrown away
a few reliable details together with the imaginative elaboration o f
events.
The date o f one pictorial source, the Bayeux Tapestry, is
debatable, but it was certainly later than G G .80 Both Bishop
Odo and Bayeux are central to its narrative; and since W P knew
and admired Odo he and the designer o f the tapestry probably
had some oral sources in common. There are marked similarities
in the two descriptions o f the Battle o f Hastings, though there are
also some conspicuous differences in the role assigned to Eustace
o f Boulogne.
T he judgement o f individuals and their purpose in writing
were bound to influence their handling o f fluid and variable oral
sources; and W P’s sources were almost entirely oral. From the
time when his own experience began, he preferred his own
recollections, both o f what he had seen him self and o f what
other eye-witnesses had told him, to any written chronicle. T his
had, indeed, been the normal practice o f historians from the time
o f Thucydides.81
The identification o f oral sources is difficult, and can rarely
result in more than a plausible hypothesis. W P must have been
close to Duke William during the years when he was a ducal or
royal chaplain. I f he was for a time the duke's confessor, this
might account for his frequent, but generalized, interpolations on
W illiam’s piety.82 Though much o f this is conventional special
pleading, it is interesting that he draws a picture o f a man
indifferent to omens,83 a pious Christian trusting in the will o f
God in order to further righteous ends. From the time he knew
79 Ansgard, mentioned in the Carmen (line 690), can probably be identified as Asgar or
Esgar the staller, the grandson o f Tovi the Proud (Waltham Chronicle, pp. xvii-xviii).
80 For the Bayeux Tapestry, the volume edited by Sir Frank Stenton (The Bayeux
Tapestry, 2nd edn., London, 1965) is still fundamental; citations to scenes in the tapestry
are taken from the plate numbers in this edition. S. A. Brown, The Bayeux Tapestry:
History and Bibliography (Woodbridge and Wolfeboro, NH, 1988), provides a comprehen­
sive bibliography up to 1988. There is a critical French edition by L . Musset, La tapisserie
de Bayeux (La-Pierre-qui-Vire, 1989).
81 See above, p. xxviii.
82 G G i. 49-52, ii. 14, ii. 44 and passim.
83 G G ii. 14, where William merely laughed at accidentally putting on his hauberk back
to front before the battle.
 THE SOURCES USED BY W IL L IA M OF POITIERS XXXI

the duke he wrote as W illiam’s mouthpiece. For the earlier

campaigns, when he was studying at Poitiers, he must have
relied on accounts o f the participants, and on general reports o f
the duke’s reputation. He never mentions particular individuals as
his informants, though his career suggests an association in later
life with Odo o f Bayeux. He was not him self present on the
battlefield at Hastings, but he appears to have used information
from men who had fought there. The details o f later campaigns,
which are known only from the work o f Orderic Vitalis, must
have come from individuals who had been with the armies. It is
very likely that WP was still W illiam’s chaplain, and accompanied
him on some at least o f these campaigns.
Unfortunately eye-witness accounts were often distorted in the
telling by chansons. The view that chansons could not have
penetrated into written sources very soon after the events they
described can no longer be sustained. It is certain, for example,
that in Spain the disastrous battle o f Fraga had been transformed
by legend within three or four years.84 So there is no need to try
to explain the epic elements in G G by suggesting that W P him self
composed heroic poetry.85 Legendary feats o f arms might have
been attributed to Duke William from the first moment that his
reputation grew; and in recording information probably received
from the duke’s knights, W P enhanced it in imitation o f classical
models. On one occasion he stated openly that he did not know
exactly what William said to his troops; but he invented a speech
to embody the arguments that would have been appropriate.86
Other speeches were certainly, though less overtly, invented; this
was a common device o f rhetoric, and readers o f Latin would have
accepted it as such.87 Probably too they would not have been
deceived by the embellishments W P added from classical authors.
It was to be expected that any parent would wish to have the body
o f a son slain in battle; so Harold’s mother is represented as
pleading to be allowed to bury her son, as Priam had pleaded for
84 Sec OV vi, pp. xxii-xxiii.
85 Sec Foreville, pp. xliii-xliv.
86 G G ii. 15.
87 See T. P. Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics (Leicester, 1979), pp. 27-40, citing Cicero, De
orat. ii. 36; OV i. 80 n. 1.
XXX11 IN TR OD UC TIO N

the body o f Hector.88 I f Caesar occasionally helped to lighten the

burden o f a sick colleague, William must do the same, or better.89
I f Vergil described feasts celebrated by Aeneas at critical
moments, William must equal or surpass him by celebrating a
feast in mid-Channel.90 T h is was part o f W P’s technique in his
rhetorical passages. In those that were more strictly historical, he
relied more directly on oral testimony, some o f which came from
eye-witnesses.

4. TH E BATTLE OF HASTINGS

W illiam o f Poitiers did not, as he him self said, hear the discourse
with which the duke encouraged his troops before the battle, and
he was not an eye-witness o f the battle. He stated significantly,
‘We have not the means, and it is not our intention, to describe all
the exploits o f individuals as their merit deserves. T he most
eloquent writer who had seen the battle with his own eyes could
scarcely have followed every detail.* H is account is based on oral
evidence; it is most precise on the ordering o f the troops for
battle, a point on which many eye-witnesses could agree. Once the
action had started, individuals would have lost sight o f the whole
picture and been aware only o f the particular actions in which
they were engaged. So it is not surprising to find that some o f the
closest resemblances to the account in the Carmen, also drawn
from oral sources, are in the opening stage o f the battle. Both state
that Harold’s troops emerged from woods and took their stand on
foot in densely packed formation at the top o f a hill, approached
by a steep, rough slope.91 Both agree that the front line o f the
Norman army was made up o f archers on foot, shooting arrows
and bolts; the mention o f bolts shows that they included cross­
bowmen. Among the mailed, mounted knights the duke him self
commanded the centre, with Bretons and other auxiliaries on the

88 G G ii. 25; Cf. Ilias latina, lines 1009-45.

89 G G ii. 9; cf. Suetonius, Vita Caesaris, c. Ixxii: ‘Amicos tanta semper facilitate
indulgentiaque tractavit, ut Gaio Oppio comitanti se per silvestre iter correptoque subita
valitudine deversoriolo eo, quod unum erat, cesserit, et ipsi humi et sub divo cubuerit’ .
90 G G ii. 7; Vergil, Aen. i. 168-215.
91 G G ii. 16; Carmen, lines 365-72.
 TH E B A T T L E OF H A S T I N G S XXX111

left and the Normans on the right (the Carmen reverses the left
and right, but may have been describing the line from the
opposite side). WP, however, is much more exact; he mentions
a second line o f foot-soldiers, more heavily armed and wearing
hauberks, between the archers and the rank o f mounted knights
led by the duke. He describes the first stage o f the fighting
carefully: the archers and foot-soldiers advanced first, and met
fierce resistance from the English. The knights followed, those
who had been behind (presumably the mounted knights) advan­
cing to the front; and these fought hand-to-hand with swords.92
He does not indicate whether there had been a charge with
couched lances; but in an uphill charge against foot-soldiers the
couched lance would not have been a very effective weapon,93 and
the knights would certainly have needed to draw their swords to
make any impact. There is no suggestion in W P that a jongleur,
called Taillefer, rode in front to encourage the troops and strike
the first blow, as alleged in the Carmen.94
Both sources agree in general on the next phase: part o f the
attacking line gave way, panic broke out among the Bretons, and
then spread to other contingents when it was rumoured that the
duke was dead. William raised his helmet to show that he was still
alive; his forces rallied, turned, surrounded, and massacred the
pursuing English. From this point the Carmen and W P differ
more and more. WP states quite clearly that the first flight was
genuine; but its unexpected success when William’s forces turned
on the English persuaded the Normans to retreat twice more in
flights that were feigned. T he Carmen is a little confused on the
number o f flights, and implies at one point that the first was
feigned. Details o f the later stages o f the battle vary. WP
mentions a heroic charge led by Robert o f Beaumont, o f which
he may have heard through his association with the Beaumont
family in Normandy. He mentions that in the final onslaught the
Normans shot arrows; it is interesting to note that in the Bayeux
n G G ii. 16, 17; Carmen, lines 373-84.
93 See below, ii. 17 and n. 76.
94 Carmen, lines 391-405. The ‘Taillefer' episode reappears in the twelfth century in the
work o f Henry o f Huntingdon (Greenway, Huntingdon pp. cvi, 392-3) and Wace (Rou, pt.
iii, lines 8013-39 («• 182-4) )•
XXXIV IN TR OD UC TIO N

Tapestry the archers, who had been shown leading the advance
during the first phase o f the battle, now appear in large numbers
in the lower margin. He does not attempt to state when or how
Harold and his brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine, were killed. He
mentions the last stand o f some o f the retreating English, who
took advantage o f a maze o f ditches and broken earthworks to try
to halt their pursuers.95 T he only other details he provides relate
to the valour o f the duke himself, who fought with a broken lance
after three horses had been killed under him, and refused to listen
to Eustace o f Boulogne, who was urging him to retreat. The
Carmen, on the other hand, embroiders the narrative with
individual exploits appropriate to epic descriptions o f battles.
T he author describes in detail how William seized one horse from
a man o f Maine and was given another by Count Eustace; how
Gyrth and Leofwine were killed, and how the duke, Count
Eustace, and two others attacked and killed Harold. All these
episodes are most probably either taken from songs about the
battle, or imagined by the author o f the Carmen.
The resemblances between the two sources that appear,
particularly in the early stages o f the battle, could be explained
by similar oral sources known to both authors. WP is far more
convincing in his sober account, only carried away by his wish to
praise his hero, and perhaps by his readiness to believe the worst
o f Eustace o f Boulogne. The role o f Eustace in the battle is one o f
the most difficult to interpret. The Bayeux Tapestry, like the
Carmen, gives him a leading role,96 whereas WP presents him as
something o f a coward. WP, who began to write soon after
Eustace had been disgraced by his treacherous attack on Dover,
even though he continued long enough to see his restoration to
favour, probably listened to the worst stories about him. The
Carmen was written either before Eustace disgraced himself or
long after his restoration to favour. The Bayeux Tapestry was
certainly designed after Eustace had re-established his position.

95 This is probably the ‘malfosse’ incident that Orderic placed during the pursuit after
the battle and greatly enlarged (OV ii. 176-7).
96 His role is discussed by S. A. Brown, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: Why Eustace, Odo and
William?’, Battle, xii (1990), 7-28.
 TH E USE OF TH E G G BY ORDERIC V I T A L I S XXXV

What he actually did in the battle must remain an open question.

On the whole, when the sources for the battle are compared, WP
emerges as the most valuable: the most exact, and (in spite o f
passages o f restrained rhetoric), the least carried away by
imagination. He knew from experience the practical side o f
fighting. And victory, in view o f the formidable resistance o f
the English and the difficulty o f the terrain, was an achievement
so remarkable that praise o f the leader needed very little embel­
lishment.

5. TH E U SE OF GESTA G V /LLELM I BY
ORDERIC VITALIS

Orderic Vitalis had a complete manuscript o f the Gesta Guillelmi,

which was his principal source for the campaigns o f 10 6 6 -10 71
and for William’s right to the English throne. He used it with
discretion,97 omitting the long passages o f comparison with
Caesar and the Vergilian episodes such as the mid-Channel
banquet. While he abbreviated the rhetorical passages, he retained
many expressions o f admiration for William’s courage, leadership,
and kingly qualities. But the many passages praising William’s
mercy towards the conquered English are either omitted alto­
gether or directly contradicted. Brought up in England from 1075
to 1085, Orderic had heard the English side o f the story, and
knew how much injustice and suffering were caused by the
dispossession o f many landowners, and the ravaging o f William’s
armies. Comparison o f passages in the G G and the Historia
Ecclesiastica illustrates the way he treated his source.

97 Orderic's use o f WP is discussed from different standpoints by P. Bouet, ‘Orderic

Vital, lecteur critique de Guillaume de Poitiers’, M edievalia Christiana x i‘ - x iiie siècles.
Hommage à Raymonde Foreville, ed. C. E. Viola (De Boeck Université, Editions
universitaires, 1989), pp. 25-50; and by R. D. Ray, (Orderic Vitalis and William of
Poitiers: a monastic reinterpretation of William the Conqueror’, Revue belge de philologie et
d*histoirey I (1972), 1116 -2 7 .
XXXVI INTRO DU CTI ON

G G ii. 22 OV ii. 174-6

Guillelmus itero, dux eorum, adeo praes­ Willelmus uero dux eorum praestabat eis
tabat eis fortitudine quem admodum fortitudinem et prudentia. Nam ille
prudentia ut antiquis ducibus Grae­ nobiliter exercitum duxit, cohibens
corum siue Romanorum qui maxime fugam, dans animos, periculi socius,
scriptis laudantur, aliis merito sit sepius clamans ut uenirent quam iubens
praeferendus, aliis comparandus. ire
Nobiliter duxit ille cohibens fugam,
dans animos, periculi socius; saepius cla­
mans ut uenirent, quam iubens ire. Vnde
liquido intelligitur uirtutem illi
praeuiam pariter fecisse militibus iter
et audaciam. Cor amisit absque uul-
nere pars hostium non modica, pros­
piciens hunc admirandum ac
terribilem equitem. Equi tres ceciderunt In bello tres equi sub eo confossi cecider­
sub eo confossi. Ter ille desiluit intrepi­ unt. Ter ille intrepidus desiluit, nec diu
dus, nec diu mors uectoris inulta reman­ mors uectoris inulta remansit.
sit. Hic uelocitas eius, hic robur eius
uidere potuit corporis et animi. Scuta, Scuta, galeas et loricas irato mucrone
galeas, loricas, irato mucrone et moram moramque dedignante penetrauit, clipeo­
dedignante penetrauit; clipeo suo non­ que suo nunnullos collisit.
nullos collisit.
G G ii. 33 OV ii. 192
lura quaecunque dictauit optimis ratio­ lura quaecumque dictauit, optimis ratio­
nibus dictavit. Judicium rectum nulla nibus sanxit. Judicium rectum nulla per­
persona ab eo nequicquam postulauit. sona nequicquam ab eo postulauit.
Specie uindicandi reatus auaritiam
plerumque uelat regnans iniquitas,
supplicio addicit innocentem, ut pos­ Neminem nisi quem non damnare ini­
sessionem addicti rapiat. Ille neminem quum foret damnauit.
damnauit quem non damnare iniquum
foret; nam, uti aduersus libidines
alias, ita aduersus auaritiam inuictum
animum gerebat. Intellexerat esse
regiae maiestatis, illustri munificentia
praestare nihil ubi adquitas contradicit Suis quoque primatibus digna se et graui­
accipere. tate praecepit, et diligentia aequitatem
Suis quoque primatibus digna se et suasit. Esse iugiter in oculis habendum
grauitate praecepit, et diligentia suasit aeternum regem, cuius uicerint praesi­
aequitatem. Esse iugiter in oculis haben­ dio. Nimium opprimi uictos non opor­
dum, cuius uicerent praesidio, aeternum tere, uictoribus professione Christiana
imperatorem. Nimium opprimi uictos pares, ne quos iuste subegerint, iniuriis
nequaquam oportere, uictoribus profes­ ad rebellandum cogerent.
sione pares ne quos iuste subegerint,
iniuriis ad rebellandum cogerent.
 TH E US E OF TH E G G BY ORDERIC V I T A L I S XXXVII

This makes it possible to attempt a tentative reconstruction o f the

lost chapters o f G G from book iv o f the Ecclesiastical History,
where Orderic openly stated that he had followed WP.
After the death o f Copsi, Orderic describes the measures taken
by King William for the good governance o f Normandy before his
return to England in December 1067.98 T he sentiments and
language are those o f WP. T he detailed account o f the crossing
to England is precise enough to suggest that WP was probably with
the king on that journey. King William reached the mouth o f the
river Dieppe beyond the town o f Arques, set sail with a southerly
wind in the first watch o f a bitter night, and after a good crossing in
spite o f rough seas, reached Winchelsea the next m orning." Roger
o f Montgomery, who had remained in Normandy to assist Queen
Matilda in 1066, now accompanied the king, and received
Chichester and Arundel immediately; Shropshire was given to
him later.100 The account o f the king’s politic granting o f favours
to the English who submitted to him, while warning the Normans
to be on their guard, suggests an eye-witness description. Most o f
the details o f Exeter’s rebellion and William’s investment and
capture o f the city must have come through WP, though, if he
mentioned the blinding o f one o f the hostages in order to put
pressure on the citizens, this would have been an unusual
admission that the conduct o f his hero was not always merciful.101
Orderic’s account o f Queen Matilda’s arrival to join her
husband in England may have been taken from more sources
98 OV ii. 208.
99 OV ii. 208-10, ‘Deinde sexta nocte decembris ad hostium amnis Deppae ultra
oppidum Archas accessit, primaque uigilia gelidae noctis Austro uela dedit, et mane
portum oppositi littoris quem Vincenesium uocitant prosperrimo cursu arripuit. Iam aura
hiemalis mare seuissimum efficiebat, sed sancti Nicholai Mirreorum praesulis solennitatem
Aecclesia Dei celebrabat, et in Normannia pro deuoto principe fideliter orabat. Omnipo­
tentia ergo diuina quae omnes ubique et semper quos uult prospere gubernat, beniuolum
regem inter hiemales tempestates ad portum salutis cum gaudio dirigebat/ Cf. G G ii. 7-8,
where WP describes William’s safe crossing to England at Michaelmas, 1066, guided by
providence and supported by prayer. The winter crossing without delay makes the alleged
six weeks’ wait in summer for a favourable wind all the more unlikely, and adds to the
evidence that Willliam delayed then in order to complete his training and preparations, and
to confuse Harold.
100 OV ii. 210.
101 OV ii. 2 10 -14 . In describing the capitulation o f Alençon (G G i. 19) WP simply said
that it fell into Duke William’s hands, whereas WJ (G N D ii. 124-5) stated that he had
forced its surrender by cutting off the hands and feet o f some captured defenders.
XXXV1I1 IN TR OD UC TIO N

than G G .102 Orderic knew one o f the queen’s former messengers,

Samson, who later became a monk at Saint-Evroult,103 and
Samson could have told Orderic that she was accompanied by
G uy, bishop o f Amiens, ‘qui iam certamen Heroidi et Guillelmi
uersifice ediderat.’ 104 If, however, this statement came from G G it
would be a clear indication that WP knew G u y’s work, whether or
not it was the Carmen de Hastingae proelio.
Orderic’s account o f the preparations for the rebellion o f Edwin
and M orcar,105 including the benefactions o f their father and
mother, Earl Æ lfgar and Countess Godiva, the alliance with the
Welsh prince Bleddyn, and the burdens endured by the English
after the Conquest, reads more like Orderic than WP, especially as
it concerns the region where Orderic lived as a boy. But for the
campaigns that followed the insurrection, and King William’s
castle-building, Orderic clearly returned to GG. There is an
interlude characteristic o f Orderic on the motives for the return
to Normandy o f Hugh o f Grandmesnil (a patron o f Saint-
Evroult) and Humphrey o f Tilleul, before the narrative o f the
campaigns in the north o f England is resumed.106 O f the
remaining events up to 10 7 1, Orderic may possibly have con­
tributed the praise o f Queen Matilda and the escape o f Harold’s
mother to Flanders,107 though he might have taken these passages
from WP. T he unequivocal condemnation o f King William’s
ruthless harrying o f the north, which cried out for divine
retribution, was certainly Orderic’s.108 So too was the short
history o f the English church before the Conquest, with which
Orderic prefaced the appointment o f Lanfranc as archbishop o f
Canterbury.109 Even the praise o f the king’s administration o f
vacant sees appears to come from Orderic, for it concludes with
references to the very end o f the reign. Either Orderic or WP
could have written the passage on the return o f peace and security
to England, with intermarriage between individuals, and the
intermingling o f English and Norman customs. The struggle o f
the king to learn enough o f the English language to understand

102 OV ii. 214. 103 OV iii. 104. 104 OV ii. 214.

103 OV ii. 2 14 -18 . 106 OV ii. 224-36.
107 OV ii. 224. 108 OV ii. 230-2. 109 OV ii. 236-56.
 TH E L A N G U A G E OF THE G E S T A G V I L L E L M I XXXIX

the pleas o f the conquered people without an interpreter might

very well have been noted by his chaplain. And certainly the
evidence for the siege o f the Isle o f Ely, the capture o f Earl
Morcar, and the death o f Earl Edwin was in the pages o f WP,110
for Orderic immediately adds, ‘Hue usque Guillelmus Pictauinus
historiam suam texuit, in qua Guillelmi gesta Crispi Salustii
stilum imitatus subtiliter et eloquenter enucleauit’ .

6. THE LANGUAGE OF THE

GESTA GVILLELM I

As a Latinist, WP is superior to the chroniclers o f his day. _

Orderic Vitalis said that he wrote in the style o f Sallust; and,
though this points to classical influences on his writing, it is an
over-simplification. His style was not closely modelled on any one
author; it varied according to topic. As Raymonde Foreville has
pointed out, he echoes Caesar, Vergil, and Sallust for battles,
Cicero and St Augustine for moral dissertations, Cicero and
Sallust for speeches.111 On the whole he relied more on the
earlier writers than on the writers o f silver Latin, both for
vocabulary and for rhetorical examples. Most o f his judicial
concepts were taken straight from Cicero. His references to iura
gentium, aequitas, or ius naturale are Ciceronian, and certainly do
not imply any first hand knowledge o f Roman law, which had not
then penetrated to the schools o f Normandy, or even to Poitiers.
His vocabulary is exceptionally free from neologisms, and only a
few vernacular words have made any impact on it.
In consequence, words taken from Caesar and Sallust are often
made to serve for the different society o f the eleventh century,
and to describe the military manoeuvres o f mounted combatants
in the language appropriate to battles fought by the Roman
infantry. T his would have caused problems for any translator,
even without the rapid social changes that were taking place in the
eleventh century.
M iles (59 x ), the soldier o f the Roman army, has a variety o f

1.0 OV ii. 256-8.

1.1 Foreville, pp. xxviii-xxxix.
xl IN TR OD UC TIO N

meanings in the eleventh century. In G G , apart from occasional

use as a vassal (i. 22, i, 29, i 37, i 43) it always means a fighting
man, who may be mounted or unmounted. While it has no special
social significance it may reasonably be translated as ‘knight’
when used to describe fully-equipped, mounted, and trained men.
There is, however, no difference in Latin terminology at this date
between a landed knight and a household knight, who in Old
English might be distinguished as ridere and cniht. In the singular,
miles may also mean a fighting force (i. 2, i. 33, i. 45, ii. 2, ii. 9).
Mounted, fully armed soldiers are called either milites or equites
{equestres as adjective, i. 18). Again there is no social distinction;
equites receiving pay (i. 16) appear to be household knights.
Pedites {pedestres as adjective) may be either foot-soldiers or
dismounted knights fighting on foot (ii. 22). There are no
references to stipendiarii or mercenarii. WP describes fighting
forces in general as exercitus (32 x ), militia (6 x ), copia ( 1 1 x )
and occasionally turma (3 x ). Copia can also be used in a non­
military sense. B y legio (5 x ) he usually means a unit o f a larger
force. In using acies (6 x ) and agmen (6 x ) he does not observe a
distinction between a battle-line and an advancing army, but uses
the terms interchangeably. Expeditio implies an invasion or
planned attack.
Apart from the general terms armatus and loricatus, WP has
two principal terms for body armour: galea (3 x ) for the helmet
and lorica (3 x ) for the hauberk or mailed shirt. A shield is
usually called scutum (4 x ) or clipeus, which, however, may be
used either o f an actual shield (i. 6, ii. 22) or metaphorically o f a
strong defence (i. 19, i. 29). A sword may be either ensis (6 x ) or
gladius (9 x ); a spear is hasta (2 x ) or lancea (3 x ). Spicula,
used only once (ii. 24), is a battle-spear; iacula a javelin, thrown.
The terms for archers are slightly ambiguous. Sagitta is used
once (ii. 27) to indicate the distance an arrow could be shot. The
pedites . . . sagittis armatos et balistis (ii. 16) are foot-soldiers
armed with arrows and bolts. WP never uses the term arcus for a
bow; sagitta evidently served for both arrows and bows; balista
for the crossbow. The English hurled battle-axes {secures (ii. 17)
and javelins {cuspides (ii. 17)); WP was familiar with the word
 T E X T U A L T R A D IT IO N xli

cuspis from Vergil, but it was not in common use among his
contemporaries.
Siege weapons mentioned are aries (i. 33, i. 40), a battering
ram, and tormentum (i. 40), probably a catapult. Duke William
liked to put pressure on the garrisons o f castles and cities under
siege by building siege-castles. T he term used for these was
usually castellum (i. 9, i. 17, i. 25); which could also on occasion
mean any castle (i. 38, i. 43, ii. 27, ii. 32, ii. 35). WP made no clear
distinction between castrum and castellum; he used both terms as
well as oppidum for the casde o f Brionne (i. 9). Castrum might also
mean a fortified town (i. 7, i. 1 1 , i. 15 , i. 23, i. 33, i. 40, i. 4 1, i. 42,
i. 45, i. 48). Because o f this ambiguity it is not certain what kind
o f fortifications WP believed to exist at Dover, where he refers to
a castrum both before and after 1066 (i. 42, ii. 27, ii. 37, ii. 47).
Dover is also called castellum, a term interchangeable with
castrum, which is applied to Domfront (i. 16), Moulins-la-
Marche (i. 38), Arques (i. 25), Ambrières (i. 33), Mayenne
(i. 60), Winchester (ii. 36), Pevensey and Hastings (ii. 9), and
to fortifications in L e Mans (i. 40) and London (ii. 29), as well as
being used generally (i. 10, ii. 46). Oppidum (i. 17, i. 30) is a
stronghold o f some kind. Municipium (i. 1 1 , ii. 40) means a
fortified town, and turris occurs only once in a place-name
(ii. 28). A rx is used twice (i. 9, i. 40) o f a citadel. Castle garrisons
are castellani; WP does not use the term oppidani.
Terms for fortifications, when mentioned, are fairly consistent.
Fossa (ii. 24) is a ditch; uallum (i. 33, ii. 10, ii. 20) is an earthwork
o f some kind, or possibly a ditch; murus (i. 33, i. 40, ii. 27) is a
defensive wall; moenia (ii. 10, ii. 26, ii. 28, ii. 36) are city walls.
Propugnaculum (ii. 9) is a defence o f some kind for the ships; it
can also be used in a moral sense (i. 8). Receptaculum (i. 24, ii. 9)
is a refuge.
Towns and cities, whether fortified or not, are called urbes or
duitates interchangeably. Tours (i. 15), Rouen (i. 22, ii. 41), L e
Mans (i. 38), Canterbury (ii. 28), London (ii. 30, ii. 33), Rome
(ii. 32), the heavenly Jerusalem (i. 47), and the cities o f the ancient
Roman empire (ii. 40) are all described as duitates. But Rouen
(i. 25, i. 41), L e Mans (i. 37, i. 38), Tours (i. 15), London (ii. 28),
xlii IN TRO DU CTI ON

and Rome (ii. 40) are also called urbs. Metropolis is reserved for
Canterbury (ii. 28) (also called metropolitana sedis), and Rouen
(ii. 41). Both were the seats o f archbishops, and the incumbent o f
either see was called metropolitanus (i. 5 1, ii. 28).
There are no technical feudal terms in G G . Feudum never
occurs. Some other words are ambiguous. Honor (29 x ) mostly
has the sense o f ‘being honoured’, and beneficia may mean
benefits or gifts, though maximos honores et plurima beneficia
(ii. 12) certainly included gifts o f territory. The honores (ii. 37)
which Odo o f Bayeux had received and hoped for after the
Conquest could be feudal honours, as could the opulenta beneficia
distributed to the Conqueror’s followers.
Kinship terms may be imprecise. Nepos is mostly used for a
grandson or other descendant; very occasionally (ii. 19) it has the
sense o f nephew. The nepos o f Eustace o f Boulogne who was
killed at Dover (ii. 47) might be an illegitimate son; but without
knowing his identity it is impossible to be certain what kind o f
kinship is implied.
WP is sparing in his use o f imperator, o f earthly rulers only
Roman and German emperors are imperatores. All other crowned
rulers are called rex. Both words are used for God. William as duke
is called dux, comes, and princeps; all these are titles which, by this
date, he was entitled to use by custom.112 Elsewhere princeps has a
less technical meaning; it may be a leader o f some kind, or the ruler
o f a province or even a kingdom. Sometimes ‘prince’ is the only
possible translation; the ‘princes o f the earth’ (ii. 43) include kings,
and the expression ‘a good prince’ may mean a king.
Corona is occasionally used to suggest some o f the rights that,
by the time WP wrote, were held to be conveyed by the coronation
ceremony, even when applied to pre-Conquest rulers. When
Harold Harefoot succeeded Cnut, he obtained coronam . . . cum
throno (i. 1); cf. also i. 14, ii. 25. At other times it might mean
simply the crown worn by the king (ii. 1, ii. 28, ii. 29), also less
ambiguously called diadema (ii. 7, ii. 30, ii. 26).

112 For the titles o f the dukes o f Normandy, see K . F. Werner, ‘Quelques observations
au suject des débuts du ‘duché’ de Normandie’, Droit privé et institutions régionales: Etudes
historiques offertes à Jean Yver (Paris, 1976), pp. 691-709.
 T E X T U A L T RA D IT IO N xliii

Ordo (9 x ) is used occasionally in the sense o f orderliness (i. 55)

or a battle-line (ii. 16). Nowhere is there any suggestion o f three
orders in society; though the lay order (i. 56, ii. 1) is distinguished
from the various religious and monastic orders (i. 38, i. 52, ii. 44).
Knights are mentioned only as knights o f the heavenly King (i. 58,
‘caelici regis quolibet in ordine militibus’); and there is one
general reference to every order (i. 10, ‘cuiusque conditionis,
cuiusque ordinis homo’).

7. TEXTUAL TRADITION

T he textual tradition o f the Gesta Guillelmi is known only from

occasional references in other medieval manuscripts and from the
correspondence o f seventeenth-century scholars. The work was
not widely known in the Middle Ages. Orderic Vitalis made
extensive use o f it in his Ecclesiastical History; and it was known
either directly or indirectly by Robert o f Torigni, Benoit o f
Sainte-Maure, and possibly Wace, who used some o f the same
stories about William.113 In England the work was known to
William o f Malmesbury, the author o f Liber Eliensis and Ralph de
Diceto.114 All these writers may have used the same manuscript;
there was certainly a second manuscript in Normandy.
Duchesne’s edition o f 16 19 was based on a manuscript from the
library o f Sir Robert Cotton, which could well have been the one
from Ely/M alm esbury. Because it cannot be traced in any o f the
early Cottonian catalogues or lists o f loans its fate has puzzled
editors.115 But, as Duchesne stated, the manuscript was borrowed
for him from Cotton’s library by William Camden, who in his
turn had sent it on loan to Nicholas Fabri Peiresc. There are
113 This section is based on Davis, ‘William o f Poitiers’, pp. 93-6. See also Chronique des
ducs de Normandie par Benoît, ed. C. Fahlin, 3 vols. (Uppsala, 1951-67), ii, passim; Wace,
Rouy pt. iii, lines 7499-7521 (ii. 163-4); G N D i, p. lxxxviii.
114 G R ii, pp. cxi-cxiii, 285-6; Liber Eliensis, pp. xxviii, and ii. 90; RD ii. 263-4.
115 As Foreville points out (Foreville, pp. 1—li), there is no trace o f it in Sir Henry Savile’s
catalogue (B L, Add. M S 35213 and Harley M S 1879) or in the seventeenth-century
catalogue at Trinity College Cambridge (M S 1243) or in the catalogue printed by Thomas
Smith, Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum Cottonien. (Oxford, 1696). R. H. C. Davis failed
to find it in Cotton’s own catalogue (B L, Harley M S 6018) or in other lists o f loans from the
library (B L, Cotton M S Appendix xv 13; B L , Add. M S 5161). Cf. K. Sharpe, S ir Robert
Cotton 15 8 6 -1 6j i : History and Politics in Early Modem England (Oxford, 1979), ch. ii.
xliv INTRO DU CTI ON

specific references to the loan in the letters o f these men.116 In a

letter to Camden dated 5 March 16 18 Peiresc acknowledges
receipt o f a transcript o f Cotton’s WP, but alleges that it was so
full o f mistakes that it could not be printed. As an alternative, he
says, ‘Feu Monsieur Pithou en avoit un exemplaire tout entier,
lequel on m’a promis . . . Si nous n’avons l’exemplaire de
Monsieur Pithou, possible prieray-je Monsieur Cotton de nous
envoyer son original.’ 117 Evidently the Pithou manuscript could
not be found, because on 29 April 16 18 Peiresc wrote to Camden
acknowledging receipt o f ‘l’autographe du fragment de Guillelmus
Pictavensis bien conditionné’ .118 Though we cannot prove that
Peiresc returned it, it is most probable that it was included in the
consignment o f books which he dispatched back to London in the
autumn o f 16 18 .119 I f so, we may perhaps presume that it perished
in the Cottonian fire o f 17 3 1.
T he Pithou manuscript, which could well have been the one
used by Orderic Vitalis at Saint-Evroult, was said to have
contained the text o f WP in its entirety. Pithou had a famous
library, collected by his father at a time when the monastic
libraries o f France were being dispersed by the Wars o f Religion.
Aware o f its scholarly value, he made a will with elaborate
arrangements to ensure that it was preserved entire, but after
his death it was none the less divided and dispersed. What exactly
happened is uncertain; as early as 17 16 Jean Boivin found two
contradictory accounts in circulation,120 but part found its way to
the French royal library, part remained with the family, part was
1,6 For Peiresc, see G. Cahen-Salvador, Un grand humaniste, Peiresc 158 0 -16 37 (Paris,
1951) and Lettres de Peiresc aux frères Dupuy, ed. P. Tamizey de Larroque, 7 vols.,
Collection de documents inédits (Paris, 1888-98). For Camden, see Camden. See also
E. M. C. van Houts, ‘Camden, Cotton and the Chronicles of the Norman Conquest o f
England9, The British Library Journal^ xviii (1992), 148-62, at pp. 153-6.
117 Camden, no. clxxvi (p. 222).
1,8 Ibid., no. clxxxv (p. 231).
119 Ibid., no ccx (p. 269); cf. pp. 261, 266. Duchesne, whom Peiresc treats as a very
subsidiary figure, was able to send his printed volume of Historiae Normannorum Scriptores
to Camden by 15 July 1619 (Camden, no. ccxxi, p. 282).
120 Claudi Peleterii regni administri vita, Petri Pithoei ejus proavi vita adjuncta accurante
Joanne Boivin (Paris, 1916) is the earliest account. Claude le Peletier was Pierre Pithou’s
great-grandson, and his share of the library still belongs to his descendant, the Marquis de
Rosanbo. See also L. de Rosanbo, ‘Pierre Pithou: Biographie9, Revue du seizième siècle, xv
(1928), 279-305; and ‘Pierre Pithou érudit9, ibid., xvi (1929), 301-30).
 PREVIOUS E D IT IO NS xlv

kept in the college founded by Pithou at Troyes.12112Other volumes

somehow got into the library o f the Faculty o f Medicine at
Montpellier (H 137 and H i 51), the Arsénal in Paris (M SS 483,
2590, 4818), the British Library (Add. M S 11506), the Bürgerbi­
bliothek at Berne (M S 163), and the private library o f the
Marquis de Rosanbo.
T he Pithou M S may yet be found, but the extensive searches
carried out by R. H. C. Davis in Paris, the Vatican Library, and
elsewhere have failed to discover it. Although it may have
survived and have escaped discovery by being bound up with
other M S S and so uncatalogued, the most likely companion
chronicle would be the G N D o f William o f Jumièges. The
comprehensive list o f all the M S S o f G N D prepared by E. M . C.
van Houts has shown that it is not concealed in any composite
volume containing G N D .m It has not, as yet, proved possible to
obtain entry to the Rosanbo archives.

8. PREVIOUS EDITIONS

André Duchesne was the first editor o f C G , in Historiae

Normannorum scriptores antiqui (Paris, 1619), pp. 17 8 -2 13 , and
all later editions have been based on his text. François Maseres
published a new, critical edition in Historiae Anglicanae circa
tempus conquestus Angliae . . . selecta monumenta (London, 1807),
pp. 3 7 -16 7 , and proposed a number o f useful minor corrections.
Duchesne’s text was reproduced by J. A. Giles, in Scriptores rerum
gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris (London, 1845), pp. 7 7 -17 9 ; and
J.-P. Migne in Patrologia latina cxlix (1853), cols. 12 17 -7 0 .
Extracts were published by Dom J. Bouquet, Recueil des historiens
des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1767), reprinted by L . Delisle
(Paris, 1876), xi, pp. 75-10 4 . More recently, an excellent critical
edition, with French translation, has been published by Ray­
monde Foreville, Guillaume de Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le
Conquérant (Les classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen âge,

121 A catalogue o f those still at Troyes was published by P. J. Grosley in Vie de Pierre
Pithou avec quelques mémoires de son père et ses frères, 2 vols. (Paris, 1756), ii. 275-86.
122 G N D , i, pp. xcv-cxx.
xlvi IN TRO DU CTI ON

xxiii; Paris, 1952). Translated selections have appeared in various

collections o f documents, o f which the most recent is that o f R.
Allen Brown, The Norman Conquest, Documents o f Medieval
History v (London, 1984), 15 - 4 1.

9. EDITORIAL PRACTICE

Duchesne was a conscientious editor. Where his texts can be

compared with a surviving manuscript used by him, such as the
holograph o f Orderic’s Ecclesiastical History, it can be seen that he
transcribed carefully, with very few errors or attempted emenda­
tions. With only a few exceptions, he preserved the spelling o f his
original; his chief liberty was in changing ‘i’ to ‘y ’ in a number o f
words, such as clipeus or inclitus, and replacing initial V with ‘j\
His punctuation and use o f capital letters, however, were his own.
He inserted occasional marginalia without comment. Some may
be either suggested emendations (such as Guidonem for G uillel-
mum, in i. 23), or corrections o f printing errors. He allowed
himself a very occasional marginal comment; ii. 25, at the words
‘tametsi tirannum occidere sit pulchrum’ he printed in the margin
‘scilicet iusto bello’ , which may be either his own gloss or one
found in the manuscript, which, if Peiresc’s comment (above,
p. xliv) can be trusted, was the author’s autograph. There is a
very strong presumption, therefore, that Duchesne’s text is very
near to the original, and may even preserve some o f its variant
spellings. Litus occurs more frequently than littus, and milia than
millia. Both litus and milia are common in classical texts; and W P
may have taken them from some M S o f De bello gallico used by
him. It has therefore seemed reasonable not to change these
spellings, as some modem editors have done. On the other hand,
Duchesne’s practice o f substituting ‘y ’ for ‘i’ and ‘j’ for ‘i’, where
there is no clear justification in eleventh-century usage, has not
been followed; nor has his punctuation.
The Cotton M S used by Duchesne was defective; the last page
may have been frayed or damaged, and possibly some words
became obliterated on a few earlier pages. In the account o f
William’s coronation there are two lacunae that could be explained
 ED IT O RI AL P RA CTI CE xlvii

by a small hole. There is also a lacuna in the description o f the

attack made by Eustace o f Boulogne on Dover. Both these
passages are among those copied fairly closely by Orderic Vitalis;
and a few words from his text have been supplied between angle
brackets, where Duchesne's text clearly required emendation.
There were no chapter divisions in Duchesne's edition. On
p. 199 the heading Bellum inter Guillelmum ducem et Heraldum
regem Anglorum suggests that WP may have divided his work into
two parts at the moment o f the Norman landing in England.
Raymonde Foreville, however, who divided the work into two
books and 108 chapters, began the second book slightly earlier,
with the news o f King Edward's death and Harold’s coronation.
Her divisions, with the exception o f one small change between
i. 43 and 44, have been preserved in this edition.
 GESTA GVILLELM I
DVCIS NORMANNORVM ET REGIS
ANGLORVM A G V ILLE LM O
PICTAVEN SI LEXIOVIORVM
A R C H I D IA C O N O C O N T E M P O R A N E O
SCRIPTA

SIG LA OF P R IN T ED TEXTS

D Duchesne
F Foreville
M Maseres
OV Orderic Vitalis
RD Ralph de Diceto
 PARS PRIMA

i. [. . .] cum uita12 regnum Anglicum amisit, quod paternae et

suae* uiolentiae, non aliis, debuit. Coronam eandem cum throno
Heraldus obtinuit filius eius, partim ab eo tirannidis in amore
degener. Exules adhuc manebant in curia propinqui sui, Guillelmi
principis, Edwardus ac Alueradus, qui olim, pueri, ne iugular-
entur, ad auunculos in Normanniam effugerant. Genitrix eorum
fuit Emma filia Ricardi primi, genitor Ædelredus rex Anglorum.3
Verum de genealogia horum germanorum, et quod haereditatem
eorum Dani inuasione occupauerint, satis alii scripsere.4

2. Vt ergo decessum Chunuti audierant, primo Edwardus5

mari decurso naues quadraginta milite instructissimas Hantonae6
appulit, ubi multitudinem Anglorum offendit maximam se ad
internecionem sui operientem. Nam Heraldum Angli deserere
nolebant, uel (quod est credibilius) non audebant, metuentes
affore Danos ad protectionem siue citatim ultionem eius, extinc-
tos fuisse truculentia Danica suae gentis nobilissimos minime
obliti sunt. Congressus illico magna caede superauit. Considerans
autem aduersantis terrae uires ingentes, quas traduxit modicas
esse, regiratis proris cum opima praeda Normanniam repetit.
Hunc sibi larem tutum, sciebat, largum, et beneuolum. Non
• F; ac DM

1 The beginning of the M S used by André Duchesne was missing. For its probable
contents, see above, p. xv, and below, p. 6 n. 3.
2 Cnut died on 12 Nov. 1035. His son Harold Harefoot succeeded him.
3 Emma, the younger sister of Duke Richard II, married first King Æthelred in 1002,
and after his death (1016) King Cnut. The circumstances in which her sons, the æthelings
Edward and Alfred, escaped to Normandy, and their stay there, are discussed by Keynes,
‘Æthelings9, pp. 172-205.
4 The writers to whom WP refers certainly included WJ, and probably the authors of
the Encomium and the Inventio. He may have known o f the A S Q although it is very
unlikely that he could read English.
5 It is worth noting that WP, unlike WJ (G N D ii. 104), does not call Edward ‘king9 at
this point; he was throughout his work more scrupulous in using the term for a crowned
king only.
6 Based on G N D ii. 104-6, ‘Cuius diu cupitam mortem Ewardus rex audiens, adhuc
 PART I1

i. [When Cnut lost his life]2 he lost also the English kingdom,
which he owed not to others but to his own and his father's
conquest. His son Harold obtained his throne and crown, but was
unworthy o f him because o f his love o f tyranny. T he exiles,
Edward and Alfred, were still living in the court o f their kinsman,
Duke William. Long before this they had fled as boys to their
maternal uncles in Normandy, to avoid being murdered. Their
mother was Emma, daughter o f Richard I, and their father was
Æthelred, king o f the English.3 But others have written enough
about the genealogy o f these two brothers and how the Danes
seized their inheritance by force.4

2. As soon as they heard o f the death o f Cnut, Edward5 crossed

the sea, taking forty ships packed with armed forces to South­
ampton,6 where he came up against a very great multitude o f
English lying in ambush to kill him. For the English either did
not wish to desert Harold or (which is more credible) did not dare
to, fearing that the Danes would come to protect him or to avenge
him speedily. They had not forgotten that the noblest o f their
race had been exterminated by the Danes in their cruelty. When
battle was joined, he swiftly overcame them with great slaughter.
Considering, however, the huge forces o f the land opposed to him
and the small numbers o f those he had brought with him, he
turned round his ships and returned to Normandy with great
booty. He knew that this was a safe home for him, both generous
cum duce degens, quamtotius cum quadraginta nauibus milite plenis, superato mari,
Hantonam appulit, ubi innumerabilem Anglorum multitudinem ad sui perniciem se operientem
offendit . . . Videns autem non absque plurimo numero militum se posse regnum obtinere
Anglorum, regiratis nauium proris Normanniam cum maxima preda repetiit.’ The Worcester
Chronicle (JW ii. 522-4) states that the expeditions of Edward and Alfred took place at the
same time, and that Emma herself, after hearing of the capture o f Alfred, sent Edward back
to Normandy. Wj implies the same (G N D ii. 106). O f modern historians Barlow
(Confessor, p. 44) appears to follow WP, and van Houts (GN D ii. 106 n. 1) also accepts
that they probably went in turn. However Keynes (‘Æthelings’, p. 195) argues plausibly
that 4it is likely that the expeditions were part o f a co-ordinated plan*.
4 GESTA GVILLELM I »• 4
multo post1 deinde intersticio temporis Dorobemiam2 uenit
Alueradus transuectus ex portu Icio, accuratius quam frater antea
aduersus uim praeparatus. Sceptrum ipse paternum requirebat.

3. Quem adeuntem interiora3 Godwinus comes nefario dolo

suscipiens factione iniquissima tradidit. Etenim ultro occurrit ei
ueluti ad honorem, officium suum benigne promisit, oscula dans
ad fidem ac dextram. Mensam praeterea cum eo familiariter
communicauit atque consilia. Noctis autem insecutae medio
manus inermis ex somno languidi post tergum restrinxit. Tali
expugnatum suauitate Lundoniam regi transmisit Heraldo, et de
comitatu aliquot similiter uinctos: reliquos partim in ergastula
deputauit separatos ab inuicem distractione miseranda, partim
diro fine necauit horribiliter euisceratos.
Gauisus Heraldus in uinculis conspecto Aluerado, satellites
eius quam optimos coram eo iussit decapitari, ipsum orbari
luminibus, dein equestrem nuditate turpatum ad mare4 deduci
sub equo pedibus colligatis, ut in Elga insula exilio cruciaretur et
egestate. Delectabat ipsum uita inimici grauior morte. Simul
Edwardum omnino absterrere intendebat germani calamitatibus.
Ita deperiit formosissimus iuuenis, laudatissimus bonitate, regis
proles et regum nepos, nec superuiuere potuit diu: cui dum oculi
effoderentur cultro, cerebrum uiolauit mucro.

4. Ideo breui exclamatione hac te nos alloquemur, Godwine,

cuius mortui nomen infame superest atque odiosum.5 Nam a
flagitio, quod malitiosissime patrauisti, deterre te, si fieri possit,
uellemus. Quam execranda furia agitaris? Quo corde contra ius
1 Unlike WJ and JW, WP implies that Alfred’s expedition took place shortly after
Edward’s; possibly his meaning is that Alfred set out a little after Edward sailed, rather
than after his return.
2 Portus ItiuSy the port from which Julius Caesar embarked in his second expedition
against Britain (Caesar, De bello gallico v. 5), can be identified as Wissant, by Boulogne. WJ
in GN D at this point assumed Wissant to have been the port from which Alfred sailed.
Dorobemiam in this context certainly means Dover, not Canterbury as Foreville supposed
(Foreville, pp. 6-7). Although Dorobemia was a name given at times to both Canterbury
and Dover, WJ, who is here followed by WP, used it again for the attack on Dover by
Eustace o f Boulogne (G N D ii. 176, ‘Dorobemie castellum inuolare est nisus’).
3 Alfred’s expedition is described in a number of early sources: G N D ii. 106-7;
Encomium, pp. 4 1-7 ; JW ii. 522-4; Vita Edwardi, pp. 32-4; Invention p. 3 1, and A S C
(C) 1036. The details vary in all the accounts. WP agrees with WJ in placing the blame for
the deception on Godwine. Both the A S C and the Encomium place the massacre at
i. 4 TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 5

and benevolent. Then after a little while1 Alfred sailed from

Wissant to Dover,2 better prepared than his brother before him
for armed opposition. He also sought his father’s sceptre.
3. As he went into the interior,3 Earl Godwine received him
with nefarious guile and betrayed him through wicked treachery.
For he went to meet him openly, as if to honour him, and
willingly promised his help, giving him a kiss and his right hand
as a pledge o f faith. In addition he admitted him, familiarly, to his
table and to his counsels. But in the middle o f the following night,
while Alfred was unarmed and heavy with sleep, he tied his hands
behind his back. Having thus smoothly mastered him, he sent him
to K ing Harold in London, together with some o f his followers,
similarly bound. O f the remainder he consigned some to prison,
miserably separated from each other, and cruelly put some to
death, disembowelling them horribly.
Harold rejoiced when he saw Alfred in chains and ordered the
best o f his companions to be beheaded in his presence, and that
Alfred’s eyes should be put out. Harold then put him in shameful
nakedness on a horse, and had him led to the marshes4 with his
feet tied beneath the horse, so that he could be tortured in exile
and starvation in the Isle o f Ely. He delighted in making the life
o f his enemy more burdensome than death. At the same time he
intended to frighten Edward utterly with the sufferings o f his
brother. Thus perished this most beautiful youth, worthy o f the
highest praise for his goodness, offspring o f a king, descendant o f
kings; for he could not survive long since while they were putting
out his eyes with a knife the point damaged his brain.

4. So with this brief challenge we address you, Godwine,

whose name even after your death is infamous and hateful.5 For
we would wish to deter you, if it had been possible, from a crime

Guildford. The author of the Liber Eliensis (pp. 158-9) copied part of his account o f the
murder o f Alfred from WP.
4 The/ 45 Csays that he was blinded ‘in the ship’, which Campbell (.Encomium, p. Ixv) took to
mean that he was taken by sea; but a river boat might be meant. ‘Mare’ in G G could mean either
the sea or the marshes; and Ely, in the heart o f the fenland, was accessible only by boat.
5 This chapter announces WP’s plan: to show how the crimes o f Godwine and his son
led to the just vengeance of Duke William in his victory at Hastings. It shows that the work
as a whole was written after 1066.
6 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 6

atque fas abominandum facinus machinaris? Cur in exitium tui

tuorumque perfidissimam proditionem admittis, crudelissime
homicida? Moliris, confecisse gratularis, quod remotissimarum a
christianismo nationum ritus ac leges detestantur. Alueradi
indignissimae aerumnae tibi improbissimo gaudium, honestis
pariunt lacrimas.1 Dictu equidem talia sunt lugubria. Guillelmus
uero, gloriosissimus dux, cuius acta uenturam aetatem diuina
opitulatione freti docebimus, uindice gladio feriet iugulum Her-
aldi, tuae sobolis crudelitate perfidiaque consimillimae. Fundis
traditione tua immeritum sanguinem Normannorum: fundetur
sanguis tuorum pari uice ferro Normannorum! Libuit inhuma­
num scelus hoc perpetuo silentio sepelire: sed in historiarum serie
res quoque minus pulchras, cum necessario incidunt, non a charta
semouendas putamus, ut ab imitatione facti semouendae sunt.

5. Heraldus non multo post decessit, cui frater Hardechunutus

ex Emma, Edwardi matre, natus, reuersus a Danimarchia succes­
sit.2 Hic generi materno similior, non, qua pater aut frater,
crudelitate regnabat, neque interitum Edwardi, sed prouectum
uolebat. Ob morbos etiam quos frequenter patiebatur, plus Deum
in oculis habebat, et uitae humanae breuitatem. Caeterum de
regno eius aut uita scribere aliis relinquamus, ne longius a materia
proposita digrediamur.

6. Illuxit tandem gaudium festiuissimum summe cunctis, qui

pacem et iustitiam desiderabant, expectatum. Dux noster, plus
intelligentia rerum honestarum et ui corporis quam aetate adultus,
arma militaria sumit;3 qui rumor metum Franciae detulit omni.
Alium non habebat Gallia qui talis praedicaretur eques et
1 Possibly the passage from ‘Quam execranda furia agitaris’ was inspired by Cicero, In
Catilinam i; see Foreville, p. 11 n. 2.
2 C f G N D ii. 106, 'Heroldus post non multo superstes obiit mortem. Cui successit frater
eius Hardechenutus, a Dacia regressus, ex Emma, matre Ewardi, natus' WP’s favourable
view of Emma’s family may have been influenced by the Encomium: but it may be part of
his general praise o f the Norman ducal family.
3 William of Malmesbury (G R ii. 286), in a passage where he appears to have been
making use o f C C , wrote of Duke William after the assassination of his guardian, (At ille,
ubi primum per aetatem potuit, militiae insignia a rege Francorum accipiens, provinciales
in spem quietis erexit’ . Possibly, therefore, WP had stated in an earlier, lost, chapter that
William had received military arms from the king of France. At this date the granting of
arms to a new ruler was a sign of his coming o f age to rule, and was not the equivalent of
i. 6 TH E DEEDS OF W IL LI A M 7

which you maliciously committed. By what abominable fury are

you driven? With what intention do you plot this loathsome crime
against law and right? Why, most cruel murderer, do you commit
the most perfidious treason for the ruin o f yourself and your men?
You undertake and congratulate yourself on having accomplished
something that the customs and laws o f those people furthest
removed from Christianity detest. The undeserved tribulations o f
Alfred bring joy to you, most perverted o f men, but bring tears to
the eyes o f men o f honour.1 Merely to describe such deeds is
harrowing. However, William, the most glorious duke (whose
deeds we will, with the help o f God, teach to the age to come),
will smite with his avenging sword the throat o f Harold, your
offspring and your equal in cruelty and perfidy. By your treachery
you shed the innocent blood o f Normans, and in your turn the
blood o f your men will be shed by the sword o f the Normans.
One would wish to bury this inhuman crime in perpetual silence;
but, since unseemly events occur in the course o f history, we
consider that they should not be removed from the written page,
so that imitation o f the deed may be proscribed.

5. Harold died not long afterwards, and was succeeded by

Harthacnut, his brother (born o f Emma, the mother o f Edward),
who had returned from Denmark.2 T his man was more like his
mother’s family, and did not rule by cruelty as his father and
brother had done; nor did he desire the death o f Edward, but only
his advancement. Because o f the diseases from which he fre­
quently suffered he had more thought for God and for the brevity
o f human life. But we will leave it to others to write o f his reign,
so as not to digress further from our intended subject.

6. At last a most joyful day dawned splendidly for all who

desired and eagerly awaited peace and justice. Our duke, adult
more in his understanding o f honourable things and in the
strength o f his body than in his age, was armed as a knight.3
T he news o f this spread fear throughout Francia. Gaul had not

the later dubbing to knighthood, which resulted from the spread of a chivalric code. See
Flori, L'essor de la chevalerie, pp. 65-6, 144-9.
 8 GESTA GVILLELM I «• 7

armatus.1 Spectaculum erat delectabile simul ac terribile, eum

cernere fraena moderantem, ense decorum, clypeo fulgentem, et
galea teloque minitantem. Nam uti pulchritudine praestabat cum
indumenta principis gestaret aut pacis, ita ornatus qui contra
hostem sumitur eum singulariter decebat. Hinc uirilis in eo
animus et uirtus enitescebat egregia claritudine. Hinc namque
summo studio coepit ecclesiis Dei patrocinari, causas impoten­
tium tutari, iura imponere quae non grauarent, iudicia facere quae
nequaquam ab aequitate uel temperantia deuiarent. Imprimis
prohibere caedes, incendia, rapinas. Rebus enim illicitis nimia
ubique, ut supra docuimus, licentia fuit. Denique coepit omnino a
familiaritate sua remouere quos imperitos aut prauos dinoscebat,
sapientissimorum uero optimorumque consiliis uti, externis inim­
icis fortiter resistere, obsequia debita a suis potenter exigere.
7. Cum haec initia suum splendorem Normanniae et antiqui
status tranquillitatem iam redderent et meliora promitterent,
bonis obsequenter iuuantibus rectorem consueta libertate perfrui
malebant quidam pro libitu sua retinere, aliena diripere.2 Huius
uesaniae signifer prosiluit Wido,a filius Burgundionum comitis
Raginaldi, qui ualidissima castra Brionium et Vemonium ducis
dono tenebat, a puerilibus annis cum ipso familiariter nutritus.3
Sed aut principatum, aut maximam portionem Normanniae
ambiebat. Secum itaque in pessimas conspirationes uniuit Nigel­
lum praesidem Constantini pagi,4 Ranulphum Baiocensem uice-
comitem, et Haimonem agnomine Dentatum, et alios potentes.
Non cohibuit iniqui hominis contumaciam generis propinquitas,
non tantorum beneficiorum5 impensa liberalitas, non denique
' D ; Guido M F

1 Cf. perhaps Suetonius, Caesar, c. lvii, ‘armorum et equitandi peritissimus’.

2 There are references to the troubles of Duke William’s minority in G N D ii. 92-3,
" 120-3; Inventio, pp. 47-9.
3 Cf. GN D ii. 120, ‘contigit illum quendam crudelem conuiuam experiri secum a
puerilibus educatum annis Widonem, uidelicet filium Burgundionum comitis Rainaldi, cui
olim contulerat castrum Brioci quasi munere firmius astringende fidelitatis.’ Guy was the
son o f Count Reginald o f Burgundy (d. 1057) and Adeliza, daughter of Richard II, duke of
Normandy (Foreville, p. 16 n. 1). He had been granted the fortresses o f Brionne and
Vernon after the death o f Count Gilbert o f Brionne in 1041 (G N D ii. 120 n. 2).
4 Nigel II, vicomte o f the Cotentin (1040 x 42-1092). He is named also in GN D ii. 120,
‘plurimos proceres . . . ab eius fidelitate cepit auertere et in sue perfidie uoragine
complicare in tantum ut Nigellum Constantiniensem presidem in hac conspiratione
»• 7 THE D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 9

another man who was reputed to be such a knight at arms.1 It was

a sight both delightful and redoubtable to see him hold the reins,
girded honourably with his sword, his shield shining, formidable
with his helmet and javelin. For as he stood out in beauty when
wearing the garments o f a prince and at peace, so also the
adornments which are put on against the enemy suited him
perfectly. From this time a virile spirit and valour shone
brilliantly and clearly in him. From this time he began with the
utmost zeal to protect the churches o f God, to uphold the cause o f
the weak, to impose laws which would not be burdensome, and to
make judgements which never deviated from equity and temper­
ance. He especially prohibited slaughter, fire, and pillage. For
there was too much licence everywhere for unlawful deeds, as we
have said above. Finally he began to remove completely from his
entourage those whom he knew to be incompetent or wicked, and
to draw on the counsels o f the wisest and best, resisting his
external enemies vigorously, and forcefully demanding the ser­
vices owed by his own men.

7. When these beginnings were already restoring to Normandy

the splendour and tranquillity o f its ancient state, and gave
promise o f better things with good men obediently helping
their ruler, some people preferred to enjoy their accustomed
liberty, retaining their own possessions and seizing those o f others
at their pleasure.2 T he man who stood out as the promoter o f
these mad schemes was G uy, son o f Reginald count o f Burgundy,
who held the mighty castles o f Brionne and Vernon by gift o f the
duke, with whom he had been brought up from boyhood in the
same household.3 But he desired to get either the ducal office or
the greater part o f Normandy. He associated with himself in this
wicked conspiracy Nigel, governor o f the pagus o f Coutances,4
Ranulf vicomte o f Bayeux, Hamo nicknamed Toothy, and other
powerful men. Neither kinship nor the liberality which had
bestowed so many benefits5 on him, nor finally the sincere love
annecteret. . William o f Malmesbury, G R ii. 286, names Nigel, vicomte of the Cotentin,
Ranulf, vicomte of Bayeux, and Haimo dentatusy evidently using G G as his source, but
substituting ‘vicecomitem Constantini’ for ‘praesidem Constantini pagi’ .
5 The term ‘beneficia’ is ambiguous, as it has several meanings, including both ‘benefits’
and ‘benefices’ in the sense o f offices, properties, or fiefs.
IO GESTA GVILLELM I >• 9

ducis in eum sincera dilectio summaque beniuolentia. Insontes

multos necauere, quos nequicquam tentauerunt ad transuerten-
dum, uel quos maiori obstaculo sibi esse peruiderant. Fas quidem
negligebant omne, nefas nullum deuitare curabant, dummodo
potentiam consequerentur ampliorem. Est nonnunquam haec
ambitionis caecitas.

8. Paulatim ergo id periurae societatis incoeptum eo usque

conualuit, ut directissima belli fronte Valesdunis1 in dominum
suum congregati longe per circuitum omnia tumultu concuterent.
Sequebatur impietatis uexillum pars Normanniae maior. Verum
tot gladios minime exhorruit partis uindicantis ductor Guillelmus.
Irruens enim strage pauorem iniecit, quo fere corda aduersariis
erepta sunt, brachia debilitata. Sola mens, quae in fugam
praecipitaret, relinquebatur. Insectabatur ille per miliaria aliquot
duriter castigans. Auia plerosque aut uiae difficiles in mortem
subuerterunt. Nonnullis in planitie trita celeritas ad ruinam,
constipatio ad lethiferam collisionem fuit. Absorbuit non paucos
fluuius Olna equites cum equis. Interfuit huic praelio Franciae rex
Henricus, uictrici causae auxilians. Fructuosissima sane atque
notificanda saeculis unius diei pugna, quae cum exemplum
tremendum sanciret, et ceruices nimium elatas ferro contudit, et
propugnacula facinorum,2 plurima castella uictoriae manu impel­
lendo disiecit, et bella domestica apud nos in longum sopiuit.

9. Turpissime elapsus Guido Brionium cum magno equitatu

contendit. Oppidum hoc tum loci natura, tum opere inexpugna­
bile uidebatur.3 Nam praeter alia firmamenta, quae moliri con-
sueuit belli necessitudo, aulam habet lapideam arcis usum
pugnantibus praebentem, quam fluuius Risela nullo quidem
1 The battle of Val-es-Dunes (1047) is described in a more straightforward way in G N D
ii. 120-3; WJ adds that King Henry had come in response to Duke William’s plea for help,
whereas WP here mentions the king only causally, as one who happened to be present.
William of Malmesbury (G R ii. 286-7) makes much of the king’s intervention: ‘Necessitas
regem tutorem excivit ut desperatis partibus pupilli succureret.’ Whereas WJ explains the
king’s presence as a return for help he had once received from William’s father, William of
Malmesbury, going beyond the evidence, implies a feudal obligation. Owing to the
somewhat ambiguous relationship between the duke of Normandy and the king of
France in the mid eleventh century, different interpretations were frequently offered by
later writers. 2 Ps. 2: 9.
i. 9 TH E DEE DS OF W IL LI A M II

and utmost benevolence o f the duke, restrained the presumption

o f this wicked man. T he rebels killed many innocent people
whom they tried in vain to convert to their cause, or whom they
recognized as major obstacles to their plans. They ignored every­
thing that was right and made no attempt to avoid anything that
was wrong, provided they could increase their power. Such is
often the blindness o f ambition.
8. So the conspiracy grew little by little from this beginning,
until the perjured rebels were strong enough to challenge their
lord openly at Val-ès-Dunes,1 disturbing all the country round
with their tumult. T he greater part o f Normandy followed the
banner o f disloyalty. But William, leader o f the avenging party,
was not alarmed by so many swords. Rushing in, he spread such
terror by slaughter that his adversaries lost heart and their arms
weakened. The one thought that remained to them was pre­
cipitate flight. William pursued them for some miles, punishing
them relentlessly. Trackless wastes or difficult roads led many to
their death. For many a mad rush through open country led to
ruin, the crush o f the converging crowds causing their death. The
river Orne sucked down not a few horsemen with their steeds.
Henry, king o f France, was present at this battle, supporting his ,
victorious cause. T his one-day battle was momentous, deserving
to be remembered in future ages, for it set a terrible example,
broke with iron the heads o f the overbearing and the battlements
o f the wicked,2 threw down many castles with the impelling hand
o f victory, and put down civil war in our region for a long time.
9. Shamefully fleeing away, G uy struggled to Brionne with his
knights. T he castle seemed impregnable, both from the nature o f
the ground and the construction.3 For among the other fortifica­
tions customarily required by the necessities o f war, it has a stone
hall which serves as a citadel for the combatants and is
3 The first castle o f Brionne was built in the valley o f the Risle, in a curve of the river,
not on the hill, where a new castle was built later in the eleventh century (Congrès
archéologique de France, 56e session, i88ç (Paris, 1890), p. 103). WP gives the information,
not in G N D ii. 12 2-3, that it had a stone hall. The siege was long; Orderic sometimes
counted from the calendar year in which an event began to the year in which it ended, so
that the duration may have been no more than 1^ to 2 years. If begun in Feb./March 1047,
it could have been over in 1049.
12 GESTA GVILLELM I l. IO

tractu uadi impatiens circumfluit. Victor mature insecutus artam

locauit obsidionem, castella, utrinque ad ripas fluminis bipartiti,
opponens. Deinde oppugnatione diurna territans, egrediendi
facultatem penitus interclusit. Postremo penuria etiam uictualium
obsessus Burgundio, interuentores pro clementia missitabat.
Motus dux consanguinitate, supplicitate, miseria uicti, non
acerbius uendicauit. Recepto castro, in curia sua commanere
eum concessit. Supplicia item consociis, quae capitalia ex aequo
irrogarentur, condonare maluit ob rationabiles causas. Nigellum
alio tempore, quoniam improbe offensabat, exilio punitum fuisse
comperio.1
Guido in Burgundiam sponte rediit propter molestiam probri.
Ferre apud Normannos pigebat uilem se cunctis, odiosum esse
multis. Et Burgundia tolerabat eum inuita. Equidem si ualuisset
ille quantum contendebat, germanum suum, ipsius prouinciae
comitem, Guillelmum2 potentatu priuasset et uita. Annos decem
in armis et amplius consumebat, uenans praeliis tam cognatum
sanguinem. Quid laborem, ut euidentius nequitiae testimonium
adducam?

io. Normanni superati semel uniuersi colla subdidere domino

suo atque obsides dedere plurimi. Dein ad iussum eius festinanter
ac funditus destruxere munitiones nouarum rerum studio con­
structas. Insolentiam humo tenus posuere metropolitae3 Rotoma-
genses, quam contra tenellum comitem usurpauerant. Gaudebant
dehinc ecclesiae, quia diuinum in tranquillitate celebrare mister-
ium licebat; exultabat negotiator, tuto, quo uellet, iturus; gratu­
labatur agricola quod securum erat noualia scindere, spem frugum
spargere, nec latitare milite uiso. Cuiusque conditionis, cuiusque

1 WP is the only source for this information about Nigel. Douglas, Conqueror (p. 54),
based on L . Delisle, Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le- Vicomte (Valognes,
1867), pp. 2 0 -1, says that he went into exile in Brittany, but soon returned, and that nearly
all his forfeited possessions were restored.
2 William II, Tête-Hardie (d. 1087), count o f Burgundy.
3 The expression ‘metropolitae’ was used by Caesar, De bello gallico, iii. 81. 1, for the
inhabitants of the Macedonian city of Metropolis. Rouen, the seat of an archbishopric, was
increasingly called ‘metropolis’ in the eleventh century (e.g. Inventio, p. 18). Bernard
Gauthiez, ‘Hypothèses sur la fortification de Rouen au onzième siècle: Le donjon, la tour
1. IO TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 13

surrounded on all sides by the unfordable river Risle. The

conqueror, quickly following, besieged the place closely, building
forts on both banks o f the divided stream. Then terrorizing the
enemy by daily attacks, he cut o ff all possibility o f escape. Finally
the besieged Burgundians, having run out o f food, sent inter­
mediaries to ask for mercy. T he duke, moved by kinship, the
humble submission, and the wretchedness o f the defeated, did not
seek a harsh vengeance. Having received the surrender o f the
castle, he allowed G uy to remain at his court. He preferred to
remit for reasonable causes the punishment o f G u y’s confeder­
ates, who justly deserved death. I learn that on another occasion
Nigel had been punished with exile because he had offended
seriously.1
G uy returned to Burgundy o f his own accord because o f his
guilty conscience. He was asked to live among the Normans, since
he was considered vile by all and odious by many. Burgundy
tolerated him unwillingly. Indeed, if he had been as effective as he
tried to be, he would have deprived his brother William, count o f
that province,2 o f his power and his life. He spent ten years and
more in arms, pursuing his own kith and kin with war. But why
should I labour the point to make the testimony o f his wickedness
more evident?

10. All the conquered Normans submitted at once to their lord

and many gave hostages. Next they hastened at his command to
destroy utterly all the new fortifications which they had con­
structed in their eagerness for change. The citizens o f Rouen3 had
to abandon the insolence that they had presumptuously shown in
defiance o f the young count. Henceforth the Church rejoiced,
because it was possible to celebrate the divine mystery in peace;
the merchant rejoiced at being able to go where he would in
safety; the farmer gave thanks for being able to plough the fields
and scatter seed, instead o f hiding from the sight o f soldiers. Men

de Richard II et l’enceinte de Guillaume’, Battle, xiv (1992), 61-76 , suggests that the walls
of the city were first built by William the Conqueror, possibly between 1067 and 1087.
However, the citizens may have constructed some unauthorized fortißcations during the
troubles o f the minority, unless WP’s ambiguous language means simply that their pride
was humbled.
14 GESTA GVILLELMI 1. 12

ordinis homo ducem laudibus ad sidera tollebat, longitudinem ei

uitae atque sanitatem uotis omnibus optabat.

1 1 . Vicissitudinem post haec ipse regi fide studiosissima

reddidit, rogatus ab eo auxilium contra quosdam inimicissimos
ei atque potentissimos ad officiendum. Rex etenim Henricus
contumeliosis Gaufredi Martelli uerbis irritatus, exercitum
contra eum duxit et castrum eius quod Molendinum Herlae
uocabatur, in pago Andegauensi, cum manu ualida obsedit et
expugnauit.1
Cernebant Francigenae quod inuidia non cerni uellet, exerci­
tum deductum e Normannia sola, regio maiorem omnique
collegio quantum adduxerant uel miserant comites plurimi.
Celeberrime in Aquitania, dum Pictauis exularem,2 eadem quam
nostrates contestantur Normanni comitis diuulgabatur claritudo,
parta in illa expeditione. Hunc inter cunctos aiebant excelluisse
ingenio, industria, manu. Rex ei quam libenter proponebat
consultanda et maxima quaeque ad eius gerebat sententiam,
anteponens in perspicientia consulti melioris eum omnibus.
Vnicum id redarguebat, quod nimium periculis obiectabat se, ac
plerumque pugnam quaeritabat, decurrens palam cum denis aut
paucioribus. Normannos etiam primates obsecrabat, ne committi
praelium uel leuissimum ante municipium aliquod paterentur,
metuens uidelicet occasurum uirtutem ostentando, in quo regni
sui praesidium firmissimum et ornamentum splendidissimum
reponebat. Caeterum quae uelut immoderatam fortitudinis osten­
tationem multopere dissuadebat rex atque castigabat, ea nos
feruidae atque animosae aetati aut officio ascribimus. Secessione
tali interdum explorando reperiuntur, quae non modice expe­
diunt. Aliquando malefici excipiuntur, qui multitudines agminum
cauent, modo efficitur aliud utilissimum.

12. En ipsius factum quem excusamus, et cuius mirabile

tirocinium attentius meminisse lepidius delectat. Suis familiaribus
1 For the events in Anjou WP is much more detailed and precise than WJ. He studied at
Poitiers about this time, and could rely on some firsthand information. At this point WP’s
arrangement by topics is not chronological, and the Mouliheme campaign could have been
before, not after, the capture of Brionne. Guillot (Anjouy pp. 7 1-2 ) suggests a date in the
autumn o f 1049, which is supported by Dunbabin, p. 108.
i. 12 THE DEE DS OF W IL LI A M 15

o f every condition and every order praised the duke to the skies,
and wished him long life and health with all their hearts.

1 1 . After this William rendered a reciprocal service to the king,

with devoted loyalty, when asked by him for help in thwarting
certain very powerful enemies. For King Henry, irritated by the
insults o f Geoffrey Martel, led an army against him, and with a
strong force besieged and captured a castle o f his called Mouli-
herne in the pagus o f Anjou.1
T he French saw what in their envy they did not wish to see, an
army led from Normandy alone which was bigger than the whole
assembly o f royal contingents, brought or sent by many counts.
While I was in exile in Poitiers,2 the fame won by the Norman
count in that expedition, to which our compatriots bear witness,
was spread abroad in Aquitaine. They said he had excelled all in
intelligence, assiduity, and strength. The king decided to consult
him freely and gave great weight to his opinion, preferring him to
all others for his perspicacity in finding the best counsel. He
reproached him for one thing only; that he exposed himself too
much to dangers, and often went o ff in search o f combat,
travelling openly with only ten men or less. He besought the
Norman magnates not to engage in battle or the slightest skirmish
in front o f any town, fearing that, in showing his valour, the man
whom he considered the strongest defence and the finest orna­
ment o f his realm might be slain. But we for our part ascribe
those things from which the king strove mightily to dissuade him,
or for which he castigated him, to the fervour and spirit o f his
youth and office. Now and then considerable advantages can be
discovered by such withdrawal. Sometimes those who warn
against attacking large forces are found to be bad counsellors,
when this proves to be very advantageous.

12. Here is a deed o f the man whom we are defending, whose

remarkable first feat o f arms it is delightful and pleasant to recall
in detail. Wanting to slip away from his companions, he had

2 This rare direct reference to his own life shows that Orderic (OV ii. 258) was correct
in stating that WP had studied at Poitiers.
i6 GESTA GVILLELM I '• 13
uolens quasi elabi, secesserat ab exercitu, equites ducens aliquan­
tisper trecentos. His dein cum solis quatuor subtrahit se, atque
palatur. Ecce obueniunt ex parte hostili .xv. superbientes in equis
et armis. Continuo incurrens lanceam proiicit, audacissimum
cauens perfodere. Coxa autem dirupta est alliso terrae. Caeteros
ad quartum milliarium persequitur. Tres interea centuriae, quas
reliquerat, subséquentes inuestigando (timebant enim eius fiden­
tiae) repente comitem Tedbaldum1 perspiciunt cum equitibus
quingentis. Fit opinio tristissima. Hostes arbitrantur eos, atque
dominum suum in eorum potestate comprehensum teneri. Inui-
cem igitur cohortati, prope in dubium casum, ut illum eripiant,
sese obiiciunt. Sed ubi recognitum est agmen socium, in ulteriora
perquirentes, inueniunt recubantem quem fractura coxae alligabat
ex quindecim unum. Paululum hinc progressis alacer obuiat
eorum dominus, adducens quos ceperat milites septem.

13. Dictitabat ex ea tempestate, uti opinabatur, Gaufredus

Martellus, parem comiti Normannorum equitem siue militem
sub coelo nullum degere. De Vasconia et Aruemia potentes ei
transmittebant uel adducebant equos, qui nominibus propriis
uulgo sunt nobilitati. Item reges Hispaniae his donis inter alia
eius amicitiam captabant.2 Et erat expetenda optimis et potentis-
simis amicitia haec, atque colenda. Perfectissime namque inerat
causa in ipso cur a domesticis, a finitimis, a longinque sepositis
diligeretur. Ad hoc ipse ut esset decori amicis uel adiumento,
tantum satagebat quantum esse ualebat; et procurabat semper ut
sibi quamplurimum amici deberent. Tunc florescebat in adoles­
centia principans uni prouinciae; nunc* regnis dominatur annos
natus circiter quadraginta quinque.3 Cum ab illa ad aetatem hanc,
uel si maius a pueritia pemoueris eius actus, tute, sicuti uere
• M F ; nec D

1 Count Theobald III o f Blois. His participation in this campaign is mentioned by M.

Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne v. 950-v. //50 (Nancy, 1977), p. 200, who
simply accepts the figure given by WP.
2 The use of Spanish horses, which were o f Arabian and Barb stock and were much
prized, is discussed by R. H. C. Davis, (The warhorses of the Normans', Battle, x (1988),
67-81 at p. 76.
3 The De obitu Willelmi, ed. L . J. Engels, 4De obitu Willelmi ducis Normannorum
regisque Anglorum: Texte, modèles, valeur et origine', Mélanges Christine Mohrmann:
«• 13 TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 17

withdrawn from the army, leading a force o f about three hundred

knights. Next he withdraws and wanders o ff with just four o f
them. Suddenly fifteen men from the opposing side come against
him, glorying in their horses and arms. At once he attacks, throws
his lance, taking care to pierce the boldest o f them;’ the man falls
to the ground, his thigh broken. He pursues the others for four
miles. Meanwhile the three hundred whom he had left, following
in search o f him (for they feared for his boldness) suddenly see
Count Theobald1 with five hundred knights. They imagine a
disaster, thinking these to be enemies who hold their lord captive
in their power. They encourage each other, ready if needs be to
attack and rescue him. But when they recognize a friendly force,
they go on further and find one o f the fifteen whose thigh has
been broken lying helpless on the ground. Going on a little
further, they meet their lord bringing with him seven soldiers
whom he has captured.

13. After that time Geoffrey Martel enjoyed giving his opinion
that there was no knight or warrior under the sun equal to the
count o f the Normans. From Gascony and Auvergne powerful
men sent or took to him thoroughbred horses known by their
regional name. Likewise Spanish kings sought his friendship with
these gifts among others.2 And this friendship was sought and
cultivated by the best and most powerful men. T his was only
right for there was in him something that won the love o f his
household, his neighbours, and those far away. He for his part
strove to the utmost o f his ability to be an honour and support for
his friends, and he took care also that his friends should owe him
as much as possible. At that time he flourished in his adolescence,
ruling just one province; now, aged about forty-five, he rules over
kingdoms.3 From that time to this, or rather, if you had known
his deeds from boyhood, you could safely affirm that he has never
Nouveau recueil offert par ses anciens élèves (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1973), PP* 209-55, states
(p. 228), ‘Decessit autem quarto Idus Septembris, anno vite sue quinquesimo nono*, which
indicates a date in 1028, before 9 Sept., for his birth. I f WP’s calculation is correct, he
wrote this passage r.1073. Since he used the plural o f ‘regnum* he may have included
William’s ambiguous authority over the kingdom o f the Scots, established in 1072 at
Abemethy, when King Malcolm Canmore ‘came and made peace with King William and
gave hostages and was his man* (A SC (E) 1072).
i8 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 14

potes, affirmabis per eum nunquam societatis ius aut amicitiae

fuisse uiolatum. Fixe enim perstabat in dictis atque conuentis,
tanquam edocens actu suo quod enuntiant philosophi, ‘iustitiae
fundamentum esse fidem’ .1 Si cuius ab amicitia disiungi
rationibus grauissimis cogebatur, sensim hanc diluere quam
repente praecidere malebat. Consentaneum id uidemus sapien-
tum censurae. Inique se alienauit iniquus, diram inimicitiam
suscepit rex Henricus, transuersus hominum pessimorum sua­
dela.2
Qui dum iniuriis Normanniam lacesserat admodum intoler­
abilibus, contraibat ad quem Normanniae propugnatio pertinebat
Guillelmus, multum tamen ueteri amicitiae tribuens et regiae
dignitati. Confligere cum eius exercitu, eo praesente, studio
quantum necessitudo sinebat extrema cauebat.3 Et Normannos
cohibebat saepenumero nec iussu, modo quasi oratu, quammax-
ime concupientes praelii contumelia decus regium foedare. Alias
horum aliqua patentius intelligentur, simul qua ipse magnanimi­
tate Francorum aspemeretur enses, atque uniuersorum qui contra
se regis edicto fuerant euocati.

14. Ipsius quoque uiribus et consilio Edwardus, Hardechunuti

uita finita,4 tandem in paterno solio coronatus resedit, tam
sapientia et eximia morum probitate, quam antiqua prosapia,
ea dignus gloria. Disceptantes etenim Angli deliberatione suis
rationibus utilissima consenserunt, legationibus iusta petentibus
acquiescere, quam Normannorum uim experiri. Reducem cum
non maximo praesidio militis Normannici cupide sibi eum
praestituerunt,5 ne manu ualidiore, si comes Normannicus
adueniret, subigerentur. Qui quid bello ualeret, rumore satis
nouerant. Edwardus autem, dum grato reputaret affectu quam
sumptuosam liberalitatem, quam singularem honorem, quam
familiarem dilectionem in Normannia sibi impenderit princeps
1 Cicero, De officiis i. 7. 23, 'Fundamentum autem et iustitiae fides, id est dictorum
conventorumque constantia et veritas.’
2 Cf. G N D ii. 100, 'Quorum uesana prouocacione Heinricus rex uehementer permotus
. . .’; OV ii. 78, 'Stimulante Sathana . . . nimia inter Francos et Normannos seditio exarsit.’
3 John Gillingham, in discussing this incident ('William the Bastard at war’, pp. 145-8),
suggests that William acted less out of regard for the royal dignity or his former friendship
than from his avoidance of pitched battles whenever possible. Cf. Vegetius, iii. 9.
i. 14 TH E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 19

violated the law o f alliance or friendship. He stood firmly by his

word and agreements, as if demonstrating by his acts the saying o f
the philosophers that ‘good faith is the foundation o f justice.’ 1 I f
for serious reasons he was forced to abandon the friendship o f
anyone, he preferred to allow it to dissolve gradually, rather than
breaking it o ff suddenly. We consider this to be in accordance
with the judgement o f wise men. The wicked withdrew wickedly;
King Henry conceived a cruel enmity to him, persuaded by the
eloquence o f evil men.2
While the king was inflicting insupportable injuries on Nor­
mandy, William, to whom its defence belonged, marched against
him, paying respect, however, to his former friendship and the
royal dignity. He took care not to engage battle with his army
while the king was present, unless as a last resort.3 He restrained
the Normans time and again, not so much by command as by
request, for their dearest wish was to defeat the king and tarnish
his honour. Elsewhere some o f their actions will reveal more
clearly the spirit with which he spumed the swords o f the Franks
and all those who had been summoned by the king against him.

14. It was also through his support and counsel that, on the
death o f Harthacnut,4 Edward was at last crowned and placed on
his father’s throne, a distinction o f which he was most worthy, as
much through his wisdom and outstanding moral worth as by his
ancient lineage. For the English, when they had discussed the
question, agreed that William’s arguments were the best, and
acquiesced in the just requests o f his envoys to avoid experiencing
the might o f the Normans. They were eager for him to return
with a modest escort o f Norman knights,5 for fear that they might
be subjugated by a stronger force if the Norman count himself
came; for they had heard enough stories o f his strength in wars.
But Edward, when he reckoned with a real gratitude what
4 Harthacnut died in 1042.
5 WJ (G N D ii. 106), the Encomium (p. 42), and JW (ii. 532-4) state that Harthacnut sent
for Edward early in his reign. There is no corroboration for WP’s statement about
negotiations with the Normans in 1042; though stories about Norman rights were
circulating in Normandy in the early 1050s, and may have been spread by Robert
Champart, the exiled archbishop o f Canterbury, who lived for a time in the abbey of
Jumièges before his death in 1055 (van Houts, ‘Historiography and hagiography9, p. 247).
20 GESTA GVILLELM I i- 15
Guillelmus,1 tam beneficiis0 quam linea consanguinitatis longe
sibi coniunctior; quinetiam quam studioso eius auxilio in regnum
ab exilio sit restitutus, potissimum aliquid atque gratissimum
recompensare desiderans more honestorum; coronae quam per
eum adeptus est, eum rata donatione haeredem statuere decreuit.
Optimatum igitur suorum assensu per Rodbertum Cantuariensem
archipraesulem huius delegationis mediatorem, obsides potentis-
simae parentelae Godwini comitis filium ac nepotem ei direxit.2

15. Est iam permutata in serenum turbulentia apud nos

domestica omnis. Emulus autem e uicino nondum omnis con-
quieuit. Brachium leuabat in nos, quo non leuiter sese uulnerabat,
Gaufredus Martellus. Huic enim calliditate bellandi egregie
instructo, unde triumphum non pollicitarentur Andegaui,
Turoni, Pictones, Burdegala, multae regiones, ciuitates plurimae,
quae signis eius parebant? Is namque dominum suum, comitem
Pictonum et Burdegalae, ui bellica cepit,3 neque ante postliminio
concessit reuerti mancipatum indignissimae custodiae, quam
argenti et auri pondus grauissimum atque praedia ditissima
extorsit cum sacramento de pactis. Porro ipsius defuncti post
redemptionem die quarto,4 et nouercam praecipuae nobilitatis
thoro suo sociauit,5 et fratres in tutelam suam accepit, et thesauros
a M F ; beneficus D

1 The Inventio (pp. 29-30) also states that Edward was treated with respect in
Normandy, and educated by Duke Richard II as if he had been his son; and that he
returned to England in 1042 with Norman support and rewarded generously the Normans
who had accompanied him to England. See van Houts, 'Historiography and hagiography’,
pp. 248-9, 251; Keynes, ‘Æthelings’ .
2 WJ (G N D ii. 158) is the only other chronicler to say openly that the Norman Robert
Champart, archbishop o f Canterbury and previously abbot of Jumièges, was sent by King
Edward to promise the crown to Duke William. But Robert probably stopped in
Normandy in 10 51, on his way to Rome to seek his pallium (A SC (D, E), 1051), and
the hostages were certainly sent. Godwine’s grandson Hakon was freed later during
Harold’s visit to Normandy (below, i. 46), but his son, Wulfnoth, died in captivity during
the reign of William Rufus (G N D ii. 160—1 [Orderic’s interpolations] and n. 3). Edward’s
promise o f the English throne is discussed by Barlow, Confessor, pp. 107-9, 220-1.
3 Geoffrey’s aggression had begun in the lifetime of his father, Fulk Nerra (d. 1040), and
had caused bitter enmity between them. William VI (the Fat), count o f Poitou, the eldest son
of William V by his second wife, was taken prisoner by Geoffrey at Mont Couer on 20 Sept.
1033 (Guillot, Anjou, p. 52, n. 244); Obituaire de Saint-Serge (Recueil d'annales angevines et
vendimoises, ed. Louis Halphen (Paris, 1903), p. 107 ('X II kalendas octobris Gosfridus
comes Fulconis comitis filius Willelmum Pictavorum comitem cepit anno ab incarnatione
Domini M X X X III et exinde exoriri cepit et paulatim ingravari bellum illud execrabile quod
contra patrem suum per annos fere VII subséquentes impie gessit’).
»• IS THE DEEDS OF W IL L IA M 21

sumptuous liberality, what singular honour, what intimate affec­

tion he had been shown in Normandy by prince William,1 to
whom he was bound as much by these benefits as by a long line o f
consanguinity, and in addition what vigorous hope he had received
in his return from exile to his kingdom, wished to recognize him in
a way benefiting his power and gratitude, as do all good men. So
he determined, by a lawful donation, to make him heir to the
crown which he had gained through his help. And so, with the
consent o f his magnates, he sent to William (by Robert, archbishop
o f Canterbury, acting as mediator o f this delegation) hostages o f
noble birth, a son and a grandson o f Earl Godwine.2

15 . Now all domestic turbulence in our province was replaced

by serenity. But as yet not every envious neighbour was quiescent.
Geoffrey Martel raised his hand against us, and in so doing
wounded himself not a little. For with a man so remarkably skilled
and experienced in the art o f war, how could victory not have
been offered to the men o f Angers, Tours, Poitiers and Bor­
deaux— many regions, more cities— who followed his banners?
For he captured his lord, the count o f Poitiers and Bordeaux, in
war,3 and would not permit him to return home from an
ignominious imprisonment until he had extorted from him a
very large weight o f gold and silver and very rich lands, with an
oath o f alliance. Then, when the count died on the fourth day
after his release,4 he took his step-mother (of the highest nobility)5
to his bed, took his brothers into wardship, and appropriated their

4 Chronicles differed on the length of time he lived after his release: Glaber, Histories,
iv. 26 (pp. 2 12 -13 ), said that he died in the year of his release; the Chronique de Saint-
Maxent (Chroniques des églises d'Anjou, ed. P. Marchegay and E. Mabille (Paris, 1869),
p. 392), that he died only a few days after his release, which agrees with WP. William of
Malmesbury (G R ii. 288) probably relied on WP in saying, ‘beneficio opportunae mortis
post triduum perpetuae ignominiae exemptus est’ . L . Halphen (Anjou, p. 59 n. 1) argued
that he died late in 1038.
5 Agnes, the third wife of Count William’s father, was the daughter o f Otto William,
duke o f Burgundy. Her marriage to Geoffrey Martel took place on 1 Jan. 1032 (Annales de
Saint-Aubin (Recueil d'annales angevines), pp. 2, 46; Annales de Saint-Serge (ibid.), p. 107),
just after Geoffrey’s establishment in the Vendômois, at a time o f increasing friction with
his father, Fulk Nerra (Guillot, Anjou, i. 44-6). The marriage was regarded by the Church
as incestuous, and the foundation o f La Trinité de Vendôme was in part to legitimize it
(Penelope Johnson, Prayer, Patronage, and Power: The Abbey o f La Trinité, Vendôme, 10 3 2 -
n 8 j (New York and London, 1981), p. 14).
22 GESTA GVILLELMI i. i 6

cum tota honorum ac potentiae amplitudine quasi ditioni suae

uindicauit.1 Finibus quidem Andegauensis comitatus claudi
potestatem suam, inopem atque pudendam angustiam aestima­
bat.2 Late in aliena eum captiuum raptabat immanis cupiditas.
Dilatatus ergo adquisitis, multa insigniter consummauit, nec
minus uaria astucia quam opibus agens.
Inter quae, Turonorum quoque ingentem* et opulentiam et
uirtutem expugnauit, contrita prius fortitudine comitis Tedbaldi.
Nam cum subuenire maturaret Tedbaldus percarae urbi suae,
quam sub duris ictibus Martelli obsidentis ingemere ac prope
deficere ipsa denuntiante didicerat, promptissime occurrens
Martellus uicit. Denique comprehensum boiis arctauit ipsum
cum suis praecipuis: neque pacto eos leuiore quam Guillelmum
antea Pictauensem eiecit.3 Ciuitatem ex hinc Turonicam posside­
bat. Vexauit idem Franciam4 uniuersam regi rebellans. Tumidus
itaque praeliorum successu Normanniae castrum inuasione occu-
pauit, et summopere custodiebat Alentium.5 Inhabitatores ad se
pronos repererat. Incrementum pulcherrimum deputabat suo
nomini, patrauisse quod Normanniae dominum minuerit.

16. Guillelmus tueri sufficiens ius paternum et auitum, quin

etiam diffusius protendere, adibat cum exercitu terram Ande-
gauensem; ut reddens talionem primo abalienaret Gaufrido Dan-
frontum, post reciperet Alentium. Ceterum sui militis unius
fraudulentia fere interiit, qui non extimescebat latam prouinciam
inimici. Nam ubi approximabatur Danfronto cum equitibus
a D M ; ingenium F

1 Halphen (Anjou, p. 56) has suggested that Agnes accepted the marriage through a wish
to secure the position in Aquitaine o f her two sons, both still minors, and to exclude
William V ’s two sons by an earlier marriage.
2 Geoffrey Martel became count of Anjou after the death of Fulk Nerra on 21 June 1040
(Guillot, Anjou, i. 55, n. 253; Halphen, Anjou, pp. 10 n. 1, 126 n. 4, 127).
3 With the support o f King Henry I, Martel laid siege to Tours in 1043. When
Theobald III, count o f Blois, and his brother Stephen attempted to raise the siege they
were defeated at the battle of Nouy (21 Aug. 1044), and Theobald was captured (Glaber,
Histories, v. 19, pp. 242-5; G N D , pp. 122-5; Guillot, Anjou, i. 57-60). Geoffrey used some
of the land surrendered for the ransom to endow La Trinité de Vendôme (Johnson, Prayer,
Patronage and Power, p. 12).
4 Francia here included Normandy.
5 The dates of the fighting in this region have been the subject o f much discussion.
i. 16 THE DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 23

treasures and all their honours and extensive power as if they

were wholly subject to him.1 He considered that to confine his
power within the county o f Anjou would be beggarly, shameful
and mean.2 His boundless greed made him attack the possessions
o f others. So, swollen with acquisitions, he achieved many things,
thanks as much to his astuteness as to his riches.
Amongst other things, he overcame the great wealth and valour
o f the men o f Tours, after first breaking the power o f Count
Theobald. For when Theobald was hastening to help his beloved
city, which had sent a message informing him that it was on the
point o f surrender, Martel came with all speed against him and
defeated him. Then he made him prisoner, put him in shackles
along with his chief men, and would not release them on terms
any lighter than he had imposed on William the Poitevin.3 From
that time he possessed the city o f Tours. He disturbed the whole
o f Francia4 with his rebellion against the king. Puffed up with the
success o f his battles, he took a castle o f Normandy, Alençon, by
force, and guarded it closely.5 He had found the inhabitants
favourable to his cause. He thought he had increased the glory o f
his name by diminishing the power o f the lord o f Normandy.

16. William, well able to defend the inheritance o f his father

and ancestors, and even to extend it further, arrived with his army
on Angevin territory, intending as a reprisal to take Domfront
from Geoffrey before capturing Alençon. But the disloyalty o f
one o f his knights nearly caused the death o f the man who had no
fear o f the vast dominion o f his enemy. For when he was
approaching Domfront, he went o ff with fifty knights in order
Both Alençon in Normandy and Domfront in Maine had been held by William o f Belleme.
Duke William’s campaigns to recover them were dated by Halphen in 1048-9 (Anjou,
pp. 72-3). These dates were challenged by Douglas, Conqueror, pp. 384-8, and Bates,
Normandy, pp. 253-6, who preferred 10 5 1-2 , but supported by Guillot, Anjou, i. 69-72,
and Dunbabin, ‘Thibaut de Chartres’, p. 108. For discussion see G N D ii. 122-6; OV ii.
362-5. Some of the divergences can be explained by the almost continuous warfare on the
southern frontiers o f Normandy, and the possible length of the sieges. Duke William’s
practice o f investing castles by erecting and manning siege-castles to starve the garrisons
into surrender made it possible for one or even two sieges to be carried on for many
months, while William himself was campaigning elsewhere. The exact date of Martel’s
capture o f Alençon is uncertain. WP and WJ differ considerably in their details o f the
campaigns, but both agree that the siege o f Domfront was prolonged, and that William
regained Alençon while the investment o f Domfront was continuing.
24 GESTA GVILLELM I l. 17

diuertit quinquaginta, acceptum quae stipendium augerent. Prae­

dae autem index castellanis prodidit ipsum quidam ex Normannis
maioribus, intimans quo, aut cur ierit, et quam paucis comitatus,
atque hunc esse qui mortem fugae praeferret. Emissi quantocius
equites trecenti, pedites septingenti inopinantem a tergo inua-
dunt. Pectus uero intrepide ille obuertens, deiecit humo quem
audacia maxima primum sibi impegerat. Ceteri statim amisso
impetu ad munitionem refugiunt. Cursum promouet notum
compendium tramitis. Ille autem non prius ab insecutione
desistit, quam portae munitionis fugatos eripiunt. Captum suis
unum manibus retinuit.1

17 . His magis ad obsidendum accensus, castella circumponit

quatuor. Celerem irruptionem situs oppidi denegebat omni robori
siue peritiae; cum scopulorum asperitas pedites etiam deturbaret,
praeter qui angustis itineribus duobus atque arduis accederent.2
Incolis adiumento uiros imposuerat Gaufridus delectissimos.
Oppugnatione tamen instabant eis Normanni creberrima feruen-
tissimaque. Dux ipse primus ac praecipue terribilis imminebat.
Aliquando perdius et pernox equitans, uel in abditis occultus,
explorat si qui offendantur aut commeatum aduectantes, aut in
legatione directi, aut pabulatoribus suis insidiantes. Sane, ut
intelligas quam secure in terra hostili agitaret, interdum uenatur.
Est regio illa siluis abundans, ferarum feracissimis. Saepe falco­
num, saepissime accipitrum uolatu oblectatur. Non loci difficultas
aut saeuitia hiemis, nec aduersitas alia rigidam uirtutem ab
obsidione quiuit dimouere.
Auxiliaturum expectant, et nuntio aduocant Martellum inclusi.
Deferre haudquaquam uolebant dominum, sub quo licenter
quaestum latrociniis contraherent; quali causa fuerant seducti
inhabitantes Alentium. Non ignorabant quam in Normannia
esset inuisus latro aut praedo, quam recto usu uterque supplicio

1 This anecdote occurs only in WP.

2 For the rights o f lordship over Bellême, see below, i. 19 and p. 28 n. 3. WP’s language
implies that the whole strongly fortified town o f Domfront was besieged. The castle itself
stands slightly separated from the town, on a rocky promontory jutting out over the river
Varenne, and is a part o f the defensive complex.
i. 17 THE DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 25

to increase their pay. But one o f the more important Normans,

pointing out the blunder, betrayed him to the garrison, indicating
where and why and with how small an escort he was going, and
that he was a man who preferred death to flight. At once they sent
out three hundred mounted and seven hundred foot soldiers,
surprising him in the rear. But he, turning fearlessly to face them,
smote to the ground the man who had the audacity to lead the
attack. T he rest immediately gave up their assault and took refuge
in the castle, knowledge o f the path assisting them in their flight.
He, however, did not abandon the pursuit until the doors o f the
castle closed behind the fugitives. He kept the one prisoner taken
with his own hands.1

17. Fired by these events to invest the town, he built four

siege-castles round it. T he site o f the fortified town prevented any
sudden attack by force or by skill, for the roughness o f the rock
discouraged even foot soldiers, except for those able to approach
by two steep and narrow paths.2 Geoffrey had reinforced the
garrison with specially chosen men. Nevertheless the Normans
persisted in repeated and violent attacks on them. T he duke
himself was in the van, causing special terror. Sometimes riding
day and night or hidden in secret places, he scouted around to see
if he could come upon any men attacking a food convoy, or sent
on a mission, or lying in ambush for his foragers. Indeed, so that
you may know how safely he operated in enemy territory, he
sometimes went out hunting. It is a thickly wooded region where
wild beasts abound. Often he delighted in flying his falcons, or
more often his sparrowhawks. No difficulty o f terrain, no
harshness o f winter, nor any other adversity could quench his
ardour for the siege.
The besieged expected relief, and demanded it from Martel by
messenger. They had no wish to renounce their lord, who had
allowed them to enrich themselves freely by brigandage; this was
the motive by which the people o f Alençon had been seduced.
They knew well that in Normandy the robber and brigand were
hated, that both o f them were punished by a just custom, and that
2Ô GESTA GVILLELM I i. 19

addiceretur, et quod neuter paruo absolueretur.1 Suis maleficiis

eundem legis metuebant usum.

18. Educit Gaufridus copias ingentissimas equestres ac pedes­

tres ad subueniendum. Guillelmus ubi resciuit id, properat ex
aduerso, continuatione obsidionis militibus probatis credita. Spec­
ulatum praemittuntur Rogerus de Montegomerico2 et Guillelmus
filius Osbemi,3 ambo iuuenes ac strenui, qui mentem quoque
hostis arrogantissimam perdiscant0 ex colloquio ipsius. Indicit per
eos Gaufredus classico suo Guillelmi apud Danfrontum excubias
excitatum iri sub auroram lucis crastinam. Praesignat qualem in
praelio equum sit habiturus, quale scutum, qualem uestitum. Illi
contra opus non esse respondent instituto eum itinere longius
fatigari, nam continuo, propter quem uadit, affore. Equum
uicissim domini sui praesignant, uestitum et arma.4
Renuntiata haec non parum alacritati Normannorum addunt.
At omnium acerrimus ipse dux iniurget accelerantes. Tirannum
fortasse absumi desiderabat adolescens piissimus. Quod ex omni­
bus praeclaris factis pulcherrimum iudicauit senatus Latinus et
Atheniensis.5 Verum subitaneo terrore consternatus Gaufredus,
aduersa acie necdum conspecta, profugio salutem suam cum
agmine toto committit.

19. En duci Normannico liber progressus patet ad deuastan-

dam hostis opulentiam, ad delendum aemuli nomen ignominia
sempiterna. Sed nouit esse prudentium uictoriae temperare, atque
non satis potentem esse qui semet in potestate ulciscendi con­
tinere non possit. Placet ergo fortunatum iter conuertere.

* perdiscunt D M F

1 Cf. Dudo, ii. 32, p. 172.

2 Roger II o f Montgomery, vicomte o f the Hiémois, a kinsman o f the Conqueror. He
had married Mabel, daughter and heiress of William of Bellême, and so had a personal
interest in capturing the former Bellême castles. See K . Thompson, (The pre-conquest
aristocracy in Normandy: the example o f the Montgomerys', Historical Research, lx (1987),
251-63.
3 William fitz Osbem, son o f Osbem de Crépon, and, like his father, steward o f
Normandy. His mother was Emma, daughter o f Raoul, count o f Ivry, and he was related
through both parents to Duke William (D. C. Douglas, ‘The ancestors o f William Fitz
Osbem’, EH R y lix (1944), 62-70).
i. 19 TH E DEE DS OF W IL LI A M 27

neither could purchase pardon cheaply.1 They feared the applica­

tion o f this law to their own misdeeds.

18. Geoffrey led out huge forces o f mounted and foot soldiers
to their relief. When William learnt o f this, he hastened against
him, leaving proven soldiers in charge o f the siege. Roger o f
Montgomery2 and William fitz Osbem,3 both o f them strenuous
young men, were sent ahead as scouts, to discover the arrogant
intention o f the enemy by talking with him. Geoffrey made
known through them that he would rouse William at Domfront
with his trumpet call at first light o f dawn on the morrow. He
announced in advance what horse he would ride in the battle and
described his shield and clothing. They replied that there was no
need for him to tire himself by travelling further, for the man he
wished to fight would be on the spot immediately. In their turn
they described the horse, clothing and arms o f their lord.4
When this news was told it added not a little to the ardour o f
the Normans. But keenest o f all was the duke himself, urging on
his own men as they hurried along. T he admirable youth desired
the fall o f the tyrant, an exploit which the Latin and Athenian
senates judged ‘the finest o f all glorious deeds.*5 But the fact is
that Geoffrey, suddenly overcome with terror even before he had ^
seen the opposing force, sought safety in flight for himself and his
whole army.

19. See now, the way is open for the Norman duke to devastate
the wealth o f the enemy and to plunge his name into eternal
ignominy. But he knows that it is characteristic o f wise men to
temper victory, and that the man who cannot restrain himself
when he has the power to take vengeance is not really powerful.
He decides therefore to turn aside from the road that had been
auspicious for him.
4 The episode is developed by Wace, Rou, pt. iii, lines 4419-48 (ii. 51-2). Cf. below, i.
32, i. 43, for similar challenges, a characteristic o f heroic literature. See also Strickland,
PP 42-4
5 Cf. Cicero, De officiis iii. 4. 19, ‘Quod potest maius esse scelus, quam non modo
hominem, sed etiam familiarem hominem occidere? Num igitur se astrinxit scelere, si qui
tyrannum occidit quamvis familiarem? Populo quidem Romano non videtur, qui ex omnibus
praeclaris factis illud pulcherrimum existimat.’ For praise of tyrannicide, see below, ii. 25.
28 GESTA GVILLELMI 1. 20

Festinus inde ecce Alenconio superuenit, arduam rem pugna

fere nulla conficit.1 Oppidum enim natura, opere atque armatura
munitissimum adeo currente prouentu in eius manum uenit ut
gloriari his uerbis liceret: ‘Veni, uidi, uici.’2 Perculit citissime hic
rumor Danfrontinos. Diffidentes itaque alius clipeo se liberandos
post fugam famosissimi bellatoris Gaufredi Martelli, similiter
deditione se liberant properatissima, quando reuersum ad
oppugnandum uident Normannorum principem. Perhibent
homines antiquioris memoriae castra haec ambo comitis Ricardi
concessu esse fundata, unum intra, alterum proxime fines Nor-
manniae, atque tam succedentium ei comitum quam ipsius iussis
obtemperare solita.3 Victor postea domum reuersus, patriam
cunctam recenti decore ac tripudio illustrabat, simul amorem
atque terrorem sui auctius in externa diffundebat.
20. Alia sub tempus idem annalium uoluminibus apta gessit
princeps idem, quae, sicuti plurima caeteris temporibus ab eo
gesta, praetermittimus, aut ne quem grauet spaciosus codex, aut
quia rem non admodum sufficientem scriptori cognouimus.
Praeterea quantulum in dicendo facultatis habemus, ad dicendum
praestantissima omnium id reseruamus. Parturire suo pectore
bella quae calamo ederentur poetis licebat, atque amplificare
utcumque cognita per campos figmentorum diuagando.4 Nos
ducem, siue regem, cui nunquam impure quid fuit pulchrum,
pure laudabimus, nusquam a ueritatis limite passu uno deliran­
tes.0 5
* D M F ; but M F suggest a change to declinantes

1 There is a much fuller account of the siege o f Alençon in G N D y and more details are
added in Orderic’s interpolations (G N D ii. 124-6). WP may have deliberately passed over
the cruelty shown by Duke William who, according to G N D y burnt the city and cut off the
hands and feet of some of the defenders, who were said to have mocked him by referring to
his low birth. 2 Suetonius, Caesary c. xxxvii.
3 There are two interpretations o f this passage. Foreville, i. 19, accepted Duchesne’s
punctuation (cunum intra alterum, proxime fines Normanniae’ ), and translated, 4ces deux
chateaux, l’un après l’autre, furent fondés . . . à proximité des frontières de la Normandie’ .
Jean Yver, however, proposed a correction of the punctuation to 4unum intra, alterum
proxime fines Normanniae’, and translated, Tun à l’intérieur, l’autre à proximité des
lisières de Normandie’ (Yver, ‘Châteaux-forts’, p. 40 and n. 49). This seems the better
interpretation. WP stated (above, i. 16) that when William invested Domfront he was
attempting to enlarge the inheritance o f his ancestors, and entered Angevin territory. Both
Domfront and Alençon had been built by the Bellême family, and from r.1025 Alençon
1. 21 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 29

He hurries and, behold, he comes upon Alençon, completing

his difficult task almost without a battle.1 T he town, most
strongly protected by its site, fortifications, and armed defenders,
fell into his hands with such swift success that he could boast in
these words, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered.’2 T he news o f this
immediately flew back to the men o f Domfront. Doubting that
they could save themselves with the shield o f any other man, after
the flight o f such a famous warrior as Geoffrey Martel, they
hastened likewise to surrender at the sight o f the victorious prince
o f the Normans returning to attack them. Men who have
preserved ancient traditions say that these two fortifications
were founded by a grant o f Count Richard, one within, the
other close to the frontier o f Normandy, and that they had been
accustomed to obey the count’s successors as they had obeyed
him.3 The victor then returned home and made his whole native
land famous by his recent glory and triumph, at the same time
inspiring even greater love and fear everywhere.

20. Prince William performed other exploits sufficient to fill

volumes o f annals, but we will pass over these, together with
much else that he did at other times, either because an overlong
book might discourage some readers, or because we do not know
enough about the matter to write about it. Besides, we reserve the
little skill in composition we possess to report the most out­
standing deeds o f all. Poets were allowed to imagine wars so that
they could write about them, and to amplify their knowledge in
any way they liked by roaming through the fields o f .fiction.4 But
we will purely and simply praise the duke or king, to whom
nothing impure was beautiful, never taking a single step beyond
the bounds o f truth.5
was certainly held from the duke of Normandy. The status o f Domfront is more doubtful,
as the Norman claim to an earlier right over the fortress was part of a propaganda attempt
to assert rights in the disputed frontier region. The problem is discussed by Thompson,
‘ Family and influence9, Historical Research, lx (1987), 251-6 3, and Louise, pp. 290-4,
301- 5*
4 Although WP probably refers to classical authors, this would explain why, if he had
seen the Carmen before writing C G , he ignored the dramatic details about the Hastings
campaign introduced by the poet. See above, p. xxii.
5 This statement cannot be taken literally; while it is acceptable for the more historical
parts of C C , the rhetorical passages conform more to the conventions o f panegyric
30 GESTA GVILLELMI 1. 22

2 1. Coepere post haec Normanni summates fere cuncti

incredibilii eum amplecti ueneratione, ut obluctari dudum, sic
modo serenam ei fidelitatem quisque suam probare nitentes,
adeo ut eius et sobolem, quam sola tum spe fouebant, dominum
sibi concordi uotorum electione creare certarent. Quod ipse
uniuersa quae erga se uel a se fideliter acta, humili prudentia
muneri diuino ut reputanda fuere reputauit, iuuentutis in
primordio moderatissimum uirum agens. Consiliis itaque de
matrimonio discrepatur,0 ut solent in diuersum suadere ingenia
disparium atque sententiae,1 praesertim cum in frequenti curia
ponderosa de re consultatur. Reges de longinquo suas unice
charas filias huic marito uoluntarie locarent, ac affines habere
quos confines potissimum placuit, multae rationis grauitate id
persuadente.2

22. Vigebat eo tempore Teutonibus collimitans ac Francis

eminensque potentia praecipuus eorum Flandrensis marchio,
Baldwinus nobilitate item prisco ex germine tradita illustrissimus.
Nam uti a satrapis Morinorum, quos moderni Flandros appellant,
sic a regibus Galliae atque Germaniae natales deducebat, nobili­
tatis etiam Constantinopolitanae lineam attingentes.3 Stupuerunt
mirantes eum comites, marchiones, duces, tum archipraesulum
alta dignitas, si quando praesentiam eius rari hospitis imperatoria
cura promeruit. Ipsius uelut amici et socii, prudentiam in
deliberatione maximorum negotiorum consulturi, beneuolentiam
donis et multa honoris impensa comparaturi. Nomine siquidem
Romani imperii miles fuit,4 re decus et gloria summa consiliorum
in summa necessitudine. Reges quoque magnitudinem eius et
uenerati sunt et ueriti. Est enim et nationibus procul remotis
* M F ; discepatur D

1 Cf. Cicero, De amicitia xx. 74, ‘dispares mores disparia studia sequantur.9
2 Negotiations for the marriage may have begun as early as May, 1048, when Duke
William and Count Baldwin both attested a royal charter at Sentis (Fauroux, no. 114). In
October 1049, when Leo IX raised canonical objections to it at the Council o f Reims
(Historia dedicationis ecclesiae S. Remigii, Migne, P L cxlii. 1437, ‘Interdixit . . . Baldwino
comiti Flandrensi ne filiam suam Wilhelmo Nortmanno nuptui daret, et ei ne earn
acciperet9). Neither G G nor G N D mentions this prohibition, and the reasons for it are
uncertain. See Körner, pp. 163-89.
3 Baldwin V, count o f Flanders (1035-67). He was descended from Judith, the daughter
1. 22 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 31

2 1. Thenceforth almost all the Norman magnates began to

surround him with incredible veneration, striving (just as they
had recently resisted him) to prove now that their fealty to him
was unclouded, so much so that they strove with one voice to
choose as their lord both William and his as yet only hoped-for
offspring. All that he had done, or that had been done for him, he
considered with humble wisdom (as was right) to be the gift o f
God, acting in his early youth as a man o f moderation. He was
given divergent counsels about his marriage, as the minds and
opinions o f different men are usually diverse,1 especially when the
debate is about a weighty matter in a crowded court. Kings from
far away would gladly have given him their very dearest daughters
in marriage, but his wish, for many weighty reasons, was to have
neighbours as his kinsmen.2

22. At that time a man o f great power who towered above the
rest flourished on the frontiers o f the Germans and Franks. He
was Baldwin, marquis o f the Flemings, most illustrious for the
nobility o f his descent from ancient stock. For he traced his
ancestors not only from the M orini, whom the modems call
Flemings, but also from the kings o f Gaul and Germany and a
line o f the nobility o f Constantinople.3 Counts, marquises, dukes,
even archbishops o f the highest dignity were struck dumb with
admiration whenever the duty o f their office earned them the
presence o f this distinguished guest. People sought his wise
counsel as a friend and ally in deliberating the most important
affairs; they tried to win his favour by heaping gifts and honours
upon him. He was, indeed, in name a knight o f the Roman
Empire,4 in fact its glory and honour in its highest counsels and
greatest need. Kings too revered and stood in awe o f his greatness.
For the most distant peoples knew well how often he had

o f Charles the Bald, who married Baldwin IV, Bras-de-Fer. There is no known support for
WP’s statement that he had relatives among the nobility o f Constantinople.
4 Baldwin V held possessions in Lower Lotharingia, and had done homage for them to
Agnes, widow o f the emperor Henry III and regent for Henry IV. In calling him a knight
o f the Roman Empire, WP may refer to his status as a vassal holding imperial Flanders
(F. L . Ganshof, ‘Les origines de la Flandre impériale*, Annales de la société royale
d'archéologie de Bruxellesy xlvi (1945 for 1942-3), 99-137).
32 GESTA GVILLELMI i. 23

notissimum, quam frequentibus, quamque grauibus bellis imper­

atorum immanitatem fatigauerit, pace demum ad conditiones
ipsius arbitratu dictatas composita, cum regum dominos terrae
ipsorum nonnulla parte mulctauerit uiolenter extorta;1 sua quae­
que uel inexpugnata uel indefessa potius manu tutans. Monarchia
post Franciae, cum puero monarcha, ipsius consiliosissimi uiri
tutelae, dictaturae atque administrationi cessit.2
Marchio hic fascibus ac titulis longe amplior quam strictim sit
explicabile, natam suam nobis acceptissimam dominam in Pon-
tiuo3 ipse presentauit soceris generoque4 digne adductam. Enu-
trierat autem prudens et sancta mater in filia quod muneribus
paternis multuplo praeponderaret. Requirens genus maternum,
matris patrem scias* regem Galliae Rodbertum5 qui, filius et
nepos regum, progenuit reges, cuius laudabilitatem in religione
diuina et regni gubernatione mundi lingua non tacebit. Intro­
ductioni huius sponsae ciuitas Rotomagensis uacabat iocundans.6

23. Compellamur istic ore quodam gesti peruulgati, nec

Arcensem comitem Guillelmum properantis ad altiora stili celer­
itate praeterire, et ipsum quidem patriae lacrimis ultra terminum
aequi et boni, quantum in ipsius conatibus fuit, potentem.
Ignauam propaginem atque perfidam praeclarae stirpis Guillel-
mum* nec humanae nec diuinae legis frena retinuere:7 hunc neque
haec, neque Guidonis ruina, praeterea neque magni uictoris a
nullo uicti admiranda et uirtus et felicitas, partumque iis inclitum
nomen. Quod in praestantes animos et laudanda quaeque facinora
erigere debuit, id in immoderatam confidentiam ac nimis altam

* sciat D hD marg.; Guidonem D text

1 References to Baldwin’s conquests in imperial territory during his wars against the
emperor (ibid.).
2 When Henry I died in 1060 Count Baldwin became the guardian o f the eight-year-old
King Philip (OV ii. 88).
3 According to WJ (G N D ii. 128-30) the marriage was celebrated at Eu, before the
couple were welcomed at Rouen. WP frequently uses ‘ nos’ for the Normans, and this
passage should not be taken to mean that WP was himself present at the marriage.
4 Duke William, his mother Herleva, and his step-father Herluin de Conteville.
5 Count Baldwin’s wife Adela was the daughter o f King Robert the Pious (996-1031).
6 The date o f the marriage was some time between October 1049 (Council o f Reims)
and 1051, when Matilda, as countess, witnessed some charters o f Saint-Wandrille
(Fauroux, nos. 124, 126).
»• n TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 33

challenged the brute force o f the emperors in major wars,

eventually making peace on conditions dictated by his will,
since he had injured the lords o f the land o f these kings in no
small part with his violent extortions.1 Meanwhile he protected all
his own lands with an unconquered and unwearied hand. After­
wards the monarchy o f France, with a boy king, came under the
protection, command, and administration o f this wisest o f men.2
T his marquis, whose power and titles exceed what can be
explained in a short space, escorted his daughter, our dearest
mistress, to Ponthieu3 with all honour, and presented her to her
parents-in-law and his son-in-law.4 Her wise and blessed mother
had nurtured in her daughter a lineage many times greater even
than her paternal inheritance. I f you ask about her mother’s
lineage, you should know that her mother’s father was Robert,
king o f G aul,5 who, son and grandson o f kings, was himself the
progenitor o f kings, and whose praise for his piety and wise rule
o f the kingdom will be sung all over the world. T he city o f Rouen
gave itself over to rejoicing at the entry o f this spouse.6

23. At this point, although pressing on to describe more

important matters, we are compelled by a notorious event not
to pass over in silence the attempt o f William, count o f Arques, to
go (as far as he was able) beyond the limit o f what is right and
good, to the distress o f his native land. T he cowardly and
perfidious offspring o f a famous line, William was not restrained
by the bonds o f divine or human law.7 Neither these, nor the
downfall o f G uy, nor even the admirable virtue and deserved
good fortune o f the great unvanquished conqueror and the
renown he had won by his victories held him back. T he fame o f
their high birth, which ought to inspire noble hearts to perform
praiseworthy deeds, led them both into excessive and overweening
arrogance, and brought both to ruin. For both knew, to their

7 According to WJ, William o f Arques obtained the county o f Talou from the young
duke William ‘obtentu beneficii, ut inde illi existeret fidelis'; then, haughty because o f his
noble birth, he built the stronghold o f Arques on a high hill at the heart o f the region and,
assured o f the support o f the French king, instigated a rebellion (G N D ii. 102-3). He was a
brother o f Mauger, archbishop o f Rouen, who came under suspicion o f supporting him;
see below, pp. 88-9.
34 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 24

extollendo praecipitauit utrumque, ortus uidelicet sui nimia

notitia. Ambo enim sinistre nouerunt in progenie se computari
ducum Normanniae: Burgundio se nepotem Richardorum e filia
secundi; Arcensis fratrem se tertii, secundi filium, primi nepo­
tem.1
Is ab ineunte pueri principatu infidus ei et aduersus, quanquam
fidelitatem iuratus et obsequium, hostilia agitabat, modo temer­
itate non latente resistens, clandestinis interdum dolis. Improba
quidem animi elatio facillime hominem in res iniustas detrudit.
Motus dissensionum aliorumque superius commemoratione ali­
quanta digestorum malorum, nonnullos ipse, caput principale,
concitauit, plerosque exemplo, consilio, fauore et auxilio incitauit,
auxit, confirmauit. Multa et inquieta, longique temporis, eius
molimina fuere, pro sua et contra domini sui magnitudinem, cuius
accessum non modo ab Arcensi* castro, uerum etiam* ab ei
propinqua Normanniae parte, quae citra flumen Sequanam sita
est, arcere saepenumero surrexit. Postremo in supradicti Dan-
fronti oppugnatione2 quasi desertoris furtiuo more discessit,
nequaquam petita missione; satellitii debitum, cuius antea
nomine hostilitatem utcunque uelabat, iam omne detrectans.

24. Ob haec et alia tot eius et tanta ausa, dux, uti res monuit,
suscipiens plura et maiora ausurum, receptaculi, quo plurimum
confidebat, editius firmamentum occupauit, custodiam immittens,
in nullo amplius tamen ius eius imminuens. Nempe eas latebras,
id munimentum initae elationis atque dementiae, ipse primus
fundauit et quam operosissime extruxit in praealti montis
Arcarum cacumine.3 Ceterum malefidi custodes non multo post
castri potestatem conditori reddunt, munerum' pollicitatione et
impensius imminente uaria sollicitatione fatigati subactique.
a M F ; Arsensi D * F ; uemmetiam D M ' numerum D M F

1 William o f Arques was the son o f Richard II and grandson o f Richard III.
2 This statement has sometimes been taken to mean that William o f Arques’s revolt
began before the end o f the long siege o f Domfront (see above, pp. xxi, 22 n. 3). However,
it cannot be assumed that William took up arms immediately after withdrawing from the
siege. He is not known to have attested any ducal charters after 1051 (Fauroux, nos. 12 4 -
6); but one redaction o f G N D changed ‘rebellandum’ to ‘resistendum’, implying resistance
to ducal authority rather than open rebellion (G N D ii. 103 n. 5).
1. 24 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 35

undoing, that they were counted among the progeny o f the dukes
o f Normandy: the Burgundian, that he was the grandson o f the
Richards through the daughter o f the second, the count o f Arques,
that he was the brother o f the third, the son o f the second, and the
grandson o f the first.1
T his man had been unfaithful and hostile from the beginning
o f the boy-duke’s rule; although he had sworn fealty and
obedience he continually harassed him, now resisting boldly and
openly, now with clandestine guile. Pride and perversity easily led
the man into wrongdoing. He was the leader and instigator o f the
movement o f revolt and the evil deeds o f other men, which I have
briefly described above; he incited many by his example and
strengthened and confirmed them with his counsel, favour, and
aid. For a long time he had promoted many disturbances,
endeavouring to increase his own lands against the might o f his
lord, whom he had attempted to bar from entry, not only to the
castle o f Arques, but to all the adjacent part o f Normandy on this
side o f the river Seine. Finally during the siege o f Domfront,2
described above, he slipped away furtively, like a deserter, with­
out asking permission; and thenceforth he entirely withdrew the
service o f a vassal, under which name he had previously concealed
his hostility.

24. On account o f this and his countless bold enterprises the

duke, warned by the event and suspecting that he would attempt
even more greater outrages, seized the fortifications o f the lofty
refuge where he thought himself most secure, and put in a guard,
but in no other way diminished his right. To be sure, he [the
count] had first founded this refuge, this rampart o f early pride
and folly, and had built it with great toil and difficulty on the
summit o f the high hill o f Arques.3 But not long afterwards the
faithless guards, worn down by countless pleas o f all kinds,
surrendered the powerful castle to its founder for the promise
o f rewards.
Straightway on his return his fury, growing fiercer than ever,

3 Cf. G N D ii. 102-3. For the castle o f Arques, see A. Deville, Histoire du château
d*Arques (Rouen, 1839).
36 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 25

Solito mox acriores intromissum furiae incendunt, ultionem

quoque sui uelut per iniurias diminuti exacturum. Oritur toto
ambitu pagi uicini multa miseria. Tumultus, praedae, rapinae
saeuiunt, uastitatem minantes. Armis, uiris, commeatu, et qui­
buscunque tali negotio idoneis castrum exornatur, munimenta
prius firma firmiora fiunt. Paci et otio locus nullus relinquitur.
Denique saeuissima rebellio instruitur.

25. Quae postquam duci comperta sunt Guillelmo, e Constan­

tino pago,1 ubi certiorem nuntium accepit, ea properabat celer­
itate, ut equi comitantium praeter sex, omnes priusquam
peruentum sit Arcas lassitudine defecerint. Nam festinantem, ut
contrairet iniuriae suae, amplius incitauerunt audita mala prouin-
ciae suae. Ecclesiarum bona, agrestium labores, negotiatorum
lucra, militum praedam iniuste fieri dolebat. Miserando planctu
imbellis uulgi, qui multus tempore belli aut seditionum oriri solet,
aduocari se cogitabat. Ceterum in itinere haud procul ab ipso
castro obuios habuit quosdam suae militiae principes, fidos
acceptosque sibi. Hi repentino rumore in urbe Rotomago quae
comes Arcensis agitabat audierant, et cum equitibus trecentis
quantocius Arcas accesserant, si conuectationem frumenti et
aliarum rerum contra obsidionem necessariarum prohibere ualer-
ent. Verum, ubi cognouerunt maximas copias militum inibi
congregatas esse simul, quia metuebant ipsos etiam qui secum
uenerant transituros fore ad societatem Guillelmi, ante posteri
diei ortum (sic eis amicorum opinio secreto praedixerat) diffisi
quam ocissime redibant. Haec referunt, atque ipsi ut exercitum
praestoletur consilium dant. Etenim eius partem plus quam fama
diuulgauerit deseri, uiciniam pene omnem in aduersarii fauorem
concedere, ulterius pergere cum paucis nimis0 periculosum esse.
At constantia illius minime his ad pauorem est mota, uel ad
diffidentiam. Nam eos confirmans hoc responso, nihil quidem

a M F ; rimis D

1 Duke William may have visited the Cotentin at the time that Geoffrey o f Montbray,
bishop of Coutances, after returning from fund-raising in Italy, began the restoration o f his
diocese r.10 51 (Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’ , pp. 282-4).
»• 25 TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 37

drove him to exact vengeance as though he had suffered injuries

and loss o f property. It caused great wretchedness in the province
all around. Disturbances, pillage and rapine, rage unchecked,
threatening devastation. T he castle is equipped with arms, men,
provisions, and everything necessary for such an enterprise; the
ramparts, already strong, are made still stronger. No place remains
for peace and rest. In brief, a most dire rebellion is prepared.

25. When the duke had learned o f this, he set out from the
Cotentin,1 where a trustworthy messenger had come to him, riding
with such speed that all but six o f the horses o f his companions
dropped from exhaustion before reaching Arques. For while he was
hurrying to avenge the insult to himself, news o f the harm done to
his province drove him on faster still. He lamented that the goods
o f churches, the labours o f country people, and the profits o f
merchants were unjustly made the booty o f men-at-arms. He
thought he was summoned by the pitiable lamentations o f the
unwarlike masses, which always arise in time o f war or sedition.
But in his journey, not far from the castle, he was met by certain
leaders o f his troops, who were trustworthy and acceptable to him.
T hey had suddenly had news in the city o f Rouen o f what the
count o f Arques was doing, and had rushed with all speed to
Arques with three hundred mounted men, to see if they could
intercept the carriage o f com and other things necessary for the
siege. But when they learned that very large armed forces were
assembled there, because they feared that even those who had come
with them would go over to the company o f William o f Arques
before the next day dawned (as they had been warned by
information received in secret from friends), their courage failed
them, and they returned as fast as possible. They reported these
facts, and advised the duke to wait for his army, because, they said,
his party had been deserted even more than rumour suggested,
almost the whole o f the neighbourhood supported his adversary,
and it was much too dangerous to go on with only a few men. But
his resolve was not for a moment turned by this to fear or
misgiving. Indeed, encouraging them with the answer that the
rebels would not dare to do anything against him when they saw
38 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 26

rebelles in se, cum praesentem conspexerint, ausuros, mox,

quantum calcaria equum cogere poterant, accelerans perrexit.
Egit eum propria fortitudo; felicitatem ei promisit iusta causa.
Et ecce ut seditionis principem in praealto monte cum acie
multarum legionum prospexit, enisus in arduo cunctos intra
munitionem terga dare impigerrime compulit. Ac ni obstitissent
citius obseratae fores, insecutus, uti animus iratus fortisque tulit,
male ominatos ex magna parte obtruncauisset. Rem uere gestam,
et quid prope gestum erat memoramus, sed quae posteritas
difficile sit creditura. Dein potiri uolens munitione, iussu propere
contracto exercitu circumsedit. Fuit difficillimum, quos ea natura
loci maxime defensabat, expugnare. Sane more suo illo optimo,
rem optans absque cruore confectum iri, efferatos et contumaces
obice castelli ad montis pedem extructi clausit praesidioque
imposito, aliis postea negotiis inuitantibus, ipse recessit, ut dum
ferro parceret, fame uinceret.1
Monet equidem digna ratio et hoc memoriae prodere, quam pia
continentia caedem semper uitauerit, nisi bellica ui aut alia graui
necessitudine urgente. Exilio, carcere, item alia animaduersione,
quae uitam non adimeret, ulcisci malebat; quos iuxta ritum siue
legum instituta, caeteri principes gladio absumunt belli captos, uel
domi criminum capitalium manifestos, salubriter pensans qui
arbiter, quam tremendus, terrenae potestatis acta desuper pro-
spiciat, moderatae clementiae ut immoderatae saeuitiae omnique
meritorum qualitati sua cuique decernens.2

26. Audiens uero rex Henricus inclusum esse cuius uesaniae

fautor erat atque consultor, auxilium ferre festinat, manum
adducens armatorum non modicam ad hoc quibus indigent
obsessi complura.3 Adducti in spem memorandi facinoris
1 Cf. Vegetius, iii. 3 (p. 69).
2 Cf. Cicero’s definition of justice, ‘suum cuique tribuendo’ (De officiis i. 5. 1). Exile,
rather than execution, was a common punishment in Norman custom. Duke William,
however, had his critics. Guibert of Nogent later complained, with some exaggeration in
writing o f his father’s imprisonment, ‘Cuius comitis [sc. Willelmi] consuetudo fuerat, ut
nunquam captiuos suos ad redemptionem cogeret sed perpetua dum aduiuerent carceris
relegatione damnauit’ (Guibert de Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. E-R. Labande (Paris, 1981),
p. 88).
3 WJ gives an account o f the siege o f Arques with different details; he adds that the king
camped at Saint-Aubin-sur-Scie (G N D ii. 102-5). Orderic (OV iii. 254) refers to fighting
i. 2 6 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 39

that he was present, he spurred on his horse vigorously, and

galloped away at top speed. His own courage drove them on; the
justice o f his cause promised a happy issue.
And behold, when he saw the leader o f this revolt on a high
hill, with a force o f many troops, he forced his way to the top and
compelled them all to turn tail and retreat shamefully into the
fortress. And if they had not quickly shut the gates in his face as
he pursued them, driven on by anger and courage, he would have
slaughtered the greater part o f this ill-fated crowd. We are
recording what really happened and what was nearly done, but
posterity will always find it difficult to believe. Then, wishing to
gain possession o f the castle, he besieged it with an army
assembled at his command. It was very difficult to overcome
those who were strongly defended by the nature o f the place. In
his usual admirable way, wishing to complete the enterprise
without bloodshed, he shut in the angry rebels by throwing up
a siege-tower at the foot o f the hill, and placing a garrison in it;
then, since other business was pressing, he withdrew so that he
might subdue by hunger those whom he spared from the sword.1
We are impelled by right reason to place also on record that
through his virtuous restraint he always avoided slaughter unless
the pressure o f war or some other grave necessity compelled it. He
preferred to punish with exile, imprisonment, or some other
penalty which did not cost life, those whom other princes, in
accordance with custom or established law, put to the sword:
namely, prisoners o f war, or those who were clearly guilty o f capital
crimes at home. He wisely had in mind how redoubtable a judge
looks from on high on the deeds o f earthly powers, and distributes
mercy and punishment to each according to his deserts.2

26. But King Henry, hearing that the man whose recklessness
he had promoted and encouraged was besieged, hastened to come I
to his aid, bringing a considerable force o f armed men and
plentiful supplies o f things which the besieged lacked.3 Impelled
by the hope o f performing a memorable deed, some o f those whom
round Saint-Aubin, where Richard o f Heugleville was holding out in support o f Duke
William.
40 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 2 7

quidam ex eo numero, qui in praesidio ducis relicti custodiunt,

Francorum aduentantium itinera explorata insidunt. Et ecce
numerosa pars minus cauti excipiuntur. Ingelrannus Pontiui
comes,1 nobilitate notus ac fortitudine, et cum eo quamplures
uiri nominati interimuntur. Hugo Bardulfus ipse item uir magnus
capitur.2 Perueniens tamen quo ire intenderat, rex exacerbitissi-
mis animis summa ui praesidium attentauit, Guillelmum ab
aerumnis uti eriperet, pariter decrementum sui, stragem suorum
uindicaret. Sed ubi negotium difficile animaduertit (quippe
inimicos impetus facile tolerauerunt castelli munimenta, et mili­
tum uirtus aeque ualida) ne cruenta morte et pudenda fuga
pelleretur, abire maturauit, decus nullum adeptus, nisi forte
decorum fuerit quorum aduenit causa inopiam stipendio min­
uisse, militibus numerum auxisse.

27. Reuerso dein ad obsidionem duce, et qualiter otium

aliquod iocundum celebrari solet, in procinctu aliquandiu
morato, famis acrimonia saeuius et arctius quam armis urgens
prope iam expugnauit. Rex denuo accitus multo et misere supplici
nuntio, uenire abnuit, superiorem casum reputans, magis aspera
magisque ignominiosa metuens. Cernit tandem angustiarum oculo
Papiae partus3 rapiendi contra dominum suum principatus cupi­
dinem malesuadam esse, sacramentum aut fidem uiolare, ut
iniquum sic plerumque perniciosum; pacis nomen blandum et
dulce, rem ipsam profecto iucundam et salutarem. Damnat ipse
prae cupctis nimium audax incoeptum, dementissimum consi­
lium, ruinosum factum. Dolet armatum se in arctis arctari.
Impetrant supplicantes deditionem accipi, praeter uitam nihil
aliud neque honestum neque utile pacti.
En spectaculum triste, letum miserabile. Properant ultra quam
uires inualidae sufficiant famosi paulo ante equites cum Normannis

1 Enguerrand II, count o f Ponthieu, the son o f Hugh II (d. 20 Nov. 1052), had recently
succeeded his father when he was killed on 25 October 1053 (C. Brunei, Recueil des actes
des comtes de Ponthieu i02Ô -t27g (Paris, 1930), pp. iii-iv; G N D ii. 104-5).
2 Hugh Bardulf was the lord o f Nogent and Pithiviers (G N D ii. 104 n. 2).
3 William of Arques was the son o f Count Richard II and his second wife Papia.
i. 27 T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 41

the duke had left as a garrison on guard spied out and lay in ambush
along the route o f the advancing French. And, sure enough, a
considerable number o f the less cautious were captured. Enguer-
rand, count o f Ponthieu,1 a man famous for his nobility and
courage, was killed, and with him a great many distinguished
men. Hugh Bardulf himself, also a great lord, was captured.2
Nevertheless on reaching his objective, the king, whose men had
been provoked to anger, attacked the garrison o f the siege-castle
with all his strength. He wished to rescue William o f Arques from
his predicament, and also to avenge his own embarrassment and the
slaughter o f his men. But when he found that the enterprise was
difficult, for the fortifications easily withstood hostile attacks, and
the courage o f the men-at-arms was equally firm, he hastened his
departure, so as not to be reduced to a bloody death or shameful
flight. He had won no glory, unless it can be called glorious to have
alleviated with his money the poverty o f those he had come to help,
and increased the number o f their men-at-arms.

27. T he duke then returned to the siege and remained for

some time in the neighbourhood, like a man at ease with time on
his hands, pressing the besieged more harshly and closely with the
pinch o f hunger than with arms, until they were on the point o f
surrender. T h e king, summoned again and again by urgent
piteous messages, declined to come; reflecting on the previous
disaster, he feared a still more bitter and ignominious outcome. At
last the offspring o f Papia3 saw with anguished eyes that he had
been ill-advised to covet power and snatch it from his lord, that to
violate his oath and faith was both iniquitous and often danger­
ous; and that the very name o f peace was sweet and pleasant, and
the reality o f it truly delightful and salutary. He blames himself
more than anyone else for the rash undertaking, the crazy plan,
and the ruinous outcome. He regrets that he is in arms and in
such a tight comer. Suppliants humbly obtain terms o f surrender,
asking for nothing honourable or useful except their lives.
What a sad spectacle! What a wretched end! French knights,
famous such a little while before, come out with the Normans as
fast as their failing strength permits, hanging their heads as much
42 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 2 9

euadere Franci, non minus dedecore quam inedia ceruicibus

contusis, pars in iumentis famelicis, quae pedum cornu modice
uel sonarent uel puluerem excitarent, pendentes; pars ocreis et
calcaribus ornati, insolito comitatu incedentes, et eorum plerique
sellam equestrem incuruo languidoque dorso, nonnulli solum se
nutabundi uix eportantes. Erat item cernere calamitatem leuis
armaturae egredientis foedam ac uariam.

28. Miserans infortunia huius quoque, ut pridem Guidonis,

celebranda ducis clementia noluit extorrem et inopem casu magis
pudendo cruciari; sed, cum gratia et possessionibus quibusdam
amplis atque multorum redituum, patriam ei concessit, aestimans
rectum potius in eo patruum reminisci quam aduersarium
insectari.1
In ipsa mora obsidionali Normannorum aliquanti potentiores
ab duce ad regem defecerunt, quos iam antea conspirationis
rebellantium occultique fuisse adiutores opinabile erat. Maliuo-
lentiam, qua olim contra infantem fuerant inflati, nondum
euomuere totam. Eorum e consortio Guimundus, praesidens
munitioni quam Molendinas appellant, in manus regis eam
dedit.2 Imposita est regis cohors: Guido frater comitis Pictauensis
Guillelmi, atque Romanae imperatricis,3 et cum eo uiri militares
atque illustres. Verum et ii, et quiqui alias relicti sunt a Francis,
cum deditas esse comperissent Archarum latebras, sese nostris
fuga furati sunt. Normanni autem, puniendi lege transfugarum,4
leui poena aut nulla domino suo reconciliati sunt; rati nullas iam
opes uel astutias contra eum fore efficaces.

29. Vehementius post haec in aemulationem exardere, nouoque

moueri tumultu Francia coepit. Principes uniuersi cum rege,
1 W J (G N D ii. 104) simply says, ‘ipse a natiuo solo in exilium discessit.’ Orderic in his
interpolations (ibid.) adds that he went with his wife, a sister o f Count Guy o f Ponthieu, to
Count Eustace of Boulogne, in whose household he received food and clothing, and that he
remained in exile until his death. It is possible that WP’s carefully worded statement could
be read as meaning that Duke William did not confiscate his patrimony or leave him
penniless, rather than that he allowed him to live on his estates. WP could be evasive about
cruelty in writing of the duke, but he did not as a rule tell a deliberate lie.
2 For Guitmund o f Moulins-la-Marche and his family, see Orderic (OV iii. 132 n. 1).
Although Guitmund had eight sons, Duke William passed them over after this betrayal,
and gave the custody o f the castle to the husband o f his daughter Alberada.
i. 2 9 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 43

from shame as from starvation; some clinging to starved mounts,

whose hooves hardly ring out or stir the dust; some wearing
greaves and spurs, advancing in strange company, most o f them
carrying their horse’s saddle on their bowed and weary backs,
some staggering and barely keeping upright. It was equally
pitiable to see in all its forms the sordid ruin o f the lightly
armed troops as they came out.

28. T he duke, with his praiseworthy clemency, pitying the

misfortunes o f this man, as before he had pitied G uy, did not
wish him, banished and penniless as he was, to be punished more
shamefully. Instead he granted him his patrimony, with his
favour, and certain extensive lands which yielded substantial
revenues, thinking it right rather to remember that he was his
paternal uncle than to pursue him as an enemy.1
In the course o f the long siege, some o f the powerful Normans
defected from the duke to the king, men who were thought to
have been secret supporters o f the rebels’ conspiracy already.
T hey had not yet quite rid themselves o f the ill-will which they
had nourished against the duke when he was a child. Amongst
them Guitmund, the commander o f a castle named Moulins, gave
it into the king’s hands, and a royal garrison was placed in it:2
G uy, brother o f William count o f Poitiers and o f the Roman
empress,3 and with him many knightly and illustrious men. But
these men too, together with others who had been left behind by
the French, on learning o f the surrender o f the lair o f Arques,
escaped from our men by flight. But the Normans, who should
have been punished by the law o f deserters,4 were reconciled to
their lord with a light punishment or none at all; they had learnt
that neither wealth nor cunning could prevail against him.

29. After this France began to be disturbed by a new tumult,

and more violently enflamed in rivalry. All the princes with the
3 Guy-Geoffrey, brother o f William-Aigret, count o f Poitiers, and o f Agnes, wife o f the
emperor Henry III (Guillot, Anjou, p. 60). This marriage marked the beginning of
Geoffrey Martel’s alliance with the emperor, which brought him into conflict with the king
of France. By 1053 he was turning back to a French alliance, to counter the threat o f a
strong Normandy.
4 See Tardif, i, c. 37, p. 32, ‘De fugitivis9.
44 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 2 9

Normanno principi ex inimicis iam inimicissimi. Anxie tumebat

in eorum maliuolis mentibus uulnus praecipue inuidum, quod
recenter sauciauit mors Ingelranni comitis et in eodem conflictu
interemptorum. Acerbe inflammabat eos memoria euentus Ande-
gauorum comitis Gaufredi, depulsi dudum Guillelmi clipeo,
qualiter memorauimus,1 aliorumque non modici numeri detri­
mentorum, atque dedecorum inflictorum eis uirtute Normannica.
Inimicitiae causas ueraciter explanamus ac pleniter.
Rex egerrime ferebat, et uelut contumeliam suam diffiniebat
quam maxime ulciscendam, cum imperatorem Romanum, quo
maius potentiae siue dignitatis nomen in orbe terrarum aliud non
est, amicum et socium haberet;2 prouinciis multis praesideret
potentibus, quarum domini aut rectores militiae suae essent
administri; comitem Guillelmum suum nec amicum nec militem,
sed hostem esse; Normanniam quae sub regibus Francorum egit
ex antiquo,3 prope in regnum euectam; superiorum eius comitum,
quanquam ardua ualuerint nullum in haec ausa illatum.
Condolentes in eadem Tedbaldus,4 Pictauorum comes,5 Gau-
fredus,6 item reliqui summates, quadam insuper indignatione
priuata; intolerandum ducebant sese regis, quocunque praeuia
uocarent, signis parere. Guillelmum Normannorum nequaquam
pro rege, sed confidenter atque indesinenter ad eius magnitudi­
nem, quam aliquantum attriuit, ulterius atterendam, uel si qua uia
ualeat, conterendam, in armis agitare. Praeterea concupiebant
Normanniam aut eius partem quidam regis proximi. H i, quasi
faces flagrantissimae, regem incendebant et principes.7
1 See above, i. 18.
2 The emperor Henry III (1039-56). Relations between King Henry and the emperor
fluctuated; in 1047 they were in conflict on the frontier o f Lotharingia. An agreement
was reached at Ivois in the following year; though the rapprochement was short-lived,
WP may have had this in mind. For the changing alliances, see J. Dhondt, ‘Henri Ier,
Pempire et PAnjou (1043-1056)’, Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, xxv (1947), 9 5 -
102. The Latin is ambiguous; Foreville (p. 66 n. 1) and Körner, p. 219, interpreted it as
implying an alliance between the emperor and the duke of Normandy (of which no
supporting evidence is known); but it may mean that the king o f France had the emperor
as his friend and ally.
5 WP used the same words (below, i. 43) o f Conan II’s rejection o f Duke William,
‘Normanniae hostis, non miles, esse uoluit.’ The exact relationship between the dukes o f
Normandy and the kings of France was disputed. Foreville (p. 66 n. 2) interprets WP’s
statement as an admission that Normandy was held as a fief o f the French crown; but this
is questionable. WP seems rather to support the duke’s refusal to admit vassalage. For the
i. 3 0 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 45
king, who were already enemies o f the prince o f Normandy,
became his mortal enemies. Above all, the hateful wound recently
inflicted by the death o f Count Enguerrand and those slain with
him festered in their perverse minds. T he memory o f the
misfortune suffered by Geoffrey, count o f Anjou, who had
recently been thrown back (as I have related)1 by William’s
shield, kindled their bitterness, as did the recollection o f numer­
ous defeats and humiliations inflicted on them by the Norman
might. We will explain the causes o f the enmity truthfully and in
full. T h e king bore it ill and considered it an affront very greatly
to be avenged, that while he had the Roman emperor as a friend
and ally2— and no other name in the whole world is greater in
power and dignity than is his— and while he presided over many
powerful provinces o f which the lords and rulers commanded
troops in his army, Count William was neither his friend nor his
vassal, but his enemy; and that Normandy, which had been under
the kings o f the Franks from the earliest times,3 had now been
raised almost to a kingdom. None o f the more prominent counts,
however great their aspirations, had dared anything o f this sort.
Theobald,4 the count o f the Poitevins,5 Geoffrey6 and the other
great magnates joined their voices to these complaints, and had in
addition a private grievance o f their own. They found it intolerable
that, when summoned, they had to follow the king’s banners
wherever he led the way. They took arms against William, duke
o f the Normans, not in any way for the king, but to wear down
steadily and relentlessly his power, which the king had already
somewhat weakened, or to destroy it, if this could be achieved in
any way. Besides this, certain men who were nearest to the king
coveted Normandy, or part o f it. These men, like burning torches,
enflamed the zeal o f the king and his princes.7

changing relationship o f the dukes of Normandy and the kings o f France, see C. W.
Hollister, ‘Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman regnum\ Monarchy, Magnates and
Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London and Ronceverte, 1986), pp. 17-57
[ = Speculum, li (1976), 202-42], esp. 18 -19 .
4 Theobald III, count o f Blois, Chartres and Champagne.
5 William V II, duke o f Aquitaine and count o f Poitou. It is strange that WP does not
give his name; possibly it was accidentally omitted in Duchesne’s edition.
6 Geoffrey Martel, count o f Anjou.
7 See G N D ii. 142-4 for similar allegations made by WJ.
46 GESTA GVILLELM I »• 30

30. Eas ob res, post consultationem infausto omine commun­

icatam, edicto regio bellum iubente, innumerosissimae copiae in
Normanniam expeditae sunt. Burgundiam, Aruerniam, atque
Wasconiam properare uideres horribiles ferro; imo uires tanti
regni, quantum in climata mundi quatuor patent cunctas; Fran-
ciam1 tamen et Britanniam2 quanto nobis uiciniores, tanto
ardentius infestas. Iulium Caesarem, uel bellandi peritiorem
aliquem, si fuerit peritior, exercitus Romani ducem, ex mille
nationibus coacti olim dum Roma florentissima mille prouinciis
imperitasset, huius agminis immanitate terreri potuisse affirmaris.
Nimirum concipit pauorem aliquantum terra nostra. Ecclesiae
metuunt inquietanda fore otia sanctae religionis, stipendia sua ex
libidine armatorum diripienda, quamuis orationum praesidio
certantes confidant. Plebs urbana et agrestis0 necnon quicunque
imbellis et minus firmus, solliciti sunt ac trepidi; timent sibi,
uxoribus, liberis, rebus suis, cum adeo grauem hostem timoris
modo ampliorem quam sit metiuntur. At cum reminiscuntur
quem habeant propugnatorem, quam luctuosas patriae calamitates
adhuc adolescens, uel puer potius, magno consilio maximaque
uirtute sustulerit, spe timorem leniunt, afflictionem fiducia
consolantur.
Verum admirandae constantiae dux Guillelmus nulla perculsus
formidine, regi, qui robur immanius ipse ducit, iam in Rotoma-
gensem ex Ebroicensi pago sensim procedenti, magno animo sese
festinus opponit. Transaduersam ripam Sequanae partem suarum
copiarum, ut hostem distributum praenouit, contra dirigens.3 Sic
enim dispositum est industria quae multum profutura sperabatur;
ut quantus miles inter Sequanam et Garonnam fluuios colliger­
etur (quas gentes multas uno nomine Celtigallos4 appellant) ii nos
a M F ; aggrestis D
1 Trance* is here used in the sense of the royal demesne.
2 After the death o f Alan III (1028-40) there was an anti-Norman reaction in Brittany,
led by the regent, Eudo of Porhoet, on behalf of his nephew Conan II, who assumed power
in 1055. See A. de la Borderie, Histoire de Bretagne, 6 vols. (Rennes and Paris, 1896-1914),
iii. 14 -16 .
3 WJ (G N D ii. 142-4) described the two-pronged attack and its failure much more
briefly. OV in his interpolations (G N D ii. 144) gave further details, and added that the date
o f the battle of Mortemer was 1054. In his Ecclesiastical History (OV iv. 86-8) he enlarged
his account, and dated the battle more precisely 'before Lent* (which began on 16 Feb.).
». 30 T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 47

30. Because o f these things, after a consultation o f unhappy

augury had been held, countless royal troops were sent into
Normandy by a royal edict ordering war. You could see Burgundy,
Auvergne, and Gascony hastening, bristling with arms; or rather,
all the forces o f a kingdom as great as any you could find in the four
comers o f the world. But France1 and Brittany,2 since they are
nearer to us, are that much more ardently hostile. You would affirm
that Julius Caesar, or some other general more adept at war (if such
there were), leading a Roman army mustered from a thousand
nations at a time when Rome, at the height o f its prosperity, ruled
over a thousand provinces, would have been terrified by the size o f
this army. No wonder our land felt some fear. T he churches feared
that the peace o f religious worship would be disturbed and their
revenues seized by the greed o f armed men, though they put their
trust in the protection o f prayers, with which they fight. The
common people in town and country, and all those who are weak
and not fitted for war were anxious and afraid. They feared for
themselves, their wives, their children, and their goods, for their
fear exaggerated in their estimation the danger from an enemy who
was in any case redoubtable. But when they consider whom they
have as a defender, what dire misfortunes for his country he has
endured with great wisdom and supreme courage as a young man,
even indeed as a boy, their fear is tempered with hope and their
suffering is eased by confidence.
Indeed Duke William, admirable in his constancy and shaken
by no fear, hastens with high spirits to confront the king, who,
personally leading a force larger than his, is already advancing
against Rouen from the region o f Evreux, sending a part o f his
forces across to the opposite bank o f the Seine against the enemy
whose dispositions are already known to him.3 For a plan had
been drawn up which was expected to be very efficacious: namely
that all the military forces that had been assembled between the
Seine and the Garonne (numerous peoples who are called by the
single name o f Centigauls)4 should attack on the one side under

4 Cf. Caesar, De bello gallico i. 1, ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam
incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli
appellantur.*
48 GESTA GVILLELMI '• 31
hac, rege ipso duce, inuaderent; illae uero ducibus, fratre regis
Odone,1 et Rainaldo2 familiarissimo, inter flumen Rhenum et
Sequanam collecti, quae Gallia Belgica nuncupatur. Regem
insuper comitabatur Aquitania, pars Galliae tertia et latitudine
regionum et multitudine hominum a plerisque aestimata. Nec
mirum si forte Francorum temeritati atque superbiae sic munitae
spes erat aliquanta, ducem nostrum aut opprimendum esse ea
mole, aut ignominiosa fuga elapsurum; milites aut occidendos, aut
capiendos; oppida excidenda, uicos exurendos; haec ferienda
gladio, illa in praedam diripienda, postremo terram totam usque
in foedam solitudinem redigendam.

3 1. Sed longe alium res euentum habuit. Nam inauspicato

congressi Odo et Rainaldus, cum suam aciem quam terribili
atrocitate uastari animaduerterent, ducatu et ensis ope simul
omissis, equorum uelocitate saluti consulunt. Vrgebat namque
ceruices eorum, non meritas leniora, mucro Roberti Aucensis
comitis,3 ut natalibus ita uirtute magni, una Hugonis Gornacen-
sis,4 Hugonis Montisfortis,5 Gualterii Giffardi,6 Guillelmi Cris-
pini,7 aliorumque nostrae partis fortissimorum uirorum. Guido
Pontiui comes, ad uindicandum fratrem Ingelrannum8 nimis
auidus, captus est, et cum eo complures genere et opibus clari;
plurimi ceciderunt, reliquos fuga eripuit cum antesignanis.9
Cognito citius hoc successu propugnator noster dux Guillelmus
nocte intempesta caute instructum quendam direxit, qui tristem
regi uictoriam propius castra ipsius ab alto arboris per singula
inclamauit.10 Rex attonitus inopinato nuntio, procul omni cunc­
tatione signo antelucano suos in fugam excitauit; summe neces-

1 Odo was the fourth son o f King Robert the Pious and Constance.
2 Reginald I, count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis and royal chamberlain; for his family, see
P. Feuchère, (La principauté d’Amiens-Valois au xic siècle’, Le moyen âge, lx (1954), 1-37«
at p. 26 n. 89.
3 The son o f William o f Eu and brother o f Hugh, bishop o f Lisieux. Orderic (OV iv. 86)
singles him out as a leader o f the defence, and adds the name o f Roger o f Mortemer.
4 Hugh II o f Goumay, who married Gerard Fleitel’s daughter Basilia.
5 Hugh II o f Montfort-sur-Risle.
6 Walter Giffard I o f Longueville-sur-Scie.
7 William Crispin I, whose son Gilbert became abbot o f Westminster. For his family,
see J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot o f Westminster (Cambridge, 19 11), p. 16
(document no. 3).
i. 3 1 T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 49

the personal command o f the king; while the men-at-arms

collected from the region between the Rhine and the Seine,
known as Belgic Gaul, should attack on the other side under
the leadership o f the king’s brother Odo1 and Reginald,2 his
leading household officer. In addition Aquitaine accompanied the
king; it is the third part o f Gaul, esteemed by many for the extent
o f its land and the multitude o f its people. N o wonder if the
French, so fortified in their proud recklessness, nursed a hope o f
either crushing our duke by sheer numbers or forcing him to take
to his heels in shameful flight; and then either slaying or
capturing our soldiers, destroying our fortified towns, burning
our villages, smiting some with the sword, pillaging and sacking
others, and finally reducing our whole land to a dreadful desert.

3 1. Far different was the outcome. For when Odo and

Reginald, caught unawares, saw their army being mercilessly
destroyed, they abandoned both their command and the use o f
their swords and entrusted their safety to the speed o f their
horses. T hey were closely pursued, their necks— deserving
nothing better— threatened by the sword-point o f Robert count
o f Eu,3 as highly bom as he was courageous, together with Hugh
o f Goum ay,4 Hugh o f Montfort,5 Walter Giffard,6 William
Crispin,7 and the most valiant men o f our party. G uy count o f
Ponthieu, too eager to avenge his brother Enguerrand,8 was taken
prisoner, and with him a good number o f men o f high birth and
great wealth; many fell, the rest escaped by flight with their
banner-bearers.9 Our champion, Duke William, the moment he
heard o f this victory, sent o ff a herald in the middle o f the night,
with careful instructions to proclaim in full detail the sad news o f
the victory from the top o f a tree near his camp.10 T he king,
stunned by the unexpected news, put aside all thought o f delay

8 Guy, count o f Ponthieu, had just succeeded his brother Enguerrand, killed in 1053
(see above, i. 26).
9 ‘Antesignani’ can mean a chosen band, who fight in the front rank before the banners;
cf. Vegetius, ii. 7 (p. 41), ‘Campigeni, hoc est antesignani, ideo sic nominati quia eorum
opera atque virtute exercitii genus crescit in campo.’
10 Orderic (‘Interpolations’, G N D ii. 144-5) names the herald as Rodulf o f Tosny.
50 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 3 *

sanum ratus quam maxima celeritate Normanniae finibus dis­

cedere.

32. Multa dehinc hostilia utrinque acta sunt, qualia praeter

belli conflictum inter tantos hostes fieri solent. Francis tandem
grauissimarum sibi dissentionum finem cupientissime uolentibus,
pax conuenit ea pactione inter ducem et regem media, ut capti
apud Maremortuum regi redderentur, eius uero assensu et quasi
dono quodam dux iure perpetuo retineret quod Gaufrido Ande-
gauorum comiti abstulerat, quodque ualeret auferre. Confestim in
ipso conuentu principes militiae suae iussu commonuit dux intra
terminos Martelli Andegauensis ad Ambreras construendas
mature adesse paratos.1 Et quem huius incoepti diem eis, ipse
eundem Martello per legatos praefiniuit. O ualidum, o confiden­
tem et nobilem huius uiri animum! O admirandum, nec facile
competenti praeconio extollendam, uirtutem! Non petit imbellis
cuiuslibet terram debellandum, sed tiranni ferocissimi et in re
militari, ut superiora docuere, plurimum strenui quem, uti
fulmen terribile, comites atque duces potentissimi tremerent;
cuius uires et uersutias collimitantum ei quisquam uix euaderet.
Porro, ut magis admirere, ipsum hostem incautum uel imparatum
non aggreditur, sed prius ei diebus .xl. ubi, quando cuius rei
gratia sit aduenturus, denuntiat.
Huius famae terrore perculsus Gaufredus Meduanensis,2*
Gaufredum dominum suum festinus adit, dolens et miserans
conqueritur: constructis Ambreris opibus Normannorum,
terram eius ad libitum inimici inuadendam, destruendam, deso­
landam. Cui tirannus Martellus, ut erat elatus animo, grandia
praesumere et loqui solitus, ‘Meum ’, inquit, ‘sicut uilis et

1 WJ (G N D ii. 124-6), mentions the building o f the castle o f Ambrières immediately

after the surrender o f Alençon. The Quedam exceptiones (G N D ii, appendix, p. 300) places
it after the fall o f Domfront, and states that it was on the river Colmont: ‘Et ultra
progrediens Amberias uenit. Ibique super ora fluminis quod dicitur Colmunt iuxta
castrum Meduanum municipium forte construxit.9It was at the confluence o f the Colmont
and the Mayenne. Guillot (Anjou, i. 80 n. 358) argues that the construction of the castle of
Ambrières must have been later than the peace agreed after the battle o f Mortemer. This
makes 1054/5 a likely date; and this date is corroborated by the fact that the rebellion of
Robert Giroie o f Saint-Céneri, a vassal o f both Geoffrey o f Mayenne and Duke William
c. 1059-60 was probably connected with Geoffrey’s resistance (OV ii. 26-9, 78 -8 1; 79 n. 3
i. 3 2 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 51

and roused his men to flight before dawn, convinced o f the need
to escape from Norman territory with the utmost speed.

32. From that time many hostile acts o f the kind that
invariably occur o ff the battlefield between such enemies were
committed by both sides. Finally as the French were most anxious
to put an end to discords that were so burdensome for them,
peace was made between the duke and the king, the terms being
that those taken prisoner at Mortemer should be returned to the
king; and that with his assent and, as it were, by his gift the duke
should retain by right for ever what he had taken from Geoffrey
count o f Anjou, and whatever he was able to take from him in the
future. Immediately, and in this very assembly, the duke issued a
command ordering the captains o f his knights to be ready to enter
the territory o f the Angevin, Martel, to build the castle o f
Ambrières;1 and he sent messengers to tell Martel what day he
had fixed for its commencement. O strong, O confident and noble
spirit o f this man! O admirable valour that cannot be praised too
highly! He does not seek to attack the land o f a peaceful lord, but
that o f a most cruel tyrant, full o f warlike ardour, as was explained
above, whom the most powerful counts and dukes feared like a
dread thunderbolt, whose forces and stratagems scarcely any o f
his neighbours could escape. And then, still more astonishing, he
does not attack this enemy without warning while he is unpre­
pared, but informs him forty days in advance where, when, and
for what reason he will come.
At this news Geoffrey o f Mayenne,2 terror-stricken, hurried to
his lord Geoffrey and complained fearfully and wretchedly that
once Ambrières was built by the wealth o f the Normans, his land
would lie at the mercy o f the enemy, to be invaded, ravaged, and
laid waste at his will. To which the tyrant Martel, a man o f
overweening pride, who was wont to speak with presumptuous
corrects the date (1054) given by Latouche). The construction of the castle o f Ambrières
and Geoffrey’s attempt to capture it may have occupied several years, and the investment
of the castle o f Geoffrey’s still recalcitrant vassal, Robert Giroie, seems to have been a
mopping-up operation.
2 WP’s account o f the fighting in Maine, written after the conflict was over, is clearer
and more detailed than the earlier account o f WJ (G N D ii. 15 0 -1). This episode was
abbreviated by Ralph de Diceto, R D ii. 263.
52 GESTA GVILLELM I »• 33

pudendi domini omnino abnuas dominium si, patiente me, patrari

uideas quod m etuis/1

33. Die praefinito, Cenomanicum* solum ingressus Norman-

norum rector, dum castrum quod minatus est erigit, fama
referente, quae tam falsi quam ueri nuncia uolat,2 Gaufredum
Martellum breui aduenturum audit. Quapropter opere adminis­
trato hostis aduentum magna constantia et alacritate praestolatur.
Quem ubi amplius opinione morari uidet, et iam de cibariorum
penuria plebeii pariter ac proceres conqueruntur, ne milite minus
prompto in futurum utatur, modo dimittere statuit, castro uiris et
alimoniis munito, iubens tamen, ut cum nuncium eius acceperint,
quantocius eodem redeant cuncti.
Exercitus nostri mox diuulgato discessu, Martellus in auxilium
suum adiunctis Guillelmo Pictauorum comite3 domino suo et
Eudone Britannorum comite,4 necnon undequaque copiis collec­
tis, Ambreras contendit. Dein praesidii situ et munimentis
perspectis, ad oppugnandum accingitur. Parant uallum rescin­
dere; castellani resistunt. Exardent, audent, aggrediuntur propius
et acrius; certatur utrinque magna ui. Missilia, saxa, libriles
sudes, item lanceae desuper feriunt. Iis plerique interempti
cadunt, alii repelluntur. Sic audaci molimine cassato aliud
incipiunt. Tentant murum ariete, qui percussus in uirga* castel­
lanorum frangitur.5
Interea cognito labore suorum munitionis fundator Guillel-
mus,6 omnis morae impatiens euocat exercitum, subuentum ire
quam maxime properat. Quem postquam inimici tres adeo
nominati comites adequitare percipiunt, mira celeritate, ne
dicam trepida fuga, cum immanibus exercitibus dilabuntur.
* Coenomannicum D ; Cenomannicum M F * D adds in marg. ariete

1 Cf. Caesar, De bello civili iii. 45.6, ‘Dicitur eo tempore glorians apud suos Pompeius
dixisse: non recusare se quia nullus usus imperator estimaretur, si sine maximo detrimento
legiones Caesaris sese recepissent inde quo temere essent progressae.9
2 Cf. Vergil, Aeneid, iv. 188.
3 William VII o f Aquitaine; see Halphen, Anjou, p. 61.
4 Eudo of Porhoet, count o f Penthièvre, who was exercising power in Brittany, at first
during the minority, and then in opposition to Count Alan’s son, Conan II, who assumed
authority in 1055. See above, p. 46 n. 20.
5 The Latin is obscure, and probably corrupt; the marginal note ‘ariete’ in Duchesne’s
»• 33 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 53

rhetoric, replied, ‘You may renounce my lordship completely, as

that o f a vile and dishonoured lord, if you see the things you fear
come to pass while I stand idly by.’ 1

33. On the appointed day, the ruler o f the Normans entered

the territory o f Maine and, while he was building the castle as he
had threatened, he heard on the grapevine, which reports both
true and false news,2 that Geoffrey Martel would soon be there.
So, after finishing o ff the work, he waited steadfastly and eagerly
for the arrival o f the enemy. However, when Geoffrey delayed
longer than was expected, and the Norman rank and file no less
than the nobles were beginning to complain o f the shortage o f
food, William decided that, for fear o f the army growing slack,
since the castle was well-furnished with men and supplies, he
would send his forces away for the time being. He gave orders
that when they received a message from him they should all
return there as quickly as possible.
Once he had heard the news o f our army’s departure, Martel,
joined by his allies William count o f the Poitevins,3 who was his
lord, Eudo, a count o f the Bretons,4 and forces collected from all
sides, advanced on Ambrières. Then, after inspecting the site and
the fortifications, he prepares to assault it. T he attackers make
ready to break down the rampart; the castle garrison resists. They
become eager, they are daring, they attack more closely and
bitterly. T he battle is fought with great violence on both sides.
Missiles, stones, heavy stakes, and also lances rain down from
above. Struck by these, many fall, slain; others are driven back. As
soon as their bold onslaught is broken, they begin another. They
attack the wall with a battering-ram; but when it is struck by the
[barricade] o f the besieged, it is broken.5
Meanwhile William, the founder o f the fortress,6 hearing o f the
struggle o f his men and impatient o f the delay, summons his army
and hurries to the rescue with all speed. On seeing him approach,
the three above-mentioned counts disperse with their vast armies
with amazing speed, not to say panic-stricken flight. T he victor
edition may be intended to correct 4uirga\ but it is difficult to understand the manœuvre
described.
6 This paragraph was closely copied by Ralph de Diceto (RD ii. 263).
54 GESTA GVILLELM I »• 34

Victor Gaufredum Meduanensem e uestigio bello adortus, qui

domini furorem praecipue incendit querela praefata; intra exi­
guum tempus eo usque compulit, ut in remotissimis Normanniae
partibus sibi manus perdomitas daret, fidelitatem quam satelles
domino debet, iurans.1

34. Rursum pace soluta, rex ignominiae suae magis quam

detrimenti requirens ultionem, renouata expeditione Norman-
niam aggreditur, exercitu coacto copioso quidem, atd minus
quam antea immani. Regni siquidem eius pars amplior funera,
siue indecoram fugam, suorum lugens aut timens, ad redeundum
super nos minus prona erat, quanquam uindictae in nos longe
cupidissima. Martellus Andegauensis, nondum tot sinistris casi­
bus fractus, minime defuit, quantum ullatenus uirium colligere
potuit adducens. Vix enim huius inimici odium et rabiem
Normanniae tellus penitus contusa uel excisa satiaret. Famam
tamen sui motus quantum potuere occultantes, ne confestim in
ipso ingressu obuio propugnatore, quem experti sunt, repeller­
entur, citis itineribus per Oximensem comitatum ad fluuium
Diuam peruenere, hostili immanitate per transitum populati.
Neque illic aut conuerti placuit, aut consistere fiducia fuit.
Etenim si permitteretur ulterius progredi, quali eo peruentum
est cursu, et sic in Franciam dein euadere incolumes, praeclarae
famae occasionem sibi promisere, quod Guillelmi Normanni
terram ad litus* usque marinum ferro igneque uastauerint,
nemine obsistente, nemine insequente. Verum ea spes, ut illa
quondam, fefellit.
Nam dum ad uadum Diuae morarentur,2 superuenit ipse alacer
cum exigua manu uirorum felici hora. Pars exercitus iam flumen
cum rege transierat. Et ecce fortissimus uindex in residuos
insiluit, cecidit populatores, parcere flagitium credens, cum
patriae sauciatae adeo necessaria causa ageretur, infestissimo
“ M F ; et D * D ; littus M F
1 The Latin is ambiguous; ‘in remotis Normanniae partibus* probably means the parts
furthest from Maine, so that Geoffrey did homage as William’s vassal in the same way as
Harold was later said to have done (below, i. 42). If, however, the meaning is ‘in the
frontier regions’, the homage would have amounted only to "hommage en marche’ .
2 The battle of Varaville was fought in Aug. 1057 (J. Dhondt, ‘ Les relations entre la
France et la Normandie sous Henri I’, Normannia, xii (1939), 482-3), between the estuaries
>• 34 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 55

immediately turned his attack against Geoffrey o f Mayenne, who

had been the particular instigator o f his lord in the said quarrel,
and in a very short time he reduced him to the point o f coming
into the heart o f Normandy, to put his conquered hands into
William’s own, swearing the fealty which a vassal owes his lord.1

34. Once again peace broke down, since the king demanded
justice not so much for the damage as for the humiliation he had
suffered; he undertook a new campaign against Normandy, after
assembling a sizeable army, though less large than the previous one.
The greater part o f the kingdom was mourning, or fearing, the death
or unworthy flight o f its men, and was none too anxious to attack us
again, though very eager to have revenge. Martel the Angevin who,
in spite o f many failures was not yet broken, far from abstaining,
brought the largest force he could collect by any means. It would
scarcely have satisfied the raging hatred o f this man if the land o f
Normandy had been utterly crushed and laid waste. Concealing all
knowledge o f their movements as far as possible, lest they should be
confronted and repelled at the very moment o f their attack by the
champion whose strength they had already experienced, they
crossed the Hiémois by forced marches and reached the river
Dives, plundering as cruel enemies wherever they went. Once
arrived, they were unwilling to turn back and dared not halt.
Indeed, if they had been allowed to advance further, following the
same pattern o f conduct as before, and so finally reaching France in
safety, they promised themselves that it would bring them lasting
fame to have laid waste the land o f William the Norman as far as the
seashore by fire and sword, with no one resisting or pursuing them.
But that hope, like the one before, proved vain.
For while they were delaying at the ford o f the Dives,2 the duke
himself came upon them with a small troop o f men at a lucky
moment, spoiling for a fight. Part o f the army had already crossed
the river with the king. And behold! the redoubtable avenger
hurled himself at the rest and slaughtered the plunderers,

o f the Ome and the Dives. Cf. WJ, G N D ii. 150-2. Wace, pt. iii, lines 5223-42 (ii. 81), said
that an old bridge broke; but WP was writing while memories o f the tides in the estuary of
the Dives at the time were fresh. For the tides in this area, see Foreville, p. 82 n. 2.
56 GESTA GVILLELMI i. 3 6

hoste in medio sinu eius deprehenso. Citra aquam intercepti, in

oculis regiis fere cuncti ferro ceciderunt, praeter qui sese
ingurgitare maluerunt pauore impellente. Ne uero iure saeuiens
gladius in aduersam ripam insequeretur, reuma* maris obstabat,
alueum Diuae insuperabili mole occupantis. Interitum suorum
miserans ac metuens rex, cum Andegauensi tiranno quam
celerrime Normannicos fines exiuit; decernens animo consternato
uir strenuus et nominatus in rebus bellicis, dementiae reputan­
dum Normanniam ultra attentare.

35. Non multo post uniuersae camis uiam demigrauit1 nun­

quam gloriatus triumpho, quem de Guillelmo Normanno comite
retulerit, imo nec multae in eum uindictae compos. Philippus
filius eius ei successit infans,2 inter quem et principem nostrum
firma pax composita est ac serena amicitia, tota Francia cupiente
et annuente.
Sub idem tempus obiit et Gaufredus Martellus3 ad uota
multorum, uel quos oppresserat, uel qui metuerant eum. Sic
terrenae potestati et humanae superbiae finem natura ponit
ineuitabilem. Sero poenituit miserandum hominem nimiae for­
titudinis, ruinosae tirannidis, pernitiosae cupiditatis. Equidem sua
eum extrema docuere, quod antea pensare neglexit; etiam quae
iuste in mundo possidentur, necessario amittenda fore. Sororis
filium haeredem reliquit, qui nomine proprio idem, probitate
absimilis ei,4 caelestem regem timere et pro comparando aeterno*
honore bona actitare coepit.

36. Quod humanae linguae ad maliuolentiam quam ad bene-

uolentiam laudandam sint promptiores nouimus; ob inuidiam
plerumque, interdum ob aliam prauitatem. Nam et pulcherrima
facinora in contrariam partem iniqua deprauatione traducere
" D ; rheuma M F * F ; externo D M

1 Henry I died on 4 Aug. 1060 (R. Merlet, ‘Du lieu où mourait Henri Ier, roi de France
. . \ Le moyen âge, xvi (1903), 203-9).
2 Philip was eight when his father died; he had already been crowned a year previously
(A. Fliehe, La règne de Philippe / " roi de France (Paris, 1912), p. 1. His uncle, Baldwin V,
count of Flanders, who became regent, was Duke William’s father-in-law; good relations
with Normandy were established and lasted for some years.
i. 3 6 TH E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M 57

believing it a crime when the survival o f his wounded country was

at stake to spare the dangerous enemy captured on his own
territory. Those intercepted on this side o f the water were nearly
all cut down under the eyes o f the king, except for those who,
stricken by terror, preferred to plunge into the torrent. But it was
impossible to pursue those on the opposite bank with the sword o f
justice, for the high tide filled the channel o f the Dives with an
impassable barrier o f water. Fearful and distressed at the death o f
his men, the king, with the Angevin tyrant, left the bounds o f
Normandy with all possible speed; for this man, valiant and
renowned as he was in the art o f war, realized in consternation
that it would be madness to attack Normandy further.

35. Not long afterwards the king went the way o f all flesh,1
without ever having been able to boast o f a victory over the
Norman count, William, nor even having taken vengeance against
him. Philip, his son, who was still a child, succeeded him.2 Firm
peace and calm friendship were established between him and our
prince, for all France wished for it and approved it.
About the same time Geoffrey Martel also died,3 to the relief o f
many whom he had oppressed, or who had feared him. Thus
nature imposes an inevitable end to earthly power and human
pride. Too late this miserable man repented o f his excessive
power, his ruinous tyranny, and his poisonous .greed. Similarly
his last moments taught him what he had previously neglected to
think about: that even the things which are possessed lawfully in
this world must necessarily be lost. He left as his heir his sister’s
son, a man who, though the same in name but different in
character,4 set out to fear the heavenly king and do good so as
to gain eternal glory.

36. We know that the tongues o f men are more apt to speak at
length o f evil than o f good, often out o f envy, at other times because
o f some other depravity. For sometimes even the finest deeds are,
by evil distortion, turned into the opposite. So it often happens that
3 He died on 14 Nov. at the abbey o f St Nicholas, Angers, where he took the habit on
his death-bed (Guillot, Anjou, ii. 148-9, C. 220).
4 In spite o f his three marriages, Geoffrey Martel left no heir. He was succeeded by the
elder son (Geoffrey le Barbu) o f his sister Ermengarde (Guillot, Anjou, i. 102-3).
5» GESTA GVILLELM I ‘ 37

solent. Vnde nonnunquam fieri constat, quatinus decora regum

siue ducum siue cuiuscunque optimi, cum non uere traduntur,
apud aetatem posteram censura bonorum damnentur, ut nequa­
quam imitanda mala ad inuasionem uel aliud iniquum facinus
placeant exemplo. Quapropter nos operae pretium arbitramur
quam uerissime tradere quatinus Guillelmus hic (quem scripto
propagamus, quem tam futuris quam praesentibus in nullo
displicere, immo cunctis placere, optamus) Cenomanico prin­
cipatu, quemadmodum regno Anglico, non solum forti manu
potius fuerit, sed et iustitiae legibus potiri debuerit.1

37. Comitum Andegauensium dominatio Cenomanorum comi­

tibus pridem grauis ac pene intolerabilis extiterat.2 Vt enim alia
plurima omittam, nouissime nostra memoria Fulco Andegauensis
Herebertum Cenomanicum maiorem Santonas illexit, sponsione
urbis ipsius.3 Ibid, uinctum in medio colloquio, ad pactiones, quas
auare concupierat, carcere ac tormentis coegit. Tempore uero
Hugonis,4 Gaufredus Martellus urbem Cenomanicam saepe igne
iniecto cremauit, saepe militibus suis eam in praedam distribuit,
plerumque uineas circa eius ambitum extirpauit, aliquando,
expulso qui iuste possedit,a soli dominio suo eam uindicauit.
Hugo haereditatem suam Hereberto reliquit filio,5 et inimicitias
easdem. Hic Gaufredi tirannide metuens omnino deleri, Nor-
manniae ducem Guillelmum, sub quo tutus foret, supplex adiit,
manibus ei sese dedit, cuncta sua ab eo, ut miles a domino recepit,
cunctorum singulariter eum statuens haeredem, si non gigneret
alium. Praeterea, ut coniunctius attingeret tantum uirum ipse et
posteritas ipsius, ducis ei filia petita atque pacta est. Quae
‘ R D ; praesedit D M F

1 WP reiterates his theme o f the justice of Duke William's conquests, of Maine no less
than of England. As a result o f writing his history backwards, he distorts and misrepresents
some of the events leading up to William's intervention in Maine. Charter evidence shows
that the young count, Herbert, was collaborating with Geoffrey Martel as late as 31 July
1056, so his flight to Normandy must have taken place after that date (Guillot, Anjou, i.
86^7).
2 The counts o f Anjou had exercised lordship over the counts o f Maine since the
beginning of the eleventh century; and there had been a number o f conflicts between lord
and vassal (ibid.).
»• 37 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 59

the virtuous acts o f kings, dukes, or other great persons, when they
are not truly reported, are condemned in a later age by good men;
while wrongs, which should on no account be imitated, are held up
as examples for usurpations and other wicked deeds. Wherefore we
think it worth while to hand down to posterity the exact truth o f
how this William— whose memory we wish to preserve in writing,
and whom we wish to seem in no way displeasing, in everything
pleasing to all men both present and future— was able to gain
possession o f the principality o f Maine in the same way as the
English realm, not just by force but also by the laws o f justice.1

37. T he domination o f the counts o f Anjou over the counts o f

Maine had long been heavy and almost intolerable.2 To cut a long
story short, most recently in our own time Fulk o f Anjou lured
the elder Herbert o f L e Mans to Saintes by promising him that
very city.3 There, in the course o f the conference, he was bound
and forced by imprisonment and torture to agree to concede what
Fulk greatly coveted. In the time o f Count Hugh,4 Geoffrey often
burnt the town by throwing in torches, often gave it over to
pillage by his men-at-arms, and frequently rooted up many o f the
vines outside; finally he expelled the man who ruled it by right
and appropriated it to his own dominion.
Hugh left his inheritance and the same enmities to his son
Herbert.5 He, fearing that he would be totally destroyed by
Geoffrey’s tyranny, went as a suppliant to William, duke o f
Normandy, under whom he would be safe; he did homage to
him, received back all his property from him as a vassal from his
lord, and made him sole heir o f everything if he should die
childless. In addition, so that he and his descendants might be
more closely bound to this great man, he sought the duke’s
3 Fulk III (Nerra) o f Anjou imprisoned Herbert ‘Wake-Dog’ at Saintes 7/8 Mar. 1025
(Halphen, Anjou, p. 68).
4 Hugh IV, who succeeded Herbert Wake-Dog as a minor and died on 26 Mar. 1051.
WP’s version, followed by Orderic (OV ii. 116 -18 ), has been questioned by Latouche
(Maine, p. 32 n. 5) and Guillot (Anjou i. 87 and n. 391).
5 Herbert II Bacon, son of Hugh IV and Bertha, daughter o f Eudo count o f Blois
(Latouche, M aine, p. 28 and Appendix III, pp. 113 - 15 ) . The date at which Bertha and her
children were exiled is uncertain; Foreville (p. 88 n. 3) suggests probably between 1058 and
1060, but Guillot (Anjou, i. 87) suggested it might even have been after the death of
Geoffrey Martel in 1060.
6o GESTA GVILLELM I i. 3 8

priusquam nubiles peruenisset ad annos, morbo ipse interiit, suos

in ipso fine obtestans et obsecrans ne quaererent alium praeter
quem ipse dominum eis, haeredem sibi, relinqueret.1 Cui si
uolentes pareant, leue seruitium toleraturos fore; si ui subacti,
forsitan graue. Potentiam illius, prudentiam, fortitudinem, glor­
iam, necnon genus antiquum ipsos optime nosse. Sub eo praeside
agentes formidini fore quibusque confinibus.

38. At homines malefidi Gualterium Medantinum comitem,

cui soror Hugonis nupserat, receperunt inuasorem desertores.2
Indignans ergo repulsam, Guillelmus, iure multiplici successurus
Hereberto, arma expediuit, quibus requireret sic praerepta. Nam
et olim egit sub Normannorum ducum ditione regio Cenoma-
nica.3 Incendium contestim iniicere, aut urbem totam excindere,
ausos iniqua trucidare, quantum ingenio abundauit et uiribus
potuisset. Sed hominum sanguini, quanquam nocentissimo, par­
cere maluit solita illa temperantia, et ualidissimam urbem relin­
quere incolumem,0 caput atque munimentum terrae quam in
manu habebat. Haec itaque expugnandi uia placuit.4 Crebris
expeditionibus et diuturnis in ipso territorio mansionibus
metum incutere; uineas, agros, uillas, uastare;* loca munita
circumquaque capere; praesidia, ubi res postulauit, imponere;
denique plurima turba aerumnarum incessanter affligere. Cum
ea geri uiderent Cenomanici, quam anxii trepidique fuerint, quam
cupierint onus molestissimum a ceruicibus depellere, coniectare
quam referre facilius est. Accito saepius Gaufredo,5 quem praeses
eorum Gualterius dominum sibi ac tutorem praefecit, praelio
decernere minati sunt nonnunquam sed ausi nunquam.
Perdomitis tandem, castellis iam per totum comitatum sub­
actis,6 reddunt ciuitatem praeualenti. Et quem longa detinuerunt
* M F ; incolume D * M F ; uastari D

1 Count Herbert died on 9 Mar. 1062. The statement o f WP that he willed all his
possessions to Duke William is uncorroborated.
2 Walter III, count of Mantes, son o f Drogo II, count o f the Vexin, and Biota o f
Maine.
3 This is untrue; the Normans had at times engaged in border warfare against the
counts o f Maine, but had never subdued the county (Latouche, Maine, pp. 11-2 4 ). Duke
William’s invasion took place in 1063.
». 38 T H E D E E D S OF W IL L IA M 6l
daughter in marriage, and this was agreed. But before she reached
marriageable age he fell sick and died. On his deathbed he
besought and urged his men not to seek any lord other than
the one whom he had left as his heir and their lord.1 I f they
obeyed him willingly, they would carry a light yoke; but if they
had to be subdued by force the burden might be heavy. They
knew well William’s power, prudence, courage, fame, and also his
ancient lineage; living under his rule, they would strike fear into
all their neighbours.
38. But these faithless men received a usurper, Walter count o f
Mantes, who had married Hugh’s sister, and deserted to him.2
Angry at this repulse, William, who had more than one right to
succeed Herbert, took to arms so that he could recover what had
been snatched from him in this way. For long before this, the
region o f Maine had been subject to the sway o f the dukes o f
Normandy.3 So great were his strength and his ability that he could
instantly have set fire to the town, burnt it down, and killed the
perpetrators o f such iniquity. But with his usual moderation, he
preferred to spare men’s blood, however guilty, and to leave intact
this strong city, the heart and guardian o f the land which he had in
his grasp.4 T h is was his chosen way o f attack: to strike fear into the
settlement by frequent, lengthy expeditions in that territory, to lay
waste the vines, fields, and domains, to capture fortified places all
around and put garrisons in them wherever it was desirable; finally
to attack the region relentlessly with a great multitude o f troubles.
It is easier to imagine than to relate how, when they saw these
things being done, the people o f Maine became anxious and fearful,
and how they wished to free their necks from this heavy burden.
Having repeatedly sent for Geoffrey,5 whom their ruler Walter had
set up as their lord and protector, they often threatened to give
battle, but never dared to do so.
Finally vanquished, when the castles throughout the whole
county have fallen,6 they surrender the city to the strongest. And
they receive him whom they had held at bay by their long rebellion
4 The passage (crebris expeditionibus . . . faciebat de maiori’ was slightly abbreviated by
Ralph de Diceto, R D ii. 264. 5 Geoffrey le Barbu, count o f Anjou 1060-7.
6 Cf. WJ, G N D ii. 15 0 -1 and n. 3. The city surrendered was Le Mans.
62 GESTA GVILLELM I >• 39

rebellione, supplici et ingenti suscipiunt honore. Studium est

summis, mediis, infimis, placare infensum. Occurrunt, clamant
dominum suum, procidunt et inclinantur eius dignitati; fingunt
hilares uultus, laetas uoces, plausus congratulantes/ Fiunt
obuiam fauentes laicorum studio, omnium quotquot ibidem
sunt, ecclesiarum ordines religiosi. Templa summopere, quemad­
modum processiones, adornata effulgent, redolent thymiamata,
resonant sacra cantica.
Victori sufficiens poena fuit perdomitos in potestatem suam
uenisse, et urbis firmamentum sua in reliquum custodia occupari.
Voluntarie Gualterius deditioni consensit, ne inuasa protegens
haereditaria amitteret. Clades a Normannis illata uicinitati
Medanti et Caluimontis metum ei faciebat de maiori.1

39. Voluit in omne seculum et progeniei suae optime con­

sultum fuisse prudens uictor, pius parens. Idcirco germanam
Hereberti,* ex partibus Teutonum2 suae munificentiae maximis
impensis adductam, nato suo coniugare decreuit, ut per eam ipse
et progeniti, ex ipso iure, quod nulla controuersia conuelli posset
uel infirmari, Hereberti haereditatem possiderent sororius et
nepotes. Et quoniam pueri aetas nondum fuit matura coniugio,3
in locis tutis illam prope nubilem magno cum honore custodiri
fecit, nobilium atque sapientium uirorum atque matronarum
curae commissam.4
Haec generosa uirgo, nomine Margarita, insigni specie decen-
tior fuit omni margarita.5 Sed ipsam non longe ante diem quo
mortali sponso iungeretur, hominibus abstulit Virginis filius,
uirginum sponsus, caelicus imperator, cuius igne salutifero pia

a M F ; congratulantis D * F ; Heriberto D ; Hereberto M

1 Walter and his wife were taken as captives to Falaise and died there. Orderic reported
a rumour that they had been poisoned (OV ii. 118 and n. 2, 312). Whatever the truth of
this, WP characteristically passes over their later fate in silence, and exaggerates William's
clemency.
2 There is no corroboration for the statement that Herbert and Margaret had taken
refuge in Germany. Latouche (Maine, p. 32) suggested that the text of WP was a
misreading of 4Teutonum’ for 'Britonum'; this would make better sense, as the first
husband of their mother Bertha had been Count Alan of Brittany.
1 R. H. C. Davis noted that the Conqueror's eldest son, Robert Curthose, was never
named by WP, possibly because, at the time that he was writing (c. 1073-7), Robert was in
»• 39 T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 63

as suppliants, with the greatest honour. Men o f the highest, middle

and lowest ranks strive to placate his rage. T hey go to meet him,
call him their lord, prostrate themselves and bow to his dignity;
they assume smiling faces and cheerful voices to applaud him. The
religious orders o f all the churches there without exception go out
to meet him, encouraging the zeal o f the laity. T he churches shine,
decked out as on the days o f great processions, they breathe out
incense and resound with sacred song.
To the victor it seemed punishment enough for them that they
had been subdued and brought under his power, and that the
citadel o f the town should in future be occupied by his garrison.
Walter willingly gave his consent to the surrender, lest by
protecting what he had usurped he might lose his inheritance.
T he destruction wrought by the Normans made him fear the
more for Mantes and Chaumont, which were in the vicinity.1

39. William wished, as a wise conqueror and dutiful parent, to

make the best provision for the future o f his children. For that
reason he had Herbert’s sister brought from the Germanic lands2
by his generosity, at great expense, and destined her to marry his
son, so that through her he and his offspring could, by that same
right which could not be overthrown or weakened by any
contention, possess the inheritance o f Herbert as brother-in-law
and grandchildren. And because the boy was not yet o f age to
marry,3 he had the nearly marriageable girl guarded with great
honour in safe places, committed to the care o f noble matrons and
wise men.4
T his noble virgin, whose name was Margaret, was far more
beautiful than any pearl.5 But not long before the day when she
should have been joined to her mortal spouse, the Son o f the
Virgin, Spouse o f virgins and King o f Heaven, took her from
men; the pious girl was so inflamed by His saving fire and so

rebellion against his father (‘William o f Jumièges, Robert Curthose, and the Norman
succession9, From Alfred the Great to Stephen (London and Rio Grande, OH, 1991) p. 135).
Robert cannot have been more than 11 or 12 in 1063; Margaret, bom before 10 51, was a
little older.
4 Orderic (OV ii. 118 -19 ) said that she was committed to the care of Stigand of
Mésidon. 5 Cf. Matt. 13: 46.
64 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 40

puella flagrabat, pro cuius desiderio orationibus, abstinentiae,

misericordiae, humilitati, denique plurimae bonitati studebat,
uehementer exoptans, praeter ipsius connubium, aliud perpetuo
ignorare. Sepeliuit eam Fiscannense coenobium,1 quod cum aliis
ecclesiis quantum licebat religioni nimirum doluit raptam proper­
ato obitu, cuius longaeuitatem affectuosissime0 concupiuit. Illius
etenim anima prudenter euigilans cum lucerna ardente Christi
aduentum expectans,2 ecclesias colere coepit cum reuerentia.
Cilicium quoque, quo latentius carnem domare proposuerat,
postea quam transmigrauit proditum, mentem aeternis intentam
prodidit.

40. Quam longinquus a fauore ducis Guillelmi animo fuerit,

uersutus homo Gaufredus Meduanensis certissime cum urbs
Cenomanica dederetur patefactum est.3 N e enim hanc eius
gloriosam* felicitatem praesens conspiceret, deseruit ante non
minus inuido dolore quam inconstanti perfidia abactus. Noluit
meminisse impudens audacia quomodo pridem clementiam
orauerit perdomitus.4 Non est uerita impudens iniquitas iurisiur-
andi uiolare promissum. At perpetuum nomen, quanto maiores
illius (quanquam potentes) nunquam sunt gloriati parere sibi
uidebatur, si uirtutem inuictam, triumphis magnificatam quam-
plurimis, lacessere auderet. Per legatos iterum iterumque monitus
ad obsequendum, mentem obstinatam non omisit. Fuga, astutia,
ualidaeque munitiones non modicum fiduciae ministrauerunt.
Statuit ergo prudentia repudiati domini latibulum carissimum
abalienare ei, castrum Meduanum,5 aestimans multo satius ac
dignius hac poena ferire quam fugitantem persequi et uictoriam
leuem ex eo capto insignibus titulis addere.
Huius castri latus alterum, quod alluitur scopuloso rapidoque
a M F ; effectuosissime D * gloriam D M F

1 The abbey o f Fécamp, a ducal foundation, was the focus o f ducal piety at this date.
Duke William visited it frequently for great liturgical festivals (Renoux, Fécamp,
PP- 475- 7)-
2 Cf. Luke 12: 35.
3 WP’s chronology is vague at this point. The first phase o f fighting against Geoffrey of
Mayenne was over by 1059/60 (see above p. 50, n. 1), and Le Mans fell in 1063. WP
implies that Geoffrey had been quiescent during the intervening years; WJ in a brief
summary implies more active resistance (G N D ii. 150, ‘Restiterat adhuc Meduanum
i. 40 TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 65

desired Him that she devoted herself to prayer, abstinence,

mercy, humility, and indeed to all good works vehemently
wishing never to know any marriage except to Him. She was
buried in the monastery o f Fécamp1 which, along with other
churches, grieved greatly (as far as religious faith allows) that she
for whom it tenderly desired a long life had been snatched away
by premature death. Her soul, indeed, was prudently watchful,
awaiting with lighted lamp the coming o f Christ,2 and she had
begun to cherish and honour churches. T he hair shirt, which she
had resolved to wear secretly to tame her flesh, showed after her
death how intent her mind had been on things eternal.

40. When the city o f L e Mans was surrendered, it became

crystal clear how far that cunning man, Geoffrey o f Mayenne, was
from looking with favour on Duke William.3 For, in order not to
be present and witness his glory and triumph, he went away,
impelled as much by his grief and envy as by his fickleness and
perfidy. In his insolent presumption he did not wish to remember
how previously, when vanquished, he had begged for mercy;4 in
his shameless iniquity he was not afraid to violate the oath he had
sworn. But he thought his name would be immortal (such a thing
as his ancestors, great as they were, had never boasted of) if he
dared to attack the unconquered valour o f Duke William,
enhanced by so many triumphs. Summoned by messengers
again and again to submit, he persisted in his obstinate purpose.
Flight, cunning, and strong fortifications bolstered his confidence
more than a little. T he lord he had repudiated decided in his
wisdom to take from him his most treasured retreat, his castle o f
Mayenne;5 for he considered it much more advantageous and
dignified to punish him in this way, rather than pursuing him as a
fugitive and adding the easy victory o f his capture to his glorious
titles.
On one side this castle, which is washed by a swift and rocky
castellum cuiusdam militis nomine Goiffredi’), and Orderic (OV ii. 116 -18 ) names him
among the men who were defending Le Mans to the last.
4 See above, i. 33.
5 For the grant of the castle o f Mayenne by Fulk Nerra, see Guillot, Anjouy i. p. 457
(App. ii. 7).
66 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 40

flumine (nam supra Meduanae ripam in praerupta montis rupe

situm est) id nulla ui, nullo ingenio uel arte humana attentari
potest. Alteri uero munimenta lapidea, pariterque difficillimus
aditus propugnant. Disponitur tamen obsidio, exercitu nostro
admoto quantum natura repellens patitur, cunctis mirantibus
ducem rem hanc nimis arduam confidentissime aggressurum.
Equitum ac peditum copias tantas incassum fatigari cuncti fere
opinantur, multi conqueruntur, nulla spe animos eorum erigente,
nisi forte mora annua uel ampliore famem expugnet. Etenim
gladiis, lanceis, missilibus, nihil geritur, nihil gerendum speratur.
Item neque ariete, neque tormento, caeterisue instrumentis
bellicis. Siquidem locus omnino machinamentis importunus erat.
Verum magnanimus ductor Guillelmus urget incoeptum, prae­
cipit, hortatur, confirmat diffidentes, laetum exitum pollicetur.
Nec multo temporis interuallo dubii sedent. En solerti consilio
ipsius iniecti ignes castrum corripiunt.1* Citissime diffunduntur,
more suo, saeuius omni ferro quaeque obuia uastantes. Custodes
atque propugnatores attoniti subita clade, portas murumque
deserunt, discurrunt trepidi laribus et rebus incensis primo
succurrere. Dein propriae saluti quo refugio ualent consulere
festinant, uictores gladios uehementius quam incendium
metuentes. Normanni alacerrime concurrunt, exultantes animos
et gratulantem clamorem pariter tollentes, certatim irrumpunt,
potenter munitione potiuntur. Opima praeda inuenitur, nobiles
equi, arma militaria, omnisque generis supellex. Quae, sicut alibi
capta plerumque grandia, militum potius quam sua esse uoluit
continentissimus ac liberalissimus princeps. Castellani qui in
arcem confugerant die postero dediderunt se, contra Guillelmi
ingenium ac fortitudinem nulli firmamento confidentes.
Restauratis ille quae flamma corruperat, praesidioque proui-
denter disposito, insolitum triumphum quasi de natura superata
domum reuexit cum immenso gaudio exercitus. Et confines

1 Fire could be an effective weapon in forcing the surrender o f a castle; in 1090 it was
used successfully to reduce the castle o f Brionne (OV iv. 208-10), when burning arrows
were shot into the shingle roof of the castle. WP’s statement ‘iniecti ignes castrum
corripiunt9 is supported by WJ ‘Quod . . . aliquandiu cepit igneque iniecto flammis
combussit9(G N D ii. 150), and suggests that burning brands may have been thrown or shot
into the castle.
i. 40 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 67

river (for it is situated on a high rock jutting out above the river
Mayenne) cannot be stormed by either force or cunning or any
human device. On the other side, stone fortifications and an
equally difficult approach protect it. However a siege is begun,
our army is brought up as far as the difficulties o f the approach
permit, while all marvel at the confidence o f the duke in the face
o f such a formidable enterprise. Almost all think that such great
forces o f mounted and foot soldiers will be worn out in vain;
many complain; no hope rises in their breasts, except that
perhaps, in a year or more, the defenders may be starved into
capitulation. Indeed with swords, lances and missiles nothing can
be done; there is no hope o f achieving anything. Similarly, there
is no place for the ram, the ballista, or other instruments o f war;
for the site is completely unsuitable for siege-engines.
But the mettlesome leader, William, urges on the enterprise,
gives orders, encourages, strengthens the faint-hearted, and
promises a happy outcome. Their doubts do not remain for
long. Behold, by their leader's clever plan, flames are thrown
which set fire to the castle.1 They spread in a moment, as flames
do, destroying everything in their path more fiercely than
weapons. T he garrison and defenders, stunned by the sudden
disaster, abandon the gates and ramparts and rush in a panic to
save first o f all their houses and belongings from the flames. Then
they look hurriedly to their own safety, and take refuge where
they can, fearing the swords o f the victors more than the
conflagration. T he Normans rush up eagerly, their spirits exalted;
shouting with joy, they burst in eagerly and take possession o f the
fortifications by force. They find very rich booty, thoroughbred
horses, knightly arms, and every kind o f equipment. These
things, like the splendid spoils captured elsewhere, were intended
by the duke, in his moderation and liberality, for his knights
rather than for himself. T he garrison, who had fled into the
citadel, surrendered the next day, convinced that no defence
could prevail against the skill and courage o f William.
After repairing the damage caused by the fire, and prudently
installing a garrison, William returned home with the remarkable
glory o f having, as it were, overcome nature, to the great joy o f his
68 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 41

Gaufredi non triste acceperunt hoc eum fuisse detrimento

mulctatum, asseruerantes gloriam solius Guillelmi comitis ultio­
nem multorum esse de periuro ac praedone.

4 1. Per idem fere tempus Edwardus rex Anglorum suo iam

statuto haeredi Guillelmo,1 quem loco germani aut prolis adama­
bat, grauiore quam fuerit cautum pignore cauit. Placuit obitus
necessitatem praeuenire, cuius horam homo sancta uita ad
caelestia tendens, proximam affore meditabatur. Fidem sacra­
mento confirmaturum Heraldum ei destinauit,2 cunctorum sub
dominatione sua diuitiis,* honore, atque potentia eminentissi-
mum: cuius antea frater et fratruelis obsides fuerant accepti3 de
successione eadem. Et cum quidem prudentissime, ut ipsius opes
et auctoritas totius Anglicae gentis dissensum coercerent, si rem
nouare mallent perfida mobilitate, quanta sese agunt.
Heraldus, dum ob id negotium uenire contenderet, itineris
marini periculo euaso litus arripuit Pontiui, ubi in manus comitis
Guidonis incidit.4 Capti in custodiam traduntur ipse et comitatus
eius, quod infortunium uir adeo magnus naufragio mutaret.
Docuit enim auaritiae calliditas Galliarum quasdam nationes
execrandum consuetudinem, barbaram et longissime ab omni
aequitate Christiana alienam. Illaqueant potentes aut locupletes,
trusos in ergastula afficiunt contumeliis, tormentis. Sic uaria
miseria prope ad necem usque contritos eiciunt saepissime
uenditos magno.
Directi ad se dux Guillelmus euentu cognito, propere missis
legatis, precatu simul ac minis extortum obuius honorifice
suscepit eum. Guidoni benemerito, qui nec pretio nec uiolentia
compulsus, uirum quem torquere, necare, uendere potuisset pro
libitu, ipse adducens apud Aucense castrum sibi praesentauit,
a M F ; diuersis D

1 See above, i. 14.

2 Harold, earl of Wessex and Kent, son o f Earl Godwine.
3 Wulfnoth and Hakon; see above, i. 14 and n. 27. According to Eadmer (H N y pp. 5-6)
they were taken by King Edward as hostages for the good faith o f Earl Godwine, and sent
to Duke William in Normandy for safe-keeping. Eadmer’s account adds that Harold’s visit
was undertaken to attempt to secure their release. The visit, which took place in the
summer o f 1064, is also described in the Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 1-30), the Carmen (lines
295-6, P- 2°) 2nd G N D ii. 158-60, including the interpolations o f Orderic.
i. 41 TH E D EE D S OF W I L L I A M 69

army. And the neighbours learnt without regret that Geoffrey had
been punished and overthrown; they asserted that the glory o f
Count William was in itself the vengeance o f many on a perjurer
and brigand.

4 1. About the same time Edward, king o f the English,

protected the position o f William (whom he loved as a brother
or son and had already appointed his heir)1 with a stronger pledge
than before. He wished to prepare in advance for the inevitable
hour o f death, which, as a man who strove for heaven through his
holy life, he believed to be near at hand. To confirm the pledge
with an oath, he sent Harold,2 the most distinguished o f his
subjects in wealth, honour and power, whose brother and
nephew3 had been received as hostages for William’s succession.
And this was very prudently done, so that Harold’s wealth and
authority could check the resistance o f the whole English people,
if, with their accustomed fickleness and perfidy, they were
tempted to revolt.
Harold, after escaping the dangers o f the crossing as he sailed
to undertake this mission, landed on the coast o f Ponthieu, where
he fell into the hands o f Count G u y.4 He and his men were seized
and taken into custody; a misfortune that a man as proud as he
would gladly have exchanged for shipwreck. For certain Gallic
peoples have been led through avarice to adopt a cunning practice,
which is barbarous and utterly removed from Christian justice.
They lay ambushes for the powerful and wealthy, thrust them
into prison, and torture and humiliate them. When they have
reduced them almost to the point o f death they turn them out,
usually ransomed at a very high price.
When Duke William heard o f the fate o f the man who had been
sent to him, he immediately despatched envoys, got Harold out o f
prison by a mixture o f prayers and threats, and went to meet him
and receive him honourably. G uy behaved well and, without

4 Eadmer (H N , pp. 6-7) says that a storm drove Harold onto the coast o f Ponthieu, and
that only the threats of Duke William secured his release from Count Guy. The Bayeux
Tapestry (pi. 8 -17 ) shows him taken to G uy’s castle o f Beaurain (‘Belrem’); for the
episode, see A. J. Taylor, ‘Belrem’, Battle, xiv (1991), 1-23.
70 GESTA GVILLELMI >• 43

grates retulit condignas, terras tradidit amplas ac multum

opimas,1 addidit insuper in pecuniis maxima dona. Heraldum
uero sufficientissime cum honore in urbem sui principatus caput
Rothomagum introduxit, ubi multiplex hospitalitatis officiositas
uiae laborem perpessos iucundissime recrearet. Nimirum gratu­
labatur tanto super hospite, sibi omnium carissimi propinqui et
amici legato, quem inter se et Anglos, quibus a rege secundus
erat, mediatorem sperabat fidissimum.

42. Coadunato ad Bonamuillam2 consilio, illic Heraldus ei

fidelitatem sancto ritu Christianorum iurauit. Et sicut ueracissimi
multaque honestate praeclarissimi homines recitauere, qui tunc
affuere testes, in serie summa sacramenti libens ipse haec
distinxit:3 se in curia domini sui Edwardi regis quandiu superesset
ducis Guillelmi uicarium fore; enisurum quanto consilio ualeret
aut opibus ut Anglica monarchia post Edwardi decessum in eius
manu confirmaretur; traditurum interim ipsius militum custodiae
castrum4*Doueram, studio atque sumptu suo communitum; item
per diuersa loca illius terrae alia castra, ubi uoluntas ducis ea
firmari iuberet, abunde quoque alimonias daturum custodibus.
D ux ei, iam satelliti suo accepto per manus, ante iusiurandum
terras eius cunctumque potentatum dedit petenti. Non enim in
longum sperabatur Edwardi aegrotantis uita.

43. Deinde, quia ferocem et noui nominis cupidum nouit,

ipsum et qui uenerant cum ipso armis militaribus et equis
delectissimis instructos secum in bellum Britannicum duxit;
hospitem atque legatum quasi contubernalem habens ut eo
quoque honore quodam sibi magis fidum et obnoxium faceret.

1 Wace (Rou, pt. iii, lines 5663-4 (ii. 97), mentions a manor on the Eaulne that was
given.
2 Sources disagree on the place where Harold took an oath to the duke, but WP was
close to the court and was probably right. The Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 28) named Bayeux;
Orderic (OV ii. 124-6) named Rouen; Eadmer and WJ did not specify any place.
3 Eadmer (H N y p. 7) considered that Harold swore under constraint, and did not
regard himself as bound by any oath ('Sensit Haraldus in his periculum undique; nec
intellexit qua evaderet9). Although WP does not mention any proposal o f marriage
between Duke William's daughter and Harold at this point, he later referred to one
(below, p. 156 n. 6).
»• 43 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 71

being compelled by force, himself brought the man whom he

could have tortured, killed, or sold at pleasure to the castle o f Eu,
and handed him over to William. William thanked him appro­
priately, giving him lands that were both extensive and rich,1 and
adding very great gifts o f money besides. He escorted Harold
most honourably to Rouen, the chief city o f his principality,
where every kind o f hospitality restored and cheered those who
had suffered the trials o f the journey. He congratulated himself
warmly on having so great a guest, the envoy o f the kinsman and
friend who was especially dear to him, hoping to have in him a
faithful mediator between himself and the English, to whom
Harold was second only to the king.

42. In a council summoned to Bonneville,2 Harold swore fealty

to him according to the holy rite o f Christians. And, as the most
truthful and distinguished men who were there as witnesses have
told, at the crucial point in the oath he clearly and o f his own free
will pronounced these words3 that as long as he lived he would be
the vicar o f Duke William in the court o f his lord K ing Edward;
that he would strive to the utmost with his counsel and his wealth
to ensure that the English monarchy should be pledged to him
after Edward’s death; that in the mean time the castle4 o f Dover
should be fortified by his care and at his expense for William’s
knights; likewise that he would furnish with provisions and
garrisons other castles to be fortified in various places chosen
by the duke. T he duke, after he had received him as his vassal and
before he took the oath, confirmed all his lands and powers to him
at his request. For there was no hope that Edward, already sick,
could live much longer.

43. Then, because he knew Harold to be high-mettled and

anxious for new renown, he provided him and the men who had
accompanied him with knightly arms and the finest horses, and
took them with him to the Breton war. He treated his guest and
envoy as his companion in arms so as to make him by that honour

4 There were ancient fortifications at Dover; work on the castle itself may have been
begun immediately after the Conquest (see below, p. 144, n. 1).
72 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 43

Britannia namque praefidenter aduersus Normanniam fuit omnis

armata.1
Huius audaciae princeps erat Conanus Alani filius.2 Is in uirum
ferocissimum adultus, a tutela diu tolerata liber, capto Eudone
patruo suo, atque uinculis ergastularibus mancipato, prouinciae
quam dono paterno accepit magna cum truculentia dominari
coepit. Paternae dehinc rebellionis renouator, Normanniae
hostis, non miles, esse uoluit. Dominus autem eius antiquo
iure, sicuti Normannorum, Guillelmus, castellum quod sancti
Iacobi appellatum est, interim opposuit in confinio,3 ne famelici
praedones ecclesiis inermibus, aut ultimo terrae suae uulgo,
excursionibus latrocinantibus nocerent. Emit namque rex Fran­
corum Karolus pacem atque amicitiam a Rollone primo duce
Normannorum ac posteriorum parente, natam suam Gislam in
matrimonium, et Britanniam in seruitium perpetuum ei tradens.
Exorauerant id foedus Franci non ualentes amplius resistere
gallico ense danicae securi.4 Annalium paginae attestantur.5
Exinde comites Britannici e iugo Normannicae dominationis
ceruicem omnino soluere nunquam ualuerunt, etsi multotiens id
conati tota ui obluctando. Alanus et Conanus, quanto Normanniae
rectores consanguinitate propius6* attingebant tanto gloriantibus
animis contra eos elatiores existebant. Conani in tantum iam
temeritas creuit ut quo die terminos Normanniae aggrederetur,
denuntiare non formidaret. Homini acrioris naturae, feruidae
aetatis, ministrauit plurimum fiduciae regio longe lateque diffusa,
milite magis quam credibile sit referta.

1 There is no corroboration o f this statement.

2 Conan II, son o f Alan III, had freed himself from the tutelage o f his uncle r.1057. See
above, p. 46 n. 2, p. 52 n. 4. WP probably regarded his refusal o f homage to the duke o f
Normandy as rebellion.
3 Duke William began the building o f the castle o f St James de Beuvron during this
expedition, and entrusted it to Richard, vicomte o f Avranches. It served both as a defence
against border raids by Breton lords and as part o f the system of fortifications protecting
the frontier (Yver, ‘Chateux-forts’, pp. 58^9; V. Ménard, Histoire religieuse, civile et
militaire de Saint-Jam es de Beuvron depuis sa fondation jusqu'à nos jours (Avranches,
1897)* PP- 2-24, 417-19).
4 WP appears to have taken this information from Dudo (ii. 29, ‘Dedit itaque rex filiam
suam, Gislam nomine, uxorem illi duci . . . totamque Britanniam de qua posset vivere9).
WJ (G N D i. 64) claimed only that King Charles gave ‘terram maritimam ab Epte flumine
usque ad Britannicos limites cum sua filia nomine Gisla’ .
i.44 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 73

more faithful and beholden to him. For the whole o f Brittany was
overconfidently up in arms against him.1
T he leader o f this audacious enterprise was Conan fitz Alan.2
He had grown up to be an aggressive man; free from a tutelage
he had long endured, he captured Eudo, his paternal uncle,
imprisoned him in chains, and began to lord it with great
truculence over the province which his father had left to him.
Then, renewing his father’s rebellion, he wished to be the
enemy, not the vassal, o f Normandy. Meanwhile William, who
was his lord by ancient right as well as being lord o f the
Normans, established a castle called St Jam es at the frontier
between them,3 so that hungry predators would not harm
defenceless churches or the common people in the remotest
parts o f his land by their pillaging raids. For Charles [the
Simple], king o f the Franks, had bought peace and friendship
from Rollo the first duke o f Normandy and ancestor o f the later
dukes, by giving him his daughter Gisla in marriage and
Brittany in perpetual dependence. T he Franks had asked for
this treaty, as they no longer had the strength to resist the
Danish axe with the Gallic sword.4 T he pages o f annals bear
witness.5 Since then the Breton counts have never been able to
free their neck from the yoke o f Norman domination, even
though they often attempted to do so, struggling with all their
might. Because they were close blood relations o f the dukes o f
Normandy,6 Alan and Conan treated them in an arrogant and
boastful way. Conan’s daring had grown to such a point that he
was not afraid to announce a date on which he would attack the
frontiers o f Normandy. T his man, aggressive by nature and at an
impetuous age, was bountifully served by the fidelity o f a region
which extended far and wide, and was crammed full o f more
fighting men than anyone could have believed.

5 Possibly a reference to the annals o f Flodoard (Les annales de Flodoard, ed. Ph. Lauer
(Paris, 1905), pp. i, 6).
6 Count Alan I l l ’s father, Geoffrey o f Rennes, count o f Brittany, married Hawise,
daughter o f Duke Richard I o f Normandy; and Duke Richard II o f Normandy married as
his first wife Judith o f Brittany, sister o f Count Geoffrey.
74 GESTA GVILLELM I *• 45
44. Partibus equidem in illis miles unus quinquaginta generat,
sortitus more barbaro denas aut amplius uxores, quod de Mauris
ueteribus refertur, legis diuinae atque pudici ritus ignaris.1 Ad
hoc populositas ipsa armis et equis maxime, aruorum culturae aut
morum minime student. Vberrimo lacte, parcissimo pane, sese
transigunt. Pinguia pabula gignunt precoribus loca uasta et ferme
nescia segetum. Cum uacant a bello, rapinis, latrociniis, caedibus
domesticis aluntur, siue exercentur.2 Praelia cum ardenti alacritate
ineunt, dum praeliantur furibundi saeuiunt. Pellere soliti, difficile
cedunt. Victoria et laude pugnando parta nimium laetantur atque
extolluntur, interemptorum spolia diripere ut opus decorum
uoluptuosumque amant.

45. Nihil pendens terribilitatem hanc dux Guillelmus, in quem

diem aduentum Conani meminit denuntiatum, eo ipse intra fines
eius occurrit. Ille quasi fulminis ictum, proxime imminentem
extimens, in loca propugnatura citissimam fugam instituit, castri
terrae suae Doli oppugnatione omissa.3 Id enim rebelli aduersum
iustae causae fidum stabat. Sistere tentât Conanum castri praeses
Ruallus,4 reuocat illudens, morari biduum precatur, sufficiens huic
morae stipendium ab ipso sumpturum. Homo misere exterritus,
pauorem potius audiens, cursu instituto longius profugit. Ductor
terribilis qui depulit instaret fugitanti, ni manifestum periculum
animaduerteret agere militem numerosum per regiones uastas,
famelicas, ignotas. Si quid residuum erat inopi terrae ex his quae
nata fuerant anno superiore, id in tutis locis incolae cum pecoribus
abdiderant. Stabant in aristis fruges immaturae. Igitur ne sacrilega
praeda diriperent, si qua reperirent ecclesiarum bona, menstrua
penuria fatigatum exercitum reducebat, magno animo praesumens
Conanum pro uenia delicti et gratia propediem deprecaturum. At
1 Cf. Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum, Ixxx. 6, ‘Etiam antea Iugurthae filia Bocchi nupserat.
Verum ea necessitudo apud Numidas Maurosque levis ducitur, quia singuli, pro opibus
quisque, quam plurimas uxores, denas alii, alii plures habeat, sed reges eo amplius.’
2 Cf. Caesar’s description o f the Germans (De bello gallico, vi. 22-3, ‘Agriculturae non
student, maiorque pars eorum victus in lacte, caseo, came consistit’; ibid. vi. 23,
‘Latrocinia nullam habent infamiam’).
3 Cf. the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 23, 24), ‘Et uenerunt ad Dol et Conan fuga
uertit Radnes.’ For events in Brittany and the Breton campaign, see K . S. B. Keats-Rohan,
‘William I and the Breton contingent . . .’, Battle, xiii (1991), 157-72, esp. pp. 162-6.
4 Ruallon of Dol, who rebelled against Conan and became an ally o f Duke William.
>• 45 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 75

44. Indeed in those parts one warrior sired fifty, since each
had, according to their barbarous custom, ten or more wives, as is
related o f the ancient Moors who were ignorant o f divine law and
chaste morals.1 Moreover, this multitude devotes itself chiefly to
arms and horses, and very little to the cultivation o f fields or
improvement o f customs. They live on plentiful milk and very
little bread. Wide open spaces provide rich grazing for cattle and
crops are almost unknown. When they are not making war, they
live on or occupy themselves with plunder, brigandage, and
domestic feuds.2 They rush joyfully and eagerly into battle;
while fighting they hit out like madmen. Accustomed to repulse
the enemy, they give ground with reluctance. They rejoice and
glory in victory and praise won in battle; they love stripping the
slain o f their spoils, for this is both an honour and a pleasure to
them.

45. Undismayed by these terrifying practices, Duke William,

on the day which he remembered Conan had fixed for his coming,
went himself to the frontier to meet him. T h e latter, thinking that
a thunderbolt was about to strike him, fled as fast as possible to
fortified places, abandoning the siege o f Dol,3 a castle in his own
land. This castle, hostile to the rebel, remained faithful to the just
cause. Ruallon,4 the defender o f the castle, tried to restrain
Conan: he called him back in jest, begging him to stay for two
more days and claiming that he would win the cost o f the delay
from him. T he wretched man, frightened to death and hearing
only the sounds o f panic, carried on his way and fled further. The
terrible leader who pursued him would have pressed the fugitive
further, if he had not been aware o f the manifest danger o f taking
a numerous force through uninhabited country, which was
infertile and unknown. I f any remnants o f the previous year’s
produce were left in the impoverished land, the inhabitants had
hidden them in safe places with their flocks. T he crops were
standing green in the fields. So, to avoid the sacrilegious looting
o f church goods, if any were found, he led back his army, which
was exhausted by the lack o f regular provisions. Moreover he
assumed magnanimously that Conan would come very soon to
76 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 4 6

excedenti iam Britanniae limitem repente indicatur Gaufredum

Andegauensem1 cum ingentibus copiis Conano fuisse coniunctum,
et ambos postero die praeliatum affuturos. Itaque aperitur con­
flictus eo cupidior, quod gloriosius intelligebat triumphum de
hoste bino, utroque immani, uno consequi certamine. Ad hoc
fore multiplicem eiusdem triumphi fructum.
Ruallus autem, cuius in territorio tentoria figebantur, affatur
querela. Haberi quidem gratum quod ab inimica ui per eum fuerit
ereptus, si proficuum non deleat incommodo. Nam si praestola­
turus consideat, regionem modice foecundam nimis attenuatam
funditus deuastari. Nec penes agricolas interesse, Normannico an
Britannico exercitu consumpti0 anni laborem amiserint. Sibi modo
ad famam ualuisse, non ad conseruationem rerum, Conani de­
pulsionem. Considerandum esse dux respondens, ne discessio
properantior opinionem pariat minus honoram, detrimenti recom-
pendium in auro plenissimum promittit. Statim Rualli segetes
militibus interdicit ac pecora. Obtemperatum est praecepto ea
continentia ut frumenti manipulus unicus ad recompensandum
omne damnum superabundaret. Certamen nequicquam fuit expec-
tatum, aduersario magis in ulteriora profugiente.2
46. Receptus in sua, percarum* hospitem Heraldum apud se
post moratum aliquandiu, donis onustum omisit; digne utroque
et cuius iussu et pro cuius honore ampliando uenerat. Qui
etiam fratruelis eius,3 alter obses, cum ipso redux propter
ipsum redditus est. Paucis igitur te affabimur Heralde. Qua
mente post haec Guillelmo haereditatem auferre, bellum inferre,
ausus es, cui te gentemque tuam sacrosancto iureiurando
subiecisti tua et lingua et manu?4 Coercere debuisti, et perni­
ciosissime concitasti. Infeliciter secundi flatus, qui nigerrimis
a M F ; consumptae D * F ; per charum D ; perdiarum M

1 Geoffrey le Barbu, who became count o f Anjou in 1060.

2 The whole episode is characteristic o f Duke William’s preference for wearing down an
enemy by a war o f attrition rather than fighting a pitched battle. Conan evidently employed
the same tactics. See Gillingham, pp. 157-8.
3 Hakon, the grandson o f Godwine.
* WP reverts to his central theme, the justification o f Duke William’s conquests; he
stresses that Harold had sworn an oath on the relics, and had both sworn fealty and
performed homage.
i. 4 6 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 77

seek mercy and pardon for his crime. But he had scarcely crossed
the frontiers o f Brittany when he learnt that Geoffrey o f Anjou1
had joined Conan with huge forces, and that both would be ready
to give battle on the next day. And so the fight appeared more
desirable than ever to him, for he knew that it would be more
glorious to triumph over two enemies, both o f them redoubtable,
in one conflict. T h is would give a manifold gain as the fruit o f one
victory.
But Ruallon, on whose territory the tents had been pitched,
broke into complaints. He would have been grateful (he said) to
have been rescued by William from the enemy's power if the
damage were not to cancel out the gain; for if he were to pitch
camp and await his enemy the region (which was very infertile
and greatly exhausted) would be totally devastated. It made no
difference to the peasants whether they lost the labour o f the
previous year to the Norman or Breton army. So far the
expulsion o f Conan had brought fame, but not the preservation
o f property. T he duke replied that they must bear in mind that a
hasty retreat might be considered dishonourable, but he prom­
ised full recompense in gold for any damage done. At once he
forbade his men-at-arms to touch the crops and herds belonging
to Ruallon. T his command was obeyed with such restraint that a
single sheaf o f com would have amply sufficed as compensation
for all damage. T he battle was awaited in vain, as the enemy fled
further away.2

46. On his return home William, after keeping his valued guest
Harold with him for a while longer, sent him away loaded with
gifts worthy o f both o f them and o f the man at whose command
and to increase whose honour he had come. Furthermore his
nephew,3 the second hostage, was, out o f respect for his person,
released to return with Harold. Just a few words, O Harold, will
we address to you! With what intent dared you after this take
William's inheritance from him and make war on him, when you
had with both voice and hand subjected yourself and your people
to him by a sacrosanct oath?4 What you should have suppressed
you perniciously stirred up. How unfortunate were the following
78 GESTA GVILLELMI '•47
uelis1 tuis aspirauerunt redeuntibus. Impie clemens pontus qui
uehentem te hominem teterrimum ad littus prouehi passus est.
Sinistre placida statio fuit quae recepit te naufragium miserri­
mum patriae afferentem.

47. Inter occupationes tamen rerum bellicarum siue domes­

ticarum, quas mundanas appellant, studia optimi principis in
diuinis egregia extitere; quae per singula ac pro magnitudine
sua recitare non sufficimus. Nouerat enim non solum principatus
in mundo florentes breui occasu terminari, uerum etiam ipsius
mundi figuram praeterire;2 unicum autem regnum immobiliter
stare, huic praesidere imperatorem ineffabilem dominatu aeterno,
rerum uniuersalitatem quam condidit, coaeterna sibi prouidentia
gubernantem; terrenorum dulcedini nimium deditos tirannos
momento conterere potentem; diademata atque palatia inaestim­
abili perpetim fulgentia decore satellitum suorum perseuerantiae
disponentem in illa gloriosissima ciuitate ueri summique boni
patria. Genitorem suum inclytum ducem Rodbertum post mem­
oranda merita, quibus domi claruit, fasces dignitatum seposuisse,
peregrinum iter ac periculis plenum arripuisse, desiderio imper­
atoris illius in superna Sion conspiciendi.3 Ipsius crucem in
fronte, dilectionem in mente, reuerentiam in actu, Richardos* ac
superiores auos potentia sublimes, fama praeclaros, humiliter
gestauisse.4 Pensauerat, ut prudentis animae homo, quam sit
miserum atque indecorum spoliatos honore caduco in exilium
caliginosum damnari, ubi flamma inextinguibili ardebunt, non
consumentur; plangent in miseriis absque clementia, errata
lamentabuntur absque uenia. Econtra felix atque pulchrum* esse
post consulatus terrae stola immortalitatis redimitos angelorum
ciues ordinari; ubi uoluptate omni delectabuntur, Deum sicuti est
contemplabuntur, in eius laude perpetua iocundabuntur.

“ D M ; Ricardos F * M F ; pulcrum D

1 A reference to the legend o f Theseus. A black sail was to indicate the failure o f
Theseus to slay the Minotaur.
2 Cf. i Cor. 7: 3 1, ‘praeterit enim figura huius mundi.9
* For Duke Robert's pilgrimage to Jerusalem and death at Nicaea, see WJ, G N D ii.
80-5.
i. 4 8 TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 79

winds which filled your black sails on the way home!1 How
impious the smooth sea which suffered you, most abominable o f
men, to be carried on your journey to the shore! How perverse
was the calm harbour which received you, who were bringing the
disastrous shipwreck o f your native land!

47. In the midst o f the warlike activities and domestic occupa­

tions which are called worldly, this most excellent prince never­
theless devoted his greatest efforts to things divine; they are too
many and too great for our humble pen to describe in detail. For
he knew not only that the flourishing principalities o f this world
are cut o ff in an instant, but also that ‘the fashion o f this world
passeth away’ ;2 that there is only one kingdom which stands
immutable, ruled with eternal lordship by an ineffable Emperor,
who governs with coeternal providence the universe which He
created. He, in His power, crushes in a moment those tyrants who
surrender themselves too much to earthly delights; but to His
servants who persevere He grants diadems and palaces shining
eternally with inestimable beauty in that most glorious city; home
o f the highest truth and beauty. William also knew that his father,
the famous Duke Robert, after distinguishing himself at home
with memorable achievements, laid down the symbols o f his office
and took the perilous road o f a pilgrim, out o f a yearning to see
his Master in the heavenly Sion.3 He knew that the Richards and
their earlier ancestors, powerful and famous, had in all humility
borne the Lord ’s cross on their brow, His love in their heart, fear
o f Him in their deeds.4 As a prudent man he had weighed up how
wretched and shameful it is for those who, stripped o f transitory
honours, are condemned to outer darkness, where they are burned
with inextinguishable flames, not consumed, where they will
bewail their wretchedness without remission and lament their
misdeeds without pardon. On the other hand he knew how happy
and glorious are those who, after fulfilling their office on earth,
are clothed with the robe o f immortality and made fellow-citizens
o f the angels, to dwell in every delight, seeing God face to face
and rejoicing in His perpetual praise.
4 Cf. Dudo, ii. 3; iii. 36, 58; G N D i. 132-4; ii. 38.
8o GESTA GVILLELM I i. 4 9

48. Vir itaque dignus pio parente ac piis maioribus, neque dum
armatus actitabat oculum interiorem a timore sempiternae maies-
tatis deiiciebat. Armis namque proterendo bella externa, arcendo
seditiones, rapinas, praedas, patriae consulebat Christum colenti;
ut quo pace plus frueretur minus uiolaret sacra instituta. Nec uere
dictum unquam erit suscepisse eum bellum quod iustitia uacaret.
Ita christicolae reges gentium Romanarum et Graecarum tutantur
sua, propulsant iniurias, iuste ad palmam contendunt. Quis autem
dicat esse boni principis pati seditiosos aut raptores? Eius
animaduersione et legibus e Normannia sunt exterminati latrones,
homicidae, malefici.1 Sanctissime in Normannia obseruabatur
sacramentum pacis quam treuiam uocant,2 quod effrenis regio­
num aliarum iniquitas frequenter temerat. Causam uiduae, inopis,
pupilli, ipse humiliter audiebat, misericorditer agebat, rectissime
definiebat. Eius aequitate reprimente iniquam cupiditatem uicini
minus ualends, aut limitem agri mouere, aut rem ullam usurpare,
nec potens audebat quisquam nec familiaris. Villae, castra, urbes,
iura per eum habebant stabilia et bona. Ipsum laetis plausibus,
dulcibus cantilenis uulgo efferebant.

49. Accipere solitus est auido auditu suauique gustu sacrae

paginae sermones, iis ut animae epulum sumeret delectari
desiderans, castigari atque edoceri. Sumebat et honorabat con-
decenti reuerentia hostiam salutarem, dominicum sanguinem;
sincera fide tenens quod uera doctrina praeceperat; panem et
uinum quae altari superponuntur, consecrata sacerdotis lingua et
manu sancto canone, redemptoris ueram esse carnem et uerum
esse sanguinem. Vtique non ignotum est quanto zelo fuerit
insectatus atque exterminare sategerit e terra sua aliter sentientem
prauitatem.3 Colebat deuotus a tenera aetate sacra solemnia,
concelebrans ea saepissime cum frequentia religiosi conuentus,

1 A further reference to the rigorous enforcement o f law; see above, i. 6, 17.

2 The Truce of God was established in Normandy by Duke William and his bishops
after the victory at Val-ês-Dunes; See M. de Bouard, ‘Sur les origines de la Trêve de Dieu
en Normandie’, Annales de Normandie, ix (1959), 169-89; Foreville ‘Synod’, 25-6.
3 An allusion to the condemnation o f the eucharistie doctrine o f Berengar o f Tours, in
which a number o f Norman prelates, including John o f Fécamp, Durand o f Troam, and
Lanfranc took part. See Gibson, Lanfranc, pp. 62-97. WP echoes the words o f Lanfranc’s
i. 4 9 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 8l

48. And so this man, worthy o f his pious father and his pious
ancestors, even while he was active in arms did not cease with his
inward eye to gaze in awe on the eternal majesty. For whether
conquering in external wars or suppressing sedition, rapine, and
brigandage, he served his country, where Christ was worshipped,
so that the more peace was enjoyed the less were sacred institutions
violated. N or could it ever be said that he undertook a war where
justice was lacking. In this way do Christian kings o f the Roman
and Greek peoples protect their own, repel injuries, and fight justly
for the palm o f victory. For who will say that it behoves a good
prince to suffer rebellious brigands? By his strict discipline and by
his laws robbers, murderers, and evil-doers have been driven out o f
Normandy.1 T he oath o f peace which is called the Truce has been
most scrupulously observed in Normandy,2 whereas in other
regions it is frequently violated through unbridled wickedness.
He listened to the cause o f widows, orphans, and the poor, acting
with mercy and judging most justly. Since his fairmindedness
restrained greed, no one, however powerful or close to him, dared
to move the boundary o f a weaker neighbour’s field or take
anything from him. Villages, fortified places, and towns had
stable and good laws because o f him, and everywhere people
greeted him with joyous applause and sweet songs.

49. He was accustomed to lend an eager ear to readings from

Holy Writ and to savour their sweetness; he found in them a feast
for the soul, for he wished to be delighted, corrected, and edified
by them. He received and honoured with seemly reverence the
Host o f salvation, the blood o f our Lord, holding in strong faith to
that which true doctrine has ordained, that the bread and wine
which are placed on the altar and consecrated by the word and
hand o f the priest according to the holy canon, are the true flesh
and blood o f the Redeemer. It is certainly not unknown with what
zeal he pursued and endeavoured to drive out o f his land the
wicked error o f those who thought otherwise.3 From a tender age
he took part devoutly in religious services, often joining in the
Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, especially ‘Ergo vera est eius caro quam accipimus, et
verus est eius sanguis quem potamus9 (Migne, PL> cl. 442).
82 GESTA GVILLELM I «• 51
cleri siue coenobitarum. Senibus ille iuuenis grande exemplum
inclaruit, sedulitate quotidiana frequentando sacra mysteria.1 Item
eius liberi pietatem Christianam infantes didicere diligenti proui-
sione ipsius.

50. Fulgent plangendi quidam in culminibus potestatis terre­

nae, sese in interitum animae ab eis ipsi praecipitantes, quorum
auara malignitas optimorum largae uoluntati obsistens; basilicas
intra dominationem suam construi difficile aut nullatenus per­
mittit, constructas donari uetat, nec ueretur spoliare, sacrilegio
cumulans diuitias peculiares. In pluribus uero ecclesiis dominum
collaudat patria nostra sui principis Guillelmi benigno fauore
extructis, prompta largitate adauctis.2 Qui uolenti conferre libens
cuique liberam auctoritatem concedebat, sanctos nulla unquam
iniuria laedens, dicatum eis quippiam abalienando.

5 1. Aemulabatur eius tempore beatam Ægyptum Normannia

regularium coenobiorum collegiis quae praecipuum consulem
habebant ipsum fideli patrocinio, instanti magisterio. Cunctis
quidem amorem, honorem, curam exhibebat; impensius tamen
illis quos maior existimatio studiosae religionis commendauit. O
recolendam, o imitandam, o in omne aeuum propagandam
diligentiam! Abbates atque pontifices persona principans et laica
pro disciplina ecclesiastica subtiliter monebat, constanter exhor­
tabatur, seuere castigabat. Quotiens eius edicto et hortatu con-
uenere praesules, metropolitanus cum suffraganeis, de statu
religionis, clericorum, monarchorum atque laicorum, acturi,
sinodis his arbitrum se deesse nolebat,3 cum ut praesentia sua
studiosis adderet studium, cautionem cautis; tum ne alieno
testimonio discere indigeret qualiter fuissent acta, quae cuncta
rationabiliter, ordinate et sancte acta fuisse desiderabat.

1 Since WP was one o f Duke William’s chaplains he may have written this from
personal knowledge.
2 Orderic wrote o f the founding of monasteries in Normandy during William’s reign
(OV ii. 10 -18 ); and referred, in the imaginary death-bed speech which he attributed to
William, to the nine abbeys of monks and one of nuns founded in the time o f his ancestors,
and the seventeen monasteries o f monks and six of nuns founded in his own time (OV. iv.
90-2).
3 Even before 1066 some ten synods had been held under Duke William in the province
i. 51 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 83

celebration o f them in the company o f a religious community o f

clerks or monks. To old men this youth shone as a fine example
for the daily assiduity with which he attended the sacred
mysteries.1 Likewise his children learnt Christian piety from
infancy, thanks to the careful provision he made for them.

50. Among the men to be particularly lamented are those who,

at the peak o f earthly power, plunge to the destruction o f their
soul, those whose malignant greed stands in the way o f the
generous wishes o f the best men, and either forbids or makes
difficult the building o f churches in their lands, forbids donations
to those that have been built, and does not fear to despoil them,
accumulating riches for themselves by sacrilege. But our native
land praises the Lord in many churches built by the gracious
favour o f its prince, William, and enriched by his ready liberality.2
He willingly gave unrestricted authority to anyone wishing to
make donations; he never inflicted any injury on the saints by
taking away anything whatever that had been bestowed on them.

5 1. In his time Normandy rivalled holy Egypt with its

communities o f monks, for they had the count himself as their
most faithful protector and constant guardian. He showed love,
honour and care to them all, but in particular to those that were
distinguished by greater devotion to their religious duties. How
admirable such diligence, how worthy o f imitation and perpetua­
tion in the ages to come! As the source o f authority, though a
layman, he used to give subtle advice to abbots and bishops on
ecclesiastical discipline, encouraging firmly and punishing
severely. Whenever at his command and by his encouragement
the prelates, metropolitan and suffragans, assembled to deal with
the state o f religion o f clerks, monks, and laymen, he endeavoured
not to miss being an arbiter at these synods,3 so that by his
presence he might add zeal to the zealous and circumspection to
the provident, and finally, so that he did not need to learn from
the testimony o f another how things had been done, when he
wished all to be done in a reasonable, orderly, and holy way.
o f Rouen; and the duke himself took an active part and frequently presided. For details o f
these and later synods, see Fore ville, ‘Synod’, pp. 19-39.
84 GESTA GVILLELM I «• 53

Delato forte suas ad aures immani alicuius crimine, quod

episcopus aut archidiaconus iusto clementius0 uindicauerit,
reum maiestatis aeternae teneri iussit incarceratum quousque
causa Domini aequitate districta decerneretur, episcopum aut
archidiaconum, ueluti aduersarios diuinae partis criminans, in
iudicium deuocandos, feriendos graui sententia.

52. Clerici siue monachi, cuius a professione uitam non

discrepare testimonio probabili comperit, caram* habebat collo­
cutionem, precatui totam uoluntatem inclinabat. E diuerso neque
amici oculi respectu dignabatur infamem ob enormitatem uitae.
Lanfrancum quendam,1 de quo uenit in litem plusne sit meritus
reuerentiam atque gloriam secularium ac diuinarum literarum
singulari peritia, an ordinis monachici singulari obseruantia,
intima familiaritate colebat;2 ut patrem uenerans, uerens ut
praeceptorem, diligens ut germanum aut prolem. Illi consulta
animae suae, illi speculam quandam, unde ordinibus ecclesiasticis
per omnem Normanniam prospiceretur, commisit. Potuit namque
uiri talis uigilans cura, cum maximam auctoritatem sapientiae
pariter ac sanctitatis praerogatiua comparauit, securitatem non
paruam optimae sollicitudini promittere.
Ipsum pia quadam uiolentia monasterii Cadomensis abbatem
statuit, non minus reluctantem subiectionis amore quam altioris
gradus timore. Multis deinde possessionibus, item argento, auro,
diuersisque ornamentis monasterium idem locupletauit, suo largo
sumptu a fundamento astructum ingenti et magnitudine et
decore, digne beatissimo protomartyre Stephano, cuius reliquiis
magnificandum honori' dedicandum erat.3 Maioris pendere nemo
a M F ; dementius D * F ; charam D ‘ M F ; honore D

1 Lanfranc came from his birth-place, Pavia, to Normandy, and took the monastic habit
in the abbey o f Bec-Hellouin three years later. His wide learning and fame as a teacher
attracted numerous pupils to the monastic school. In 1063 Duke William made him abbot
o f the new ducal foundation o f Saint-Etienne-de-Caen. For his career, see Gibson,
Lanfranc.
1 The collection o f monastic customs which Lanfranc, in later life, compiled for Christ
Church, Canterbury, shows that, in the words o f David Knowles, he ‘never ceased to
regard his monastic profession as the determining event in his life . . . he remained a monk
both at heart and in the practice o f his daily religious duties’ (The Monastic Constitutions o f
Lanfranc, ed. David Knowles (NM T, 1951), p. ix).
3 The abbey of Saint-Etienne-de-Caen was dedicated on 13 Sept. 1077 (Musset,
' 52 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M «5
I f by chance it came to his ears that a bishop or archdeacon had
punished some abominable crime more leniently than was just, he
ordered the person guilty before the divine majesty to be kept in
prison until the Lord’s cause had been determined with strict
equity. As for the bishop or archdeacon, he accused them o f being
enemies to the cause o f God and summoned them to justice so as
to sentence them severely.
52. He greatly valued having converse with clerks and monks
whose lives he had learnt on good testimony to be in conformity
with their profession, and he inclined his whole will to their
prayers. On the other hand he considered that anyone notorious
for the irregularity o f his life did not deserve to be looked on with
favour. He admitted to his closest circles a certain Lanfranc,1 o f
whom it was disputed whether he deserved respect and glory
more for his remarkable knowledge o f secular and divine learning
or for his outstanding observance o f the monastic rule.2 William
venerated him as a father, respected him as a teacher, and loved
him like a brother or son. To him he committed the guidance o f
his soul, to him he entrusted the care o f presiding, as though from
a watch-tower, over all the ecclesiastical orders throughout
Normandy. For the vigilant care o f such a man, which combined
the special authority o f both knowledge and holiness, was able to
guarantee no small security to the best o f intentions.
It was, so to say, by pious force that he made this man abbot o f
Caen, reluctant though Lanfranc was, not less from love o f
humility than from fear o f higher rank. Then he enriched with
properties, with silver, gold, and all kinds o f ornaments, that
monastery, which he had built from its foundation at great
expense on a huge scale and with a splendour worthy o f the
blessed protomartyr Stephen, with whose relics it was glorified
and in whose honour it was to be dedicated.3 No one could have
Abbayes caennaises, pp. 14 -15 , correcting Foreville, p. 128 n. 2, who gave the date as 1073).
This reference is important as an indication of the date when WP was writing, as it implies
that the dedication had taken place. Foreville considered that if WP had anticipated an
event as yet only planned he would have written 'dedicandum erit’ or ‘fuerit’ . However as
Duchesne may have misread ‘erit’ as ‘erat’ this is not conclusive. The dedication may have
been planned for the future when WP wrote (below, i. 58) in the present tense of the
virtues o f Hugh, bishop o f Lisieux (died 17 July 1977). Alternatively, he may have changed
the text in a late revision.
86 GESTA GVILLELM I »• 53

poterit officia precum quae in caelestia mittuntur. Crebro famu­

lorum Christi orationes flagitabat et emebat, maximo maiore cum
bellum aut alia res ardua imminebat.1
Cum haec retracto, dulcis recordatio obuenit Theodosii
Augusti, quem in pugnam contra tirannos processurum anima­
bant prius oracula atque responsa Iohannis monachi in ultima
Thebaide commorantis.2 Acceptabat ex omnibus monachis ille
Iohannem obediendo adeptum prophetiae gratiam, iste Lanfran-
cum sermone et actu spiritum Dei redolentem.

53. Boni plerique, transuersi affectu carnali, sanguinis propin­

quitate coniunctorum criminibus parcunt, in excelso dignitatum
indigne praesidentes non descendere uolunt. Eos clementissime,
tanquam caecati amore, iudicant,* alios perspicaciter atque dis­
tricte. Caeterum Guillelmus, cuius integerrimam bonitatem
inscribimus, animo intentius uolutare libet ac mirari, cum patris
dilectionem* diuinae nequaquam esse praeferendam nouerit,
negotium Dei prudenter simul et iuste contra patruum suum
peregit Malgerium archipraesulem.3
Is, Richardi secundi filius, sacra dignitate abutebatur ueluti
natalium iure sua. Pallio tamen nunquam est insignitus, quod
principale ac mysticum archipraesulatus insigne manus Romani
pontificis mittere solita ei denegauit ut minus idoneo. Scriptur­
arum arcana intelligentiae literalis oculo colligere non indoctus
fuit; sed quo praecipiunt moderamine, neque subiectorum neque
propriam uitam gubernare studuit. Quam pietas plurimorum
ornando ditauit, ille spoliando attenuauit ecclesiam; non sponsus
eius uel pater dicendus, sed grauissimus dominus uel rapacissi­
mus praedo. Mensas equidem nimium sufficientes, nimium
a M F ; indicant D * M F ; deiectionem D

1 One example o f this was his gift o f Tickford to the abbey o f Saint-Valery, as a reward
for the prayers of the monks for the safe outcome o f his English expedition (see below,
ii. 6).
2 WP may have derived the comparison of Duke William with the Emperor Theodosius
and Lanfranc with the prophetic monk John from Augustine, De duitate Dei v. 26 (see
Gibson, Lanfranc, p. 98). The region o f the Thebaid in Egypt was a centre o f early
eremitic life; see OV iv. 314 and n. 3.
3 Mauger, the son of Duke Richard II and Papia, was a half-brother o f Duke William’s
father Robert. He became archbishop o f Rouen in 1037.
•• 53 TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 87

valued more greatly the service o f prayers that are raised to

heaven. He frequently sought and purchased the prayers o f the
servants o f Christ, particularly when war or other arduous
business was imminent.1
In recounting these things, the sweet memory o f the Emperor
Theodosius comes to mind, who, when he was about to go into
battle against the tyrants, was first encouraged by the prophesies
and answers o f the monk John, who lived in the remote parts o f
the Thebaid.2 Just as Theodosius chose John, who by obedience
had gained the gift o f prophecy, out o f all the monks, so William
took Lanfranc, who was redolent o f the spirit o f the Holy Ghost
in word and deed.

53. Many good people, misled by carnal affection, spare the

crimes o f those who are their blood relatives, not wishing to
degrade them from the high offices over which they preside
unworthily. Blinded by love, they judge these men with extreme
leniency; others they judge strictly, with keen perception. But
William, whose unshakeable goodness we proclaim as a subject
worthy o f consideration and wonder, knowing that filial affection
was never to be preferred to divine love; wisely and justly made
G od’s cause triumph against his paternal uncle, Archbishop
Mauger.3
T his man, the son o f Richard II, abused his sacred office as if it
were his by right o f birth. He was never invested with the
pallium, which is the principal and mystical badge o f office o f
an archbishop; the Roman pontiff, by whose hand it is usually
sent, refused it because o f his unworthiness. He was not
unschooled in interpreting the literal sense o f the mysteries o f
the holy Scriptures; but he made no effort to govern either his
own life or that o f his subordinates according to scriptural
precepts. T he church, which had been enriched and ornamented
by the piety o f many people, he made poorer by spoliation; he
could not be called its spouse or father, but rather its most
oppressive lord or greedy robber. He liked to offer a table which
was more than sufficient and extremely luxurious, and to buy
88 GESTA GVILLELM I »• 54

nitidas praebere, largiendo laudem emere amabat, specie liberal-

itatis prodigus.
Saepenumero monitus atque castigatus priuatim atque publice
domini sui, iuuenis et laici, sapiente diligentia, pergere malebat
eadem prauitatis uia. Nec enim modum posuit largitioni donec
sedes metropolitana omni fere ornamento caruit et thesauro.
Sequuntur multotiens largitionem rapinae. Praeterea molestus
infamiae eius odor diffundebatur ob alia crimina. Sed a ratione
alienum ducimus in uitiis publicandis immorari, quorum nec
decens uidetur commemoratio nec notitia utilis. Laesit insuper
iniuria non leui ecclesiam uniuersalem, cuius unicum primatem
summum in orbe terrarum antistitem, non qua decuit obedientia
ueneratus est. Nam apostolici mandato saepius ad Romanum
concilium accitus renuit ire. Sane pigebat Rotomagum, pigebat
cunctam Normanniam archipraesulis, qui cum honestatis forma
eminentes quosque antecedere deberet, infimarum personarum
testimonio accusante confutabatur, uniuersorum despectu degra­
dandus censebatur.
Princeps igitur animaduertens iam non monitis agi oportere in
causa praecipue grauitatis, ne ultra patiendo superni iudicis iram
irritaret in se, deposuit patruum in publico sanctae sinodi,
apostolici uicario cunctisque Normanniae episcopis, iuxta cano­
num auctoritatem0 sententiam dantibus unanimi* consensu.1

54. Maurilium uero cathedrae liberatae prouidit, ex Italia ubi

supra caeteros abbates emicuit eximius reductum;2 dignissimum
summo omnium archipraesulatu merito generis, personae, uirtu-
tum, doctrinae.

a F ; authoritatem D M * unanim D F M

1 The misconduct attributed to Mauger by WP probably reflects the charges made

against him in 1054 at the Council o f Lisieux, when he was deposed. (For the date, see
Foreville, ‘ Synod’ , pp. 22-4.) The papal legate was Ermenfrid, bishop of Sion. For similar
accusations, see OV iii. 86. WJ (G N D ii. 130), more cautiously, wrote, ‘desipere cepit et
insipientia ductus arcipresulatum reddidit duci.’ The deposition may have been due to
suspicions that he had supported the resistance o f Count William o f Arques (Gibson,
Lanfranc, p. 107). WP may have been particularly conscious o f his failure to receive a
pallium from the pope because o f the charges later made against Stigand, archbishop of
Canterbury, when he was deposed in 1070. When Mauger had been made archbishop o f
i. 55 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 89

praises by his largesse, showing himself prodigal in the guise o f

liberality.
Often warned and castigated in private and in public by the
wise solicitude o f his lord (layman and youth though he was), he
preferred to continue on the same road o f depravity. Nor did he
place any limit on his largesse until his metropolitan see was
deprived o f almost all its ornaments and treasure. Often his
largesse was followed by spoliation. In addition, an evil breath
o f infamy was spread abroad because o f other crimes. But we
consider it contrary to reason to publish vices, when dwelling on
them seems indecent and knowledge o f them useless. Above all he
offended with no light injury the universal Church, whose sole
primate, the highest prelate in the whole world, did not receive
the veneration due to him. For though repeatedly summoned by
papal mandate to the Roman council, he refused to go. Truly
Rouen and all Normandy were ashamed o f this archbishop who,
though he ought to have appeared more virtuous than the most
eminent, was reproved by the accusing testimony o f the lowest,
and judged worthy o f degradation by the contempt o f all.
And so the prince, considering that he could no longer
continue with admonitions in a matter o f such gravity, lest he
should provoke beyond bounds the anger o f the supreme Judge,
deposed his uncle in the public forum o f a holy synod, with the
apostolic vicar and all the bishops o f Normandy giving their
unanimous consent to the sentences.1

54. He made provision for the vacant chair by bringing

Mauritius back from Italy,2 where he had shone out brilliantly
above the other abbots; he was the worthiest o f all men for the
archbishopric by virtue o f his birth, his person, his good
character, and his learning.

Rouen in 1037 papal reform had scarcely begun, and the pope had been in no position to
claim the right to confer the pallium.
2 For Mauritius, see M. de Bouard, ‘Notes et hypothèses sur Maurille moine de Fécamp
et son élection au siège métropolitain de Rouen9, L'abbaye bénédictine de Fécamp, 2 vols.
(Fécamp, 1959), i. 81-92. The date o f his appointment has been shown to have been 1054,
not 1055 (Fauroux, no. 132).
90 GESTA GVILLELM I '• 57

55. Huius parem quendam et in anachoretici rigoris commilitio

sedulum contubernalem, Gerbertum, cunctae sanctitatis con­
scientia et fama iuxta beatum,1 aliquot post annos coenobio
sancti Guandregisili* praefecit, ordinem dilapsum restituere
intendens per abbatem spiritualem. Ambo hi in aetate florentis-
sima diuinitatem et quam diuinitas largitur beatitudinem spec­
ulati, alio multoque perspicatiori mentis acumine quam Plato,
nuda professione impedimenta rerum temporalium euasere, des-
picantes mundanae philosophiae uehementi applicatione a se
amata gymnasia, patrii soli dulcem arrisum, opibus ac generositate
claram parentelam, spem sublimium prouectuum. Sic animo
uictore expediti nunc sub iugo coenobiorum, nunc in eremi
lucta, aemulis Machabaeorum decertabant sudoribus,2 pro inter­
minabili et liberalitate et quiete, omnem extremitatem, nullam
praelationem, in exilio mundi praetereuntis ambientes.

56. Sublimauit idem princeps quamplures ecclesias, prouide

trutinata ordinatione praesulum atque abbatum, sed praecipue
Lexouiensem, Baiocensem, Abrincensem. Statuit enim summe
idoneos pontifices, Hugonem Lexouii, proprium fratrem Odonem
Baiocarum, Iohannem Abrincarum.3 Quorum in electione penes
iudicium eius probitas ipsorum ualuit, non altitudo natalium
proximorum ipsi.
Iohannes Radulphi comitis filius, iampridem laicus ordine erudi­
tus literis, clero, immo rectoribus cleri, admirandus innotuerat uita
religiosa. Non illius desideria specie sacerdotalis gradus honorem,
sed illum uota praesulum ambierunt collegam sibi consecrandum.

57. Odonem4 ab annis puerilibus optimorum numero consona

praeconia optimorum inseruerunt. Fertur hic in longinquas
* D M ; Wandregisili F

1 For Gerbert, the holy and learned abbot of Saint-Wandrille (1062-89), see OV ii. 296
and n. 3; iv. 306. He was honoured with a cult in the liturgy o f Saint-Wandrille.
2 Cf. 2 Macc. 10: 25-8; 11 : 6 - 11 .
3 The three prelates named were all kinsmen o f the duke; it is notewonhy that WP says
nothing about Geoffrey o f Montbray, who restored the church o f Coutances but was not so
highly-born. John, the son of Raoul count of Ivry, was bishop o f Avranches (1060-7) and
then became archbishop o f Rouen. He was the author of a liturgical treatise, De officiis
ecclesiasticis (OV ii. 200).
»• 57 T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 91

55. A few years later, in the hope o f restoring the neglected

monastic rule through a spiritual abbot, he placed at the head o f
the abbey o f Saint-Wandrille a certain Gerbert, who was compar­
able to Maurilius and a zealous companion in the ranks o f
heremitical asceticism; he was already reputed through knowledge
o f his holiness to be almost blessed.1 Both these men, having in
their prime speculated, with a different and much more perspi­
cacious keenness o f mind than Plato, on the Divinity and on the
blessedness which the Divinity bestows, escaped by their religious
profession alone from the trammels o f worldly things, despising
mundane philosophical systems (which they had once loved
vehemently in the schools), the sweet smile o f their native land,
a lineage distinguished by wealth and high birth, and the hope o f
high advancement. Thus, with their soul victorious, they fought
with energy rivalling the Maccabees,2 now under the yoke o f
monks, now in the wrestling-ring o f a hermit’s life, to win
everlasting freedom o f spirit and peace, seeking no preferment,
but the humblest place in the exile o f this transitory world.

56. T he same prince restored many churches by his wisely

judged appointment o f prelates, particularly the bishops o f
Lisieux, Bayeux and Avranches. He nominated very suitable
bishops: Hugh to Lisieux, his own brother Odo to Bayeux, and
John to Avranches.3 And in their election it was the probity o f
each which impressed his judgement, not the high birth which
made them his kinsmen.
John, the son o f Count Raoul, was distinguished by his learning
even while he was a layman; but it was his religious life that
marked him out as admirable among the clergy and above all the
rulers o f the clergy. T he honour o f the priestly order came to
him, not by his own desire, but because the bishops wished to
have him consecrated as their colleague.

57. As for Odo,4 from his earliest years the unanimous

commendation o f the best men rated him among the best. His
4 Odo of Conteville, bishop o f Bayeux, the son o f Herlewin o f Conteville and Herleva,
was a half-brother of Duke William. WP wrote a much fuller eulogy o f him later (see
below, ii. 37).
92 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 58

regiones celeberrima fama, sed ipsius liberalissimi atque humil­

limi multa et industria et bonitas amplius meretur.

58. Hugonem, quem propiore familiaritate conspectauimus,1

dictatu longiusculo aliis indicare neutiquam grauamur, quoniam
eius cognitionem aliis non dubitamus profuturam. Is Richardi
primi nepos e filio Guillelmo Aucensi comite, non minus bono
quam generoso, iuuenis a principe pontificatus in apicem prouec-
tus, spirituali mox canitie senibus maturior enitebat. Nequaquam
ille ob antiquum stemma notabatur fastuosus, nec ob altiorem
gradum siue florentem aetatem, animo aut elatus auttf per lubricas
uoluptates uagus. Librabat equidem strenua sollicitudine graue
munus, caute gestandum onus. Propriae conuersationis directioni
attente uigilabat, iugi cura speculabatur pascendo gregi, sic
manifestans quam acute prospiceret interno lumine, quod
sacrum ministerium acceperit regimen ecclesiasticum, non dom­
inatum uel honorem. Terris, thesauro, pretiosorum ornamen­
torum decore sanctam sponsam ditauit. Conuenustauit eam
aedium quoque eius tanto cultu,2 ut ambigeret inspector melius
ne noua consurgerent aut uetusta repararentur. Verum in semet-
ipso dicauit ei dotem auro et electro cariorem omnique lapide siue
gemma splendidiorem.
Venerantur ac diligunt reuerentissimum praesulem monasteria,
sinodi, curiae; ut prudentem ita eloquentem, ut iustum ita
discretum. Qui nec pecuniae unquam faueat aut gratiae siue in
iudicio siue in consilio sententiam dicens. Ipse profecto cum
deponeretur archipraesul Malgerius uox iustitiae sonora fuit,
constanter permanens in parte Dei propter Deum damnans filium
patrui. Exhibet se blandum ac seuerum decentissima in alterutrum
permutatione; nullius hominis, omnis uitii, clemens persecutor,
pius inimicus. Subiectis fidelissime consulit, comparandus

“ M F ; at D

1 Hugh, bishop of Lisieux (1049-77), a half-brother o f Duke Richard II, was the son o f
William, count of Eu. He was praised by Orderic (OV iii. 14-18). WP, as archdeacon o f
Lisieux, knew him well.
2 He completed and consecrated the church o f Lisieux, and shared in the foundation of
the abbey o f Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives and the nunnery o f Notre-Dame-du-Pré at Lisieux
(Orderic, iii. 16; Foreville, p. 138 n. 1; Fauroux, no. 140).
i. 58 TH E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 93
renown has been carried into the most distant regions; but the
zeal and goodness o f this most generous and humble man deserve
much more.

58. We have no hesitation in describing H ugh,1 whom we have

known more intimately, at greater length, for we are certain that it
will be profitable to others to know about him. T he grandson o f
Richard I by his son William count o f Eu (who was as good as he
was noble), he was promoted by the prince to the rank o f bishop
in his youth; but soon he showed himself more spiritually mature
than the greybeards. He was never heard to boast o f his ancient
lineage; he was never proud because o f his office, or led astray by
sensual desires because o f his youth. For he bore this serious
responsibility— this burden needing to be carried carefully— with
tireless zeal. He kept strict control over his own manner o f life,
and devoted himself to feeding his flock with equal care, so
showing how keenly he perceived in the light o f the spirit that he
had received the rule o f churches as a sacred service, not a
lordship or honour. He enriched his holy bride with lands,
treasure, and beautiful ornaments. He adorned her with so
splendid a clothing o f churches, including his own,2 that
anyone seeing them would hesitate to say whether it was better
for new churches to be built or old ones restored. But in truth he
gave her in his own person a dowry more precious than gold or
amber, and more splendid than any stone or gem.
Monasteries, synods, and courts venerate and love this most
reverend bishop; a man as prudent as he is eloquent, as just as he
is wise, who in giving judgement or counsel never protects anyone
for money or favour. Indeed it was he who, when Archbishop
Mauger was deposed, was the resounding voice o f justice,
standing steadily on the side o f God and condemning his uncle’s
son on G od’s behalf. He knows how to show himself clement or
severe, changing from one aspect to the other as is most fitting.
He is the merciful prosecutor, the holy enemy, not o f any man,
but o f every vice. He watches most faithfully over those subject to
him, comparable in his discretion to those loving fathers who
consider the interests rather than the desires o f their young sons.
94 GESTA GVILLELM I i. 5 0

prudenter diligentibus patribus, qui iuuenum filiorum non tam

uota cogitant quam commoda. Fauet congratulans et auxiliatur
caelici regis quolibet in ordine militibus, in ueneratione militum et
amore regem ipsum colens. Sic semper humanus uiuit, sic abste­
mius ut indesinenter afferat homini cuique, saepius tamen non
redituro, prandia sua, Deo ieiunia sua. Hilarem se et communione
gratum minime uilescentem, mensae abundanti et lautae non
denegat; gustat imperio naturae, non epulatur.
Pascunt eum delitiae quibus animae esurientes aeterna pasci
desiderant, quas paraclitus caelestis dulcore infundit suauissimo;
excubiae orationibus uacantes, diuinorum officiorum studiosa
concelebratio, sacrae bibliothecae cultus perfamiliaris, denique
sancti cuiusque operis indefessus amor. His, inquam, praecipue
delectatur, his auide pascitur optimus dominici ouilis pastor
Hugo. In aduersis euentibus constantia, in secundis modestia
parilem laudem consequitur, nullius cupidus. Linguas amantes
alienam famam laedere adeo sensit abominandas, ut aurem suam
prauitatis earum nunquam testem adhibere uelit. Altitudinem
suam admirandae humilitatis priuilegio sublimat, continentiam
et uirtutes reliquas, item quascunque pias operationes, ea tutis­
sima ac saluberrima custode muniens. Mysticum namque illud
rationale pectoris Aaron ornamentum spiritualiter eius adornat
interiora: patrum sanctitatem quorum ei nomina inscribi praeci­
piuntur iugiter commonens.1 N e uero supra modi limitem
digrediamur dum per honestissimae uitae templa iucunda rapta­
mur consideratione, ad principis Guillelmi gesta reuerti placet.

59. Hispaniae reges duo germani2 audita eius magnitudine,

natam eius in matrimonium cupientissime petierunt,3 suum et
1 Aaron’s pectoral is described in Exod. 28: 15 -16 , ‘Rationale quoque judicii facies
opere polymito juxta texturam superhumeralis, ex auro, hyacintho, et purpura, coccoque
bis tincto et bysso retorta’; and in Exod. 28: 30, ‘Pones autem in rationali judicii Doctrinam
et Veritatem, quae erunt in pectore Aaron, quando ingredietur coram Domino; et gestabit
iudicium filiorum Israel in pectore suo, in conspectu Domini semper.’ The names o f the
tribes o f Israel were engraved on the ephod (Lev. 28: 9-12). For the mystical interpretation
o f the pectoral, see Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, ii. 116 , 118 , 129 (Corpus
Christianorum series Latina, xxxiii. 123-6, 129-30).
2 This must be a reference to the sons of Ferdinand I. After the death o f Ferdinand in
1065 his lands were divided between Sancho (Castile), Alfonso (Leon), and Garcia (Galicia
and Portugal). Sancho defeated first Garcia and then Alfonso; after the murder o f Sancho,
>• 59 TH E D EE D S OF W I L L I A M 95
He promotes, congratulates, and helps the soldiers o f the heavenly
King, whatever their order, and in the respect and loyalty he
shows them he worships that same King. Thus the life he lives as
a man is always abstemious, and he ceaselessly offers his
hospitality to any man, asking no return, and his fasts to God.
To be cheerful and sociable does not strike him as degrading; he
does not deny himself an ample and luxurious table; but he
partakes to satisfy nature, and does not feast.
His nourishment consists o f the delights to which souls
hungering to taste eternal joys aspire, which the heavenly
Paraclete infuses with most delightful sweetness. His night
watches are spent in prayer, in assiduous observance o f the
sacred offices, in close study o f the holy Bible, and finally in
his unfailing love for every holy work. It is in these things, I say,
that Hugh, the best shepherd o f the Lord’s sheep, particularly
delights, and on these he hungrily feeds. Equally worthy o f praise
for his constancy in adversity and for his modesty in success, he
envies no one. He detests the tongues that love to destroy
another’s reputation to such an extent that he never allows his
ear to be witness to their depravity. He is most highly exalted by
the prerogative o f admirable humility; his continence and other
virtues, like his pious works, find in it their safest protector and
surest stronghold. The mystic pectoral which adorned the breast
o f Aaron spiritually adorns his soul, reminding him ceaselessly o f
the sanctity o f the fathers whose names Aaron ordered to be
inscribed on it.1 But lest we digress beyond reasonable limits,
whilst we are rapt in contemplation o f the joyful temple o f an
exemplary life, we must return to the deeds o f Prince William.

59. Two brothers, kings o f Spain,2 learning o f his greatness,

pleaded ardently for the hand o f his daughter3 in marriage, so that
Alfonso VI united the kingdom and ruled from 1072 to 1109. The two kings were probably
Sancho and Alfonso. William’s daughters are discussed by Douglas, Conqueror, pp. 393-5
(see also OV ii. 104; iii. 114). William of Malmesbury (G R ii. 333) distinguished between
the daughter betrothed to Harold and the daughter betrothed to a Spanish king, whom he
calls Alfonso.
3 The daughter for whom a Spanish marriage was proposed was called Adeliza by
Orderic in his Interpolations (G N D ii. 16 0 -1) and Agatha in his Ecclesiastical History (OV.
iii. 1 14).
96 GESTA GVILLELM I «• 59

regnum et posteritatem hac magnificaturi affinitate. Nam et lis

ualde inimica inter ipsos propter eam orta est: minime degen­
erem, sed omnino dignam tali parente, sic moribus ornatam, sic in
amore Christi studiosam, ut reginis ac sanctimonialibus exemplo
esse posset puella non uelata.
Admirabatur, laudabat ac uenerabatur eum supra nomina
regum imperii Romani maiestas, cuius olim gloriosissimus mod­
erator Henricus, Conradi imperatoris Augusti filius, cum ipso
etiam tum puero ueluti cum nominatissimo rege amicitiam iunxit
ac societatem.1 Eius enim adhuc pueri nomen clarissimum per
gentes ferebatur. Sed de magnitudine uiri disseram. Optabat hunc
uicinum et amicum nobilis et ampla, multisque regibus dominans,
Constantinopolis, quo propugnatore sperneret grauem potentiam
Babylonis.2
Iam in Normanniam nemo confinium quicquam audebat. Vt
seditionum, sic externi belli procella omnis defremuit. Franciae,
Burgundiae, item ulterius remotarum prouinciarum praesules
atque comites Normanniae domini curiam frequentabant; alii ut
consilia, alii ut beneficia acciperent, plerique sola gratia gloriaturi.
Portus et refugium apte nominabatur eius benignitas, admittens et
releuans plurimos. Homines aduenae cernentes apud nos equites
hac illae pergere inermes et quodque iter cuique uianti tutum
patere, huiuscemodi beatitudinem quotiens exoptauere suis regio­
nibus; hanc pacem, hanc dignitatem Guillelmi uirtus patriae
peperit. Iuste itaque patria pro ipso inualitudine dubia aliquando
decumbente lacrimas profudit atque preces, quales defuncto
uitam ualerent impetrare; orans tardissime moriturum, cuius in
obitu praematuro turbinem quo prius uexabatur denuo timebat
oriturum. Nec enim prolem tum relinqueret ad gubernandum
aetate idoneam. Creditur, et dignissime quidem, piae deuotionis
arbitrum supernum strenuo maiestatis suae clienti sospitatem

1 There is no known corroboration for WP’s assertion that Henry III (1039-56), the son
o f Conrad II, had formed an alliance with the young duke.
2 Although no direct contacts between Duke William and Constantinople are known,
WP may have been alluding to the service of numerous Normans in the Emperor’s army.
The term ‘Babylon’ was used to describe the Turkish forces threatening Byzantium at the
»• 59 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 97
by this alliance they could add lustre to their kingdom and their
descendants. A bitter quarrel arose between them on her account:
for, far from being unworthy, she was in every way worthy o f
such a parent, and shone with such virtues and such zeal in her
love for Christ that, although an unveiled girl, she could stand as
an example to queens and nuns.
He was admired, praised, and revered above all kings by the
sovereign power o f the Roman Empire, over which the illustrious
Henry, son o f the emperor Conrad, presided; for Henry, when
William was only a boy, entered into an alliance o f friendship with
him,1 as though he had been an illustrious king. For from his
boyhood his name was renowned among nations. But it is o f the
greatness o f the man that I must speak. T h e noble and vast city,
Constantinople, which rules over many kings, desired to have him
as a neighbour and friend, so that, with him as champion, it could
repulse the formidable power o f Babylon.2
Already none o f his neighbours in Normandy dared attempt
anything. All tumult o f external war, as o f revolt, was quelled.
T he bishops and counts o f Francia, Burgundy, and o f even more
distant provinces, frequented the court o f the lord o f Normandy;
some to receive advice, others in search o f benefices, most to bask
in his favour. His friendship was aptly called a haven and a refuge,
admitting and relieving many. Strangers, seeing that in our
country horsemen go to and fro unarmed, and that the road is
safe for every traveller, have often wished to have a similar
blessing in their regions; this is the peace and distinction that
the virtue o f William has bestowed on his country. And so it is
just that this country, whenever illness threatens him, should
shed such tears and pour forth such prayers as would restore the
dead to life, praying that death may be long delayed for fear that
the storms which had raged formerly would be stirred up again by
his premature death; for he had not yet left a son o f suitable age to
rule. It is believed, and justly, that the supreme Arbiter o f pious
devotion, in the power o f His majesty, grants to His faithful

time. For Normans in the imperial armies, see J. Shepard, T h e uses o f the Franks in
eleventh-century Byzantium9, Battle, xvi (1993), 275-305.
98 GESTA GVILLELM I '• 59

praestitisse et quietissimum otium omni hoste protrito; ut meritus

ad altiora euehi, regno praerepto mox facilius potiretur, securus
de statu principatus.
 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 99
servant health and tranquil leisure with all his enemies over­
thrown; so that by his merits he may be exalted more highly, and,
certain o f the security o f his duchy, may recover more easily the
kingdom snatched from him.
 PARS S E C U N D A

i. Verus namque rumor insperato uenit, Anglicam terram rege

Edwardo orbatam esse et eius corona Heraldum ornatum. Nec
sustinuit uesanus Anglus quid electio publica statueret consulere;
sed in die lugubri quo optimus ille humatus est, cum gens
uniuersa plangeret, periurus regium solium cum plausu occu-
pauit,1 quibusdam iniquis fauentibus. Ordinatus est non sancta
consecratione Stigandi, iusto zelo apostolici et anathemate minis­
terio sacerdotum priuati.2
Dux Guillelmus habita cum suis consultatione3 armis iniuriam
ulcisci, armis haereditatem reposcere decreuit,4 tametsi complures
maiorum id ingeniose dissuaderent, ut rem nimis arduam,
Normanniae uiribus longe maiorem.5 Habuit in consiliis ea
tempestate Normannia praeter episcopos et abbates laici ordinis
praestantissimos uiros, quorum in collegio splendidiora quaedam
eius lumina atque ornamenta emicuere: Rodbertus Moritoliensis
comes;6 Rodbertus Aucensis comes, Lexouiensis episcopi
Hugonis (de cuius uita supra scripsimus) frater;7 Ebroicensis
comes Ricardus Rodberti archiepiscopi filius; Rogerus de Bello-
monte;8 Rogerus de Montegomerico;*9 Guillelmus filius
a F ; Montegomerici D M

1 King Edward died at Westminster on 4 or 5 Jan. 1066; Harold was crowned in

Westminster Abbey the next day. 5 Jan. is the date accepted by most authorities (see F. E.
Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), p. 560, corrected by Barlow, in Vita
Edwardiy p. 124 n. 329). For Harold’s oath, see above, i. 42. The A S C (E) 1066 says that he
was chosen;* and he could have been accorded formal acclamation by the bishops and
magnates assembled at Westminster for the consecration of the new church the week
before. JW ii. 600 says (Haraldus . . . quern rex ante suum decessum regni successorem
elegerat, a totius Anglie primatibus ad regale culmen electus . . .’ .
2 Archbishop Stigand was excommunicated by Leo IX after he received the pallium
from the anti-pope Benedict X , and the sentence was renewed by Nicholas II and
Alexander II. See Brooks, Canterbury, pp. 3 0 4 -11, for the weakness o f Stigand’s position;
after January 1059, when Benedict X was deposed and his acts annulled. Stigand is not
known to have consecrated any bishops before the Norman Conquest. The Worcester/
York tradition, which stated that Harold was crowned by Ealdred, archbishop o f York
(Chronicon pontificum ecclesiae Eboracensisy in Historians o f the Church o f York y ed. J. Raine,
3 vols. (RS, 1879-94), ü- 348; JW ii. 600) is probably to be preferred to the Norman
tradition, which shows a hardening o f the legend to Harold’s discredit after Stigand’s
deposition in 1070 (Brooks, Canterbury, p. 389, n. 158; OV ii. 136-8 and n. 1).
 PART II

i. A true report came unexpectedly, that the English land had

lost its king and that Harold was wearing its crown. And this mad
Englishman could not endure to await the decision o f a public
election, but on the tragic day when that best o f all men was
buried, while all the people were mourning, he violated his oath
and seized the royal throne with acclamation,1 with the conni­
vance o f a few wicked men. He received an impious consecration
from Stigand, who had been deprived o f his priestly office by the
just zeal and anathema o f the pope.2
Duke William, after taking counsel with his men,3 determined
to avenge this injury with arms, and claim his inheritance4 by
force o f arms, although many o f the greater men argued
speciously that the enterprise was too arduous and far beyond
the resources o f Normandy.5 At that time Normandy had in its
counsels, besides the bishops and abbots, outstanding men o f the
secular order, shining luminaries who were the pride o f that
assembly: Robert count o f Mortain;6 Robert count o f Eu, the
brother o f Hugh bishop o f Lisieux (of whose life we have written
above);7 Richard count o f Evreux, son o f Archbishop Robert;
Roger o f Beaumont;8 Roger o f Montgomery;9 William fitz
3 William’s consultation with his vassals is described by OV ii. 140-2, who added some
details to the information he took from C C , in particular, the names o f the bishops and,
among the laymen, the names o f Ralph o f Conches, William o f Warenne, Hugh of
Grandmesnil, Roger o f Montbray and Baldwin and Richard, the sons o f Count Gilbert of
Brionne.
4 WP continues to insist on William’s hereditary right through King Edward’s mother
Emma (see above, i. 14, 41).
5 OV ii. 142-3 amplifies this, mentioning specifically the dangers of the crossing, the
problem o f raising a fleet, and Harold’s resources in manpower.
6 Robert o f Mortain was Duke William’s half-brother. For his career, see B. Golding,
‘Robert of Mortain’, Battle, xiii (1991), 119-44 . He was given the county o f Mortain after
the downfall o f William Warlenc (1053 x 1063). He provided 120 ships for the invasion
fleet (van Houts, ‘Ship list’, p. 169 and App. 1).
7 For Robert, see above, i. 3 1; for Hugh, i. 58.
8 Roger o f Beaumont-le-Roger, son o f Humphrey o f Vieilles.
9 Roger II o f Montgomery, vicomte o f the Hiémois. For his family and early career, see
Kathleen Thompson, ‘The Norman aristocracy before 1066: the example o f the Mont­
gomerys’, Historical Research, lx (1987), 251-63.
102 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. i

Osbemi;1 Hugo uicecomes.2 Horum ingeniis atque industria

conseruari posset incolumis: nec adeo senatoribus ducentis
indigeret freta his Romana respublica,3 si quanta apud ueteres
nunc polleret. In omni tamen deliberatione prudentiae principis a
cunctis concessum fuisse comperimus, ac si mente diuina quid
agendum foret aut uitandum praenosceret. 'Pie agentibus Deus
dedit sapientiam’,4 ait quidam peritus diuinorum. Ille autem ab
infantia pie operabatur. Quantum uero iubere libuit, tantum nisi
necessitas obsisteret paruere cuncti.

2. Quam igitur prudenti ipsius dispositione naues fierent,

armis, uiris, commeatu aliisque rebus quae bello sunt usui
instruerentur, qualiter totius Normanniae studia fernerem, pro­
lixum est per singula enarrare.5 Neque minus prouide disposuit,
qui Normanniam se absente gubernarent ac tutarentur.6 Conuenit
etiam externus miles in auxilium copiosus,7 quos ex parte
notissima ducis liberalitas, uerum omnes iustae causae fiducia
contraxit.
Rapina omni interdicta, stipendio ipsius millia militum quin-
quagenta alebantur, dum uentorum incommoditas ad portum
Diuae detinebat mora menstrua.8 Ea illius temperantia fuit ac
prudentia: militibus et hospitibus abunde sumptus ministrabatur;
nemimi rapere quippiam concedebatur. Prouincialium tuto
armenta uel greges pascebantur seu per campestria seu per
tesqua. Segetes falcem cultoris intactae expectabant, quas nec
attriuit superba equitum effusio, nec demessuit pabultor. Homo
1 The son o f Osbem ‘o f Crepon’, steward o f Normandy, and Emma, daughter o f Raoul,
count o f Ivry. See D. C. Douglas, ‘The ancestors o f William Fitz Osbem’, EH R lix (1944),
62-79.
2 Hugh the vicomte was Hugh II o f Montfort, first named as a vicomte in a charter o f
1055 (Fauroux, no. 137; Bates, Normandy, p. 142 n. 93). He subscribed a number o f Duke
William’s charters (Fauroux, nos. n o , 137, 145, 194, 229). His name does not occur in
Orderic’s list.
1 The number o f senators in the Roman republic was greater; there were 300 at the
beginning of the Republic and more later (Foreville, p. 149 n. 7).
4 Ecclus. 43: 37 (‘omnia autem Dominus fecit et pie agentibus dedit sapientiam’).
5 Details of shipbuilding are shown in the Bayeux Tapestry, pis. 37, 38, 39. For the
provision o f ships, see below, p. 108 and n. 2.
6 See below, ii. 43.
7 See below, ii. 19.
8 In fact it is unlikely that the month’s delay was due to unfavourable winds (see above,
ii. 2 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 103

Osbern;1 Hugh the vicomte.2 It was thanks to their wisdom and

their efforts that Normandy could be kept in safety; supported by
these the Roman republic would not have needed two hundred
senators/ if she had preserved her ancient power in our own time.
However, we have ascertained that in every debate all gave way to
the wisdom o f their prince, as if by divine inspiration he foreknew
what was to be done and what avoided. ‘T o those who live
righteously God gives wisdom’ ,4 said a man who was well
versed in holy learning. He had worked dutifully from childhood.
Indeed, whatever he was pleased to command, all obeyed him
unless necessity prevented them.

2. It would take too long to narrate in detail how under his

prudent direction ships were built and equipped with arms, men,
provisions, and the other things necessary for war, and how all
Normandy eagerly bent to the task.5 No less wisely did he
determine who should govern and protect Normandy during his
absence.6 Foreign knights flocked to help him in great numbers,7
attracted partly by the well-known liberality o f the duke, but all
fully confident o f the justice o f his cause.
After forbidding all plunder, he supported 50,000 men-at-arms
at his own expense while unfavourable winds delayed him for a
month at the mouth o f the Dives.8 Such was his moderation and
wisdom that abundant provision was made for the soldiers and
their hosts, and no one was permitted to seize anything. T he
cattle and flocks o f the people o f the province grazed safely
whether in the fields or on the waste. T he crops waited unharmed
for the scythe o f the harvester, and were neither trampled by the
proud stampede o f horsemen nor cut down by foragers. A man
who was weak or unarmed could ride singing on his horse

Introduction, pp. xxiv-xxvi). The logistics involved in provisioning William’s army have
been discussed by B. S. Bachrach, ‘ Some observations on the military administration o f the
Norman Conquest’, Battle, viii (1986), 1-25. He estimates the probable number o f men in
William’s army as about 14,000 (the number given in the Chronique de Saint-M aixent 7 5 / -
//40, ed. J. Verdon (Paris, 1979), p. 136), o f whom 10,000 could have been eflective
fighting men. Other historians have suggested a lower figure (e.g. R. Allen Brown, ‘The
battle o f Hastings’, Battley iii (1981), 1 - 2 1 , at p. 10, suggests 7,000 for the force at
Hastings).
104 GESTA GVILLELM I 11. 2

imbecillis aut inermis, equo cantans qua libuit uectabatur, turmas

militum cernens non exhorrescens.1

3. Tempore eodem sedebat in cathedra sancti Petri Romae papa

Alexander dignissimus, cui obediret quemque consuleret ecclesia
uniuersa. Responsa etenim edebat iusta salutariaque. Is praesul
Luciensis, cum altiorem gradum nullatenus appeteret, uiolento
plurimorum consensu, quorum apud Romanos tunc praecellebat
auctoritas,'8 ingenti concilio assentiente, in eo locatus est primatu,
quo praesulum orbis terrae caput existeret atque magister.2
Allectionem hanc sanctitate meruerat atque doctrina. Per eadem
post ad ortum solis et occasum effulgebat. Neque sui cursus
limitem sol immutabilius natura, quam per ueritatis ille directum
tendebat uita: quodquod ubiquaque per mundum potuit iniquum
corrigens, nulli concedens.3
Huius apostolici fauorem petens dux, intimato negotio quod
agitabat, uexillum accepit eius benignitate uelut suffragium
sancti Petri, quo primo confidentius ac tutius inuaderet aduer-
sarium.4 Et Romanorum imperatori Henrico, Henrici impera­
toris filio, nepoti imperatoris Chounradi, nouiter iunctus fuit in
amicitia, cuius edicto in quemlibet hostem Germania ei, si
postularet, ueniret adiutrix.5* Rex quoque Danorum Suenus
fidem legationibus ei spopondit, sed inimicis eius amicum

a F\ authoritas D M

1 The whole passage, ‘Prouincialium . . . exhorrescens9 is reproduced word for word

below, ii. 45.
2 Anselm, bishop o f Lucca, was elected pope as Alexander II on 30 Sept. 1061. He had
the support of Archdeacon Hildebrand and all the cardinal bishops, who met outside the
walls of Rome for the election, and he was enthroned under the protection of Prince
Richard o f Capua and the Normans. His election was contested unsuccessfully by the party
o f the young king, Henry IV of Germany, who set up Cadalus, bishop o f Parma, as
antipope (H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Age o f Abbot Desiderius (Oxford, 1983), p. 118 ; Chronica
monasterii Casinensi, ed. H. Hoffmann, M G H S S y xxiv (1980), 385-6).
3 W P’s lavish praise may have been prompted by Alexander IPs support for Duke
William. Papal policy towards the Normans, both in Normandy and in South Italy, had
been hostile, or at least cautious, in the early 1050s; after the defeat o f Nicholas II at
Civitate in 1059 relations improved in both areas, and Alexander II carried on the policies
o f his predecessor. See François Neveux, ‘Quelques aspects de l’impérialisme normand au
xic siècle en Italie et en Angleterre’, in Les Normands en Méditerranée, ed. P. Bouet and
F. Neveux (Caen, 1994), pp. 5 1-6 2, at 52-3.
ii. 3 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 105

wherever he wished, without trembling at the sight o f squadrons

o f knights.1

3. At that time the see o f St Peter at Rome was occupied by

Pope Alexander, a most worthy man who was obeyed and
consulted by the universal Church, for he gave just and salutary
replies. When he was bishop o f Lucca and sought no higher
dignity, he was placed in the primacy by the impetuous concur­
rence o f many o f those whose authority prevailed at that time
among the Romans and with the consent o f a large assembly, so
that he might be the head and master o f the bishops o f the whole
world.2 He deserved this promotion because o f his holiness and
learning. Through these he shone thereafter to the East and to the
West. N or did the sun proceed more immutably on its course in
nature than he proceeded in his life on the straight line o f truth;
whatsoever and wheresoever in the world he could, he corrected
wrong and gave way to no one.3
Seeking the approval o f this pope, whom he had informed o f
the business in hand, the duke received a banner with his
blessing, to signify the approval o f St Peter,4 by following
which he might attack the enemy with greater confidence and
safety. Also he had recently made a friendly pact with Henry,
emperor o f the Romans, son o f the emperor Henry and grandson
o f the emperor Conrad, by the terms o f which Germany would, if
requested, come to his aid against any enemy.5 Swein, king o f the
Danes, also pledged his faith to him through ambassadors; but he

4 The G G is the only contemporary written source to mention the papal banner. But
there is corroboration by Orderic Vitalis; for although Orderic relied partly on G G he had
some independent information, and named Gilbert, archdeacon of Lisieux, as the envoy
sent to seek support from Alexander II, who brought back the banner (OV ii. 142-3). It
cannot be identified with certainty among the flags depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry (Renn,
‘Burgeat’, pp. 189, 19 1-2).
5 There is no other evidence for this alliance, though William may well have taken steps
to guard against any attack in the course o f an inevitably very perilous and protracted \
enterprise. K . J. Leyser, ‘England and the Empire in the early twelfth century’, in his
M edieval Germany and its Neighbours 900-1250 (London, 1982), pp. 19 1- 2 13 , points out
(p. 19 1 ) that the permission of the emperor given to men wishing to accompany the
expedition could have assisted Flemish knights from flefs held o f the Empire in joining
William’s army.
io6 GESTA GVILLELM I H- 3

exhibebat se fidelem, sicut in sequentibus legendo ipsius

detrimenta spectabis.1
4. Heraldus interea promptus ad decernendum praelio siue
terrestri, siue nauali, plerumque cum immani exercitu ad litus*
marinum operiens,2 callide subornatos transmisit exploratores.3
Quorum deprehenso uni, causamque sui aduentus qua praecep­
tum est specie obtegere conato, dux animi sui magnitudinem
prodidit his uerbis: ‘Non indiget’, inquit, ‘Heraldus auri uel
argenti iactura tuam aliorumque fidem atque solertiam emere,
qui subdole speculatum* nos ueniatis. Quid consulatur, quid
apparetur apud nos certior eum quam uelit et opinione eius
citior index, quippe mea praesentia, docebit? Hoc ex me refer
illi mandatum, nec ullam aduersitatem ex nobis ei suscipiendam
esse, quominus reliquam aetatem securus agat, nisi intra annuum
spacium, ubi tutiorem locum suis pedibus sperat, me conspexerit.’
Stupentes uero grande promissum primores Normannorum,
multi diffidentiam suam non reticent. Amplificant oratione, quam
desperatio dictauit, opes Heraldi, suas diminuunt. Thesauris
illum abundare, quibus partis suae duces et reges praepotentes
conducantur; classem habere plurimam, homines in ministeriis
nauticis peritissimos, qui saepius pericula et praelia maritima sint
experti; terra illius, uti diuitiis, ita militis copia, hanc multipliciter
superari. Quis enim iuxta praestitutum naues perfici aut perfectis
remiges inueniri annuo spatio posse speraret? Quis noua hac
expeditione pulcherrimum statum patriae in omnem redigi mis­
eriam non timeret? Quis Romani imperatoris opes ea uinci
difficultate non affirmaret?
5. Erexit autem diffidentes dux hac elocutione: ‘Innotuit nobis’,
ait’ ‘Heraldi sapientia: terrorem nobis ingerit, sed spem auget. Sua
' D; littus M F * spectaculum D M F

1 Swein II Estrithson, king o f Denmark (1043-74), was the son o f G lu t’s sister Estrith
and himself had pretensions to the English throne. WP’s account o f his attack on England
in 1069 was contained in the later part of his work, now lost; for its substance, see OV ii.
224-9.
2 Cf. A S C (C) 1066, ‘King Harold assembled a naval force and a land force larger than
any king had assembled before in this country, because he had been told as a fact that
Giunt William from Normandy, King Edward’s kinsman, meant to come here and subdue
this country.’
ii. 5 T H E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M 107

was to show himself the faithful friend o f the duke’s enemies, as

you will see in reading in what follows o f the harm he did.1

4. Harold meanwhile, ready to give battle on land or sea, spread

out a vast army over the greater part o f the sea-coast,2 and sent
spies whom he had cunningly suborned across the sea.3 One o f
these was captured, and when he tried to conceal the purpose o f
his journey with the pretext he had been taught, the duke showed
his magnanimity in these words: ‘Harold is not short o f gold and
silver with which to buy the loyalty and skill o f you and others who
come to spy on us. As to what our plans and preparations are,
would not my presence instruct him more certainly than he might
wish, and more swiftly than he imagines? Take this message to him
from me: he will have nothing to fear from me and can live the rest
o f his life secure if, within the space o f one year, he has not seen
me in the place he thinks safest for his feet.’
Marvelling at this audacious promise, many o f the leaders o f
the Normans did not conceal their doubts. Desperation prompted
them to exaggerate Harold’s wealth in their discourse, and
minimize their own. They said that Harold had abundant treasure
with which to tempt dukes and powerful kings to join his side; he
had numerous ships in his fleet and men skilled in nautical arts
and hardened in many dangers and sea-battles; and both in wealth
and numbers o f soldiers his kingdom was greatly superior to their
own land. Who could hope that within the prescribed space o f
one year a fleet could be built, or that oarsmen could be found to
man it when it was built? Who would not fear that this new
expedition would reduce the prosperous condition o f their native
land to utter wretchedness? Who would not affirm that the
resources o f a Roman emperor would be unequal to such a
difficult enterprise?

5. But the duke encouraged the doubters with this speech. ‘We
know’, he said, ‘Harold’s wisdom; it inspires us with fear, but
increases our hope. He spends his wealth uselessly, scattering his

3 There is no doubt that the English no less than the Normans made use o f military
intelligence. See above, p. xxiv.
io8 GESTA GVILLELM I >»• 5

quidem inutiliter expendet, aurum dissipans, non consolidans

honorem. Non eo animi uiget robore quo uel minimum quid
meorum polliceri audeat. At arbitrio meo pariter quae mea sunt,
quaeque dicuntur illius, promittentur atque dabuntur.1 Hostem
haud dubie superabit qui non minus quae hostis possidet quam
propria largiri ualet. Nauigio, quo sufficiente citius gaudebimus,
non praepediemur.2 Sint illi experti, quae nos cum felicitate maiori0
experiamur: uirtute melius quam numero militum bella geruntur.
Praeterea ne rapinam amittat ille pugnabit; nos quae dono accepi­
mus, beneficiis comparauimus, requirimus. Quae partis nostrae
prima fiducia periculum omne depellens, laetissimum triumphum
nobis, summum decus, praeclarissimum nomen dabit/
Etenim constabat uiro catholico ac sapienti, quod omnipotentia
Dei, nihil uolens iniquum, iustam causam cadere non sineret,
praesertim consideranti sese, qui non tantum ditionem suam et
gloriam augere, quantum ritus Christianos partibus in illis corri­
gere intendit.3
6. Iam tota classis prouidentissime exornata ab ostio Diuae
uicinisque portubus, ubi Nothum, quo transmitterent, diutius
expectauere, Zephyri flatu in stationem Sancti Gualerici delata
est.4 Ibi quoque precibus, donis, uotis, caelesti suffragio se
commisit optime confidens princeps, quem neque mora siue
contrarietas uenti, neque terribilia naufragia, neque pauida fuga
multorum, qui fidem spoponderant, frangere praeualent. Quin et
consilio aduersitatibus obuius, submersorum interitus quantum
poterat occultauit, latentius tumulando;5 commeatum in dies
a maiore D M F
1 William’s promises may have secured the offers o f ships and men.
2 For the ships contributed by Duke William’s followers, see van Houts, ‘Ship-list’,
p. 179. There is evidence too for the development of the port o f Rouen under Duke
William; see Gauthiez, ‘Hypothèses sur la fortification de Rouen’ (above, p. 12 n. 3),
pp. 6 1-77. Ships may have been kept in the safe anchorage there as well as in the coastal
harbours. WP’s statement here that the fleet was being built and assembled contradicts his
previous statement (ii. 8) that the delay was due to the wind.
3 The theme o f the need to reform the English church, developed by Norman apologists
at the time of the Conquest, was later taken up by William o f Malmesbury (G R ii. 304-5)
and by Orderic Vitalis (OV ii. 236-49).
4 For a discussion o f the reason for the delay, see above, pp. xxv-xxvi. The A S C (C)
1066 entry gives a more convincing explanation: ‘When his [King Harold’s] fleet was
assembled, he went into the Isle o f Wight and lay there all that summer and autumn; and a
ii. 6 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 109
gold without consolidating his lands. He had not the boldness o f
spirit to dare to promise even the least o f what belongs to me. On
the other hand both the things that are mine and those said to be
his will be promised and given at my will.1 Without doubt the man
to triumph over his enemy will be he who has the confidence to
distribute his enemy’s possessions no less than his own. We will not
be hindered by lack o f shipping, for very soon we shall enjoy
enough.2 Let them experience what we will experience with greater
good fortune: wars are waged more successfully with the courage
than with the number o f fighters. Besides, he will fight for fear o f
losing the things he has wrongly seized; we are claiming what we
have received as a gift and earned by our favours. This fundamental
confidence o f our side, dispelling all danger, will give us a splendid
triumph, great glory, and a famous name.'
For this wise and Christian man was firmly convinced that the
omnipotence o f God, which wills no evil, would not allow a just
cause to fail, particularly since his intention was not so much to
increase his own power and glory as to reform Christian observ­
ance in those regions.3
6. Presently the whole fleet, equipped with such great foresight,
was blown from the mouth o f the Dives and the neighbouring
ports, where they had long waited for a south wind to carry them
across, and was driven by the breath o f the west wind to moorings
at Saint-Valery.4 There too the leader, whom neither the delay and
the contrary wind nor the terrible shipwrecks nor the craven flight
o f many who had pledged their faith to him could shake,
committed himself with the utmost confidence by prayers, gifts
and vows, to the protection o f heaven. Indeed, meeting adversity
with good counsel, he concealed (as far as he could) the loss o f
those who had been drowned, by burying them in secret;5 and by
land force was kept everywhere along the sea, though in the end it was o f no use. When it
was the Feast of the Nativity o f St Mary [8 Sept.] the provisions o f the people were gone,
and nobody could keep them there any longer. Then the men were allowed to go home,
and the king rode inland, and the ships were brought up to London, and many perished
before they reached there.’
5 Cf. the misfortunes o f the English fleet (ibid.). This is the only early source to mention
the shipwreck o f some Norman ships on the way to Saint-Valery. Such loss was only to be
expected with very large fleets moving along the Channel coasts. Cf. the damage suffered by
Caesar’s fleet during his first invasion o f Britain (Caesar, De bello gallico iv. 28, 29).
no GESTA GVILLELMI ii. 6
augendo, inopiam leniuit. Ad hoc hortamine diuerso retraxit
exterritos, animauit pauentes. Sacris supplicationibus adeo decer-
tauit, ut corpus etiam acceptissimi Deo confessoris Gualerici,
contra praepedientem et pro secundo uento, extra basilicam
deferret, concurrente in eadem humilitatis arma concione profec­
turorum cum ipso.1

7. Spirante dein aura expectata, uoces cum manibus in caelum

gratificantes, ac simul tumultus inuicem incitans tollitur; terra
quam properantissime deseritur, dubium iter quam cupientissime
initur. Eo namque celeritatis motu impelluntur, ut cum armi­
gerum hic, socium inclamet ille, plerique immemores clientum,
aut sociorum, aut rerum necessariarum, id solum ne relinquantur
cogitant ac festinant. Increpat tamen atque urget in puppes ardens
uehementia ducis, si quos ullatenus moram nectere notat.
Verum ne prius luce litus0 quo intendunt attingentes, iniqua et
minus nota statione periclitentur, dat praeconis uoce edictum, ut
cum in altum sint deductae, paululum noctis conquiescant non
longe a sua2 rates cunctae in anchoris fluitantes, donec in eius
mali summo lampade conspecta, extemplo buccinae clangorem
cursus accipiant signum.3
Memorat antique Graecia Atridem Agamemnona fraternos
thalamos ultum iuisse mille nauibus:4 protestamur nos Guillel-
mum diadema regium requisisse pluribus.5 Xerxem fabulatur illa
Seston et Abidon ponto disiunctas urbes nauium ponte coniun-
xisse.6 Guillelmum nos reuera propagamus, uno clauo suae

a D; littus M F

1 For the alleged delay at Saint-Valery, see above, pp. xxv-xxvi. WJ does not suggest
that there was any undue delay (G N D ii. 164-7). King William's 1068 grant o f land in
Essex to the abbey of Saint-Valery was made as a thank-offering for the safe outcome o f the
whole enterprise (H. E. Salter, Facsimiles o f Early Charters in Oxford Muniment Rooms
(Oxford, 1929), p. 29); and not specifically for the favourable wind.
2 WP may have had in mind both the experience of Caesar (De bello gallico iv. 23-6) and
the fate of a small number of ships which became separated from the main fleet and landed
at Romney; a misfortune he refrains from mentioning until describing Duke William's
vengeance (below, ii. 27) after the battle o f Hastings.
3 The ship-list (above, p. 108 n. 2), names the ship Moray and states that it was given by
Duchess Matilda; Orderic names the ship's master as Stephen, son of Ainard (OV vi. 296-
7). The description o f the Channel crossing is full o f Vergilian echoes, both in language
and in picturesque detail (Foreville, pp. xli-xliii, 159 n. 3). In addition, some episodes are
ii. 7 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M III

daily increasing supplies he alleviated want. B y divers encourage­

ments he retained the terrified and put heart into the fearful. He
strove with holy prayers to such a point that he had the body o f
Valery, a confessor most acceptable to God, carried out o f the
basilica to quell the contrary wind and bring a favourable one; all
the assembled men-at-arms who were to set out with him shared in
taking up the same arms o f humility.1

7. At length the expected wind blows; voices and hands are

raised to heaven in thanks, and at the same time a tumult arises as
each one encourages the other. T h e land is left behind with all
speed, and they embark eagerly on the hazardous journey. Their
haste is so great that, as one calls for his squire and another for his
companion, most, heedless o f their dependants or friends or their
necessary baggage, hurry forward fearful only o f being left behind.
T h e duke meanwhile, eager and vehement, admonishes any
laggards he can see and urges them to embark in the ships.
But for fear that they might reach the shore to which they were
bound before dawn and run into danger in a hostile and unknown
landing place,2 he has an order proclaimed by a herald that when
they reach the open sea they should all rest at anchor for a short
watch o f the night not far from his ship, until they see a lamp lit at
his masthead, and hear the sound o f a trumpet as a signal to sail on.3
Ancient Greece tells us that Agamemnon o f the house o f
Atreus went to avenge the violation o f his brother’s bed with a
thousand ships;4 but we protest that William claimed a royal
crown with more.5 Greece also tells the story o f how Xerxes
joined the towns o f Sestos and Abydos, separated by the sea, with
a bridge o f boats.6 As for us, we proclaim in truth that William

reminiscent o f Caesar, who also became separated from part o f his fleet and had to wait
offshore for the remaining boats (De bello gallico iv. 22).
4 Cf. Ilias latina, lines 120-9, 17 1- 5 , where the numbers add up to 1,086; the number
1,000, however, is more probably taken from Vergil, Aeneid ii. 197-8, ‘quos neque Tydides
nec Larissaeus Achilles, | non anni domuere decem, non mille carinae’ .
s Wace gave the number 696 (Wace, Ron pt. iii, line 6425 (ii. 123)); if all kinds of
transport are included 1,000 is not excessive. The number 3,000 given by WJ (G N D ii.
164) is certainly inflated.
6 The account o f the bridge o f boats built by Xerxes is fullest in Herodotus (vii. 33-6),
whose work cannot have been known to WP. He probably took the reference from Lucan,
Pharsalia ii. 672-5 and vi. 55-6, where both Sestos and Abydos are named.
 112 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. 7

potestatis Normannici soli et Anglici amplitudinem copulauisse.

Guillelmum, qui a nullo unquam superatus patriam inclitis
omauit trophaeis, clarissimis locupletauit triumphis, superiore
hostis manu deuicto Xerxi et sine classe aequandum, ac fortitu­
dine anteponendum censemus.1
Solutis noctu post quietem nauibus, uehens ducem retro
ceteras agillime reliquit ardentius ad uictoriam properantis,
imperio suae uelocitatis parilitate quasi obtemperans. Iussus
mane remex mali ab alto num quae ueniant consequae speculari,
praeter pelagus et aera prospectui suo aliud nihil comperere*
indicat. Confestim anchora iacta, ne metus atque moeror comitem
turbam confundaret, abundans prandium nec baccho pigmentato
carens, animosissimus dux, acsi in coenaculo domestico, memor­
abili cum hilaritate accepit; cunctos actutum affore promittens,
Deo, cuius eos tutelae credidit, adducente. Non indignum duceret
Mantuanus poetarum princeps laudibus Æneae Troiani, qui
priscae Romae ut parens gloria fuit, securitatem atque intentio­
nem huius mensae inserere.2 Inquisitus denuo speculator, naues
quatuor aduenire, tertio tantas exclamat, ut arborum ueliferarum
uberrima densitas nemoris praestet similitudinem. Quo proinde
spes ducis gaudio sit mutata, quam ex intimo corde diuinam
glorificauerit pietatem, coniiciendum cuiuis relinquimus.

8. Peneuesellum prospero flatu prouectus, libere nauibus egre­

ditur, pugna nulla obstante.3 Equidem Heraldus in Eboracensem
pagum recesserat, cum fratre suo Tostillo4 et Heraldo Noricorum
a M F\ comparere D

1 An account o f the Persian campaign against Greece and the ignominious retreat of
Xerxes after the Greek victories at Salamis and Mycale (480 and 479 bc) is given by Justin,
Epitome, ii. 10 -13 .
2 WP may have had in mind the feasts described on various occasions by Vergil (e.g.
Aeneid i. 695-747; v“ - 107-34; 175-83), though none of these actually took place at
sea.
3 WP never gives an exact date for the embarkation; later (ii. 38) he indicates that it was
'Octobris circiter calendas, die quo memoriam archangeli Michaelis ecclesia concelebrat.*
The A S C (D) 1066 says that William came from Normandy to Pevensey on Michaelmas
^Eve; (E) that he landed at Hastings on Michaelmas Day (29 Sept.). Freeman argued
1 ingeniously that both are right; William landed at Pevensey on 28 Sept, and moved to
Hastings next day. The question o f the exact date and place o f landing is still open. Sussex
archaeologists have questioned whether either Pevensey or Hastings is precisely right: E. H.
ii. 8 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M "3
linked together by his sway the wide extent o f the Norman and
English lands. We consider that William, who had never been
conquered by anyone and had enriched his native land with
famous trophies and splendid triumphs, was equal in strength
and surpassing in courage to Xerxes, who was defeated by a
stronger foe and had no fleet.1
When the ships set sail at night after the halt, the vessel
carrying the duke at a great pace left the others behind, as if it
responded to his command as he hastened to victory, by trying to
equal his ardour by its speed. In the morning an oarsman, ordered
to look out from the top o f the mast for those following, reported
that as far as he could see there was nothing but sea and sky. At
once the anchor was dropped and, so that fear and grief might not
trouble his companions, the mettlesome duke partook o f an
abundant meal, accompanied by spiced wine, as if he were in
his hall at home, asserting with remarkable cheerfulness that all
the others would arrive before long, guided by God to whose safe­
keeping he had entrusted them. Vergil, the prince o f poets, would
not have thought it unfitting to insert in his praise o f the Trojan
Aeneas (who was the ancestor and glory o f ancient Rome) an
account o f the confidence and purpose o f this banquet.2 On being
asked again, the look-out saw four ships following; the third time
he exclaimed that there were so many they resembled a dense
forest whose trees bore sails. We leave it to everyone to imagine
how the duke’s hope was turned to joy, and how much he
glorified G od’s mercy from the depths o f his heart.

8. Carried by a favourable breeze to Pevensey, they

disembarked easily from the ships, without having to offer
battle.3 In fact Harold had gone away to Yorkshire to fight
against his brother Tostig4 and Harold, king o f the

R udkin,4Where did William land? (Sussex Magazine, Feb. 1928) argued for a landing at a
number o f small places, in particulr Bulmer-Haven (near Bexhill) and Hastings-Haven
(cited Foreville, p. 164, n. 3). It is possible that the landings o f the very large number of
boats were spread out over several beaches and harbours from Pevensey to Hastings.
4 This is WP’s first mention o f Harold’s brother Tostig, who was earl of Northumbria
from 1055 until a rebellion of the Northumbrians forced him into exile in 1065 (Vita
Edmardi, pp. 76-80 and nn. 188, 190).
 ” 4 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. 8

rege dimicaturus.1 Nec mirere quod germanus permotus iniuriis,

inuasi honoris aemulus, arma externa adduxit in Heraldum, quem
germana2 quoque illi moribus absimillima, cum armis non ualeret,
uotis impugnabat et consilio, luxuria foedum, truculentum"
homicidam, diuite rapina superbum, aduersarium aequi et boni.
Voluit autem uirilis prudentiae femina intelligens honesta quaeli­
bet ac uita colens, Guillelmum Anglis dominari, quem Edwardi
regis mariti sui adoptio, filii loco, sibi succedere statuit: sapientem,
iustum, fortem.3

9. Bellum inter Guillelmum ducem et Heraldum regem Anglorum.4*

Gaudentes arrepto littore, Normanni prima munitione Peneues-
sellum, altera Hastingas occupauere; quae sibi receptaculo, nauibus
propugnaculo forent.s Marius, aut Magnus Pompeius, uterque
eximius calliditate atque industria meritus triumphum, hic*
adducto Romam in uinculis Iugurtha,6 ille coacto Mithridate ad
uenenum,7 sic in hostium fines delatus formidaret agens militem
uniuersum, se in periculum seorsim ab agmine cum legione
segniter daret. Fuit illorum, et est ducum consuetudinis, dirigere
non ire exploratores: magis ad uitam sibi, quam ut exercitui
prouidentiam suam conseruarent.8 Guillelmus uero cum uiginti
quinque, non amplius militum comitatu promptus ipse loca et
incolas explorauit. Inde reuertens, ob asperitatem tramitis pedes
a M F\ truculutum D * M F ; haec D

1 Tostig had gone to Flanders in November 1065, and then sailed either by way o f
Normandy or directly to the Isle of Wight in April or May 1066. Orderic, the Hyde
Chronicle, and Quedam exceptiones mention a visit to King Harold o f Norway (G N D ii.
162, n. 3, appendix, p. 302; OV ii. 168 and n. 1).
2 His sister was Edith, the wife o f Edward the Confessor. There is an element of sheer
; invective in WP’s attack on Harold; but there is independent evidence, particularly in
Domesday Book, of his great wealth, partly granted by King Edward and partly taken from
various churches without their consent (see Robin Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest
England (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 84-5, 88-9). The charge of lasciviousness may have been
prompted by his long association with his concubine, Edith Swan-neck, or with other
concubines. Very different estimates o f his character are given in the Vita Edwardi (pp. 46-
8), and in the chronicle o f the church he founded at Waltham (Waltham Chronicle, pp. 22-9
and passim).
3 Queen Edith succeeded in making peace with William and may have endorsed his
claim. See Pauline Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith (Oxford, 1997), p. 275.
4 The heading in Duchesne’s edition probably marks the point where WP began the
second part o f his history. This edition, however, follows the division preferred in
Foreville’s edition.
ü. 9 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 115

Norwegians.1 It is not surprising that his brother, incensed by his

injuries and eager to regain his confiscated lands, should have
brought foreign arms against Harold, while his sister, so unlike
him in morals but unable to take up arms against him, fought him
with prayers and counsel; for he was a man soiled with lascivious­
ness, a cruel murderer, resplendent with plundered riches, and an
enemy o f the good and the just.2 T his woman o f masculine
wisdom, who knew what was good and revered it in her life,
wished William, who was wise, just and strong, to rule over the
English, since her husband, King Edward, had chosen him as his
successor by adoption in place o f a son.3

9. The battle between Duke William and Harold king o f the

English.4 T he Normans, rejoicing after they had landed, occupied
Pevensey with their first fortification, and Hastings with their
second, as a refuge for themselves and a defence for their ships.5
Marius and Pompey the Great, each eminent for his astuteness
and achievements, deserved a triumph, the former having brought
Jugurtha in chains to Rome,6 the latter having forced Mithridates
to take poison;7 but though daring to lead a whole army into
enemy territory, each was chary o f putting himself into danger
away from the main army, with only a legion. It was their custom,
as it still is the custom o f leaders, to send out scouts, but not to go
themselves on reconnaissance, being more concerned with preser­
ving their own lives than with making provision for the army.8 But
William was quick to investigate the region and its inhabitants
with a company o f no more than twenty-five knights. When he
returned on foot because o f the difficulty o f the path (not without

5 For Pevensey, see A. J. Taylor, ‘Evidence for a pre-Conquest origin for the chapels in
Hastings and Pevensey castles*, Château-Gaillard, European Castle Studies, iii (London,
1969), 14 4 -51. The Norman fortifications were constructed within the walls o f the Roman
fortress. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a motte under construction at Hastings (Bayeux
Tapestry, pi. 51). A. J. Taylor has suggested that ‘the motte that survives in much
mutilated condition on Hastings cliff today is indeed the motte seen under construction in
the Tapestry’ (‘ Belrem’ , Battle, xiv (1992), 1-2 3 , at p. 19).
6 Cf. Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum, cxiv. 3, ‘Sed postquam bellum in Numidia confectum
et Iugurtham Romam vinctum adduci nunciatum est, Marius consul absens factus est et ei
decreto provincia Gallia, isque kalendis Ianuariis magna gloria consul triumphavit.’
7 For Pompey’s triumphs, cf. Lucan, Pharsaliay viii. 794-815.
8 See Vegetius, iii. 6 (pp. 75-7).
ii 6 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. 9

(re non absque risu gesta, quanquam lector forte rideat) seriae laudi
materiam dedit, gestans in humero sociatam suae loricam satellitis,
dum nominatissimum ui corporis ut animi, Osbemi filium G u il-
lelmum ferreo fasce leuauit.1

10. Diues quidam finium illorum inquilinus, natione Norman-

nus, Rotbertus* filius Guimarae nobilis mulieris,2 Hastingas duci
domino suo atque consanguineo nuntium destinauit his uerbis,
‘Praeliatus cum fratre proprio rex Heraldus et cum rege Nor­
icorum, quo fortiorem sub caelo nullum uiuere opinio fuit, pugna
una ambos occidit, ingentes eorum exercitus deleuit. Animatus eo
successu festinus redit in te, numerosissimum populum ducens ac
robustissimum; aduersus quem non amplius tuos quam totidem
despectabiles canes aestimo ualere.3 Prudens uir computaris, domi
militiaeque cuncta hactenus prudenter egisti. Nunc tibi consule,
prouide labora, ne per temeritatem in discrimen unde non euadas
temet ipse praecipites. Suadeo: intra munitiones mane; manu ad
praesens confligere noli.’ Dux contra nuntio, ‘Pro mandato’,
inquit, ‘quo mihi dominus tuus uult esse cautum, quanquam
sine contumelia suadere decuerit, gratias ipsi et haec refer. Non
me tutarer ualli aut moenium latebris, sed confligerem quampri­
mum cum Heraldo; nec diffiderem fortitudine meorum cum suis
eum contritum iri, uoluntate diuina non resistente, tametsi decem
sola millia uirorum haberem, quales ad sexaginta millia adduxi.’4

1 1 . Quadam uero die,5 dum custodiam nauium uiseret dux,

indicatum est forte spatianti prope naualia, monachum Heraldi

a D M ; Rodbertus F

1 This appears to be one o f the legends that quickly gathered round Duke William. I f it
is true, William probably carried the hauberk as they approached camp as a joke at fitz
Osbern’s expense. A well-made hauberk feels lighter when worn than when carried, and to
take it off far from camp when reconnoitring enemy country would be foolhardy.
2 Robert fitz Wimarch was o f Breton or Norman origin. He was established in Essex by
1052 and occurs in charters from 1059. Normally he is styled 'minister’; but he is called
king’s kinsman in a charter for Waltham, 'procurator’ in one for Wells, and 'regalis palatii
stabilator et eiusdem regis propinquus’ in the Vita Edwardi (see S. Keynes, 'Regenbald the
chancellor (sic)\ Battle, x (1988), 185-222.
3 Whether or not Robert fitz Wimarch sent a warning couched in these insolent terms,
King William made him sheriff o f Essex and increased his property (J. Green, 'The
sheriffs of William the Conqueror’ , Battle y v (1983), 129-45, at P* ! 32)-
11. II T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 1 *7
laughter, though the reader may laugh) he deserved genuine
praise, for he carried on his own shoulders both his own hauberk
and that o f one o f his followers, William fitz Osbem, renowned for
his bodily strength and courage, whom he had relieved o f this iron
burden.1
10. Robert, son o f the noblewoman Guimara, who was a wealthy
inhabitant o f those parts and a Norman by birth,2 sent a messenger
to Hastings to the duke, his lord and kinsman, with these words:
‘King Harold has fought with his own brother and with the king o f
the Norwegians, who passed for the strongest man living under the
sun, and has killed both in one battle and destroyed huge armies.
Encouraged by this success, he is advancing against you by forced
marches, leading a strong and numerous troop; against him I
consider that your men would be worth no more than so many
wretched dogs. You are reckoned a prudent man; up to now you
have always acted prudently in peace and war.3 Now I advise you,
act circumspectly so as not to fall through rashness into a danger
from which you will not escape. I urge you: stay behind fortifica­
tions; do not offer battle for the time being/ But the duke replied to
the messenger, ‘ For the message in which your lord wishes me to
be cautious (although it would have been decent to give advice
without insult) give him my thanks and this reply: “ I will not take
refuge in the shelter o f ditch or walls, but I will fight with Harold
as soon as possible; nor do I lack confidence in the courage o f my
men to fight and destroy him with his men, if God so wills, even if I
had only 10,000 men o f the quality o f the 6o,ooo4 I have brought
with me” /
1 1 . One day,5 when the duke was inspecting the guard o f the
ships, he was told as he happened to be walking along near to
4 The number is rhetorical exaggeration, characteristic o f literary speeches. For the
probable numbers, see above, p. 102 n. 8.
5 The account o f messages carried by a monk between Harold and William has some
points in common with that in the Carmen (lines 209-46), and possibly originated in a
similar oral tradition. WP, however, makes use o f the exchange to spell out in detail the
case for William's claim to the throne, and is much more specific on points of law. WJ,
much briefer at this point, does not mention any exchanges (G N D ii. 166-9). Orderic,
using a different tradition, imagines exchanges between Harold, his brother Tostig, and his
mother Gytha, both in his Interpolations (G N D ii. 166-9) and in his Ecclesiastical History
(OV ii. 170-2).
 i i 8 GESTA GVILLELM I u. Il

legatum adesse. Ipse protinus illum conuenit ingeniosa hac

elocutione: ‘Proximus’ , infit, ‘ego sum Guillelmi comitis Norman-
norum ac dapifer. Eum alloquendi nisi per me copiam habere non
poteris; quod affers mihi narra. Libens ille cognoscet idem per me,
quia neminem suorum cariorem habet me. Post opportune, uti
uoles, mea opera, coram loquutum uenies.’ Legatione percepta,
patefaciente monacho, sine cunctatione dux legatum hospitio
recipi et officiosa humanitate curari praecepit. Ipse interim
secum et cum suis quid mandatis responderet deliberabat.
In crastino discumbens in medio primatum suorum cucullato
aduocato dixit, ‘Ego sum Guillelmus, Dei gratia Normannorum
princeps.1 Quae mihi hesterno die retulisti, in horum nunc
praesentia refer.* Legatus ita elocutus est, ‘Haec tibi mandat rex
Heraldus. Terram eius ingressus es, qua fiducia, qua temeritate,
nescit. Meminit quidem quod rex Edwardus te Anglici regni
haeredem fore pridem decreuerit, et quod ipse in Normannia
de hac successione securitatem tibi firmauerit.2 Nouit autem
iure suum esse regnum idem, eiusdem regis domini sui dono in
extremis illius sibi concessum.3 Etenim ab eo tempore quo
beatus Augustinus in hanc uenit regionem, communem gentis
huius fuisse consuetudinem, donationem quam in ultimo fine
suo quis fecerit, eam ratam haberi. Quapropter de terra iuste
cum tuis te regredi postulat. Alioquin amicitiam et cuncta pacta
per ipsum in Normannia tibi firmata soluet, penes te omnino
relinquens ea.’

12. Auditis Heraldi mandatis, dux monachum inquisiuit num

legatum suum ad Heraldum cum salute perducere uellet. Ille
salutis eius ut propriae curam se habiturum spopondit. D ux illico

1 The formula, ‘Dei gratia’, was frequently used by William in his ducal charters
, (Fauroux, nos. 94, 102, 109, n o , 115 and passim). His title in charters varies between ‘dux’
and ‘comes’, more rarely ‘marchio’, and occasionally ‘princeps’ (e.g. Fauroux, no. 177, ‘ego
Willelmus, Normannorum, Dei gratia, princeps’).
2 Part o f the case for William, repeatedly stressed by WP.
3 Cf. Eadmer, H N y p. 8, ‘obit Edwardus, et juxta quod ipse ante mortem statuerat in
regnum ei successit Haroldus.’ The reference shows that WP was familiar with the English
custom that gave overriding right to death-bed (‘verba novissima’) bequests, and was at
pains to show that it had no force on this occasion. See J. S. Beckermann, ‘Succession in
Normandy, 1087, and in England, 1066: the role of testamentary custom’, Speculum, xlvii
ii. 12 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 119

the moorings that a monk had arrived as an envoy from Harold.

He went to meet him at once, and made this skilful speech, ‘I
am the steward o f William, count o f the Normans, and the
person nearest to him. You cannot have access to speak to him
except through me; tell me the message that you bring. He will
hear it willingly from me, for he holds no one dearer. After I
have done my work you may come at a convenient moment as
you wish, to speak with him / After hearing the message, as the
monk revealed it, the duke ordered the envoy to be lodged
without delay and entertained with humanity and courtesy.
Meanwhile he deliberated within himself and with his men, as
to how he should reply to the message.
In the morning, sitting in the midst o f his magnates, he said to
the cowled advocate, ‘I am William, by the grace o f God prince o f
the Normans.1 Repeat now in the presence o f these men what you
told me yesterday.’ The envoy spoke as follows: ‘King Harold
sends you this message. You have invaded his land, whether from
confidence or rashness he does not know. He recalls, indeed, that
King Edward formerly decreed that you should be heir to the
English kingdom, and that he himself gave you surety in
Normandy for this succession.2 He knows, however, that the
kingdom is his by right, by gift o f the same king his lord, made to
him on his deathbed.3 For ever since the time when St Augustine
came to these parts, the common custom o f this people has been
that the gift that anyone made at the point o f death shall be held
as valid. Wherefore he rightly demands that you should leave this
land with your men. Otherwise he will end the friendship and
break all the pacts made by him to you in Normandy, leaving the
responsibility entirely with you.’

12. After hearing Harold’s message the duke asked the monk if
he would be willing to escort his own envoy to Harold in safety.
The monk promised to care for his safety as for his own.

(1972), 258-60; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Death-bed testaments9, Fälschungen im M ittelalter

(M G H Schrifteny 6 vols., Hanover, 1988-90), iv. 703-24, at pp. 716-20; Ann Williams,
‘Some notes and considerations on problems connected with the English royal succession,
860-1066’, Battle, i (1979), 144-67, at pp. 165-7.
120 GESTA GVILLELMI 11. 12
uerbis his monachum Fiscannensem1 quendam instruxit, quae
citius Hcraldo deferret, ‘Non temere neque iniuste, sed consulto
et aequitatis ductu in hanc terram transuectus sum; cuius me
haeredem, ut Heraldus ipse fatetur, statuit dominus meus et
consanguineus rex Edwardus, ob maximos honores et plurima
beneficia quae illi atque fratri suo, necnon hominibus eorum, ego
et maiores mei impendimus; et quoniam omnium, qui genus
suum attingerent, me credebat excellentissimum, qui optime
ualerem uel ei, quamdiu uiueret, subuenire, uel posteaquam
decederet regnum gubernare. Sane neque id absque suorum
optimatum consensu, uerum consilio Stigandi archiepiscopi,
Godwini comitis, Leurici comitis, Sigardi comitis, qui etiam
iureiurando suis manibus confirmauerunt, quod post Edwardi
decessum me reciperent dominum, nec ullatenus peterent in uita
illius patriam hanc ullo impedimento contra me occupari. Obsides
mihi dedit Godwini filium ac nepotem.2 Postremo Heraldum
ipsum in Normanniam transmisit, ut quod pater eius atque caeteri
supranominati hic mihi iurauere absenti, is ibi praesens iuraret
praesenti. Qui dum pergeret ad me, in periculum captionis
incidit, unde mea eum prudentia ac fortitudine eripui. Se mihi
per manus suas dedit, sua manu securitatem mihi de regno
Anglico firmauit.3 Praesto ego sum ad agendum causam contra
illum in iudicio, siue placet illi iuxta ius Normannorum, siue
potius Anglorum. Si secundum aequitatis ueritatem decreuerint
Normanni aut Angli, quod ille regnum hoc iure debeat possidere,
cum pace possideat. Si uero mihi iustitiae debito reddendum esse
consenserint, mihi dimittat. At si conditionem hanc repudiauerit,
non duco iustum ut homines mei uel sui concidant praeliando,
quorum in lite nostra culpa nulla est. Ecce paratus ego sum capite

1 The appearance of the monk o f Fécamp in William’s company is certainly authentic

The royal monastery o f Fécamp had received lands in Sussex from Cnut and Edward the
Confessor: although some were taken over by Harold, the abbey retained property called
‘Rameslie’ in the hundred o f Guestling, and some tolls in the port of Winchelsea. See
above, pp. xxiv-xxv. The monks were familiar with Hastings and its hinterland, and could
have provided guides for the Norman invaders. Remigius o f Fécamp had also given a ship
with twenty knights (van Houts, ‘Ship-list’ , pp. 178-9); and William o f Malmesbury
recorded that King William recognized a debt to him when he made him bishop o f
Dorchester (G P pp. 3 12 - 13 , ‘Remigius, ex monacho Fiscannensi, qui Willelmo comité
ii. 12 TH E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 12 1

Whereupon the duke instructed a certain monk o f Fécamp1 in the

words he was to take forthwith to Harold: ‘Neither rashly nor
unjustly, but after taking counsel and guided by equity I have
crossed the sea to enter this land, o f which my lord and kinsman
King Edward (as Harold himself says) made me his heir, on
account o f the great honours and numerous benefits which I and
my ancestors conferred on him and his brother and their men; also
because, o f all those belonging to his line, he believed me to be the
most worthy and the most able either to help him while he lived,
or to govern the kingdom after his death. Certainly he did not do
this without the consent o f his magnates, but in truth with the
advice o f Archbishop Stigand, Earl Godwine, Earl Leofric, and
Earl Siward, who also confirmed with a handfast oath, that after
the death o f Edward they would receive me as their lord, and that
during his lifetime they would not seek at any time to deprive me
o f the kingdom through any impediment. He gave me the son and
grandson o f Godwine as hostages.2 Finally he sent Harold himself
to Normandy, so that he might swear to me there and in person
what his father and the others named above had sworn to me in my
absence. When he was on his journey, he fell into a perilous
captivity, from which I rescued him by my prudence and power.
He made himself my vassal by giving his hands to me, and gave me
surety with his own hand concerning the kingdom o f England .3 1
am ready to put my case against him to judgement, by the law o f
the English or o f the Normans as he prefers. I f according to a true
and equitable judgement the Normans or the English decree that
he ought by right to possess this kingdom, let him possess it in
peace. I f they agree that it should justly be surrendered to me, let
him abandon it to me. But if he rejects this proposition, I do not
consider it right that either my men or his should fall in battle, for
they have no guilt in our dispute. See, I am ready to assert, by my

Normannorum in Anglia venienti auxilium in multis praebuerit, episcopatum, si vinceret,

pactus nec fuit Willelmus segnior in dando quam Remigius in accipiendo9).
2 See above, i. 14.
3 See above, i. 4 1, 42. WP here indicates both that Harold became William’s vassal and
that he swore a handfast oath.
122 GESTA GVILLELMI 11. 12

meo contra caput illius asserere, quod mihi potius quam illi iure
cedat regnum Anglicum.’ 1
Hanc uerborum ducis diligenter compertam sententiam magis
quam dictatum nostrum in oculos plurimorum uenire uolumus,
quia plurimorum perpetuo fauore eum desideramus laudari.
Pulchre colligetur et ex ea, quod uere prudens, iustus, pius ac
fortis extiterit. Rationum namque copia, sicut liquet attento, quas
infirmare nec ualeret eloquentiae romanae maximus author
Tullius, Heraldi rationem destruxit. Denique iudicium, quod
iura gentium2 definirent, accipere praesto fuit. Anglos inimicos
mori ob litem suam noluit; singulari certamine proprio capite
causam determinare uoluit.

13. Vt ergo mandata eadem Heraldo appropinquanti per mon­

achum sunt relata, stupore expalluit, atque diu ut elinguis obticuit.
Rogitanti autem responsum legato semel et iterum, primo respon­
dit: ‘Pergimus continenter’; secundo: ‘Pergimus ad pretium.’"
Instabat legatus ut aliud responderetur, repetens: non interitum
exercituum, sed singulare certamen Normanno duci placere. Nam
uir strenuus et bonus iustum aliquid ac laetum renuntiare, nec
multos occumbere uolebat; Heraldi caput, pro quo minor for­
titudo, aequitas nulla staret, casurum confidens. Tum leuato
Heraldus in caelum uultu ait: ‘Dominus inter me et Guillelmum
hodie quod iustum est decernat.’ Regnandi siquidem cupidine
caecatus, simul ob trepidationem oblitus iniuriae, conscientiam in
ruinam sui rectum iudicem optauit.

14. Interea exploratum directi ducis iussu probatissimi equites,

hostem adesse citi nuntiant. Accelerabat enim eo magis rex
a D F\ praelium suggested M

1 The judicial duel was established in the custom o f Normandy, not in that of England
(Tardif, i. xli, pp. 34-5); F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History o f English Lam before
the Time o f Edward I (2nd edn., Cambridge, 1968), i. 74. Such an offer, if made, would
have been unacceptable to an Englishman. In the well-established practice o f Normandy
and northern France an offer o f the ordeal or trial by battle was frequently a manœuvre
never intended to be taken up, made to gain a judicial advantage; see S. D. White,
Proposing the ordeal and avoiding it: strategy and power in Western French litigation,
10 5 0 - 11 10’, Cultures o f Power: Lordship, Status and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed.
Thomas N. Bisson (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 89-123.
ii. 14 TH E D EE DS O F W I L L I A M 123

head against his head, that the English kingdom should be mine
rather than his by right.’ 1
We wish to bring the tenor o f the duke’s own words (which we
have diligently sought out) rather than our own composition to
the notice o f many, because we desire him to have the widest
possible esteem and praise for ever. From his words it is
beautifully clear that he showed himself truly prudent, just,
dutiful and valiant. For a host o f sound arguments, as clearly
appears to those who are attentive (which even Cicero, the
greatest writer o f Roman rhetoric could not have weakened),
destroyed the case o f Harold. In short, William was ready to
accept a judgement determined by the laws o f peoples.2 He did
not wish the English to die as enemies on account o f his dispute;
he wished to decide the case by risking his own head in single
combat.

13. When the envoy had conveyed these messages to Harold as

he advanced, he turned pale with astonishment and for a long time
remained silent as though dumbstruck. As the envoy asked again
and again for a reply, he answered first, ‘We continue to advance’,
and secondly, ‘We go on to victory.’ T he envoy urged him to give
another reply, repeating that the Norman duke did not want the
destruction o f armies, but only single combat. For this brave and
good man preferred to renounce something that was just and
agreeable rather than cause the death o f many men, being
confident that Harold’s head would fall since his courage was
less and his cause unjust. Then Harold, lifting his face to heaven,
said, ‘M ay the Lord decide today between me and William what is
just.’3 So, blinded by the desire to rule and forgetful, in his
confusion, o f the wrong he had done, he chose his conscience as
his just judge, to his ruin.

14. Meanwhile experienced knights, who had been sent out

scouting, reported that the enemy would soon be there. For the

2 By the ‘laws o f peoples* WP meant the different legal customs of the Normans and the
English; this is not the ius gentium o f Roman law.
3 The Carmen also (lines 303-4) makes Harold declare that God will judge between
them. Cf. Gen. 16: 5, ‘Judicet Dominus inter me et te*.
124 GESTA GVILLELM I U. 14

furibundus, quod propinqua castris Normannorum uastari audi­

erat.1 Nocturno etiam incursu aut repentino minus cautos oppri­
mere cogitabat. Et ne perfugio abirent, classe armata ad
septingentas naues in mari opposuerat insidias.2 D ux propere
quotquot in castris inuenti sunt (pleraque enim sociorum pars
eo die pabulatum ierat) omnes iubet armari. Ipse mysterio missae
quam maxima cum deuotione assistens, corporis ac sanguinis
Domini communicatione suum et corpus et animam muniuit.
Appendit etiam humili collo suo reliquias, quarum fauorem
Heraldus abalienauerat sibi, uiolata fide quam super eas iurando
sanxerat. Aderant comitati e Normannia duo pontifices, Odo
Baoicensis et Goisfredus Constantinus, una multus clerus et
monachi nonnulli. Id collegium precibus pugnare disponitur.3
Terreret alium loricae, dum uestiretur, sinistra conuersio. Hanc
conuersionem risit ille ut casum, non ut mali prodigium expauit.4

15 . Exhortationem, qua pro tempore breuiter militum uirtuti

plurimum alacritatis addidit, egregiam fuisse non dubitamus; etsi
nobis non ex tota dignitate sua relatam.5 Commonuit Normannos,
quod in multis atque magnis periculis uictores tamen se duce
semper extiterint. Commonuit omnes patriae suae, nobilium
gestorum, magnique nominis. Nunc probandum esse manu, qua
uirtute polleant, quem gerant animum. Iam non id agi, quis
regnans uiuat, sed quis periculum imminens cum uita euadat. Si
more uirorum pugnent, uictoriam, decus, diuitias habituros.
1 Quite apart from the need to obtain provisions for the army, wasting the lands o f an
enemy was a normal practice in medieval warfare (cf. Jordan Fantosme's Chronicley ed. R. C.
Johnston (Oxford, 1981), lines 449-50, is s i deit Pen cumencier guerre— ço m’est vis— |
Primes guaster la terre e puis ses enemis’). William’s purpose was to provoke Harold to a
decisive battle (cf. Bayeux Tapestry, pi. 52). Harold had considerable estates in Sussex
(Ann Williams, 4Land and power in the eleventh century: the estates o f Harold God-
wineson’, Battle, iii (1981), 171-87).
2 There may have been rumours o f a possible naval ambush, but it is unlikely that
Harold would have had time to bring his ships out o f their winter quarters in the Thames
(A SC (C) 1066), or to make up anything like 700 from any ships remaining in the Channel
ports.
3 WP insists both on the piety o f Duke William and on the canonically correct non-
combatant role of the two bishops, Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey o f Coutances, both of whom
were capable of leading troops in battle. In a similar vein, Odo is shown in the Bayeux
Tapestry (pi. 68), dressed in a padded tunic, not a hauberk, and encouraging the troops with
a mace, not a sword. For Geoffrey, see J. Le Patourel, ‘Geoffrey of Montbray, bishop o f
Coutances, 1049-1093’, EH R lix (1944), 12 9 -6 1; Chibnall, ‘Geoffroi’ pp. 279-93.
II. 15 TH E D EE D S OF W I L L I A M 12 5

furious king was hastening his march all the more because he had
heard that the lands near to the Norman camp were being laid
waste.1 He thought that in a night or surprise attack he might
defeat them unawares; and, in case they should try to escape, he
had laid a naval ambush for them with an armed fleet o f up to 700
ships.2 T he duke hastily ordered all who could be found in the
camp (for a large number o f his companions had gone o ff foraging)
to arm themselves. He himself participated in the mystery o f the
Mass with the greatest devotion, and strengthened his body and
soul by receiving in communion the body and blood o f the Lord.
He hung around his neck in humility the relics whose protection
Harold had forfeited by breaking the oath that he had sworn on
them. Two bishops who had accompanied him from Normandy,
Odo o f Bayeux and Geoffrey o f Coutances, were in his company,
together with numerous clerks and not a few monks. T his clerical
body prepared for the combat with prayers.3 Anyone else would
have been terrified by putting on his hauberk back to front. But
William laughed at this inversion as an accident and did not fear it
as a bad omen.4

15 . We do not doubt that the exhortation, brief because o f the

circumstances, with which he added still greater ardour to the
valour o f his troops, was outstanding, even though it has not been
transmitted to us in all its distinction.5 He reminded the Normans
that in many and great dangers they had always come out
victorious under his leadership. He reminded them all o f their
fatherland, o f their noble exploits and their great fame. Now they
were to prove with their arms with what strength they were
endowed, with what valour they were inspired. Now the question
was not who should live and rule, but who should escape alive from
imminent danger. I f they fought like men they would have victory,
honour, and wealth. I f not, they would let themselves either be
4 See above, p. xxx. Cf. the attitude o f Caesar to omens (Suetonius, Caesar, c. lix). The
story grew and was embellished in time in the Brevis relatio (p. 7) and Wace, Rouy lines
12637-68.
5 For the substance of William’s speech, cf. Sallust, Bellum Catilinum> lviii. 4 -2 1.,.
Medieval chroniclers followed their Roman forerunners by providing the imagined
contents o f speeches; WP is unusual in stating explicitly that he has imagined the
words probably spoken by the duke o f this occasion.
12 6 GESTA GVILLELM I u. 15

Alioquin aut ocius trucidari, aut captos ludibrio fore hostibus

crudelissimis. Ad hoc ignominia sempiterna infamatum iri. Ad
effugium nullam uiam patere, cum hic arma et inimica ignotaque
regio obsistant, illinc pontus et arma. Non decere uiros multi­
tudine terreri. Saepenumero Anglos hostili ferro deiectos ceci­
disse, plerumque superatos in hostis uenisse deditionem,
nunquam gloria militiae laudatos. Imperitos bellandi strenua
uirtute paucorum facile posse conteri,1 praesertim cum iustae
causae praesidium caeleste non desit. Audeant modo, nequaquam
cedant, triumpho citius gauisuros fore.

16. Hac autem commodissima ordinatione progreditur, uexillo

praeuio quod apostolicus transmiserat.2 Pedites in fronte locauit,
sagittis armatos et balistis,3 item pedites in ordine secundo
firmiores et loricatos; ultimo turmas equitum, quorum ipse fuit
in medio cum firmissimo robore, unde in omnem partem con­
suleret manu et uoce.4 Scribens Heraldi agmen illud ueterum
aliquis, in eius transitu flumina epotata, siluas in planum redactas
fuisse memoraret.5 Maximae enim ex omnibus undique regionibus
copiae Anglorum conuenerant. Studium pars Heraldo, cuncti
patriae praestabant, quam contra extraneos tametsi non iuste,
defensare uolebant. Copiosa quoque auxilia miserat eis cognata
terra Danorum. Non tamen audentes cum Guillelmo ex aequo
confligere, plus eum quam regem Noricorum extimentes, locum
editiorem praeoccupauere, montem siluae per quam aduenere
uicinum.6 Protinus equorum ope relicta, cuncti pedites constitere
1 Cf. Vegetius, iii. 26 (p. 122), 4Amplius iuvat uirtus quam multitudo.9
2 For the battle order, see above, pp. xxxii-xxxiii.
3 The question of the use of cross-bows at the battle of Hastings is discussed by Morton
and Muntz, Carmen, App. C, pp. 11 2 - 15 .
4 Cf. Sallust, Bellum lugurthinum, c. xcviii, on the leadership o f Marius in battle, 4Neque
in eo tam aspero negotio Marius territus aut magis quam antea demisso animo fuit, sed
cum turma sua, quam ex fortissimis magis quam familiarissumis paraverat, vagari passim
ac modo laborantibus suis succurrere, modo hostis, ubi confestissumi obstiterant inuadere;
manu consulere militibus quoniam imperare conturbatis omnibus non poterat.9
5 Cf. Juvenal, Satires, x. 173, especially, (credimus altos defecisse omnes epotataque
flumina | Medo prandente . . and Justin, Epitome, ii. 10, on the advance of the army of
Xerxes, (flumina ab exercitu eius siccata . . . et montes in planum deducebat et convexa
vallium aequabat.9 A similar figure o f speech occurs in the Carmen (lines 321-2 ), where the
translation of 4siluas9 as 4forests [of spears]9 must surely be an error.
6 Harold's housecarls accompanied him in the rush south after Stamford Bridge, and he
was certainly joined by the local troops. The English sources tended to understate and the
ii. i6 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 127

slaughtered, or captured to be mocked by the most cruel enemies—

not to mention that they would bring on themselves perpetual
ignominy. No way was open to flight, since their way was barred on
one side by armed forces and a hostile and unknown country, and
on the other by the sea and armed forces. It was not seemly for men
to be terrified by numbers. M any times the English had fallen,
overthrown by enemy arms; usually, defeated, they had surren­
dered to the enemy; never were they famed for the glory o f their
feats o f arms. Men who were inexpert in warfare could easily be
crushed by the valour and strength o f a few,1 especially since help
from on high was not lacking in a just cause. Let them now dare
and never yield, and they would soon rejoice in a triumph.

16. Now this is the well-planned order in which he advanced

behind the banner which the pope had sent him.2 He placed foot-
soldiers in front, armed with arrows and cross-bows;3 likewise
foot-soldiers in the second rank, but more powerful and wearing
hauberks; finally the squadrons o f mounted knights, in the middle
o f which he himself rode with the strongest force, so that he could
direct operations on all sides with hand and voice.4 I f any author o f
antiquity had been writing o f Harold’s line o f march he would
have recorded that in his passage rivers were dried up and forests
laid flat.5 For huge forces o f English had assembled from all the
shires. Some showed zeal for Harold, and all showed love o f their
country, which they wished to defend against invaders even
though their cause was unjust. T he land o f the Danes (who
were allied by blood) also sent copious forces. However, not
daring to fight with William on equal terms, for they thought
him more formidable than the king o f the Norwegians, they took
their stand on higher ground, on a hill near to the wood through
which they had come.6 At once dismounting from their horses,

Norman to exaggerate the size of the English army (see Freeman, iii, note L L ). Both the
A S C (E) 1066 and the Worcester Chronicle (JW ii. 604) state that Harold fought the battle
before all his troops had assembled (though A S C (D) 1066 says that Harold assembled a
large army). WP’s statement that the Danes sent support is uncorroborated. Even today,
after the top of the hill at Battle had been levelled for the building o f Battle Abbey, the
strength o f Harold’s position is impressive. Harold may have supposed that he could
effectively bar William’s advance towards London, and that William would not attempt to
attack on such unfavourable terrain.
12 8 GESTA GVILLELMI it. i6

densius conglobati. Dux cum suis neque loci territus asperitate,

ardua cliui sensim ascendit.

17. Terribilis clangor lituorum pugnae signa cecinit utrinque.

Normannorum alacris audacia pugnae principium dedit. Taliter
cum oratores in iudicio litem agunt de rapina, prior ferit dictione
qui crimen intendit.1 Pedites itaque Normanni propius accedentes
prouocant Anglos, missilibus in eos uulnera dirigunt atque necem.
Illi contra fortiter, quo quisque ualet ingenio, resistunt. lactant
cuspides ac diuersorum generum tela, saeuissimas quasque
secures, et lignis imposita saxa.2 Iis, ueluti mole letifera, statim
nostros obrui putares. Subueniunt equites, et qui posteriores fuere
fiunt primi. Pudet eminus pugnare, gladiis rem gerere audent.3
Altissimus clamor, hinc Normannicus, illinc barbaricus, armorum
sonitu et gemitu morientium superatur. Sic aliquandiu summa ui
certatur ab utrisque. Angli nimium adiuuantur superioris loci
opportunitate, quem sine procursu tenent, et maxime conferti;
ingenti quoque numerositate sua atque ualidissima corpulentia;
praeterea pugnae instrumentis, quae facile per scuta uel alia
tegmina uiam inueniunt. Fortissime itaque sustinent uel propel­
lunt ausos in se districtum ensibus impetum facere. Vulnerant et
eos qui eminus in se iacula coniiciunt. Ecce igitur hac saeuitia
perterriti auertuntur pedites pariter atque equites Britanni, et
quotquot auxiliares erant in sinistro cornu; cedit fere cuncta
ducis acies, quod cum pace dictum sit Normannorum inuictissi-
mae nationis. Romanae maiestatis exercitus, copias regum con­
tinens, uincere solitus terra marique, fugit aliquando, cum ducem
suum sciret aut crederet occisum. Credidere Normanni ducem ac
dominum suum cecidisse. Non ergo nimis pudenda fuga cessere;
minime uero dolenda, cum plurimum iuuerit.
1 WP possibly had in mind his own experience o f the conduct o f suits in the Norman
courts.
2 For the axes used by the English in the battle, see I. Peirce, ‘Arms, armour and
warfare in the eleventh century\ Battle, x (1988), 237-57, at pp. 245-6.
3 The use of the couched lance by mounted knights was restricted in this battle, because
o f the nature o f the terrain; hence the sword, or the javelin thrown from a distance, became
particularly important. See above, p. xxxiii; and, for the use o f the lance, Jean Flori,
(Encore l’usage de la lance . . . la technique du combat chevaleresque vers Tan u o o \
Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, xxxi (1988), 213-40.
ii. 17 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 129

they lined up all on foot in a dense formation. Undeterred by the

roughness o f the ground, the duke with his men climbed slowly up
the steep slope.

17. T he harsh bray o f trumpets gave the signal for battle on

both sides. T he Normans swiftly and boldly took the initiative in
the fray. Similarly, when orators are engaged in a lawsuit about
theft, he who prosecutes the crime makes the first speech.1 So
the Norman foot-soldiers closed to attack the English, killing
and maiming many with their missiles. T he English for their
part resisted bravely each one by any means he could devise.
T hey threw javelins and missiles o f various kinds, murderous
axes and stones tied to sticks.2 You might imagine that our men
would have been crushed at once by them, as by a death-dealing
mass. T h e knights came to their rescue, and those who had been
in the rear advanced to the fore. Disdaining to fight from a
distance, they attacked boldly with their swords.3 T he loud
shouting, here Norman, there foreign, was drowned by the
clash o f weapons and the groans o f the dying. So for a time
both sides fought with all their might. T h e English were greatly
helped by the advantage o f the higher ground, which they held
in serried ranks without sallying forward, and also by their great
numbers and densely-packed mass, and moreover by their
weapons o f war, which easily penetrated shields and other
protections. So they strongly held or drove back those who
dared to attack them with drawn swords. They even wounded
those who flung javelins at them from a distance. So, terrified by
this ferocity, both the footsoldiers and the Breton knights and
other auxiliaries on the left wing turned tail; almost the whole o f
the duke’s battle line gave way, if such a thing may be said o f
the unconquered people o f the Normans. T he army o f the
Roman empire, containing royal contingents and accustomed to
victory on land and sea, fled occasionally, when it knew or
believed its leader to have been killed. T he Normans believed
that their duke and lord had fallen, so it was not too shameful to
give way to flight; least o f all was it to be deplored, since it
helped them greatly.
130 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. i8
18. Princeps namque prospiciens multam partem aduersae
stationis prosiluisse, et insequi terga suorum, fugientibus occurrit
et obstitit, uerberans aut minans hasta.1 Nudato insuper capite
detractaque galea exclamans:2 ‘M e’, inquit, ‘circumspicite. Viuo et
uincam, opitulante Deo. Quae uobis dementia fugam suadet? Quae
uia patebit ad effugiendum? Quos ut pecora mactare potestis,
depellunt uos et occidunt. Victoriam deseritis, ac perpetuum
honorem; in exitium curritis ac perpetuum opprobrium. Abeundo
mortem nullus uestrum euadet.’ His dictis receperunt animos.
Primus ipse procurrit fulminans ense, strauit aduersam gentem,
quae sibi, regi suo,3 rebellans commeruit mortem. Exardentes
Normanni et circumuenientes aliquot millia insecuta se, momento
deleuerunt ea, ut ne quidem unus superesset.

19. Ita confirmati, uehementius immanitatem exercitus inua-

serunt, qui maximum detrimentum passus non uidebatur minor.
Angli confidenter totis uiribus oppugnabant, id maxime labor­
antes, ne quem aditum irrumpere uolentibus aperirent. Ob
nimiam densitatem eorum labi uix potuerunt interempti.0 Patuer­
unt tamen in eos uiae incisae per diuersas partes fortissimorum
militum ferro. Institerunt eis Cenomanici,4 Francigenae, Britanni,
Aquitani,5 sed cum praecipua uirtute Normanni. T iro quidam
Normannus Rodbertus, Rogerii de Bellomonte filius, Hugonis de
Mellento comitis ex Adelina sorore nepos et haeres,6*praelium illo
die primum experiens, egit quod aeternandum esset laude: cum
legione, quam in dextro cornu duxit, irruens ac sternens magna
cum audacia. Non est nostrae facultatis, nec permittit intentio
nostra, singulorum fortia facta pro merito narrare. Copia dicendi
a F ; interemi D; interemti M

1 Cf. Suetonius, Catsar, c. Ixii, ‘Inclinatam aciem solus saepe restituit, obsistens
fugientibus, retinensque singulos et contortis faucibus convertens in hostem.9
2 Cf. Bayeux Tapestry, pi. 68; Carmen, lines 447-8.
3 In general WP refrained from giving the title ‘rex’ to William before his coronation; in
this rare instance, ‘legitimate9 must be understood.
4 Although WP does not name any of the men o f Maine who took part in the battle,
Jean Dunbabin has suggested that Geoffrey of Chaumont may have been one o f them
(Dunbabin, p. 112).
5 Among these was certainly Aimeri, vicomte ('praeses') o f Thouars, twice named by
WP (see below, ii. 22, 29; Jane Martindale, ‘Aimeri o f Thouars and the Poitevin
connection9, Battle, vii (1985), 224-45, at PP- 224-5).
ii. 19 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 131

18. For the leader, seeing a great part o f the opposing force
springing forward to pursue his men, rushed towards them, met
them as they fled and halted them, striking out and threatening
with his spear.1 Baring his head and lifting his helmet,2 he cried,
‘Look at me. I am alive, and with G od’s help I will conquer. What
madness is persuading you to flee? What way is open to escape?
You could slaughter like cattle the men who are pursuing and
killing you. You are abandoning victory and imperishable fame,
and hurrying to disaster and perpetual ignominy. Not one o f you
will escape death by flight.’ At these words they recovered their
courage. He rushed forward at their head, brandishing his sword,
and mowed down the hostile people who deserved death for
rebelling against him, their king.3 Full o f zeal the Normans
surrounded some thousands who had pursued them and destroyed
them in a moment, so that not a single one survived.

19. Emboldened by this, they launched an attack with greater

determination on the main body o f the army, which in spite o f the
heavy losses it had suffered seemed not to be diminished. The
English fought confidently with all their might, striving particu­
larly to prevent a gap being opened by their attackers. They were
so tightly packed together that there was hardly room for the slain
to fall. However paths were cut through them in several places by
the weapons o f the most valiant knights. Pressing home the attack
were men o f Maine,4 Frenchmen, Bretons, Aquitanians,5 above all
Normans, whose valour was outstanding. A certain young Norman
knight, Robert the son o f Roger o f Beaumont, nephew and heir o f
Hugh count o f Meulan through Hugh’s sister Adeline,6 while
fighting that day in his first battle performed a praiseworthy deed,
which deserves to be immortalized; charging with the battalion he
commanded on the right wing, he laid the enemy low with the
greatest audacity. We have not the means, and it is not our
intention, to describe all the exploits o f individuals as their
merit deserves. T he most eloquent writer who had seen that
6 For Roger o f Beaumont, see above, ii. i. His wife Adeline was a daughter o f Waleran I,
count o f Meulan; her brother Hugh became a monk at Bee. In 1066 young Robert was only
heir presumptive. He was granted extensive lands in England by King William, and was
made earl of Leicester by Henry I r.110 7 (C P vii. 523-4).
132 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. 19

ualentissimus, qui bellum illud suis oculis didicerit, difficillime

singula quaeque persequeretur.1 At huc* nos illo properamus, ut
finita Guillelmi comitis laude, Guillelmi regis gloriam scribamus.2

20. Animaduertentes Normanni sociaque turba, non absque

nimio sui incommodo hostem tantum simul resistentem superari
posse, terga dederunt, fugam ex industria simulantes.3 Meminer­
unt quam optatae rei paulo ante fuga dederit occasionem. Barbaris
cum spe uictoriae ingens laetitia exorta est. Sese cohortantes
exultante clamore nostros maledictis increpabant, et minabantur
cunctos illico ruituros esse. Ausa sunt ut superius aliquot milia*
quasi uolante cursu, quos fugere putabant, urgere. Normanni
repente regiratis equis interceptos et inclusos undique mactauer-
unt, nullum relinquentes.

2 1. Bis eo dolo simili euentu usi, reliquos maiori cum alacritate

aggressi sunt: aciem adhuc horrendam, et quam difficillimum erat
circumuenire. Fit deinde insoliti generis pugna, quam altera pars
incursibus et diuersis motibus agit, altera uelut humo affixa
tolerat. Languent Angli, et quasi reatum ipso defectu confitentes,
uindictam patiuntur. Sagittant,4 feriunt, perfodiunt Normanni:
mortui plus dum cadunt, quam uiui, moueri uidentur. Leuiter
sauciatos non permittit euadere, sed comprimendo necat sociorum
densitas. Ita felicitas pro Guillelmo triumpho maturando cucurrit.

22. Interfuerunt huic praelio5 Eustachius Boloniae comes,6

Guillelmus Ricardi Ebroicensis comitis filius,7 Goisfredus
‘ F ; hoc D M * D; millia M F

1 This statement shows that WP was not an eye-witness o f the battle. It also emphasizes
that even an eye-witness could have seen only a part o f the action.
2 This rhetorical device (partitio or divisio)y where the writer indicates in advance
another topic to be taken up, was characteristic o f earlier Latin prose biographies; see
above, p. xxi.
3 Both the feigned flights, and the ability o f the Norman forces to turn genuine flight
into renewed attack in the previous incident, illustrate the remarkable skill of manœuvre in
mounted combat achieved by the knights making up the mixed force.
4 The importance o f the archers during this phase o f the battle is illustrated in the
Bayeux Tapestry, where no fewer than 23 archers are shown in the lower border (pis. 68,
69, 70, 71); cf. H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Towards an interpretation o f the Bayeux Tapestry’ ,
Battle, x (1988), 49-65, at p. 62: ‘it is the archers who turn the tide of the battle’ .
5 WP is a principal source for the modest list compiled by G. H. White o f the
‘companions o f the Conqueror’ known to have fought at Hastings (C P xii (i), app. L). The
11. 22 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 13 3

battle with his own eyes could scarcely have followed every detail.1
But now we hasten on to complete the praise o f William the count
so as to tell o f the glory o f William the king.2

20. When the Normans and the troops allied to them saw that
they could not conquer such a solidly massed enemy force without
heavy loss, they wheeled round and deliberately feigned flight.3
T hey remembered how, a little while before, their flight had
brought about the result they desired. There was jubilation among
the foreigners, who hoped for a great victory. Encouraging each
other with joyful shouts, they heaped curses on our men and
threatened to destroy them all forthwith. As before, some
thousands o f them dared to rush, almost as i f they were winged,
in pursuit o f those they believed to be fleeing. T he Normans,
suddenly wheeling round their horses, checked and encircled
them, and slaughtered them to the last man.

2 1. Having used this trick twice with the same result, they
attacked the remainder with greater determination: up to now the
enemy line had been bristling with weapons and most difficult to
encircle. So a combat o f an unusual kind began, with one side
attacking in different ways and the other standing firmly as if fixed
to the ground. T h e English grew weaker, and endured punish­
ment as though confessing their guilt by their defeat. The Nor­
mans shot arrows,4 smote and pierced; the dead by falling seemed
to move more than the living. It was not possible for the lightly
wounded to escape, for they were crushed to death by the serried
ranks o f their companions. So fortune turned for William,
hastening his triumph.

22. Those who took part in this battle5 were Eustace count o f
Boulogne,6 William son o f Richard count o f Evreux,7 Geoffrey son

list was enlarged to twenty-seven by D. C. Douglas, ‘Companions o f the Conqueror’ ,

History, xxvii (1943), 129-47. O f the many others rewarded with English lands it is
impossible to be absolutely certain who actually fought in the battle, and who, like Roger of
Montgomery, came shortly afterwards.
6 Eustace II, count o f Boulogne. For his career, see Tanner, ‘Counts o f Boulogne’,
pp . 251-86.
7 William, the son o f Richard count o f Evreux and Adela, the widow o f Roger de Tosny,
succeeded to the county in 1067.
134 GESTA GVILLELM I II. 22
Rotronis Moritoniae comitis filius,1 Guillelmus Osbemi filius,2
Haimerius Toarcensis praeses,3 Gualterius Giffardus,4 Hugo de
Monteforti,5 Rodolphus de Toneia,6 Hugo de Grentmaisnil,7
Guillelmus de Guarenna,8 aliique quamplures militaris praestan­
tiae fama celebratissimi et quorum nomina historiarum uolumini-
bus inter bellicosissimos commendari deceat. Guillelmus uero,
dux eorum, adeo praestabat eis fortitudine, quemadmodum
prudentia, ut antiquis ducibus Graecorum siue Romanorum qui
maxime scriptis laudantur, aliis merito sit praeferendus, aliis
comparandus. Nobiliter duxit ille cohibens fugam, dans animos,
periculi socius; saepius clamans ut uenirent, quam iubens ire.
Vnde liquido intelligitur uirtutem illi praeuiam pariter fecisse
militibus iter et audaciam. Cor amisit absque uulnere pars hostium
non modica, prospiciens hunc admirandum ac terribilem equitem.
Equi tres ceciderunt sub eo confossi. Ter ille desiluit intrepidus,
nec diu mors uectoris inulta remansit.9 Hic uelocitas eius, hic
robur eius uideri potuit corporis et animi. Scuta, galeas, loricas,
irato mucrone et moram dedignante penetrauit; clipeo suo non­
nullos collisit. Mirantes eum peditem sui milites, plerique confecti
uulneribus, corde sunt redintegrati. Et nonnulli, ‘quos iam sanguis
ac uires deficiunt’ ,10 scutis innixi uiriliter depugnant, aliqui uoce
et nutibus, cum aliud non ualent, socios instigant, ne timide
ducem sequantur, ne uictoriam e manibus dimittant. Auxilio
ipse multis atque saluti fuit.
Cum Heraldo, tali qualem poemata dicunt Hectorem uel
Turnum, non minus auderet Guillelmus congredi singulari
certamine, quam Achilles cum Hectore,11 uel Aeneas cum

1 Geoffrey, son o f Rotrou I count o f Perche. I f he acquired any lands in England after
the Conquest, he was no longer holding them in 1086 (J. F. A. Mason, 4The companions o f
the Conqueror: an additional name1, EH R Ixvi (1956), 66; see also OV ii. 266 n. 4).
2 See above, p. 26 n. 3.
3 Aimeri, twice given by WP the general title o f ‘praeses’, was vicomte o f Thouars. Like
Geoffrey o f Perche, he was not a landless younger son, but a highly bom young man who
stood to inherit lands and title, and joined the expedition for reasons other than a wish to
win estates in England. See above, p. xviii.
4 See above, p. 48 n. 6. 5 See above, p. 48, n. 5.
6 Ralph II o f Tosny, son o f Roger o f Tosny; for his career see OV ii. 90, 106, 140, 358.
7 He was the husband o f Adela of Beaumont and the son o f Robert I o f Grandmesnil,
one o f the founders of the abbey o f Saint-Evroult. After the Conquest he became castellan
o f Leicester and acquired extensive lands in England, which passed to the Beaumont
family in the reign o f Henry I (OV ii. 64-5 and n. 5; iv. 336-9).
11. 22 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 13 5

o f Rotrou count o f Mortagne,1 William fitz Osbem,2 Aimeri

vicomte o f Thouars,3 Walter Giffard,4 Hugh o f Montfort,5
Ralph o f Tosny,6 Hugh o f Grandmesnil,7 William o f Warenne,8
and many others o f military distinction and great renown, whose
names deserve to be remembered in the annals o f history amongst
the very greatest warriors. But William, their duke, so surpassed
them in courage as well as in wisdom that he deserves to be placed
above certain o f the ancient generals o f the Greeks and Romans,
who are so much praised in their writings, and to be compared
with others. He led his men nobly, checking flight, giving
encouragement, courting danger, more often calling on them to
follow than ordering them to go ahead. From this it is plain to see
that his valour in the van opened the way for his followers and gave
them courage. No small part o f the enemy lost heart without being
injured at the sight o f this astounding and redoubtable mounted
warrior. Three horses were killed under him and fell. Three times
he sprang to the ground undaunted, and avenged without delay
the loss o f his steed.9 Here his speed, here his physical strength
and courage could be seen. With his angry blade he tirelessly
pierced shields, helmets, and hauberks; with his buckler he threw
back many. Marvelling at seeing him fight on foot his knights,
many o f them smitten with wounds, took heart again. Some even,
‘weakened by loss o f blood*,10 leant on their shields and fought on
courageously; others, incapable o f more, encouraged their compa­
nions by word and gesture, to follow the duke without fear, so that
victory should not slip through their hands. He himself helped and
saved many o f them.
Against Harold, who was such a man as poems liken to
Hector or Tum us, William would have dared to fight in single
combat no less than Achilles against Hector,11 or Aeneas against

* William I o f Warenne, who became earl o f Surrey just before he died in 1088 (C P xii/
». P 493)
9 The Carmen (lines 470-522) gives a long and fanciful account o f William’s loss o f two
horses. For a closer parallel, cf. William o f Apulia’s account o f how Robert Guiscard lost
three horses in the battle of Civitate, ‘Ter deiectus equo, ter viribus ipse resumptis | Maior
in arma redit; stimulos furor ipse ministrat’, Mathieu, Geste, ii. 226-7 (P* 144)-
10 Caesar, De bello gallico vii. 50.
11 The account o f the victory o f Achilles over Hector in Homer (Iliad, xxii. 247-360),
may have been known to WP through the Ilias latina.
I36 GESTA GVILLELM I U. 22
Turno.1 Tydeus aduersum insidiatos quinquaginta rupis petiuit
opem:2 Guillelmus par, haud inferior loco, solus non extimuit
mille. Scriptor Thebaidos uel Æneidos, qui libris in ipsis poetica
lege de magnis maiora canunt, ex actibus huius uiri aeque
magnum, plus dignum conficerent0 opus uera canendo. Profecto,
si quantum dignitas materiae suppeditaret carminibus ediscerer-
ent condecentibus, inter diuos ipsorum stili uenustate transferrent
eum. Nostra uero tenuis prosa, titulatura ipsius humillime
regnantibus pietatem in cultu ueri Dei, qui solus ab aeterno in
finem seculorum et ultra Deus est, praelium quo tam fortiter
quam iuste uicit, ueraci termino breuique concludat.

23. Iam inclinato die haud dubie intellexit exercitus Anglorum

se stare contra Normannos diutius non ualere. Nouerunt se
diminutos interitu multarum legionum; regem ipsum et fratres
eius, regnique primates nonnullos occubuisse;3 quotquot reliqui
sunt prope uiribus exhaustos; subsidium quod expectent nullum
relictum. Viderunt Normannos non multum decreuisse peremp­
torum casu, et quasi uirium incrementa pugnando sumerent,
acrius quam in principio imminere; ducis eam saeuitiam quae
nulli contra stanti parceret; eam fortitudinem quae nisi uictrix non
quiesceret. In fugam itaque conuersi quantotius abierunt, alii
raptis equis, nonnulli pedites; pars per uias, plerique per auia.
Iacuerunt in sanguine qui niterentur, aut surgerent non ualentes
profugere. Valentes fecit aliquos salutem ualde cupiens animus.
Multi siluestribus in abditis remanserunt cadauera, plures obfuer­
unt sequentibus per itinera collapsi. Normanni, licet ignari
regionis, auide insequebantur, caedentes rea terga, imponentes

a D marg. M F ; considerent D

1 For the victory o f Aeneas over Turnus, see Vergil, Aeneid xii. 697-952.
2 See Statius, Thebaid ii. 548-62; iv. 596-602.
3 WP makes no attempt to state how, or at what point in the battle, Harold was killed:
an indication, perhaps, that no one who knew had survived the battle. The Bayeux
Tapestry (pi. 64, 71) puts the death of Harold’s brothers Gyrth and Leofwine a little
before his; G N D (ii. 168), followed by Orderic (OV ii. 176), states, most improbably, that
Harold was killed early in the battle. The earliest written source to attribute his death to an
arrow in the eye was the Montecassino chronicle of Amatus, now known only in a French
translation (Aimé du Mont Cassin, Storia di Normanni, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (Rome,
1935), i. 3, p. 11). The original chronicle was written before 1080; it is an interesting
II. 23 T H E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 13 7

Turnus.1 Tydeus, when ambushed by fifty men, defended

himself with a rock;2 William, his equal and in no way inferior
in standing, single-handed did not fear a thousand. T h e authors
o f the Thebaid or the Aeneid, who in their books sing o f great
events and exaggerate them according to the law o f poetry,
could make an equally great and more worthy work by singing
truthfully about the actions o f this man. Indeed, i f by the
beauty o f their style they could equal the grandeur o f their
subject matter, they would rank him among the gods. But our
feeble prose will bring humbly to the notice o f kings his piety
in the worship o f the true God, who alone is God from eternity
to the end o f the world and beyond, and will briefly and
truthfully bring to a close this account o f the battle which he
bravely and justly won.

23. Towards the end o f the day the English army realized that
there was no hope o f resisting the Normans any longer. They
knew that they had been weakened by the loss o f many troops; that
the king himself and his brothers and not a few o f the nobles o f the
kingdom had perished;3 that all who remained were almost at the
end o f their strength, and that they could hope for no relief. They
saw that the Normans were not greatly weakened by the loss o f
those who had fallen and, seeming to have found new strength as
they fought, were pressing on more eagerly than at first. They saw
that the duke in his ferocity spared no opponent; and that nothing
but victory could quench his ardour. So they turned to escape as
quickly as possible by flight, some on horses they had seized, some
on foot; some along roads, others through untrodden wastes. Some
lay helplessly in their own blood, others who struggled up were too
weak to escape. T h e passionate wish to escape death gave strength
to some. M any left their corpses in deep woods, many who had
collapsed on the routes blocked the way for those who came after.
The Normans, though strangers to the district, pursued them
relentlessly, slashing their guilty backs and putting the last touches
independent corroboration o f the scene in the Bayeux Tapestry. The fanciful account in
the Carmen (lines 503-24), evidently inspired by the licence that WP attributed to poetry,
cannot be taken at its face value. See G. H. White in C P x ii/ i, app. L.
13 8 GESTA GVILLELM I u. 23

manum ultimam secundo negotio. A mortuis etiam equorum

ungulae supplicia sumpsere, dum cursus fieret super iacentes.

24. Rediit tamen fugientibus confidentia, nactis ad renouan-

dum certamen maximam opportunitatem praerupti ualli* et
frequentium fossarum.1 Gens equidem illa natura semper in
ferrum prompta fuit, descendens ab antiqua Saxonum origine
ferocissimorum hominum. Propulsi non fuissent, nisi fortissima ui
urgente. Regem Noricorum, magno exercitu fretum et bellicoso,
quam facile nuper uicerunt.2 Cernens autem felicium signorum
ductor cohortes inopinato collectas, quamuis nouiter aduenire
subsidium putaret, non flexit iter neque substitit, terribilior cum
parte hastae3 quam grandia spicula uibrantes, Eustachium comi­
tem cum militibus quinquaginta auersum, et receptui signa canere
uolentem, ne abiret uirili uoce compellauit.4 Ille contra familiariter
in aurem ducis reditum suasit, proximam ei, si pergeret, mortem
praedicens. Haec inter uerba percussus Eustachius inter scapulas
ictu sonoro, cuius grauitatem statim sanguis demonstrabat naribus
et ore, quasi moribundus euasit ope comitum. D ux formidinem
omnino dedignans aut dedecus, inuadens protriuit aduersarios. In
eo congressu Normannorum aliqui nobiliores ceciderunt,s aduer-
sitate loci uirtute eorum impedita.

25. Sic uictoria consummata, ad aream belli regressus, reperit

stragem, quam non absque miseratione conspexit, tametsi factam
in impios; tametsi tyrannum occidere sit pulchrum, fama glor­
iosum, beneficio gratum. Late solum operuit sordidatus in cruore
flos Anglicae nobilitatis atque iuuentutis. Propius regem fratres

a F OV\ uallis D M

1 This late stand o f the English was developed later by Orderic, in both his
Interpolations in WJ (G N D ii. 16 8-71) and in the Ecclesiastical History (OV ii. 176),
into the ‘Malfosse’ incident.
2 A reference to the battle o f Stamford Bridge.
3 Possibly he had couched his lance to charge the English, and it had broken off in the
impact, though, as Renn (‘Burgeat’, p. 188 n. 52) has pointed out, this is not a necessary
assumption.
4 The sources differ considerably on the role o f Eustace. WJ does not mention him;
Orderic (OV ii. 178) follows WP. The Carmen (line 535) named him as one o f four who,
the poet claimed, combined to kill Harold. The evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry is
ambiguous, and depends partly on whether the banner-bearing figure by Duke William
ii. 25 THE D E E D S OF W ILLIA M 139

to the victory. Even the hooves o f the horses inflicted punishment

on the dead as they galloped over their bodies.

24. However confidence returned to the fugitives when they

found a good chance to renew battle, thanks to a broken rampart
and labyrinth o f ditches.1 For this people was by nature always
ready to take up the sword, being descended from the ancient
stock o f Saxons, the fiercest o f men. T hey would never have
been driven back except by irresistible force. Recently they had
easily defeated the king o f the Norwegians,2 who was relying on
a huge, warlike army. But when the duke at the head o f the
conquering banners saw that the troops had massed unexpect­
edly, although thinking them to be a newly-arrived relief force,
he neither changed course nor halted. More terrible with only
the stump o f his lance3 than those who brandished long javelins,
he raised his strong voice and ordered Count Eustace, who had
turned tail with fifty knights and wished to sound the retreat,
not to withdraw.4 But Eustace for his part, whispering familiarly
in the duke’s ear, argued for a retreat and predicted his speedy
death if he pressed forward. As he was uttering these words,
Eustace was struck a resounding blow between the shoulders; its
violence was immediately shown by blood streaming from his
nose and mouth; and, half dead, he escaped with the help o f his
companions. T h e duke, utterly disdaining fear and dishonour,
charged his enemies and laid them low. In that encounter some
o f the noblest Normans fell,5 for their valour was o f no avail on
such unfavourable ground.

25. So, after completing the victory, William returned to the

battlefield and discovered the extent o f the slaughter, surveying it
not without pity, even though it had been inflicted on impious
men, and even though it is just and glorious and praiseworthy to
kill a tyrant. Far and wide the earth was covered with the flower o f
when the latter raises his helmet (pi. 68) is correctly identified as Eustace; this is discussed
by S. A. Brown, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry: Why Eustace, Odo and William?’ , Battle, xii
(1990), 7-28. She, like Tanner, ‘Counts of Boulogne’, pp. 270-2, argues that Eustace
probably did play an important part in William’s victory.
5 Orderic names Engenulf o f Laigle among those killed at this point (OV ii. 176-7).
14 0 GESTA GVILLELMI h. 25

eius duo reperti sunt. Ipse carens omni decore, quibusdam signis,
nequaquam facie, recognitus est,1 et in castra ducis delatus qui
tumulandum eum Guillelmo agnomine Maletto2 concessit, non
matri pro corpore dilectae prolis auri par pondus offerenti.3 Sciuit
enim non decere tali commercio aurum accipi. Aestimauit
indignum fore ad matris libitum sepeliri, cuius ob nimiam
cupiditatem insepulti remanerent innumerabiles. Dictum est
illudendo, oportere situm esse custodem littoris et pelagi, quae
cum armis ante uesanus insedit.4
Nos tibi, Heralde, non insultamus, sed cum pio uictore, tuam
ruinam lachrimato,0 miseramur et plangimus te. Vicisti digno te
prouentu, ad meritum tuum et in cruore iacuisti, et in littoreo
tumulo5 iaces, et posthumae generationi tam Anglorum quam
Normannorum abominabilis eris. Corruere solent qui summam in
mundo potestatem summam beatitudinem putant; et ut maxime
beati sint, rapiunt eam, raptam ui bellica retinere nituntur. Atqui
tu fraterno sanguine maduisti,6 ne fratris magnitudo te faceret
minus potentem. Ruisti dein furiosus in alterum conflictum, ut
adiutus patriae parricidio regale decus non amitteres. Traxit igitur
te clades contracta per te. Ecce non fulges in corona quam perfide
inuasisti; non resides in solio quod superbe ascendisti. Arguunt
extrema tua quam recte sublimatus fueris Edwardi dono in ipsius
Ä F ; lachymato D M

1 There is agreement in the English sources too that Harold's body was almost
unrecognizable ( Waltham Chronicle, pp. 54-5).
2 The Carmen (lines 587-8) states that William entrusted the burial o f Harold's body
to (quidam partim Normannus et Anglus | Compater Heraldi. . .' This description might
fit William Malet. The difficult question of William's parentage and family has been
discussed most recently by Vivien Brown (Eye Priory Cartulary and Chartersy ed.
V. Brown, Suffolk Records Society, Suffolk Charters, 2 vols., 1993, 1994), ii. 4-7. She
concludes that if the Carmen meant William Malet, his mother must have been English,
and that he held some land in Lincolnshire before the Conquest. It is possible that a
daughter o f his was the mother o f the famous Countess Lucy, whose first husband was
Ivo Taillebois. He could therefore have known Harold before the Conquest; ‘compater’
might imply either some sponsor in baptism or intimate friendship. The Waltham
Chronicley pp. 50-5, with a totally different version o f the burial, says that the body was
given for burial to Osgod and Æthelric, two canons o f Waltham, the college founded by
Harold.
3 Cf. the account in the Iliad of Priam's plea to Achilles for the body of his son Hector
(Ilias latina, lines 1009-45). However Priam's gifts, which included 10 talents of gold, were
accepted. The version in the Waltham Chronicle is that the canons offered 10 marks o f
gold, which Duke William rejected when he granted their request.
ii. 25 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 141

the English nobility and youth, drenched in blood. T he king’s two

brothers were found very near to his body. He himself was
recognized by certain marks, not by his face, for he had been
despoiled o f all signs o f status.1 He was carried into the camp o f
the duke, who entrusted his burial to William surnamed Malet,2
not to his mother, though she offered his weight in gold for the
body o f her beloved son. For he knew it was not seemly to accept
gold for such a transaction.3 He considered that it would be
unworthy for him to be buried as his mother wished, when
innumerable men lay unburied because o f his overweening
greed. It was said in jest that he should be placed as guardian o f
the shore and sea, which in his madness he had once occupied with
his armies.4
As for us, we do not revile you, Harold; but we grieve and
mourn for you with the pious victor who weeps over your ruin.
You have reaped the reward that you deserved, and have fallen
bathed in your own blood; you lie in a tumulus5 on the seashore
and will be an abomination to future generations o f English no
less than Normans. So fall those who think that supreme power
in this world is the greatest blessing, and who in their wish to be
particularly blessed seize power, and strive to retain it by force o f
arms. Moreover you have stained yourself with your brother’s
blood,6 for fear that his power might diminish yours. Then you
have rushed madly into another conflict, so that you might retain
the royal dignity by the impious destruction o f your fatherland.
So you brought down on your own head the disaster you yourself
had prepared. Behold, you will not rejoice in the crown which
you seized perfidiously, nor will you sit on the throne which you
proudly mounted. Your end proves by what right you were raised
through the death-bed gift o f Edward. T h e comet, terror o f

4 Among the early sources only WP, followed by Orderic, and the Carmen, suggest that
Harold was buried on the seashore. See above, p. xxix. I f the Waltham tradition (Waltham
Chronicle, pp. xliii-xlvi, 54-5) is accepted, William Malet may have been assigned some
role in the burial; perhaps it was he who identified the body, or provided the safe-conduct
which the chronicler said was promised by Duke William.
s The word Cumulus’ was used by Lucan to describe Pompey’s humble tomb on the
seashore after his defeat and death (.Pharsalia, viii. 816).
6 A reference to Tostig, who was killed at Stamford Bridge.
14 2 GESTA GVILLELM I u. 25

fine. Regum terror cometa/ post initium altitudinis tuae corus­

cans, exitium tibi uaticinatus fuit.

26. Verum omissa naenia, felicitatem quam eadem stella por­

tendit disseramus. Argiuorum rex Agamemnon habens in auxilio
multos duces atque reges, unicam urbem Priami dolo uix euertit
obsidionis anno decimo.12 Quae fuerint eius militum ingenia, quae
uirtus, carmina testantur. Item Roma sic adulta opibus, ut orbi
terrarum uellet praesidere, urbes aliquot deuicit singulas pluribus
annis. Subegit autem urbes Anglorum cunctas dux Guillelmus
copiis Normanniae uno die ab hora tertia in uesperum, non multo
extrinsecus adiutorio.3 Si tuerentur eas moenia Troiana, breui talis
uiri manus et consilium exscinderint Pergama.4
Posset illico" uictor sedem regiam adire, imponere sibi dia­
dema, terrae diuitias in praedam suis militibus tribuere, quosque
potentes alios iugulare, alios in exilium eiicere. Sed moderatius ire
placuit atque clementius dominari. Consueuit namque pridem
adolescens temperantia decorare triumphos. Par fuisset
Anglorum, qui sese per iniuriam tantam pessundederunt in
mortem, carnes gula uulturis lupique deuorari, ossibus insepultis
campos fore sepultos. Ceterum illi crudele uisum est tale
supplicium. Volentibus ad humandum eos colligere liberam
concessit potestatem.

27. Humatis autem suis, dispositaque custodia Hastingas cum

strenuo praefecto,5 Romanaerium accedens, quam placuit
poenam exegit pro clade suorum, quos illuc errore appulsos
fera gens adorta praelio cum utriusque partis maximo detrimento
fuderat.6 Hinc Doueram contendit, ubi populum innumerabilem
' M F ; ilico D

1 This is WP’s first reference to the comet (Halley’s comet), which was observed in
places as far apart as France, Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia, as well as in Normandy and
England. It was variously regarded as an omen, though not always of the same event. See
E. van Houts, ‘The Norman Conquest through European eyes’, EH R cx (1995), 832-53.
The Bayeux Tapestry (pi. 35) dramatically links it with the first rumours o f the
preparation o f Duke William’s invasion fleet. 2 Cf. Vergil, Aeneid ii. 197-8.
3 This is rhetorical exaggeration; the battle o f Hastings was decisive, but not final; WP
himself in his later chapters describes some o f King William’s campaigns to put down
rebellions in the west country and Yorkshire.
4 Poetically the name ‘Pergama’ designated the citadel o f Troy; it occurs frequently in
ii. 27 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 143

kings, which burned soon after your elevation, foretold your

doom.1
26. But, omitting a funeral dirge, let us enlarge on the felicity
that the same star portended. Agamemnon, king o f the Argives,
with the help o f many leaders and kings, barely succeeded in
reducing Priam’s single city after a ten-year siege.2 Songs tell how
fine was the character, how great the courage o f his soldiers.
Likewise Rome, after growing so great in wealth that it wished to
rule over the whole world, conquered a few cities one by one, over
many years. But Duke William with the forces o f Normandy
subjugated all the cities o f the English in a single day, between the
third hour and the evening, without much outside help.3 Even if
the walls o f Troy had defended its citadel,4 the strong arm and
counsel o f such a man would soon have destroyed it.
As victor, he could have gone on immediately to the royal seat,
placed the diadem on his head, and distributed the riches o f the
realm as booty to his knights, slaying some o f the magnates and
driving others into exile. But he preferred to act more moderately
and rule with greater clemency. For from his youth he had been
accustomed to show temperance in his triumphs. It would have
been right for the flesh o f the English, who through so great an
injustice had rushed headlong to their death, to be devoured by
the mouths o f the vulture and the wolf, and for the fields to have
been covered with their unburied bones. But to him such a
punishment seemed cruel. He gave free licence to those who
wished to recover their remains for burial.
27. After burying his own men and placing Hastings in the
charge o f an energetic castellan,5 he proceeded to Romney and
there inflicted such punishment as he thought fit for the slaughter
o f his men, who had landed there by mistake; they had been
attacked by the fierce people o f the region, and scattered after
heavy losses on both sides.6 Then he went to Dover, where he

the Aeneid (i. 466; ii. 177, 291 and passim). WP may have had in mind ‘Nec posse Argolicis
exscindi Pergama telis’ (ii. 177). s Humphrey o f Tilleul.
6 WP is the sole authority for the Romney incident. It shows that, although the greater
part o f the English army had been withdrawn from the coast before William landed, some
men were still guarding at least parts o f it.
144 GESTA GVILLELM I u. 27

congregatum acceperat; quod locus ille inexpugnabilis uidebatur.

At eius propinquitate Angli perculsi, neque naturae uel operis
munimento, neque multitudini uirorum confidunt. Situm est id
castellum in rupe mari contigua, quae naturaliter acuta undique
ad hoc ferramentis elaborate incisa, in speciem muri directissima
altitudine, quantum sagittae iactus permetiri potest, consurgit,
quo in latere unda marina alluitur. Cum tamen castellani
supplices deditionem pararent, armigeri exercitus nostri praedae
cupidine ignem iniecerunt. Flamma leuitate sua uolitans pleraque
corripuit. Dux, nolens incommoda eorum qui secum deditiona-
liter agere coeperant, pretium dedit restituendarum aedium,
aliaque amissa recompensauit. Seuerius animaduerti praecepisset
in auctores incendii, ni uilitas et numerositas ipsorum occultauis-
set eos. Recepto castro, quae minus erant per dies octo addidit
firmamenta.1 Milites illic recentibus carnibus et aqua utentes,
multi profluuio uentris extincti sunt, plurimi in extremum uitae
debilitati discrimen. Aduersa tamen et haec fortitudinem ducis
non fregerunt. Custodiam inibi quoque relinquens, et dissenteria
languentes, ad perdomandum quos deuicit proficiscitur.

28. Occurrunt ultro Cantuarii haud procul a Douera, iurant

fidelitatem, dant obsides. Contremuit etiam potens metropolis
metu, et ne funditus caderet ullatenus resistendo, maturauit
impetrare statum obediendo. Veniens postero die ad Fractam
Turrim castra metatus est;2 quo in loco grauissima sui corporis
ualetudine animos familiarium pari conturbauit aegritudine.
Volens autem publicum bonum, ne exercitus egestate rerum
necessariarum laboraret, noluit indulgere sibi moras ibi agendo,
quanquam fuerit commune proficuum ac ualde optandum, opti­
mum ducem ad sanitatem conualere.
1 In referring to a ‘castellum’ WP either used the term loosely, or (if he had ever seen
Dover) had in mind the fortifications built by William after he occupied the site. Before
the Conquest there were some Anglo-Saxon fortifications on the hill above the town,
around the Roman lighthouse and the church o f St Mary-in-Castro. R. Allen Brown,
Dover Castle (HM SO 1974), PP- 4-5, describes the terms ‘castrum’ and ‘castellum’ which
are used in some early sources, even in the Worcester Chronicle, as ‘merely the product o f
loose terminology’; and suggests that before the Conquest the ‘castle’ was an Anglo-Saxon
burh, occupying the site o f an ancient Iron Age encampment which preceded it; and that
William the Conqueror built extra defences within the older fortifications.
ii. 28 TH E DEEDS OF W IL L IA M 145

heard that a great multitude had gathered because the place

seemed impregnable. But the English, terror-stricken at his
approach, lost all confidence in the natural defences and fortifica­
tions o f the place, and in the multitude o f men. T his castle stands
near to the sea on a rock which is naturally steep on all sides, and
has furthermore been patiently chipped away with iron tools, so
that it is like a wall o f towering height equal to the flight o f an
arrow on the side washed by the sea. When, however, the garrison
were preparing to make humble surrender, the squires in our
army, greedy for booty, set the place on fire. The volatile flames
spread quickly and took hold o f most buildings. T he duke, not
wishing to injure those who had begun to parley with him for
surrender, paid for the repair o f the buildings and gave compensa­
tion for other losses. He would have ordered those responsible for
the blaze to be severely punished, had not their low condition and
great number concealed them. After the surrender o f the castle,
he spent eight days in fortifying it where it was weakest.1 Whilst
the soldiers were there they ate freshly killed meat and drank
water, with the result that many died o f dysentery and many were
so weakened as to be on the verge o f death. However even these
adversities did not break the determination o f the duke. Leaving
there a garrison and the men suffering from dysentery, he set out
to subjugate those whom he had defeated.

28. T he men o f Canterbury o f their own accord came out to

meet him not far from Dover; they swore fealty and gave hostages.
Even the mighty metropolitan city shook with terror, and for fear
o f total ruin if it resisted further, hastened to secure its status by
submission. Coming next day to the Broken Tower, the duke
pitched his camp.2 In that place he was afflicted with a severe
illness, which caused great anxiety to his closest followers. But for
the sake o f the general good he did not wish to indulge himself by
delaying there, lest the army should suffer from a shortage o f
supplies, although it was greatly to be desired and in the public
interest that the admirable duke should be restored to health.

2 This place has not been identißed; possibly Duchesne misread a name, but even
Faversham is not very likely.
146 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. 28

Interea Stigandus Cantuariensis archipraesul, qui sicut excellebat

opibus atque dignitate, ita consultis plurimum apud Anglos
poterat,1 cum filiis Algardi2 aliisque praepotentibus praelium
minatur. Regem statuerant Edgarum Athelinum,0 ex Edwardi
regis nobilitate annis puerum.3 Erat uidelicet eorum uoti summa,
non habere dominum quem non habuere compatriotam. Verum qui
dominari debuit eis intrepide approperans, ubi frequentiorem
audiuit eorum conuentum, non longe a Lundonia consedit. Prae­
terluit eam urbem fluuius Tamesis, peregrinas e portu marino
diuitias aduectans. Cum solos ciues habeat, copioso ac praestantia
militari famoso incolatu abundat. Tum uero confluxerat ad ipsam
hospes turba propugnatorum, quam licet ambitu nimis ampla non
facile capiebat. Praemissi illo equites Normanni quingenti, egres­
sam contra se aciem refugere intra moenia impigre compellunt,
terga caedentes. Multae stragi addunt incendium, cremantes quic-
quid aedificiorum citra flumen inuenere, ut malo duplici superba
ferocia contundatur. Dux progrediens dein quoquouersum placuit,
transmeato flumine Tamesi, uado simul atque ponte ad oppidum
Guarengefort peruenit.4 Adueniens eodem Stigandus pontifex
metropolitanus, manibus ei sese dedit, fidem sacramento confir-
mauit, abrogans Athelinum0 quem leuiter elegerat. Hinc procedenti
statim ut Lundonia conspectui patebat, obuiam exeunt principes
ciuitatis; sese cunctamque duitatem in obsequium illius, quemad­
modum ante Cantuarii, tradunt; obsides quos et quot imperat
adducunt. Orant post haec ut coronam5* sumat una pontifices

a F ; Adelinum D M

1 For the power and wealth o f Stigand, see in particular M. Frances Smith, ‘Archbishop
Stigand and the eye of the needle9, Battle, xvi (1994), 199-219.
2 The sons of Ælfgar, earl of Mercia, were Edwin, earl o f Mercia, and Morcar, earl of
Northumbria; Harold had married their sister Edith, and they were committed to his
cause.
3 Edgar was the son of Edward Ætheling and grandson o f Edmund Ironside, half-
brother o f King Edward.
4 According to the Worcester Chronicle (JW ii. 606) and A S C (D) 1066, the army
continued to ravage up to the time of the submission, which the chronicles placed at
Berkhamsted, not Wallingford. JW specifies that William laid waste the counties of Sussex,
Kent, Hampshire, Middlesex, and Hertfordshire. The A S Q which does not name Stigand,
continues, ‘there he was met by Archbishop Aldred and Edgar cild and Earl Edwin and
Earl Morcar, and all the chief men from London. And they submitted out o f necessity.
ii. 28 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 14 7

Meanwhile Stigand, archbishop o f Canterbury, who, outstanding

for his wealth and dignity, was equally powerful in the counsels o f
the English,1 was threatening battle together with the sons o f
Æ lfgar2 and other nobles. As king they had chosen Edgar Ætheling,
o f the noble stock o f King Edward, but a boy in years.3 It was indeed
their highest wish to have no lord who was not a compatriot. But
indeed the man who ought to reign over them was approaching
resolutely, and took up a position not far from London, where he
heard that they most often held their meetings. T he river Thames
flows past this city, carrying foreign riches from a sea port. Although
it is inhabited only by citizens, it abounds in a large population
famous for their military qualities. At that time, indeed, a crowd o f
warriors from elsewhere had flocked thither, and the city, in spite o f
its great size, could scarcely accommodate them all. Five hundred
Norman knights, sent there in advance, quickly forced the troops
that had made a sortie to retreat shamefully inside the walls, killing
those in the rear. They added fire to the great carnage, burning all
the houses they could find on this side o f the river, so that the fierce
pride o f their enemies might be subdued by a twofold disaster. The
duke, advancing wherever he wished, then crossed the river Thames
by both a ford and a bridge and came to the town o f Wallingford.4
Stigand the archbishop, coming to him there, did homage to him,
confirmed his fealty with an oath, and renounced the ætheling,
whom he had elected without due consideration. As soon as William,
advancing from there, came in sight o f London, the chief men o f the
city came out to meet him; they submitted themselves and the whole
city to him just as the men o f Canterbury had done previously. They
produced as many hostages as he required. After this the bishops
and other leading men begged him to take the crown,5 saying that

And they gave hostages and swore oaths to him, and he promised that he would be a
gracious liege lord, and yet in the mean time they ravaged all they overran.9
5 The Carmen (lines 635-750) gives a dramatic and lengthy account o f the capitulation
of London, alleging that William prepared to bombard the city with siege engines, and that
the surrender was negotiated by a certain ‘ Ansgard’, who hoped to trick the Conqueror in
negotiations, but was himself tricked. Much o f the detail is implausible; but since Ansgard
can probably be identified as Asgar or Esgar the staller, a man o f some importance in 1066,
he may have been involved in the negotiations. For Asgar, see Waltham Chronicley pp. xvii,
xviii, and R. H. C. Davis, ‘The Carmen de Hastingae proelio\ in his From Alfred the Great to
Stephen (London and Rio Grande, OH, 1991), pp. 79-100, at 88-9.
1 48 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. 28

atque caeteri summates, se quidem solitos esse regi seruire, regem

dominum habere uelle.1

29. Consulens ille comitatos e Normannia, quorum non minus

prudentiam quam fidem spectatam habebat, patefecit eis quid
maxime sibi dissuaderet quod Angli orabant: res adhuc turbidas
esse; rebellare nonnullos; se potius regni quietem quam coronam
cupere. Praeterea si Deus ipsi hunc concedit honorem, secum uelle
coniugem suam coronari.2 Denique non oportere nimium proper­
ari, dum in altum culmen ascenditur. Profecto non illi dominabatur
regnandi libido, sanctum esse intellexerat sancteque diligebat
coniugii pignus. Familiares contra suasere, ut totius exercitus
unanimi desiderio optari sciebant; quanquam rationes eius apprime
laudabiles dignoscerent, ex arcano uberrimae sapientiae manantes.
Aderat huic consilio Haimerius Aquitanus, praeses Toarcensis,3
lingua non ignobilior quam dextra. Is demirans et urbane extollens
modestiam inquirentem animos militum, num uellent dominum
suum regem fieri: ‘Ad disceptationem', inquit, ‘huiusmodi milites
nunquam aut raro acciti sunt. Non est diu trahendum nostra
deliberatione quod desideramus fieri quam ocissime.' At pruden-
tissimi et optimi uiri nequaquam ita cuperent in alto huius mon­
archiae illum locari, nisi praecipue idoneum peruiderent, licet
ipsorum commoda et honores per exultationem eius augeri uolentes.
Ipse iterum omnia secum perpendens, adquieuit tot petentibus
totque suadentibus;4 praesertim sperans ubi regnare coeperit rebel­
lem quemque minus ausurum in se, facilius conterendum esse.a
Praemisit ergo Lundoniam qui munitionem in ipsa construerent
urbe, et pleraque competentia regiae magnificentiae praepararent,
moraturus interim per uicina. Aduersitas omnis procul fuit, adeo ut
uenatui et auium ludo, si forte libuit, secure uacaret.5
a M F ; a se P

1 Orderic added the word ‘coronato’ here: ‘hoc etiam diuino nutu subacti optabant
indigenae regni, qui nisi coronato regi seruire hactenus erant soliti’ (OV ii. 182).
2 Matilda was not able to come to England to be crowned until Pentecost, 1068 (OV ii.
214; probably Orderic took the information from the lost chapters o f WP).
3 For Aimeri, vicomte o f Thouars, see above, p. xviii.
4 Orderic realistically cut out all panegyric, and reduced the whole discussion to, ‘Hoc
summopere flagitabant Normanni, qui pro fasce regali nanciscendo suo principi, subierunt
ingens discrimen maris et praelii’ (OV ii. 182).
ii. 29 TH E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 149

they were accustomed to obey a king, and wished to have a king as

their lord.1

29. He consulted the men who had come with him from
Normandy, whom he had perceived to be as wise as they were
loyal, and explained to them what chiefly dissuaded him from
doing as the English begged: the situation was still confused, some
people were rebelling; he desired the peace o f the kingdom rather
than the crown. Besides, if God granted him this dignity, he
wished his wife to be crowned with him.2 Finally, it was not
seemly to rush too much when climbing to the topmost pinnacle.
Indeed he was not dominated by the passion to rule; he had learnt
that marriage vows were holy and respected their sanctity. His
closest friends urged the opposite course on him, as they knew that
this was the unanimous wish o f the whole army, though they
recognized that his arguments were particularly laudable, proceed­
ing as they did from the depths o f his inexhaustible wisdom.
Aimeri the Aquitanian, praeses o f Thouars,3 a man whose
eloquence equalled his prowess, was present at this counsel. He,
while admiring and courteously praising the modesty o f a lord
who consulted the opinions o f his knights on whether they wished
their lord to become a king, said, ‘Rarely or never have knights
been admitted to a debate such as this. There is no need to delay
by our debate what we wish to be done as quickly as possible.' But
these wise and powerful men would never have been so anxious to
raise him to the throne o f this kingdom had they not recognized
that he was outstandingly suitable, although they wished their
gains and honours to be increased by his elevation. He himself,
after carefully reconsidering everything, gave way to all their
requests and arguments;4 he hoped above all that once he had
begun to reign any rebels would be less ready to challenge him
and more easily put down. So he sent men ahead to London to
build a fortress in the city and make the many preparations
necessary for royal dignity, while he himself remained in the
neighbourhood. All opposition was so remote that he could, if he
wished, spend his time in hunting and falconry.5

5 Cf. above, i. 17.

ISO GESTA GVILLELMI u. 30

30. Die ordinationi decreto, elocutus ad Anglos condecenti

sermone Eboracensis archiepiscopus1 aequitatem ualde amans,
aeuo maturus, sapiens, bonus, eloquens, an consentirent eum
sibi dominum coronari, inquisiuit. Protestati sunt hilarem con­
sensum uniuersi minime haesitantes, ac si caelitus una mente data
unaque uoce. Anglorum uoluntati quam facillime Normanni
consonuerunt, sermocinato ad eos ac sententiam percunctato
Constantiniensi* praesule. Ceterum, qui circa monasterium in
armis et equis praesidio dispositi fuerunt, ignotae (linguae/
nimio strepitu accepto, rem sinistram arbitrati, prope ciuitati
imprudentia flammam iniecerunt. Sic electum consecrauit idem
archiepiscopus aeque sancta uita carus et inuiolata fama; imposuit
ei regium diadema, ipsumque regio solio, fauente multorum
praesentia praesulum et abbatum, in basilica sancti Petri apostoli,
quae regis Edwardi sepulchro gaudebat, in sacrosancta solemnitate
Dominici natalis, millesimo sexagesimo sexto Incarnationis
Dominicae anno. Repudiauit eum consecrari a Stigando Cantuar-
iensi, quem per apostolici iustum zelum anathemate reprobatum
didicerat. Nec minus insignia regum decuerunt personam eius,
quam ad regimen idoneae extiterunt uirtutes eius. Cuius liberi
atque nepotes iusta successione praesidebunt Anglicae terrae,
quam et hereditaria delegatione sacramentis Anglorum firmata,
et iure belli ipse possedit: coronatus tali eorundem consensu, uel
potius appetitu eiusdem gentis primatum. Et si ratio sanguinis
poscitur, pernotum est quam proxima consanguinitate regem
Edwardum attigerit filius ducis Rodberti, cuius amita Ricardi
secundi soror, filia primi, Emma, genitrix fuit Edwardi.2
Post celebratam ordinationem— non, ut solitum est, post
honorum augmenta fieri— remissius laudabilia gerere coepit, sed
nouo admirandoque ardore ad honestos et ingentes actus accen­
ditur dignissimus rex: quod nomen, posito ducis nomine, libens

* Constantini D; Constantiniensis O V * Supplied from O V

1 WP continues to insist on the role o f Archbishop Ealdred in the coronation and

acceptance o f William. The Carmen (lines 803-4) states that two archbishops took part in
the ceremony: an indication that it must have been written either before Stigand’s disgrace
in 1070 or in the twelfth century.
ii. 30 T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 151

30. On the day fixed for the coronation, the archbishop o f

York,1 a great lover o f justice and a man o f mature years, wise,
good, and eloquent, addressed the English, and asked them in the
appropriate words whether they would consent to him being
crowned as their lord. They all shouted their joyful assent, with
no hesitation, as if heaven had granted them one mind and one
voice. T he Normans added their voice most readily to the wish o f
the English, after the bishop o f Coutances had addressed them and
asked their wishes. But the men who, armed and mounted, had
been placed as a guard round the minster, on hearing the loud
clamour in an unknown tongue, thought that some treachery was
afoot and rashly set fire to houses near to the city. When William
had been elected in this way the archbishop, renowned for both his
holy life and his spotless reputation, consecrated him, placed on
his head the diadem o f kings, and seated him on a royal throne, in
the presence and with the consent o f many bishops and abbots, in
the basilica o f St Peter the apostle, which boasted o f possessing the
tomb o f King Edward, on the holy feast o f Christmas in the year o f
Our Lord 1066. He had indeed refused to be consecrated by
Stigand, the archbishop o f Canterbury, having learnt that he had
been pronounced excommunicate through the just zeal o f the
pope. T he royal insignia were no less fitting to his person than
were his virtues to kingly rule. And his children and grandchildren
will rule by lawful succession over the English land, which he
possesses both by hereditary designation confirmed by the oath o f
the English, and by right o f conquest. He was crowned by the
consent, or rather by the wish, o f the leaders o f the same people.
And if anyone asks the reason for this blood claim, it is well-known
that he was related to King Edward by close ties o f blood, being
the son o f Duke Robert, whose aunt, Emma, the sister o f Richard
II and daughter o f Richard I, was Edward’s mother.2
After the coronation ceremony he did not relax in his
performance o f good works, as usually happens after honours
have been increased, but, with admirable new zeal, he was
inspired to great and noble undertakings, as a most worthy
2 Here WP sums up all the elements making up William’s claim to the throne, which
have already been introduced at earlier points in his narrative.
152 GESTA GVILLELMI ii. 30
acceptat stilus noster.1 Secularibus namque ac diuinis operam
impendebat strenuam utrisque; ad seruitium tamen regis omnium
regum cor propensius habebat; quippe cui suos prouectus
reputabat, contra quem potentia aut uita neminem mortalium
potiri diu posse sciebat; a quo gloriam interminabilem, ubi
temporalem finiret, expectabat. In huius ergo imperatoris quasi
tributum large erogauit, quod Heraldi regis aerarium auare
inclusit.2

3 1. Terrae illi sua fertilitate opimae uberiorem opulentiam

comportare soliti sunt negotiatores gaza aduectitia. Maximi
numero genere, artificio thesauri compositi fuerant, aut custo­
diendi ad uanum gaudium auaritiae, aut luxu Anglico turpiter
consumendi. Quorum partem ad ministros confecti belli magnifice
erogauit, plurima ac pretiosissima egenis et monasteriis diuer-
sarum prouinciarum distribuit. Id munificentiae studium adiuuit
non modicus census, quem undique ciuitates et locupletes quique
obtulerant nouitio domino.3 Romanae ecclesiae sancti Petri4
pecuniam in auro atque argento ampliorem quam dictu credibile
*sit, et ornamenta0 quae Bizantium percara haberet, in manum
Alexandri papae transmisit. Memorabile quoque uexillum Her­
aldi, hominis armati imaginem intextam habens ex auro puris­
simo:5 quo spolio pro munere eiusdem apostolici benignitate sibi
misso par redderet;6 simul et triumphum de tiranno Romae
ulteriusque optatum pulchre indicaret. Quanti famulorum Christi
a~a D\ sit; ornamenta M F

1 WP’s insistence that William’s royal title began only with his coronation was in line
with Capetian royal practice (in contrast to the earlier English practice o f dating a new
reign from the death o f the previous king), and with the insistence of the Church on
coronation as an essential element in regality. See G. Garnett (‘Coronation and
propaganda’, above, p. xxvi n. 59), p. h i , who suggests that Lanfranc may have influenced
the presentation of the case for William.
2 There is ample evidence o f Harold’s appropriation o f estates (see above, p. 14, n. 2).
But, at least before his coronation, he was generous in his gifts to favoured churches, in
particular his own foundation at Waltham (Waltham Chronicle, pp. 26-33).
3 The Spontaneous’ gifts were made, as even WP’s account of the surrender o f
Canterbury and London admits, to prevent spoliation. WP characteristically presents a
case wholly favourable to William. The A S C (D) 1070, complained that 4the king had all
the monasteries that were in England plundered.’ Both the Worcester and Ely chronicles,
however, show that the plundering was not indiscriminate; some property seized had been
placed in monastic houses by lay persons, and some was recovered (FW ii. 4-5; Liber
». 3 i T H E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 153

king— a title which our pen gladly takes up in place o f that o f

duke.1 He devoted himself with equal energy to both secular and
divine business, but his heart was more inclined to the service o f
the King o f Kings. For it was to Him that he attributed his
advancement, knowing that in opposition to Him no one could
long enjoy power or life; and from Whom he hoped for eternal
glory when earthly glory came to an end. And so, as tribute to the
Sovereign Lord, he distributed liberally what Harold had avar­
iciously shut up in the royal treasure store.2

3 1. T o this most fertile land merchants used to bring added

wealth in imported riches. Treasures remarkable for their number
and kind and workmanship had been amassed there, either to be
kept for the empty enjoyment o f avarice, or to be squandered
shamefully in English luxury. O f these he liberally gave a part to
those who had helped him win the battle, and distributed most,
and the most valuable, to the needy and to the monasteries o f
various provinces. T his munificence was assisted by the substan­
tial tribute which cities everywhere and individual rich men
offered to their new lord.3 To the church o f St Peter in Rome
he sent more gold and silver coins than could be told credibly;4
and he presented to Pope Alexander ornaments which Byzantium
could have considered most precious;5 also Harold’s famous
banner in which the image o f an armed warrior was woven in
pure gold. B y the gift o f this booty he made an equal return to the
pope for the gift sent to him through the pope’s generosity;6 and at
the same time he indicated aptly his victory over the tyrant, a

ElienstSy p. 196). In the redistribution the Norman monasteries were the chief gainers; see
below, ii. 4 1, 42. C. R. Dodwell (Anglo-Saxon Art: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982),
pp. 230-2) notes the meagre share o f the treasures given or restored to English churches.
4 This is probably a reference to Peter’s Pence, which had been paid somewhat
irregularly, and occurs in Anglo-Saxon sources at least from the tenth century (Councils
and Synodsy i. 62, 100, 308, 3 5 1, 627, 629; W. E. Lunt, Financial Relations o f the Papacy
with England to 1327 (Cambridge, M A, 1939)* PP- 3 *~3* 45~7-
5 The phrase 4quae Bizantium percara haberat’ , used by Robert o f Torigni in a different
context (G N D ii. 244), is one o f the indications that Torigni may have been familiar with
CC.
6 A reference to the papal banner sent to William; see above, ii. 2. Harold’s banner is
presented differently in the Bayeux Tapestry, where it shows a wyvem ‘presumably
representing the dragon of Wessex’ (Renn, 4Burgeat’, p. 187).
154 GESTA GVILLELM I a . 31

caetus tum laeti gratiarum hymnos canebant pro uictore, antea

fautores illius precum armatura, summatim recitamus. M ille
ecclesiis Franciae, Aquitaniae, Burgundiae, nec non Aruemiae,
aliarumque regionum perpetuo celebre erit Guillelmi regis mem­
oriale.1 Beneficii magnitudo semper uiuens mori benefactoris
memoriam non patietur. Aliae cruces aureas admodum grandes
insigniter gemmatas, pleraeque libras auri uel ex eodem metallo
uasa, nonnulla pallia, uel pretiosum aliud quid accepere. Splendide
adornaret metropolitanam basilicam, quod minimum in his donis
coenobiolum aliquod laetificauit. Ducibus atque regibus haec, et
scripta in hoc libello complura innotescere uelim ad exemplum aut
incitamentum.

32. Munera quidem gratissima Normanniae aduenerunt a suo

dulci nato, pio patre, festinante affectu missa, cum saeuitia
temporis atque maris, intrante Ianuario, esset acerrima. Nuntium
uero euentus, cuius expectatione intenta fuit ex anxia, milies
cariorem accepit. Nec enim adeo gratum acciperet quicquid
Arabia2 pulchrum aut suaue donare posset. Nullus unquam illuxit
ei dies laetior, quam cum certo resciuit principem suum, auctorem
sui quieti status, regem esse. Vrbes, castella, uillae, monasteria,
multum pro uictore, maxime congratulabantur pro regnante. L u x
quaedam insolitae serenitatis prouinciae subito exorta uidebatur.
Quae licet destitutam se putaret communi patre dum eius
praesentia careret, sic tamen abesse uolebat eum, magis ut
summa potentia ipse uteretur, quam ut sibi praesidio foret aut
decori amplius potens. Tantum namque cupiebat Normannia illius
maiestatem quam ille Normanniae commoda siue honorem.
Profecto dubium erat illum patria, an patriam ille, plus diligeret,
qualiter est olim dubitatum de Caesare Augusto et populo
Romano.3
1 The geographical spread o f the mother churches o f the later 4alien priories9 (which
included the great houses of Cluny and Marmoutier) is an indication of the continental
beneficiaries o f the Conquest (see D. Knowles and N. Hadcock, M edieval Religious Houses,
England and Wales (London, 1971), pp. 83-103). The absence o f benefactions to houses in
Brittany at this early period, in spite o f the large contingent o f Bretons in the Conqueror’s
armies, is noteworthy; and Brittany rightly does not appear in WP’s list.
2 Cf. Ps. 7 1: 10, ‘Reges Tharsis et insulae munera offerent; reges Arabum et Saba dona
adducent’ , and Ps. 7 1: 15, ‘Et vivet, dabitur ei de auro Arabiae.’
H. 32 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 155

victory greatly desired at Rome. We will relate briefly how many

communities o f the servants o f Christ were happy to sing hymns
o f praise for the victor, whom they had previously supported with
the armament o f their prayers. In a thousand churches o f France,
Aquitaine, and Burgundy, and also Auvergne and other regions,
the memory o f King William will be celebrated for ever.1 The
magnitude o f the benefaction, always living, will not allow the
memory o f the benefactor to die. Some churches received very
large golden crosses, wonderfully jewelled; many others pounds o f
gold, or vessels made o f the same metal; quite a few vestments or
something else o f value. T he least o f these gifts with which he
delighted the smallest cell would have been a splendid enrichment
for a metropolitan basilica. Would that I could make known to
leaders and kings these things, and many others written in this
book, as an example and an incitement.

32. But the most welcome gifts came to Normandy from its
kind son and pious father, sent with considerate haste when the
severity o f the weather and sea (for it was the beginning o f January)
was at its worst. T he news o f the outcome awaited with such eager
and anxious hope was received a thousand times more dearly.
Normandy could not have received the most beautiful and
delightful gift from Arabia2 with such thankfulness. No happier
day ever dawned on her than that on which she learned for certain
that her leader, to whom she owed her peaceful condition, was a
king. Towns, castles, villages, monasteries, rejoiced greatly for the
victory, still more for the kingship. A light o f unaccustomed
serenity seemed suddenly to have dawned on the province. For
although she thought herself deprived o f her common father when
he was not present, she accepted that he should be absent, more so
that he might enjoy supreme power than that he should be a
stronger defence or a greater glory for her. Normandy indeed was
as eager for his greatness as he was for the interest and honour o f
Normandy. It was doubtful which was the greater, his country’s
love for him or his love for his country, just as it was once doubted
o f Caesar Augustus and the Roman people.3
3 Cf. Suetonius, Augustus, c. Iviii, for the substance rather than the exact words.
156 GESTA GVILLELMI ii. 32

Diligeres ac maximi haberes eum et tu, Anglica terra, totamque

te eius pedibus laeta prosterneres, si abesset imprudentia atque
iniquitas tua, quo meliore consilio diiudicare posses in qualis uiri
potestatem deueneris.1 Praeiudicare noli, dignitatem eius diligen­
tius cognosce, et quotquot exegisti dominos, parui habebis cum eo
comparatos. Eius honestatis pulchritudo optimo te colore dec­
orabit. Didicit per legatum suum ualentissimus uir, rex Pyrrhus,
tales fere, qualis erat ipse, Romam habere cunctos.2 Illa ciuitas,
parens regum orbis, terrae caput et domina, hunc, qui tibi
dominaturus est progenuisse, et ipsius manu defensari, sapientia
gubernari, imperio parere gauderet. Huius milites Normanni
possident Apuliam, deuicere Siciliam,3 propugnant Constantino-
polim, ingerunt metum Babyloni.4 Nobilissimos tuorum filiorum,
iuuenes ac senes, Chunutus Danus trucidauit nimia crudelitate,5
ut sibi ac liberis suis te subigeret. Hic ne Heraldum uellet
occubuisse. Immo uoluit patris Goduini* potentiam illi ampliare,
et riatam suam, imperatoris thalamo dignissimam, in matrimo­
nium, uti fuerat pollicitus, tradere.6 At si haec tibi mecum non
conueniunt, profecto sustulit a ceruice tua superbum crudelem-
que dominatum Heraldi; abominandum tirannum, qui te seruitute
calamitosa simul et ignominiosa premeret, interemit;7* quod
meritum in omni gente gratum habetur atque praeclarum.
Benefacta uero saluberrimae dominationis, qua eris exaltata, in
sequentibus aliqua contra tuam inuidiam testabuntur. Viuet, uiuet

a D M\ Godwini F

1 Here WP recognizes that, in spite o f his claims, the English did not accept the
Conquest without rebellion.
2 Cf. Plutarch, Pyrrhus, xxix. 6.
3 The Norman conquest of South Italy and Sicily by the sons o f Tancred of Hauteville
progressed rapidly after their acceptance by Pope Nicholas II in 1059. By 1066 substantial
gains had been made in both Apulia and Sicily; by the time WP wrote the conquests had
been completed with the capture o f Bari in 1071 and Palermo in 1072. See, most recently,
Bouet and Neveux, Les Normands en Méditerranée (above, p. 104 n. 3), pp. 18 -2 1. There is
an interesting parallel with one statement in the Carmen (lines 259-60) that has puzzled
commentators, but now makes sense as textually emended by Orlandi (pp. 125-7) from
‘Apulus et Calaber, Siculus, quibus iacula feruunt | Normanni . . .’ to ‘ [Normanni],
quibus Apulus, Calaber et Siculus incola seruit9. This emendation removes the alleged
South Italian contingent from the battlefield of Hastings, where no other chronicler
noticed them. The passage now refers to the triumphs of the Normans, including their
conquest o f South Italy and (part of) Sicily, and is exactly parallel to this statement in WP.
II. 3 2 T H E DEE DS OF W IL L IA M 157

And you too, you English land, would love him and hold him
in the highest respect; you would gladly prostrate yourself
entirely at his feet, i f putting aside your folly and wickedness
you could judge more soundly the kind o f man into whose power
you had come.1 Be not prejudiced, learn to appreciate his worth,
and all the lords you have endured will appear petty in compar­
ison with him. T he splendour o f his reputation will cast great
lustre on you. T he most valiant King Pyrrhus learnt through an
ambassador to regard all the Romans as comparable to himself.2
That city, mother o f the kings o f the world, sovereign mistress o f
the earth, would have rejoiced to have given birth to the man who
is to rule over you, and to be defended by his arm, governed by
his wisdom, and submitted to his rule. His Norman knights
possess Apulia, have conquered Sicily,3 defend Constantinople,
and strike fear into Babylon.4 Cnut the Dane slaughtered the
noblest o f your sons, young and old, with the utmost cruelty,5 so
that he could subject you to his rule and that o f his children. This
man (William) did not desire the death o f Harold, but rather he
wished to increase for him the power o f his father Godwine, and
give him in marriage to his own daughter,6 who was worthy to
share an emperor’s bed, as had been promised. But i f you do not
agree with me on these matters, at least he has lifted from your
neck the proud and cruel lordship o f Harold; he has killed the
execrable tyrant who was forcing you into a servitude that was
both disastrous and shameful.7 Such a service is held by all
peoples to be a famous and praiseworthy deed. T he benefits o f the
most salutary rule, by which you will be raised up, will subse­
quently bear witness to some extent against your ill-will. King
4 Erroneously translated ‘have attacked Constantinople9 by Foreville, p. 229. The
reference is to the Normans fighting in the imperial service against the Turks (Mathieu,
Geste, pp. 5 n. 4, 399). Normans were being employed as mercenaries in Constantinople
from the middle of the eleventh century; their skill as cavalry was particularly appreciated
(J. Shepard, ‘The uses o f the Franks in eleventh-century Byzantium9, Battle, xv (1993),
*75-305)-
5 The A S C (CDE) 10 17 lists the English leaders, including Eadric Streona, ealdorman
o f Mercia, killed after Cnut became king; and the poet Sigvatr ThôrSarson recorded (soon
Cnut killed or drove away the sons o f Æthelred, yea, everyone o f them9 (Keynes,
‘Æthelings9, p. 174).
6 See OV ii. 136 n. 1.
7 For the justification o f tyrannicide, cf. above, i. 18, ii. 25.
158 GESTA GVILLELM I U. 3 2

in longum rex Guillelmus, et in paginis nostris, quas tenui

orationis figura scribere placet, ut res pulcherrimas dilucide
plures intelligant, praesertim cum praecipui oratores, quibus
dicendi grauiter copia magna fuit, humili sermone, dum historias
scribunt, usi reperiantur.1

33. Multa Lundoniae posteaquam coronatus est prudenter,

iuste, clementerque disposuit, quaedam ad ipsius ciuitatis com­
moda siue dignitatem, alia quae genti proficerent uniuersae,
nonnulla quibus ecclesiis terrae consuleretur. lura quaecunque
dictauit ‘ optimis rationibus sanxit.‘ 2 Iudicium rectum nulla per­
sona ab eo nequicquam postulauit. Specie uindicandi reatus
auaritiam plerumque uelat regnans iniquitas, supplicio addicit
innocentem, ut possessionem addicti rapiat. Ille neminem dam-
nauit, nisi quem non damnare iniquum foret; nam uti aduersus
libidines alias, ita aduersus auaritiam inuictum animum gerebat.
Intellexerat esse regiae maiestatis illustri munificentia praestare,
nihil ubi aequitas contradicit accipere.3
Suis quoque primatibus digna se et grauitate praecepit, et
diligentia suasit aequitatem. Esse iugiter in oculis habendum,
cuius uicerint praesidio, aeternum imperatorem. Nimium opprimi
uictos nequaquam oportere, uictoribus professione Christiana
pares, ne quos iuste subegerint, iniuriis ad rebellandum cogerent.
Ad hoc decere, ne quid turpiter in externis agitando, terrae ubi
natus uel altus est dedecus infligeret. Milites uero mediae
nobilitatis atque gregarios, aptissimis edictis coercuit. Tutae
erant a ui mulieres, quam saepe amatores inferunt. Etiam illa
delicta quae fierent consensu impudicarum, infamiae prohibendae
gratia uetabantur. Potare militem in tabernis non multum

a a Omit F ; optimis rationibus sanxit D M O V

1 See above, p. xxii. Classical writers had distinguished between the (stilus maior* in
which panegyric was written, and the simpler style more suitable for history
(S. MacCormack, ‘Latin prose panegyrics*, Empire and Aftermath, Silver Latin //, ed.
T. A. Dorey (London and Boston, 1975), PP- 143-205).
2 There is some evidence o f King William punishing oppressive royal officials before
1071 when they were denounced legally by powerful ecclesiastics; for cases involving the
archbishop o f York and the abbot o f Abingdon, see R. C. van Caenegem, English Lawsuits
from William I to Richard /, 2 vols. (Seiden Society, London 1990-1), i. nos. 1, 4.
» • 33 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 159

William will live long, he will live too in our pages, which we are
happy to write in a simple style, so that a great many people may
easily understand such shining deeds, particularly since you will
find that the greatest orators, who have a special capacity for
writing impressively, employ a plain style when they are writing
history.1

33. At London, after his coronation, he made many wise, just,

and merciful provisions; some were for the interest and honour o f
the city, others to the profit o f the whole people, and some to the
advantage o f the churches o f the land. Whatever laws he
promulgated, he promulgated for the best o f reasons.2 No one
ever sought a just judgement from him in vain. When iniquity
reigns it most often veils its greed under the pretext o f avenging
crimes, condemning the innocent man to punishment in order to
confiscate his possessions.3 He condemned none save those whom
it would have been unjust not to condemn; for he kept his mind
free from avarice, as from other passions. He understood that the
essence o f royal majesty was to excel in conspicuous generosity,
and to accept nothing which was contrary to fair dealing.4
To his magnates he taught conduct worthy o f him and o f his
dignity, and as a friend counselled equity. He warned them to be
constantly mindful o f the eternal King by whose aid they had
conquered, and that it was never seemly to overburden the
conquered, who were Christians no less than they themselves
were, lest those they had justly defeated be goaded into rebellion
by their injuries. He added that it was not honourable to act
disgracefully when abroad in such a way as to bring dishonour to
the land where one was bom or brought up. He restrained the
knights o f middling rank and the common soldiers with appro­
priate regulations. Women were safe from the violence which
passionate men often inflict. Even those offences indulged with
the consent o f shameless women were forbidden, so as to avoid
scandal. He scarcely allowed the soldiers to drink in taverns, since

1 This was a common charge; cf. Vita Edmardi, pp. 78-9 and n. 194.
4 WP here uses ‘aequitas’ in the sense in which it occurs in Scripture (e.g. Ps 9: 9 (8), ‘et
ipse iudicabit populos in aequitate9). There is no suggestion of the ‘equity’ o f Roman law.
i6o GESTA GVILLELM I h- 33

concessit, quoniam ebrietas litem, lis homicidium solet generare.

Seditiones interdixit, caedem et omnem rapinam, frenans ut
populos armis, ita legibus arma. Iudices qui uulgo militum
essent timori constituti sunt, simul acerbae poenae in eos qui
deliquerent decretae sunt; neque liberius Normanni quam Brit­
anni uel Aquitani agere permittebantur.1 Scipionem aliosque
priscos duces proponunt imitandos, qui de disciplina militari
scriptis docent.2 Prorsus aeque aut plus laudanda exempla ab
exercitu Guillelmi regis in promptu est accipere. Sed festinando
dicamus alia, ne diu suspendamur a memorando reditu, quem
Normannia intenta expectabat.
Tributis et cunctis rebus ad regium fiscum reddendis, modum
qui non grauaret posuit.3 Latrociniis, inuasionibus, maleficiis
locum omnem intra suos terminos denegauit. Portus et quaelibet
itinera negotiatoribus patere, et nullam iniuriam fieri iussit.4
Pontificium Stigandi, quod nouerat non canonicum, minime
probabat; sed apostolici sententiam expectare melius quam prop­
erantius deponere existimabat.5 Suadebant et aliae rationes, ut ad
tempus pateretur atque honorifice haberet illum, cuius inter
Anglos auctoritas erat summa. In sede metropolitana meditabatur
sanctum uita, fama carum, eloquentia diuini uerbi potentem,0 qui
suffraganeis episcopis congruam formam praebere, et ouili
Dominico praeesse sciret, cunctisque prodesse cuperet studio
uigilanti.6 Item de ordinationibus aliarum ecclesiarum praecogi­
tabat. Omnino proba eius in regnando initia fuere.

34. Egressus e Lundonia, dies aliquot in propinquo loco

morabatur Bercingis, dum firmamenta quaedam in urbe contra
a M supplies ponere or locare after metropolitana, F after potentem

1 Direct evidence o f King William's enforcement of discipline is lacking; but he was

certainly even-handed in his distribution of estates to Bretons, Flemings, and others, no
less than to Normans, as Domesday Book shows.
2 Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, ix. 25, refers to military treatises by Pyrrhus, king of
Epirus, and his minister Cineas.
3 There is a different picture in A S C (D) 10 6 7 ,4And the king imposed a heavy tax on
the wretched people, and nevertheless caused all that they overran to be ravaged'; and in
Orderic (OV ii. 202), ‘Amissa itaque libertate Angli uehementer ingemiscunt, et uicissim
qualiter intolerabile iugum sibique hactenus insolitum excutiant subtiliter inquirunt.'
4 There is some corroboration in the summing up o f the reign in the A S C (E) 1087,
‘Amongst other things the good security he made in this country is not to be forgotten, so
ii. 34 TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M l6 l

drunkenness leads to quarrels and quarrels to murder. He forbade

strife, murder, and every kind o f plunder, restraining the people
with arms and the arms with laws. Judges were appointed who
could strike terror into the mass o f the soldiers, and stem
punishments were decreed for offenders; nor were the Normans
given greater licence than the Bretons or the Aquitanians.1 Those
who write about military science hold up Scipio and other early
leaders as models to be imitated.2 In future they will readily
accept the examples o f King William’s army as equally or more
praiseworthy. But let us pass rapidly to other matters, lest we
defer too long the account o f his memorable return, which
Normandy was eagerly expecting.
He set a limit that was not oppressive to the collection o f
tribute and all dues owed to the royal treasury.3 He allowed no
place in his kingdom for thefts, brigandage, or evil deeds. He
ordered that merchants should go freely in the harbours and on
all highways, and should suffer no harm.4 He did not approve o f
the pontificate o f Stigand, which he knew to be uncanonical, but
thought it better to await the pope’s sentence than to depose him
hastily.5 Other considerations persuaded him to suffer him for the
time being and hold him in honour, because o f the very great
authority he exercised over the English. He was considering
placing in the metropolitan see a man o f holy life and great
renown, a master in expounding the word o f God who would
know how to furnish a suitable model for his suffragan bishops,
and how to preside over the Lord’s flock, and who would wish to
procure the good o f all with vigilant zeal.6 He also gave thought to
making provision for other churches. All the first acts o f his reign
were righteous.

34. Leaving London, he spent a few days in the nearby place o f

Barking, while fortifications were being completed in the city as a
defence against the inconstancy o f the numerous and hostile

that any honest man could travel over his kingdom without injury with his bosom full o f
gold.’
5 Stigand was deposed in the Council o f Winchester, 1070, presided over by King
William with three cardinals sent by Pope Alexander II (Councils and Synods, i. 563-70).
6 This anticipates the appointment o f Lanfranc as archbishop o f Canterbury in 1070.
16 2 GESTA GVILLELM I » • 34

mobilitatem ingentis ac feri populi perficerentur.1 Vidit enim

inprimis necessarium magnopere Lundonienses coerceri. Ibi
ueniunt ad obsequium eius Eduinus* et Morcardus maximi fere
omnium Anglorum genere ac potentia, Algardi illius nominatis­
simi filii, deprecantur ueniam si qua in re contra eum senserant,
tradunt se cunctaque sua eius clementiae;2 item alii complures
nobiles et opibus ampli. In his erat comes Coxo, quem singulari et
fortitudine et probitate regi, post et optimo cuique Normanno
placuisse audiuimus.3 Rex eorum sacramenta, ut postulauerunt,
libens accepit, liberaliter eis donauit gratiam suam, reddidit eis
cuncta quae possederant, habebat eos magno honore.

35. Inde progrediens diuersas partes regni accessit, ordinando

ubique utilia sibi et incolis terrae.4 Quaqua pergebat, in armis
nemo manebat. Iter nullum obstruitur, occurrunt passim obse­
quentes aut explicantes. Omnes ille clementibus oculis respexit,
clementissimis plebem. Saepe uultu miserantem animum prodidit,
iussit multotiens misericordiam, cum supplices conspiceret aut
egenos, matres animaduerteret uoce et gestibus precari cum
liberis. Adelinum, quem post Heraldi ruinam Angli regem statuere
conati fuerant, amplis terris ditauit,5 atque in carissimis habuit
eum, quia regis Edwardi genus contigerat; ad hoc ne puerilis aetas
nimium doleret non habere honorem ad quem electus fuerat.
Eiusdem liberalitatis dono acceperunt Angli complures, quod a
parentibus uel* prioribus dominis non acceperant. Custodes in
castellis strenuos uiros collocauit, ex Gallis traductos, quorum
fidei pariter ac uirtuti credebat, cum multitudine peditum et
equitum. Ipsis opulenta beneficia distribuit, pro quibus labores
“ D M ; Edwinus F * D M; a F

1 A reference to the building of the White Tower in London, and possibly also to two
other early Norman castles in the city: Baynard’s castle and Montfichet (Brown and
Curnow, p. 5).
2 The A S C (D) 1066 placed the submission o f Edwin and Morcar at Berkhamsted,
before the coronation. Douglas, Conqueror, p. 207, suggested that WP may have confused
Barking with Berkhamsted.
3 See below, ii. 48.
4 After this sentence Orderic (OV ii. 194) retained only 4Custodes in castellis . . .
distribuit9 in this chapter. He omitted all reference to King William’s alleged compassion
ii. 35 T H E DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 163

inhabitants.1 For he saw that it was o f the first importance to

constrain the Londoners strictly. It was there that Edwin and
Morcar, sons o f the famous Æ lfgar and perhaps the most noble
and powerful o f all the English, came to submit to him;2 they
sought his pardon for any hostility they had shown him, and
surrendered themselves and all their property to his mercy.
Various other wealthy nobles did the same, amongst them Earl
Copsi who, on account o f his singular courage and loyalty,
subsequently— as we have heard— gave pleasure to the king and
all the best Normans.3 T he king readily accepted their oaths, as
they had requested, freely granted them his favour, restored all
their possessions, and treated them with great honour.

35. From there he went on to other parts o f the kingdom, and

everywhere decreed measures to the advantage o f the inhabitants
as well as o f himself.4 Wherever he went, everyone laid down his
arms. No way was barred to him; on all sides people flocked to
submit or negotiate. He showed clemency to all, especially to the
common people. Often his face revealed the pity in his heart;
often he commanded mercy to be shown when he saw suppli­
cants or poor people, or noticed mothers and their children
pleading with voice and gesture. T he Ætheling, whom the
English had tried to make their king after Harold’s downfall,
he endowed with ample lands;5 he held him among his dearest
friends, because he was o f the stock o f King Edward, and also so
as to ensure that he, still a mere boy, did not grieve too much at
not having the honour to which he had been elected. Very many
Englishmen received through his generous gifts what they had
not received from their kinsmen or previous lords. As custodians
o f castles he assigned stalwart men whom he had brought across
from Gaul, on whose loyalty and valour he relied equally; and
with them he placed a multitude o f foot-soldiers and knights. To
these he distributed rich fiefs, for the sake o f which they would

for the English, including the statement that nothing was taken from any Englishman
unjustly.
5 I f this statement is true, the Ætheling never gained possession o f the lands. Orderic
omits the passage.
164 GESTA GVILLELM I » 35

ac pericula libentibus animis tolerarent. Nulli tamen Gallo datum

est quod Anglo cuiquam iniuste fuerit ablatum.
36. Guenta1 urbs est nobilis atque ualens. Ciues ac finitimos
habet diuites, infidos et audaces. Danos in auxilium citius recipere
potest. A mari, quod Anglos a Danis separat, millia passuum
quatuordecim distat.2 Huius quoque urbis intra moenia munitio­
nem construxit. Ibidem Guillelmum reliquit Osbemi filium,
praecipuum in exercitu suo, ut in uice sua interim toti regno
Aquilonem uersus praeesset.3 Hunc ex omnibus Normannis
paterno more4* sibi fidissimum domi bellique perspexerat, simul
fortitudine egregium et consilio siue rei domesticae, siue militaris;
necnon Domino caelesti multo affectu deuotum. Hunc Normannis
carissimum, Anglis maximo terrori0 esse sciebat. Hunc prae
caeteris familiaribus a pueritia utriusque dilexerat et exaltauerat
in Normannia.
37. Castrum uero Doueram Odoni fratri suo commissit, cum
adiacente ora australi, quae nomine uetusto Cantium dicta,s
Galliam propius spectat, unde et a minus feris hominibus
incolitur. Consueuerant enim merces cum Belgis mutare. Perhi­
betur etiam, attestante pagina uetustatis, maritimam hanc regio­
nem a Gallis olim fuisse possessam, quibus eo transuectis praedae
ac belli inferendi causa agri fertiles placuere.6 Odo ille, Baiocarum
praesul, cognitus fuerat talis qui optime negotia sustinere ualeret,
ecclesiastica et secularia. Bonitatem eius et prudentiam primo
a M F\ terrore D

1 Freeman believed ‘Guenta’ to be Norwich, and was followed by many other historians.
The identification appeared for the last time in 1963 in R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, and
A. J. Taylor, The King's Works, i (London, 1963), p. 754. Foreville, however (pp. 238-9),
had identified it as Winchester in 1952; and Frank Barlow, ‘Guenta’ (appendix to
M. Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester 1962-3’, Antiquaries Journal, xliv (1964), 2 1 7 -
19), proved conclusively that it must be Winchester.
2 At that time attacks could come from the Irish kingdoms (FW ii. 2-3), sometimes
loosely called ‘Danish’, though originally settled by invaders from Norway as well as
Denmark.
3 From this point William fitz Osbem could cover the route northwards to the crossings
of the river Thames at Oxford and Wallingford. He received extensive estates in the Isle of
Wight as well as Hereford (OV ii. 260). As Barlow wrote (‘Guenta’, p. 219), ‘i f . . . the
Normans had only an extended beachhead in 1067, Winchester was an excellent head­
quarters for ruling the kingdom towards the north, if this meant, as it surely did, cowing
the Mercians and preventing an irruption across the Thames.’
« • 37 T H E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M 165

willingly bear toil and danger. However nothing was given to

any Frenchman which had been taken unjustly from any
Englishman.

36. T he town o f Winchester1 is famous and strong. Its citizens

and neighbours are rich, untrustworthy, and bold. It can quickly
receive help from the Danes. It is fourteen miles from the sea
which separates England from the Danes.2 William built a fortress
within the walls o f the city, and left there William fitz Osbem, the
chief man in his army, so that he could govern all the kingdom o f
England to the north in his place during his absence.3 He had
recognized that this man above all the Normans was, like his father
before him,4 the most loyal in peace and war, being outstanding in
courage and counsel in both domestic and military affairs, and
being by his great piety devoted to the Lord o f Heaven. He knew
that he was greatly cherished by the Normans and greatly feared
by the English. He had loved him above all the other members o f
his household since they had been boys together, and had raised
him to power in Normandy.

37. As for the castle o f Dover, he entrusted it to his brother

Odo, together with the adjacent south coast, which goes by the old
name o f Kent.5 Looking across to Gaul, which is quite near, it is
inhabited by less savage men, for they used to engage in trade with
the Belgae. It is also alleged, as ancient writings testify, that this
maritime region was once held by Gauls who, having crossed over
for the sake o f war and plunder, were attracted by its fertile fields.6
T his Odo, bishop o f Bayeux, was well known to be the kind o f
man best able to undertake both ecclesiastical and secular business.
The church o f Bayeux first benefited from his virtue and wisdom,

4 He was the son of Osbern o f Crépon, who was the son of Countess Gunnor’s brother,
and had been steward o f the young duke, William, during his minority (G N D ii. 92-3 and
n. 6).
5 Odo, bishop o f Bayeux, received extensive estates in 22 counties; his lands in Kent
were granted very shortly after the Conquest. See D. Bates, ‘The character and career of
Odo, bishop of Bayeux (1049/50-1097)’, Speculum, 1 (1975), 1-20, at p. 10.
6 See Caesar, De bello gallico v. 12. ‘[Britanniae]. . . maritima pars ab iis qui praedae ac
belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant . . . et bello illato ibi permanserunt atque agros
colere coeperunt’; v. 14, ‘Ex his omnibus large sunt humanissimi qui Cantiam incolunt,
quae regio est maritima omnis, neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine.’
16 6 GESTA GVILLELM I » • 37

testatur ecclesia Baoicensis, quam ipse multo studio egregie

ordinauit atque omauit, iuuenis adhuc aetate, animi canicie
senibus praeferendus. Dein omni Normanniae utilis fuit ac
decori. In sinodis ubi de Christi cultura, in disceptationibus ubi
de seculi rebus agebatur, intelligentia pariter atque facundia
enituit. Liberalitate parem non habuit Gallia, ita opinio publica
consensit. Nec minus aequitatis amore meruit laudem. Arma
neque mouit unquam, neque uoluit moueri: ualde tamen timendus
armatis. Bellum namque utilissimo consilio, cum necessitas pos­
tularet, iuuabat, quantum potuit religione salua. Regi, cuius frater
erat uterinus, quem tanto amplectabatur amore ut nec inter arma
uellet ab illo separari, a quo magnos acceperat atque sperabat
honores, unice constantissimeque fidelis fuit. Libentes eidem
obsequebantur, ut acceptissimo domino, Normanni atque Brit­
anni. Nec Angli adeo barbari fuerunt quin facile intelligerent hunc
praesulem, hunc praefectum, merito timendum esse, uenerandum
quoque ac diligendum.1

38. Rex ita commissa regni cura Peneuesellum se recepit, quem

locum in nominandis ponendum censemus quoniam ipso portu
primo litus0 illud attigit. Stabant naues ad transmittendum
paratissimae, quas uere decuerat albis uelis more ueterum adorna­
tas esse.2 Erant enim reuecturae gloriosissimum triumphum,
nunciaturae maxime optatum gaudium.
Conuenit eodem multus Anglorum equitatus.3 Ex his abducere
secum decreuerat, quorum praecipue fidem suspiciebat ac poten­
tiam, archipraesulem Stigandum, Adelinum propinquum regis
Edwardi,4 tres comites, Edwinum, Morcardum et Gualleuum;
simul alios complures altae nobilitatis: ut ipsis auctoribus nihil
a D\ littus M F

1 This passage o f warm praise for Odo augments WP’s brief notice about his
appointment as bishop. Together with evidence from Domesday Book, it suggests that
WP may have had some connection with Bishop Odo (D avis,4William o f Poitiers', pp. 12 0 -
3, and above, p. xvii).
2 Cf. above, i. 46, where Harold is said to have returned from Normandy with black
sails. The reference to the ancients is probably to the legend o f Theseus.
3 ‘ Equitatus’ is here used in its classical sense as ‘men of rank'. The whole passage
echoes Caesar, De bello gallico v. 5 (‘eodem equitatus totius Galliae convenit numero
milium quattuor principesque ex omnibus civitatibus . . . ’), where Caesar describes taking
ii. 38 T H E D E E D S OF W I L L I A M 167

for he governed and adorned it with great zeal when, though still
young in years, he was to be preferred to his seniors for the
maturity o f his mind. Afterwards he was useful to the whole o f
Normandy, and a great ornament to it. In synods where there were
discussions about Christian worship or secular affairs he shone
equally for his intelligence and for his eloquence. It was the
unanimous opinion o f all that Gaul did not have his equal in
munificence. He deserved no less praise for his love o f justice. He
never took up arms, and never wished to do so; nevertheless he
was greatly feared by men at arms, for when need arose he helped
in war by his most practical counsels as far as his religion allowed.
He was singularly and most steadfastly loyal to the king, his
uterine brother, whom he cherished with so great a love that he
would not willingly be separated from him even on the battlefield,
and from whom he had received great honours and expected to
receive still more. Normans and Bretons obeyed him willingly as a
most acceptable lord. And the English were not so barbarous that
they could not recognize that this bishop, this leader, deserved to
be feared, but also to be venerated and loved.1

38. T he king, having thus provided for the governance o f the

kingdom, betook himself to Pevensey— a place whose name, we
consider, deserves to be remembered because it was there that he
had first landed. The ships were waiting, all ready for the crossing;
it had seemed fit to equip them with white sails in the manner o f
the ancients,2 for they were to carry back a most glorious triumph
and to announce the greatest joy that could have been desired.
M any Englishmen o f high rank assembled there.3 O f these he
had determined to take away with him those whose loyalty and
power he particularly suspected: Archbishop Stigand, the Æthel-
ing, kinsman o f King Edward,4 the three earls Edwin, Morcar,
and Waltheof, and many others o f high rank; so that during his

some o f the leading men o f Gaul with him in his second invasion o f Britain, as hostages to
prevent rebellion when he was away.
4 For Edgar Ætheling, see above, p. 146 n. 3. Waltheof was earl o f Huntingdon; for his
later career and rebellion see OV ii. 262, 312-44. The Worcester chronicle, followed by
Orderic (OV ii. 196), names Æthelnoth o f Canterbury (FW ii. 1, ‘nobilem satrapam
Agelnothum Cantwariensem’).
1 68 GESTA GVILLELM I ii. 38
sub decessum suum nouaretur, gens uero tota minus ad rebellio­
nem ualeret spoliata principibus. Denique eos potissimum, ueluti
obsides, in potestate sua tali cautela tenendos existimabat, quorum
auctoritas uel salus propinquis et compatriotis maximi esset. Sic
autem fuere subacti, ut obsequentissime facerent imperata: nam et
si petere quid malebat, praecepti uice audierunt; praesertim cum
non traherentur ut captiui, sed dominum suum regem proximi
comitarentur, ampliorem ex hoc gratiam atque honorem habituri.
Hanc enim eius animaduertebant humanitatem, unde optima
quaeque expectanda forent, nihil metuendum crudele uel iniur-
ium. At milites repatriantes, quorum in tantis negotiis fideli opera
usus fuerat,1 larga manu ad eundem portum donauit ut opimum
fructum uictoriae secum omnes percepisse gauderent.
Ita solutis nauibus omnium animis laetissimis, in altricem
terram prouehitur secundo et uento et aestu. Transmissio haec
mare diu pacauit, pirata omni procul fugato.2 Felicitatem
actorum, quae qui nouerit merito admiratur, multo magis admir­
andam celeritas fecit. Siquidem Octobris circiter calendas, die quo
memoriam archangeli Michaelis ecclesia concelebrat, terram ad
hostilem, dubius quem consequeretur euentum, abiit; mense
Martio in sinum patriae redditus est, melius quam scripta
nostra exponant rebus gestis.

39. Iulius Caesar bis transuectus in ipsam Britanniam nauibus

mille (nam Angliae* nomen antiquius est Britanniae) non aeque
magna peregit prima uice,3 nec a littore longius progredi, nec in
littore, tametsi patria consuetudine castra munierit, diutius morari
ausus est.4 Transiit in extremo aestatis, rediit ante aequinoctium
quod prope instabat.5 Perturbatae sunt legiones eius magno metu,
cum naues partim fractae aestu maritimo aut fluctibus, partim

* M F ; Anglis D

1 Some o f the men o f rank who returned a few years later are named by Orderic; they
included Hugh o f Grandmesnil and Humphrey of Tilleul (OV ii. 220-1).
2 Probably a reference to Scandinavian pirates.
3 The comparison that follows is based on Caesar, De bello gallico. In fact Caesar gave
the numbers of ships as 98 for the first invasion (iv. 22) and over 800 for the second (v. 8).
4 The camp is mentioned by Caesar, iv. 3 1.
5 ibid. iv. 20; iv. 38.
H. 39 THE DEE DS OF W I L L I A M 169

absence no revolt instigated by them might break out, and the

general populace, deprived o f their leaders, would be less capable
o f rebellion. Finally he thought it essential as a precaution to hold
in his power, as hostages, men whose authority and safety were o f
the greatest importance to their kinsmen and compatriots. Being
subjected in this way they carried out his orders most com­
pliantly; for even if he chose to express a wish they interpreted it
as a command, chiefly because they were not led about as
captives, but accompanied their lord the king in his retinue, so
as to have greater favour and honour in this way. For they had
taken note o f his humanity, from which they could expect the best
o f everything and fear nothing cruel or harmful. As for the
knights who were returning home after serving him faithfully in
so great an enterprise,1 he rewarded them generously at the same
port, so that they could all rejoice to share with him the abundant
fruits o f victory.
So as the ships set sail amid general rejoicing William was
carried to his native land by a favourable wind and tide. This
crossing ensured the safety o f the sea for a long time, as all pirates
had been driven away.2 T he happy outcome o f the enterprise,
which was justly admired by all who heard o f it, was made still
more admirable by the speed with which it was accomplished. In
fact it was about the kalends o f October, on the day on which the
Church celebrates the feast o f the archangel Michael, that he left
for an enemy land, uncertain o f the outcome; in the month o f
March he returned to his fatherland, having performed deeds
even greater than it is possible for us to describe in writing.

39. Julius Caesar, who twice crossed over to this same Britain
(for the ancient name o f England is Britain) with a thousand
ships,3 did not perform deeds as great as this the first time, nor
did he dare to advance far from the coast or to stay long on the
coast, even though he had fortified a camp in the Roman
fashion.4 He crossed over at the end o f summer and returned
before the following equinox.5 His legions were overcome with
great fear when his ships were partly broken up by the tides and
waves o f the sea, and partly rendered useless for navigation by
170 GESTA GVILLELM I » • 39

inutiles ad nauigandum essent armamentis amissis.1 Aliquae

ciuitates, quoniam in otio agitare quam populum Romanum,
cuius tremenda erat per mundum opinio, hostem tolerare mal-
lebant, obsides ei dederunt. Ceterum quos in continentem obsides
adducere imperauit, praeter duas cunctae neglexerunt, quanquam
in Belgio cum immani exercitu hibernare eum nouerint.2 Secundo
pedites Romanos et equites ad millia fere centum transportait,
una ex ciuitatibus Galliae primos quamplures cum eorum equi­
tatu.3 Quid igitur huius uiri, quem scribimus, conferendum
laudibus hac uice patrauit?

40. Equitatus Britannorum et essedarii cladem illi non paruam

intulerunt, aequo loco audacissime cum eo confligentes,4 Angli
uero Guillelmum pauidi in monte operiebantur. Caesarem praelio
saepius adorti sunt Britanni;5 Anglos adeo Guillelmus die uno
protriuit, ut post secum dimicandi fiduciam nullatenus reciperent.
Cum idem imperator ad flumen Tamesim peruenisset, in fines
Cassiuellauni, qui contra se bellum administrabat, exercitum
ducens, in aduersa ripa hostes instructi obstabant: aegerrime
milites Romani uada transierunt, ex aqua capite solo extantes;6
at cum in eandem regionem dux Normannorum aduentaret,
obuiam ei clementiam deprecando processerunt ciuitates et muni­
cipia: militibus eius traiectum ultra flumen ponte, si id collibuisset
imperare, sine mora parauissent. Caesar, ut agros uastaret igne ac
praeda, equitatum suum effudit, quos latius uagari Cassiuellaunus
prohibebat, ex essedis pugnare peritos immittendo;7 Guillelmus
autem pacifica iubens incolis, terram quam citius euertere posset,
incolas cum terra sibi conseruauit. Defendit Caesar ab iniuria
Cassiuellauni Mandrubatium et ciuitatem, cuius imperium
1 Caesar iv. 29 (‘Compluribus navibus fractis, reliquae cum essent, funibus, ancoris,
reliquisque armamentis amissis ad navigandum inutiles . . . totius exercitus perturbatio
factus est’ ). 2 ibid. iv. 27, 38.
3 WP’s number is exaggerated. The figures given by Caesar (v. 8) are 2,000 horsemen
and 5 legions, with a contingent of cavalry equal to that left behind. A legion numbered
5,000 in theory, but in practice 3,500 at most. He also took with him some of the Gallic
leaders with their attendants, more or less as hostages (v. 5).
4 ibid. v. 8 ,9; the level ground may be implied by the descent o f the British from higher
ground to the river to join battle, illi equitatu atque essendis ad flumen progressi ex loco
superiore nostris prohibere et proelium committere coeperunt.’
5 ibid. v. 15-17.
ii. 40 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 171

the loss o f their tackle.1 A few cities gave him hostages because
they preferred to live at ease rather than have the Roman people
(whose renown made the whole world tremble) as their enemy.
But all except two o f them failed to send to the continent the
hostages he had demanded, although they knew him to be
wintering in Belgica with a huge army.2 On the second expedi­
tion he transported Roman infantry and cavalry to the number o f
100,000, together with many chiefs from the cities o f Gaul with
their horsemen.3 What then did he accomplish that deserves the
praise to be given to the man o f whom we are writing?

40. T he horsemen o f the Britons and their charioteers inflicted

no little damage on Caesar, bravely fighting against him on level
ground;4 the English, by contrast, trembling with fear, waited for
William on a hill. T he Britons often gave battle to Caesar;5
whereas William crushed the English so thoroughly in one day
that afterwards they could not muster the courage to fight him
again. When the same emperor came at the head o f his army to the
river Thames, on the frontiers o f the territory o f Cassivellaunus
who was waging war against him, the enemy was drawn up in line
o f battle on the opposite bank; the Roman soldiers crossed the ford
with great difficulty, with only their heads showing above the
water.6 But when the duke o f the Normans arrived in the same
region, the inhabitants o f cities and towns flocked to meet him,
begging for mercy; if it had pleased him to command it, they
would without delay have provided a bridge for his troops to cross
the river. Caesar sent out his cavalry to lay waste the fields with
fire and plunder; but Cassivellaunus restricted their movements
by sending out men skilled at fighting from chariots.7 William, on
the other hand, made peace-offerings to the people, and so
preserved with its inhabitants the land which he could have
devastated utterly in a short time. Caesar saved Mandrubatius
and his city from the attacks o f Cassivellaunus, and restored the
6 ibid. v. 1 8, ‘Caesar . . . ad flumen Tamesim in fines Cassivellauni exercitum duxit;
quod flumen uno omnino loco pedibus, atque hoc aegre, transiri~potest. Eo cum venisset,
animum advertit alteram fluminis ripam magnas esse copias hostium instructas . . . Sed ea
celeritate atque eo impetu milites ierunt, cum capite solo ex aqua exstarent, ut hostes
impetum legionum atque equitum sustinere non possent ripasque dimitterent ac si fugae
mandarent.9 7 v. 19.
17 2 GESTA GVILLELMI ii. 40

reddidit Mandrubatio;1 liberauit in perpetuo Guillelmus gentem

omnem a tirannide Heraldi, atque solium obtinuit ipse; unde
regionibus quae sub multis regibus quondam egerant, unus
imperitaret.2 Romani solum ex Britanniae maioribus Cingetorigem
ceperunt,3 mille ex ipsa natione illustres in uincula, si placuisset,
coniecissent Normanni. Quanta partibus in ipsis Romani gesserunt
tempore aestiuo, quanta Normanni hiberno: hiemem ad res bello
gerendas minus quam aestatem opportunam esse pernotum est.
Caesari satis fuerat ad laudem uel utilitatem praelia cum Britannis,
uti cum Gallis, imperando facere: equidem sua manu raro
pugnauit.4 Haec multa ducum antiquorum consuetudo fuit: attes­
tantur Commentarii eloquentia ipsius dictati. At dedecus uisum est
Guillelmo, ac parum utile, in eo conflictu quo contriuit Anglos,
officia praestare imperatoris, nisi praestaret officia quoque militis,
uti bellis aliis consueuerat: in omni enim certamine ubi praesens
aderat, primus aut in primis gladio suo pugnare solitus erat. Si
Romani illius, et nostri principis acta attentius perspexeris, illum
temerarium atque fortunae nimis confidentem, hunc omnino
prouidum hominem, qui magis optimo consilio quam casu res
bene gesserit, recte dices.5
Postremo Caesar, ciuitatibus aliquot in deditione et obsidibus a
Cassiuellauno acceptis, necnon aliquanto uectigali, quod in annos
singulos Britannia populo Romano penderet, constituto, exerci­
tum difficile duobus commeatibus in Belgium reportauit, nauibus
quippe refectis et minoris quam adduxerat0 numeri, ob incom­
modum, quod ex tempestate acciderat.6 Tali minime Guillelmus
difficultate angebatur. Pareret ei gens eadem imperanti nauigia
noua ad numerum et modum quem uellet, insuper metallo
a F ; adduxerit D M

1 Caesar v. 20. Mandubratius, whose father (the king o f the Trinobantes) had been
killed by Cassivellaunus, had sought out Caesar in Gaul to ask for his help, and had
accompanied the invasion (v. 20).
2 WP exaggerates. He may have meant to include Scotland (see above, p. 16 n. 3).
England had been effectively a single kingdom since the tenth century.
3 An error for Lugotorix (De bello gallico, v. 22).
4 Although Suetonius stated that Caesar led his troops on the march (Caesary c. Ivii, 4In
agmine nonnunquam equo, saepius pedibus anteibat, capite detecto, seu sol, seu imber
esset, longissimas vias incredibili celeritate confecit9), and that he could rally a retreating
force (ibid., c. lxii, 'inclinatam aciem solus saepe restituit obsistens fugientibus, retinensque
ii. 40 TH E D EE DS OF W IL L IA M 173

city to Mandrubatius’ rule;1 William freed the whole people for

ever from the tyranny o f Harold, and himself took the throne, so
that the regions which had formerly been subject to many kings
might be ruled by one.2 T h e Romans captured only Cingetorix3 o f
the leaders o f Britain; the Normans, if it had been thought
desirable, could have thrown a thousand o f the most illustrious
men o f that people into chains. T h e Romans did no more in those
parts in summer than the Normans in winter; and it is well known
that winter is less suitable than summer for the waging o f war. To
Caesar it was sufficient for his glory and his interest to fight with
the Britons or the Gauls by commanding; indeed he rarely fought
with his own hand.4 This was the normal custom o f the generals o f
the ancients, as attested in the eloquent language o f the Commen­
taries, which Caesar himself composed. But to William it seemed
dishonourable and o f little use, in that battle in which he crushed
the English, to carry out the duties o f a general unless he also
carried out those o f a soldier, as had been his custom in other wars.
For in every battle in which he was present he was accustomed to
be the first, or among the first, to fight with his sword. I f you look
closely at the deeds o f this Roman and those o f our leader, you will
rightly say that the Roman was improvident and trusted too much
to luck, whereas William always acted with foresight and suc­
ceeded more by good planning than by chance.5
Finally, Caesar, after accepting the surrender o f some cities and
hostages from Cassivellaunus and deciding the modest tribute
Britons should pay each year to the Roman people, transported
his army back to Belgica with difficulty in two separate crossings,
for his ships had needed to be repaired and were fewer than those
he had brought with him, on account o f the damage suffered in a
storm.6 William did not experience nearly so much difficulty. T he
populace would have prepared for him, had he so ordered, as
many ships as he wished o f the type specified, and— what is

singulos et contortis faucibus convertens in hostem’ ), he did not claim that he actually led
attacks in the front line.
5 WP here insists on good planning rather than luck. Cf. above, p. xxiv. In fact Caesar
too was a careful planner; see Suetonius, Caesar, c. Iviii, for the care with which he
ventured on new ground.
6 Caesar, De bello gallieoy v. 23; cf. iv. 29, 3 1; v. 1, 11 .
174 GESTA GVILLELM I il. 40

pretioso decorata, uelis purpureis1 adornata, peritis remigibus,

delectis gubernatoribus instructa. En quam gloriose reuectus est,
non trahens, ut Romani, uulgus captiuum; sed habens in comitatu
et obsequio suo totius Britanniae episcoporum primatem,2 atque
magnos in transmarinis coenobiis abbates, et filios Anglorum tam
stemmatis* quam opum dignitate reges appellandos. Attulit non
aliquantulum uectigal, non rapinas, sed quantum ex ditione trium
Galliarum3 uix colligeretur argentum atque aurum, quod rectis­
simo iure acceperat; quod ubi honestissimae rationes postularent,
expendere cogitabat. Cari metalli abundantia multipliciter Gallias
terra illa uincit. Vt enim horreum Cereris dicenda uidetur
frumenti copia, sic aerarium Arabiae auri copia.4 Mentionem
super Iulio Caesare, quae forte notetur quasi derogans, omitta­
mus. Fuit itaque eximius dux lectione doctus Graecorum prae­
cepta militaria,5 militia Romana cum laude ab adolescentia usus,
uirtute consecutus urbis consulatum. Bella multa cum bellicosis
gentibus feliciter atque celeriter confecit, nouissime Romam,
Africae et Europae atque Asiae praesidentem, regnum suum
bellando effecit.

4 1. Vespasiani filio Tito, qui dum recta uehementer amaret

orbis amor dici meruit,6 nunquam Italia laetior quam Normannia
occurrit Guillelmo regi principi suo. Dies erant hiberni, et qui
poenitentiae quadragesimalis rigori uacant.7 Ceterum ubique
agebantur tanquam summae festiui temporis feriae. Sol aestiua
serenitate lucidus uidebatur, gratia dierum solita longe maior.
Minorum siue remotiorum locorum incolae in urbes, aut alio ubi

a M F\ sternatis D

1 WP had earlier described the sails o f William’s fleet as white (above, ii. 38).
2 WP used the term ‘primas’ three times of secular leaders (i. 1 1 ; ii. 23, 33), once o f the
Pope (i. 53), and once o f the archbishop of York (ii. 49). The title here given to Stigand,
‘totius Britanniae episcoporum primatem’, seems, however, to echo the language of the
Council of Winchester (April 1072), which referred to the archbishop of Canterbury as
‘primas totius Britanniae’ (Councils and Synods, i. 601-2). WP may have had first-hand
knowledge of this Council when he was writing.
3 Cf. Caesar, De bello gallicoy i. 1, ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam
incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli
appellantur.’
4 For the resources o f England, see P. H. Sawyer, ‘The wealth o f England in the
eleventh century’, TR H Sy 5th ser., xv (1965), 145-64.
ii. 4 i TH E D EE DS OF W I L L I A M 175

more— decorated lavishly with precious metal, fitted with purple

sails,1 and manned by skilled oarsmen and chosen steersmen.
How gloriously he returned! not bringing with him a crowd o f
captives in the Roman fashion, but having in his entourage and
allegiance the primate2 o f the bishops o f all Britain, many great
abbots from the overseas monasteries, and sons o f the English
worthy by both ancestry and wealth to be called kings. He
brought back with him neither a small tribute nor booty, but as
much gold and silver as might have been collected with difficulty
from the subjection o f the three parts o f Gaul,3 which he had
received entirely lawfully and was proposing to spend wherever it
was most clearly needed. T his kingdom is many times richer than
Gaul in its wealth o f precious metals; it seems as if it should be
called the granary o f Ceres because o f the abundance o f its com,
and the treasury o f Arabia because o f its richness in gold.4 We
omit further mention o f Julius Caesar, as it may perhaps be
considered disparaging. He was indeed a distinguished general,
who had learnt the military science o f the Greeks from books5 and
practised Roman warfare from youth with acclaim, his valour
leading him to consulship. He brought many wars against warlike
people to a swift and successful close, and finally, by force o f
arms, he made Rome, the mistress o f Africa, Europe, and Asia, his
kingdom.

4 1. Italy did not run more happily to greet Titus the son o f
Vespasian (who through his ardent desire for justice deserved to be
called the favourite o f the world)6 than did Normandy to meet its
ruler, King William. It was a time o f winter, and o f the austere
lenten penances.7 Nevertheless everywhere celebrations were held
as if it were a time o f high festival. T he sun seemed to shine with
the clear brightness o f summer, far more strongly than usual at
this season. T he inhabitants o f humble or remote places flocked to
s One o f these authors would probably have been Polybius, who wrote a treatise on
tactics, and in his Historiae, x. 23, discussed cavalry training.
6 Cf. Suetonius, Titus, i. 1, ‘Titus, cognomine paterno, amor ac deliciae generis humani,
tantum illi ad promovendum omnium voluntatem vel ingenii, vel artis, vel fortunae,
superfuit.9
7 William sailed for Normandy in March 1067 (above, ii. 38). Easter Sunday fell on
8 April.
176 GESTA GVILLELM I u. 41

facultas conspiciendi regem daretur confluebant. Cum in metro­

polim suam Rotomagum introiret, senes, pueri, matronae, cunc-
tique ciues spectatum processerant: conclamabant salutantes
reducem, adeo ut ciuitas illa uniuersa applaudere putaretur,
sicuti Roma quondam Pompeio suo applaudans tripudiauit.1
Monasteria certabant monachorum atque cleri, quodnam in
aduentu sui carissimi tutoris ampliorem officiositatem impender­
ent. Nihil relinquebatur quod in studio talis honorificentiae agi
solitum est. Praeterea si quid nouum adinuenire potuit, addebatur.

42. Quam pietatem ipse confestim lucro multiplici recompen-

sauit, donans pallia, libras2 auri, aliaque magna altaribus ac famulis
Christi. Nullius unquam regis aut imperatoris largitatem in
oblationibus maiorem comperimus. Item quas ecclesias non
praesentia sua, muneribus uisitauit iterum. Cadomensi basilicae,
modo specieque admirabili suis impendiis ad titulum beati
Stephani protomartiris a fundamento, ut ante est memoratum,
extructae, tum diuersa donaria aduexit, materia artificioque pre­
tiosissima, quae ad seculi terminum honora permanere ualeant.3
Singula descriptionibus aut nominibus designare spatiosum foret.
Voluptuosum est ea perspectare hospitibus maximis, et qui saepe
nobilium ecclesiarum thesauros uiderant. Transiret illae hospes
Graecus aut Arabs, uoluptate traheretur eadem. Anglicae nationis
feminae multum acu et auri textura egregie, uiri in omni ualent
artificio.4 Ad hoc incolere apud eos Germani solebant talium
artium scientissimi.5 Inferunt et negociatores, qui longinquas
regiones nauibus adeunt, doctarum manuum opera.
Potentes nonnulli sanctis inique largiuntur, plerumque in
iisdem donationibus laudem suam in mundo, delicta sua coram
1 Lucan, Pharsalia, viii. 794-815, after describing Pompey’s unworthy burial, recalls his
three earlier triumphs in Rome: 4ter cunibus actis | Contentum multos patriae donasse
triumphos.*
2 I f Duchesne correctly transcribed ‘libras’, gold bullion must be meant; but if it is an
error for ‘libros’, it could refer to the service books whose bindings were decorated with
gold, which were plundered from the English churches (D. N. Dumville, ‘Anglo-Saxon
books: treasure in Norman hands?’, Battle, xvi (1994), 83-99).
* The Waltham Chronicle complained that William Rufus had plundered Waltham to
enrich Saint-Étienne-de-Caen, but it is possible that the treasures were taken by his father
(Waltham Chronicle, pp. 58-9).
' 4 For the skill o f English needlewomen and craftsmen, see Bayeux Tapestry, pp. 44-5;
u. 42 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 177

the towns or anywhere else where there was a chance o f seeing the
king. When he entered his metropolitan city o f Rouen old men,
boys, matrons and all the citizens came out to see him; they
shouted out to welcome his return, so that you could have thought
the whole city was cheering, as did Rome formerly when it joyfully
applauded Pompey.1 Communities o f monks and clerks vied with
each other as to who could show the greatest complaisance at the
arrival o f their beloved protector. Nothing which ought to have
been done in celebration o f such honour was left undone.
Furthermore, if anything new could be devised, it was added.

42. He rewarded this dutiful affection immediately with treas­

ures o f many kinds, giving vestments, gold bullion,2 and other
magnificent gifts to the altars and servants o f Christ. We have not
heard o f any king or emperor who showed greater liberality in his
gifts. Similarly, he honoured in turn with his gifts the churches
that he could not honour with his presence. T o the basilica o f Caen,
admirable both in design and decoration, which he had built from
its foundations entirely at his own expense and had dedicated in the
name o f the protomartyr St Stephen (as previously described), he
brought such diverse gifts, so precious in both material and
workmanship that they deserve to be remembered to the end o f
time.3 It would take too much space to describe or even enumerate
each one. T o gaze at them is a rare delight for the most eminent
guests, even for those who have often seen the treasures o f the
noblest churches. I f a Greek or Arab visitor passed that way he
would be overwhelmed by the same delight. T he women o f the
English people are very skilled in needlework and weaving gold
thread, and the men are outstanding in craftsmanship o f all kinds.4
Moreover Germans, most skilled in such arts, are accustomed to
live among them.5 Traders too, who travel to distant regions in
their ships, bring objects o f skilled workmanship.
There are some powerful men who endow the saints wickedly,
for the most part increasing with these gifts their glory in the
C. R. Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon A rt: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982), pp. 2 16 - 17 and
passim.
5 For German craftsmen working in England in the time o f Edward the Confessor, see
Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon A rty pp. 65, 78.
178 GESTA G V ILLELM I ii. 42

Deo adaugentes. Spoliant ecclesias, et rapinis ipsis alias ditant.

Rex uero Guillelmus nunquam nisi bonitate sinceram famam sibi
comparauit, donans uere sua; mente ad spem interminae merce­
dis, non ad gloriam quae deperibit, intentus. Abundantes ecclesiae
transmarinae aliqua ei libentes, quae in Galliam transferret,
dederunt quoniam ea multuplo redemit rebusaliis.1

43. Patriam non minus regno caram sibi, praecipue causa

probae gentis, quam principibus terrenis fidam, culturae Christi
ualde deditam, nouerat, in statu quem uolebat inuenit. Optime
quidem egerat in gubernaculo domina nostra Matildis, iam
nomine diuulgato regina etsi nondum coronata.2 Illius prudentiam
uiri adiuuere consilio utilissimi, in quibus locum dignitatis
primum tenebat Rogerus de Bellomonte, Humfridi hominis
generosissimi filius, ob maturitatem aeui liberior ad negotia quae
domi geruntur; filio adolescenti, super cuius fortitudine in praelio
contra Heraldum paucis diximus,3 officio militari tradito. Verum
quod finitimi incursionem nullam ausi fuerant, cum terram fere
militibus exhaustam scirent, regi ipsi,a cuius reuersionem uere-
bantur, primo ascribendum arbitramur.

44. Ad coenobium sanctae Trinitatis Fiscanni4 Pascha cele-

brauit Dominicum, redemptorem resurrectionis suae festo reuer-
endissime honorans, cum frequentia uenerabilium et praesulum et
abbatum. Humiliter adstans ille choris ordinum religiosorum
ludicra intermittere, concurrere ad diuina militum plebisque
turbas coegit. Regis Francorum uitricus intererat huic curiae
Rodolphus praepotens comes,5 multaque nobilitas Franciae. Cur­
iose hi cum Normannis cernebant crinigeros alumnos plagae
a M F ; ipsius D

1 For a different view see above, p. 153 n. 3.

2 Matilda, together with Roger of Beaumont and others, had been entrusted with the
care o f the duchy; see OV ii. 208, 210; D. Bates, ‘The origins of the justiciarship’, Battle, iv
(1982), 1 - 1 2 , at p. 6. She was crowned at Pentecost ( 11 May) 1068 (A SC (D) 1067 for
1068; FW ii. 2; OV ii, 214).
3 See above, ii. 19. Roger’s father was Humphrey o f Vieilles.
4 The royal abbey of Fécamp was closely associated with the royal palace, and the duke
had been accustomed to celebrate the major church feasts there. On its symbolic
importance for the new king, see Renoux, Fecamp, p. 482, ‘Le couronnement dynastique
1 1 .4 4 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 179

world and their sins before God. They despoil churches and
enrich others with the booty. But King William won true fame
through his goodness alone, by giving only the things that were
truly his; his mind was fixed on the hope o f an eternal reward, not
on a perishable glory. Countless overseas churches freely gave him
things which he could take to Gaul, because he redeemed them
many times over with other gifts.1

43. He found his native land (which was no less dear to him
than his kingdom, because he knew that its virtuous people were
loyal to their secular princes, sincerely devoted to the worship o f
Christ) in the state which he desired. For its government had
been carried on smoothly by our lady Matilda, already com­
monly known by the title o f queen, though as yet uncrowned.2
Men o f great experience had added their counsel to her wisdom;
amongst them the first in dignity was Roger o f Beaumont (son o f
the illustrious Humphrey), who on account o f his mature age
was more suitable for home affairs, and had handed over military
duties to his youthful son (of whose courage in the battle against
Harold we have already said a little).3 But in truth the fact that
neighbours had not dared to make any attack though they knew
the land to be almost emptied o f knights, must, we think, be
attributed primarily to the king himself, whose return they
feared.

44. He celebrated Easter Sunday at the abbey o f the Holy

Trinity at Fecamp,4 most reverently honouring the Saviour on the
feast o f His resurrection, with a great gathering o f venerable
bishops and abbots. Humbly standing near the choirs o f the
religious orders, he compelled crowds o f soldiers and people to
leave their games and come to divine service. T he stepfather o f the
king o f the Franks, the mighty Count Raoul,5 was present at this
court, together with many o f the French nobles. These men, like
the Normans, looked with curiosity at the long-haired sons o f the

anglais est le point d'aboutissement d'une idéologie dont Fécamp a été l'un des creusets
majeurs.'
5 Raoul, count o f Crépy and Valois, who married Anne of Russia, the widow o f King
Henry I of France. On his wealth and prominence, see Guibert de Nogent, pp. 58-60.
i8o GESTA G V ILLELM I ii. 44

Aquilonalis: quorum pulchritudini Galliae comatae1 formosissimi

iuuenes inuiderent. Nec enim puellari uenustati cedebant. Regis
autem regiorumque satellitum indumenta spectantes intexta atque
crustata auro, quaeque0 antea uiderant uilia aestimauere. Item uasa
argentea siue aurea admirabantur, quorum de numero uel decore
uere narrari possint incredibilia. His tantum ex poculis* coenacu-
lum ingens bibebat, aut comibus bubalinis metallo decoratis
eodem circa extremitates utrasque. Denique plurima huiuscemodi
competentia regali munificentiae notabant, quae reuersi domum
ob nouitatem praedicarent. Ceterum talibus longe insigniorem
atque plus memorandam ipsius regis cognouere honestatem.

45. Aestiua illa, et autumnum partemque hiemis citra mare

transegit, tempus hoc patriae amori omne donans; quae neque hac
mora, neque superioris anni expeditione suas opes attenuatas
fuisse dolebat. Ea illius temperantia fuit ac prudentia: militibus
et hospitibus abunde sumptus ministrabatur; nemini rapere
quippiam concedebatur.2 Prouincialium tuto armenta uel greges
pascebantur, seu per campestria, seu per tesqua. Segetes falcem
cultoris intactae expectabant, quas nec attriuit superba equitum
effusio, nec demessuit pabulator. Homo imbecillis aut inermis
equo cantans qua libuit uectabatur, turmas militum cernens, non
exhorrens.

46. Interea Baoicensis praesul Odo et Guillelmus Osbemi filius

praefecturas in regno uterque suam laudabiliter administrabant:
interdum simul agitantes, modo diuersi. Si quando necessitudo
postulabat, festinam alter alteri ferebat opem.3 Per amicam qua
sincere uoluntatem concordabant, amplius ualuit prudens eorum
uigilantia. Mutuo sese, regem aequaliter, diligebant; affectu
ardebant pari ad continendum in pace gentem Christianam,

“ D M F\ M F suggest that possibly quaecumque should be read * M f ; populis D

1 Cf. Suetonius, Caesar, c. xxii, for the expression ‘Gallia comata’. The long-haired style
o f the Anglo-Saxons is illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry.
2 This and the following sentences repeat word for word the account o f Duke William’s
orderly preparation for the invasion (above, ii. 2).
3 Orderic (OV ii. 202-5) gives a different account o f their administration, describing it
as oppressive and unjust; the A S C (D) 1066 wrote ‘And Bishop Odo and Earl William
ii. 46 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M l8 l

northern lands, whose beauty the most handsome youths o f ‘long­

haired Gaul’ 1 might have envied; nor did they yield anything to
the beauty o f girls. Indeed as they looked at the clothes o f the king
and his courtiers, woven and encrusted with gold, they considered
whatever they had seen before to be o f little worth. Similarly they
marvelled at the vessels o f silver and gold, o f whose number and
beauty incredible things could truthfully be told. At a great
banquet they drank only from such goblets or from horns o f
wild oxen decorated with the same metal at both ends. Indeed they
noted many such things, fitting the magnificence o f a king, which
they praised on their return home because o f their novelty. But
they recognized that far more distinguished and memorable than
these things was the splendour o f the king himself.

45. He spent that summer and part o f the autumn and winter
on this side o f the sea, devoting all his time to love o f his native
land, which did not have cause to grieve for loss o f wealth either
because o f this stay or because o f his expedition in the preceding
year. Such was his moderation and wisdom that abundant
provision was made for the soldiers and their hosts, and no one
was permitted to seize anything.2 T he cattle and flocks o f the
people o f the province grazed safely whether in the fields or on the
waste. T he crops waited unharmed for the scythe o f the harvester,
and were neither trampled by the proud charges o f horsemen nor
cut down by foragers. A man who was weak or unarmed could ride
singing on his horse wherever he wished, without trembling at the
sight o f squadrons o f knights.

46. Meanwhile Odo, bishop o f Bayeux, and William fitz

Osbern were administering their prefectures in the kingdom,
each praiseworthy in his own, working sometimes together, some­
times separately; if ever necessity demanded it, one gave speedy
help to the other.3 Their wise vigilance was made all the more
effective by the friendly willingness with which they genuinely
agreed. They loved each other and the king equally; they burned

stayed behind and built castles far and wide throughout the country and distressed the
wretched folk’.
182 GESTA G V ILLELM I ii. 46

consilio alter alterius aequanimiter assentiebantur. Aequitate

utebantur maxima, uti rex praemonuerat, qua homines efferi et
inimici corrigerentur et beneuoli fierent. Item praefecti minores,
ubi quisque in munitionibus locatus fuerat, strenue curabant.
Verum Angli neque beneficio neque formidine satis coerceri
poterant, ut quietem serenam quam res nouas ac turbidas mallent.
Consurgere palam in arma non confidunt, sed regionatim de
prauis conspirationibus tractant, si quibus forte dolis praeualeant
ad nocendum. Ad Danos, uel alio, unde auxilium aliquod speratur,
legatos missitant. Vitro in exilium aliqui profugiunt, quo extorres
uel a potestate Normannorum sint liberi, uel aucti opibus alienis
contra eos reuertantur.1

47. Regi ea tempestate Eustachius comes Boloniae aduersaba-

tur, qui filium de fide ante bellum in Normannia obsidem
dederat.2 Ei persuadent hi maxime qui Cantium inhabitant, uti
castrum Doueram inuadat, ipsis utens adiutoribus.3 Equidem fore,
si firmissimo loco hoc sit potitus cum portu marino, ut potentia
eius latius distendatur, sicque potentiam Normannorum dimin­
utum0 iri. Nam quia Normannos odere, cum Eustachio pridem
sibi inimicissimo, concordauere. Eum bellandi peritum atque in
praelio felicem experimentis cognouerant. Si erat seruiendum non
compatriotae, noto seruire atque uicino satius putabant. Accidit ut
occasio temporis euentum rei quam affectabant promitteret.
Abierant ultra flumen Tamesim* primi munitionis custodes,
praesul Baiocensis atque Hugo de Monteforti militum parte
maiori secum ducta. Eustachius itaque, accepto nuncio Anglorum,
cum suis ad eos noctis conticinio transiuit, ut incaute opprimeret

* dimunutam D M\ dimunutum F * OV\ Tamisim D M F

1 A number went to join the forces o f the Greek emperor in Constantinople (OV ii.
202).
2 From the time o f Duke William’s marriage to Matilda, Eustace had been apprehensive
o f his growing power, and had openly sided with William o f Arques against him; see G N D
ii. 104-5 ar)d n. 3). For the uneasy relations between Eustace and the duke, see Tanner,
’Counts o f Boulogne’, pp. 270-6. WP is the only source to mention that Eustace’s son was
given as a hostage. In spite o f receiving extensive estates in England, Eustace returned to
the continent not later than Easter 1067 (Tanner, p. 272).
3 Various motives have been suggested for the action o f Eustace. Douglas, Conqueror,
p. 212, thought that he might have been motivated by political changes after the death of
ii. 47 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 18 3

with a common desire to keep the Christian people in peace, and

deferred readily to each other’s advice. They paid the greatest
respect to justice, as the king had admonished, so that fierce men
and enemies might be corrected and brought into friendship. The
lesser officials were equally zealous in the castles where each had
been placed. But neither benefits nor fear could sufficiently force
the English to prefer peace and quiet to changes and revolts. They
had not the courage to rise in arms openly, but dealt in vile
conspiracies in different regions, to see if by any deceit they could
succeed in inflicting damage. They repeatedly sent envoys to the
Danes or some other people from whom they might hope for help.
In addition, some fled abroad where, as exiles, they might either be
free from the power o f the Normans, or, having gained foreign
help, might return to fight against them.1

47. At that time Eustace, count o f Boulogne, who had given his
son as a hostage for his loyalty in Normandy before the war, was
working against the king.2 In particular, the inhabitants o f Kent
persuaded him to attack Dover castle with their help.3 I f indeed he
had been able to gain possession o f that strong site with its seaport
his power would have been extended more widely and that o f the
Normans correspondingly diminished. It was because they hated
the Normans that they reached an agreement with Eustace,
formerly their bitter enemy. They knew by experience o f his
prowess in war and fortune in battle. They thought that if they
were not to serve one o f their own countrymen, they would rather
serve a neighbour whom they knew. It happened that favourable
circumstances promised the outcome that they desired.
The custodians o f the first fortress, the bishop o f Bayeux and
Hugh o f Montfort, had gone away across the river Thames,
taking most o f their troops with them. Eustace therefore, after
receiving a message from the English, sailed across with his men

Baldwin V, count o f Flanders, on i September 1067. Barlow, Confessor, app. C, pp. 307-8,
suggested that he might have acted on behalf o f a hypothetical grandson, his descendant by
his first wife Goda. Tanner, (Counts o f Boulogne', pp. 273-4, argues that either he was
disappointed in his hope of recovering lands he had previously controlled through his wife,
or he wished to hold Dover in order to control the main passageway to England from his
port of Wissant.
184 GESTA G V ILLELM I il. 47

castellanos. Classem duxit militibus delectis oneratam, relictis

equis praeter admodum paucos. Vicinia omnis adfuit armata,
auctior numerus ex ulterioribus accederet si mora biduana obsidio
traheretur. Ceterum custodiam inuenerunt minus opinione remis­
sam, plus (in statu)" ad defensandum ualidam. (Eustachium
uero)" eripiunt uelocitas equi, notitia tramitis nauisque paratior.
Nobilissimus autem tiro, nepos eius,1 comprehensus est. Angli per
diuerticula plura eo facilius euaserunt quo minus commodum erat
paucitati castellanorum insequi per diuersa. lure id Eustachio
dedecus atque detrimentum contigit. Equidem si rationes, quae
eius liti controuersantur, depromerem, regis eum gratiam atque
regis dono accepta beneficia ex aequo et bono amississe plane
conuincerem. Neque sententia errauit, dicta consensu Anglorum
et Gallorum, qua de reatu multo conuictus est. Sed parcendum
sentimus personae multifariam illustri, comiti nominato, qui
reconciliatus nunc iri proximis regis honoratur.2

48. Eodem fere tempore Coxo comes, quem placuisse N or-

mannis diximus, morte occidit immerita et quam deceat propa­
gari.3 Vt igitur uiuat laus eius atque per exemplum oriatur in
posthumis innocentia defuncti, literis efficere iuuat. Prosapia ac
potentatu Anglus hic iuxta praecelsus, magis animi singularitate
prudentis et omnino honesti excelluit. Hic regis causam et ipsum
fauore multo probabat. Sui uero satellites ab ipso dissidebant,
factionum deterrimi fautores ac socii. Proinde eum ab officio
transuertere tentabant, saepe monentes, quasi per amicitiam, de
priuato honore, ut libertatem a proauis traditam defenderet; nunc
obsecrantes atque obtestantes, tanquam gratia rerum publicarum,
* in statu and Eustachium uero supplied from O V

1 The text printed by Duchesne is corrupt, possibly because o f damage to the end o f the
M S; and the omission o f the name of Eustace (copied by Orderic from a better M S) makes
it almost unintelligible. The identity o f the ‘nepos’ (a term used for various kinsmen,
including a grandson, nephew or bastard son) is uncertain. Barlow favoured grandson,
Tanner (‘Counts of Boulogne’, p. 266 n. 26) more plausibly speculated that he may have
been Eustace’s bastard son, Geoffrey.
2 For the reconciliation and Eustace’s English estates, see Tanner, ‘Counts o f
Boulogne’, pp. 274-6 and app. B, pp. 280-5.
3 Royal authority was ‘intermittent and probably ineffective’ in Northumbria. King
William first attempted to control the region through local officials; Copsi had served
ii. 48 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 185

in the first part o f the night, in order to catch the garrison o ff

their guard. He led a fleet with picked knights on board, leaving
all but a few o f the horses behind. T h e whole district was under
arms, and their numbers would have been increased from further
parts if the siege had lasted more than two days. But they found
the garrison less slack than they expected and more capable o f
defending themselves. [Eustace himself] was saved by the speed o f
his horse, his knowledge o f the path, and a ship more ready to
weigh anchor. But a young knight o f very high birth, his kinsman,
was captured.1 The English escaped more easily by numerous by­
ways, because it was not practicable for the small numbers o f the
garrison to pursue them in different directions. It was just that
this disgrace and defeat happened to Eustace. Indeed if I were to
spell out the matters that were in dispute in his quarrel I would
easily convince you that it was just and right that he lost the
king’s favour and the fiefs he had received from the king. Nor was
the sentence, pronounced with the consent o f English and French,
by which he was convicted o f serious crimes, unjust. But we feel
that this man, illustrious in many ways and a distinguished count,
ought to be spared because he is now reconciled and honoured
among those closest to the king.2

48. About the same time Earl Copsi, who, as we have said, had
won favour with the Normans, died an unjust death that deserves
to be widely known.3 1 am therefore glad to record it in writing so
that the praise o f the dead man may live and his innocence may be
handed down as an example to future generations. T his English­
man, equally outstanding in lineage and in power, excelled still
more by his remarkable wisdom and his total integrity. He was
entirely favourable to the king and supported his cause. But his
subordinates did not share his views, and were the worst
instigators and allies o f faction. Furthermore, they tried to turn
him from his duty, often urging him, under the guise o f friend­
ship, that he should defend the liberty handed down from his

under Earl Tostig, but his rule lasted for barely five weeks before his assassination by
Osulf, a rival claimant to the earldom on 12 March 1067. See W. M. Aird, ‘St Cuthbert,
the Scots and the Normans’, Battle, xvi (1994), 1-20, at pp. 9-10 .
18 6 GESTA G V ILLELM I ii. 48

ut extraneos deserens optimorum hominum suae nationis et

consanguinitatis uoluntatem sequeretur. Sane diutina uariaque
calliditate haec suggerebant, et huius modi alia. Sed ubi mentem
firmiter in tenore boni fixam taliter dimouere nequeunt, com-
prouinciales ad inuidiam concitauere quam necessario placaret ab
rege deficiendo. Postremo augescente in dies maleuolentia
ipsorum, cum ille popularium odia omnemque iniuriam perpeti
quam integritatem fidei temerare mallet, per insidias oppressum
interfecere. Ita eximius uir suo casu, quod maiestas domini sui
stare deberet, asseruit.

49. Sane pontifices quidam obsequio regio studebant, maxime

Adelred primas Eboracensis . . .' 1

1 The text breaks off here. WP may have gone on to describe how certain Englishmen
like Copsi helped King William. Orderic, using WP, wrote, 4Tunc Adeldredus primas
Eborachensis aliique pontifices quidam utilitati regiae studebant . . . Tunc etiam aliquot
sapientissimi ciuium urbanorum et nonnulli ex militibus ingenuis quorum nomen et opes
ualebant, et multi ex plebeis contra suos pro Normannis magnopere insurgebant9 (OV ii.
208 and n. 1).
ii. 49 THE DEEDS OF W ILLIA M 18 7

forebears as a matter o f personal honour; now beseeching and

imploring him, as if for the sake o f the public good, to desert the
foreigners and fall in with the wishes o f the best men o f his nation
and line. For a long time they urged these things and others o f the
same kind with various sorts o f cunning. But when they failed by
these means to change his mind, which was firmly fixed on the
pursuit o f good, they stirred up the people o f the province to
hatred, so as to force him to desert the king in order to placate
them. Finally, as their malevolence increased from day to day, and
as he preferred to suffer the hatred o f the people and every kind o f
outrage rather than violate his faith, they laid an ambush and
murdered him. So this eminent man asserted by his death that the
majesty o f his lord should stand secure.

49. Certain bishops showed great zeal in the king’s service,

notably Ealdred, archbishop o f York . . .*
 I N D E X OF Q U O T A T I O N S A N D
ALLUSIONS

A. B iblical A llusions

Gen. 16: 5 122 2 Macc.

Exod. 28: 15 - 16 94 io: 25-8 90
Lev. 28: 9 - 12 94 r i: 6 - 1 1 90
Psalms Matt.
2: 9 10 13 :4 6 62
7 1: 10 «54 Luke
7 1: 15 «54 «2: 35 64
Ecclus. 43: 37 102 i Cor. 7: 3 1 78

B. C itations from C lassical and M edieval

S ources

Augustine D e officiis i. 5. 1 38
D e duitate D ei, v. 26 86 i- 7- 23 18
Quaestiones in Heptateuchum iii. 4. 19 26
ii. 1 14 -18 , 129 94 Ilia s latina w . 1009-1045 140
Caesar Justin, Epitome ii. 10 126
D e bello ciuili iii. 45. 6 52 ii. 10 -13 112
D e bello gallico i. 1 46, «74 Juvenal, Satires x. 173 126
iv. 22 n o , 168 Lucan, Pharsalia ii. 672-5 IIO , 126
iv. 23-6 IIO
vi. 55-6 IIO
iv. 27 170 viii. 794-815 ««4, «74
iv. 28 108 viii. 816 141
iv. 29 108, 170
Plutarch, Pyrrhus , xxix. 6 «56
iv. 31 108
Sallust
iv. 38 168, 170
Bellum Catilinum lviii. 4 -2 1 124
v. 5 166
Bellum Iugurthinum lxxx. 6 74
v. 8, 9 168, 170
xcviii 126
v. 12 164
v. 14 164 cxiv 3 ««4
v. 15 - 17 «70 Statius, Thebaid ii. 548-62 «36
v. 18 170 iv. 596-602 »36
v. 19 «70 Suetonius, Vitae
V. 2 0 «72 Augustus lviii «54
v. 23 «72 Caesar xxii 180
vi. 22, 23 74 xxxvii 28
vii. 50 «34 Ivii «72
Cicero, D e amicitia xx. 74 30 lix «24
In Catilinam 1 6 Ixii «30, 172
Epistulae ad fam iliares ix. 25 160 Titus i. i «74
ig o IN D EX OF Q U O TA TIO N S AND A LLU SIO N S

Vegetius, De re militari ii. 7 48 Vergil, Aeneid i. 695-747 11 2

iii. 3 38 ii. 177 142
iii. 6 1 14 ii. 197-8 no
iii. 9 18 iv. 188 52
iii. 26 126 xii- 697-747 »36
 G EN ER AL INDEX
Aaron 94-5
Abcmethy (Fife) 17 n.
Abydos 1 1 0 - 1 1
Achilles 134-5, 140 n.
Adela, wife o f Baldwin V, daughter o f K g
Robert 32-3
Adela of Blois, daughter o f William the
Conqueror, wife o f Stephen o f Blois
xxix
Ælfgar, earl o f Mercia xxxviii; his wife
Godiva xxxviii; his sons, see Edwin,
Morcar
Aeneas 11 2 - 1 3 , 134-5
Aeneid 136-7
Africa 174-5
Agamemnon n o - 1 1 , 142-3
Agnes, wife o f Emperor Henry III 3 0 -1,
43 n.
Agnes o f Burgundy, wife o f (1) William V
count o f Poitou, (2) Geoffrey Martel
14 -15
Aimeri, vicomte o f Thouars xviii; fights in
the battle o f Hastings 134-5; urges
William the Conqueror to accept the
crown 148-9
Alan III, count o f Brittany 72-3; his son,
see Conan
Alençon (Ome), siege 22-5, 28-9
Alexander II, pope; previously bp of Lucca
104-5; his holiness and learning 104-5;
sends a banner to William the Con­
queror 104-5; receives gifts from him
15 2-3; sends cardinals to England 161 n.
Alfonso, kg o f Leon 94-5
Alfred the ætheling, son o f King Æthelred;
in exile in Normandy 2-3; his unsuc­
cessful expedition to England 4-5;
murdered xx, 5-7
Amatus o f Montecassino 136 n.
Ambrières (Mayenne), castle xli, 50-3;
siege 52-3
Angers (Maine-et-Loire) 15 - 1 6 ,2 0 - 1
Anjou 14 -15 , 22-3; counts of, see Fulk
Nerra, Geoffrey Martel
Apulia, Normans in 156-7
Aquitaine 14 -15 ; churches receive gifts
154-5
Aquitanians, fight in the battle of Hastings
13 0 -1; treated evenhandedly 16 0-1
Arabia 154-5, *74-5
Arabs 176-7
archers xxxii-xxxiv, 126-7, 132-3
arms and armour xl—xli
Arques (Seine-Mar.), castle xli, 24-7;
siege xxi, 38-43; town xxxvii
Arundel (Sussex) xxxvii
Asgar (Esgar) the staller xxxn., 147 n.
Asia 174-5
Augustine, St, bp o f Hippo xviii, xxxix
Augustus, Roman emperor 154-5
Auvergne 15 -16 , 46-7; churches o f 154-5
Babylon (used o f the Turkish power) 96-7,
156-7
Baldwin V, count o f Flanders 30-3;
guardian o f kg Philip I 32-3; his wife,
see Adela; his daughter, see Matilda
Barking (Essex) 160-1
Battle (Sussex), site o f the Battle o f
Hastings xxv
Baudri o f Bourgeuil, his poem about the
conquest o f England xxix
Bayeux (Calvados), bp, see Odo; church
164-7
Bayeux Tapestry xvii, xxx, xxxiii-xxxiv,
142 n., 153 n.
Beaumont, family xv, xxxiii; see also
Robert, Roger
Belgae 164-5
Bellême (Ome) 16 n., family xix; see also
William
Benoit of Sainte-Maure xliii
Berengar o f Tours xviii, 80 n.
Berkhamsted (Herts.) 1460., 162 n.
Bleddyn, Welsh prince xxxviii
Blois, count of, see Theobald
Bonneville-sur-Touques (Calvados),
council at 70 -1
Bordeaux (Gironde) 20 -1
Bretons xxxii, 166-7; their customs 74-5;
fight in the battle o f Hastings 128-9,
13 0 -1, 154 m; treated evenhandedly
16 0 -1
19 2 GENERAL
Brionne (Eure), castle xli, 10 -13 , 1411.;
siege 10 -13
Britain, invaded by Caesar, see Caesar
Britons 17 2 -3
Brittany 12 n., 46-7; counts, see Alan,
Conan, Eudo
Burgundians 12 -13
Burgundy 12 -13 , 96-7; churches receive
gifts 154-5; counts of, see William
Byzantium 15 2-3
Caen (Calvados) abbey, see Saint-Étienne-
de-Caen
Caesar, Julius xviii, xix, xxiii, xxxii, xxxix,
46-7; invades Britain 4 m, 168-75; his
ships damaged n o n .; compared to
William the Conqueror 168-75; his
Commentaries 17 2 -3; see also Index of
Quotations and Allusions
Camden, William xliii-xliv
Canterbury (Kent) xli, xlii, 4n.; submits
to William the Conqueror 144-5, 146-7;
abp, see Lanfranc, Robert, Stigand
Carmen de Hastingae proelio xxiv, xxxii,
xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxviii; see also Guy, bp of
Amiens
Cassivellaunus 170-3
castles xxiii, xli,. 18 2-3; see also Ambrières,
Arques, Brionne, Dol, Domfront, Dover,
Hastings, Le Mans, London, Mayenne,
Mouliheme, Moulins-la-Marche, Peven-
sey, St James-de-Beuvron; custodians
16 2-3; see ak ° Humphrey of Tilleul, Odo
o f Bayeux, William fitz Osbem
‘Centigauls’ 45-7
challenge 26-7, 5 0 -1; to single combat
120-3
Charles (the Simple) kg o f France 72-3
charters xvi-xvii, n 8 n .
Chaumont-en-Vexin (Oise) 62-3
Chichester (Sussex) xxxvii
Cicero xviii, xxi, xxxix, 12 2 -3 ; 5ee a^so
Index o f Quotations and Allusions
Cingetorix, British kg 17 2 -3
Cnut, kg of Denmark and England xlii; his
death 2-3; his cruelty 156-7; his wife,
see Emma; his sons, see Harthacnut,
Harold Harefoot
comet, Halley’s 140-3
Conan II, count o f Brittany 44 n., 52 n.; at
war with the Normans 72-7
conquest, right of, 15 0 -1
IN D EX
Constantinople 3 0 -1, 96-7, 156-7
Copsi, earl o f Northumbria xxxvii; submits
to William the Conqueror 16 2-3; made
earl o f Northumbria 184-5; murdered
184-5
Cotentin 36-7
Cotton, Sir Robert, his library xliii-xliv
council, of Winchester (1070) 161 n.; see
also Bonneville-sur-Touques, Lisieux
Coutances (Manche), church 9 0 -1; bp, see
Geoffrey o f Montbray
cross-bows xxxii, 126-7
Danes 2 -3, 126-7
death-bed bequests 118 - 19 , ! 40-3
Denmark 6-7
Dieppe, river xxxvii
Dives, estuary xxiv, xxv-xxvi, xxix, 54-5,
10 2-3, 10^-9
Dol (Île-et-Vilaine), castle 74-5; siege
74-5
Domesday Book xvii
Domfront (Orae) xix, 22-9; castle xli,
24-7; siege xxi, 24-9, 34-5
Dover (Kent) xli, xlii, 4-5, 144-5; castle
7 0 -1, 144-5, 164-5, 18 2-3; church o f St
Martin xvii
Duchesne, André xliii,xlv
Dudo of Saint-Quentin xix, xxi,
xxvii-xxviii
Ealdred, abp o f York, crowns William the
Conqueror 15 0 -1; serves him loyally
186-7
Edgar Ætheling, designated in boyhood as
successor to King Edward 146-7;
treated honourably 16 2-3; taken to
Normandy 166-9
Edith, queen, wife o f Edward the
Confessor 114 —15
Edward (the Confessor), kg of England,
son of kg Æthelred and Emma 6-8;
related to the Norman dukes xxvi; in
exile in Normandy 2-5; unsuccessful
expedition to England 2-5; crowned
king 18 -19 ; supported by the Normans
18 -19 , 12 0 -1; makes William the Con­
queror his heir 68-9, 11 4 - 15 , 12 0 -1;
sends Harold to Normandy 68-9; his
death imminent 7 0 -1; dies 10 0 -1; his
tomb in Westminster Abbey 15 0 -1; his
wife, see Edith
 GENERAL
Edwin, earl o f Mercia, son o f earl Ælfgar
xx; rebellion and death xxxviii, xxxix;
offers support to Edgar Ætheling 146-7;
submits 16 2-3; taken to Normandy
166-7
Egypt, communities o f monks in 82-3; see
also Thebaid
Einhard xxi
Ely, isle o f xxxix, 4-5
Emma, queen, daughter o f Richard I duke
o f Normandy, wife o f (1) K g Æthelred,
(2) kg Cnut xvii-xviii, 2 -3, 15 0 -1
empire, Roman xlii, 46-7, 128-9, 174-5;
extent 174-5; people o f 154-7» 172-3
Engenulf o f Laigle, killed at Hastings 139 n.
England, church in xxxviii; reformed, its
wealth 174-5; kgs of, see Cnut, Edward
the Confessor, Harold Godwineson,
Harold Harefoot, Harthacnut, William
the Conqueror
English 18 -19 and passim; their courage at
Hastings 138-9; defeated 17 0 -1; rebel­
lious xxii, 156-7, 168-9; rebel 182-3;
their craftsmanship and needlework
176-7
Enguerrand II, count o f Ponthieu 4 0 -1,
44-5,48-9
Ermenfrid, bp o f Sion, his penitential
ordinances xxiii; papal legate 88-9
Eu (Seine-Mar.) 32 n.
Eudo o f Porhoet, count of Brittany 52-3
Europe 174-5
Eustace III, count of Boulogne, befriends
William o f Arques 42 n., conduct at the
Battle o f Hastings xxx, xxxiv, 132-3,
138-9; attacks Dover xxxiv, xlvii, 4 m,
182-5; disgraced and reconciled
xxxiv-xxxv, 184-5; his kinsman killed at
Dover xlii, 184-5
Evreux (Eure) 46-7
Exeter (Devon), rebellion and siege xxxvii
exile, as punishment 38-9
falconry 24-5, 148-9
Fécamp (Seine-Mar.), abbey xix, 64-5,
178-9; its lands in Sussex 120 n; use of
Channel ports xxvi; monks, give assis­
tance in the invasion o f England xxiv—
xxv, 12 0 -1, see also Remigius
feigned flights xxxiii, 132-3
fidelitas 30, 34, 54, 70, 144
Flanders xxxviii, 31 n., count, see Baldwin
IN D EX 19 3
fleet, English xxiv, 106-7, 120 n., 124-5,
126-7; Norman, see William the Con­
queror
Flemings 3 0 -1; in Norman army 105 n.
Flodoard, his annals 72-3
fortifications, terms for xli
‘Fracta-Turris’ (unidentified) 144-5
Fraga, battle xxx
Fran ci 18, 30, 33, 40, 42, 44, 46, 72, 178
Francia 6-7, 1 0 - 1 1 , 22-3, 42-3, 46-7,
54- 5» 56- 7» 96- 7» 154-5» 178-9
Frenchmen, fight in the battle of Hastings
13 0 -1
Fulk Nerra, count o f Anjou 20 n., 58-9;
his son, see Geoffrey Martel
Garonne, river 46-7
Gascony 15 -16 , 46-7
Gaul 3 0 -1, 48-9; three parts o f 164-7,
174-5, 17 0 -1; belgic ( Belgica ) 172-3
Geoffrey, count o f Perche, son o f Rotrou I;
fights in the battle o f Hastings 132-4
Geoffrey le Barbu, count o f Anjou 56-7,
6 0 -1, 76-7
Geoffrey Martel, count o f Anjou, son o f
Fulk Nerra 14-29, 44-5, 50-5; his
death 56-7
Geoffrey o f Mayenne 50-5; his rebellion
and defeat 64-9
Geoffrey o f Montbray, bp o f Coutances
36 n., 90 n., at Hastings as a non-
combattant 124-5; takes part in William
the Conqueror’s coronation 15 0 -1
Gerben, abbot o f Saint-Wandrille 90-1
Germans 176-7
Gilbert, archdeacon o f Lisieux 105 n.
Gilbert fitz Osbem, archdeacon o f Lisieux
xx-xxi
Gilbert Maminot, bp o f Lisieux xvi
Godwine, earl o f Wessex, betrays Alfred
4 -7; consents to the recognition of
William the Conqueror as heir to kg
Edward 12 0 -1; his sons, see G ynh,
Harold Godwineson, Leofwine, Tostig,
Wulfnoth; his grandson, see Hakon
Greeks 176-7
Guitmund o f Moulins-la-Marche 42-3
Guy, bp o f Amiens, chaplain of Queen
Matilda xxix, xxxviii; probably author o f
the Carmen de Hastingae proelio xxviii
Guy, count o f Burgundy, son o f Reginald;
rebels xviii, 8 -13 , 32-5, 42-3
194 GENERAL
Guy, count o f Ponthieu 48-9; captures
Harold Godwineson 68-9; releases him
to William the Conqueror 68-71
Guy-Geoffrey, count o f Poitiers 42-3
Gyrth, son o f Godwine earl o f Wessex,
killed in the battle o f Hastings xxxiv,
*34-7
haereditas 2, 58, 62, 76, 100
haeres 20, 56, 58, 68, 118 , 120, 130,
Hakon, grandson o f Godwine earl of
Wessex, hostage in Normandy 2 0 -1,
76-7, 1 20-1
Harold Godwineson, king o f England,
visits Normandy in 1064 xxvi-xxvii,
68-77, *2 0 -1; captured by Guy, count of
Ponthieu 68-9; freed by William the
Conqueror 68 -71; his oath to William
7 0 -1, 76-7, 10 0 -1; becomes William’s
vassal xxvi, 12 0 -1, 124-5; offered one o f
William’s daughters in marriage 156-7;
accompanies him to the Breton war
7 0 -1; returns to England 76-7; his claim
to the English throne; xxvii, xxxv,
118 - 19 ; his coronation xxiii, 10 0 -1; his
appropriation of estates 15 2 -3; guards
the Channel coast xxiv, 106-7; his spy
captured 106-7; goes to Yorkshire to
repel a Norwegian invasion 11 2 - 1 5 ;
defeats and kills Harold Hardrada and
Tostig 11 6 - 17 ; exchanges messages with
William the Conqueror 116 -2 3 ; rejects
single combat 12 2-3; his march to
Battle 124-7; makes a stand at Battle
126-9; killed in the fighting 136-7; his
death and burial xxii, xxix, 6-7, 136-7,
14 0 -1; his banner 15 2 -3; his mother
Gytha xxxi, xxxviii, 14 0 -1; his brothers,
see Gyrth, Leofwine, Tostig, Wulfnoth;
his sister, see Edith; his concubines
ii4n.
Harold Hardrada, kg o f Norway, allies with
Tostig 1 12 -14 ; invades Yorkshire
11 2 - 16 ; defeated and killed 11 6 - 17 ,
137-8; his troops less formidable than
William the Conqueror’s 126-7
Harold Harefoot, kg o f England, son o f
Cnut; becomes kg xlii, 2-3; murders
Alfred 4-5; his death 6-7
Harthacnut, kg o f England, son o f Emma
and Cnut 7-8, 18 -19
Hastings (Sussex) 1 1 2 - 1 3 ; campaign 29 m
IN D EX
battle xvii, xxx, xxxii, xxxv, 5 m, 126-39;
(malfosse’ incident in xxxiv n., 138 n.,
poems about xxviii-xxix; see also
Carmen de Hastingae proelio ; castle xli,
1 14 -15 , 142-3
Hector 134-5, 140 n.
Henry III, emperor, son of Conrad 3 m .
44-5, 96-7; allies with Geoffrey Martel
43 n.; said to have made a pact with
William the Conqueror 104-5; his wife,
see Agnes
Henry IV, emperor 31 n.
Henry I, kg o f France, gives arms to
William the Conqueror 6n.; assists him
at Val-ès-Dunes xxiii, 1 0 - 1 1 ; assisted by
him 14 -15 ; hostile to him 18 -19 , 4 2-3;
supports Geoffrey Martel 22 n., sup­
ports William o f Arques 38 -4 1; attacks
Normandy 44-5, 54-7; dies 56-7; his
son, see Philip
herald 48-9
Herbert I (Wake-Dog), count o f Maine
58-9
Herbert II (Bacon), count o f Maine, son o f
Hugh IV, becomes William the Con­
queror’s vassal 58-9; makes him his heir
6 0 -1; his sister, see Margaret
Herluin de Conteville, step-father of
William the Conqueror 32 n.
Hiémois 54-5
Hildegar, pupil o f Fulbert o f Chartres, at
Poitiers xvii
homage, 54-5, 146-7
horses, Spanish 15 - 16
hostages, 2 0 -1, 12 0 -1, 144-5, *46-7»
168-9, *70“ ** *82-3
Hugh, bp of Lisieux, son o f William count
o f Eu xvi, xx, 9 0 -1, 10 0 -1; his character
and achievements 92-5
Hugh IV, count o f Maine, 58-9; his son, see
Herbert II (Bacon)
Hugh, count o f Meulan 13 0 -1; his sister
Adeline 130 -1
Hugh Bardulf 40-1
Hugh II o f Goumay 48-9
Hugh o f Grandmesnil, fights in the battle
o f Hastings 134-5; returns to Nor­
mandy xxxviii, 168 n.
Hugh II o f Montfort-sur-Risle 102-3;
pursues the French at the battle of
Mortemer 48-9; fights in the battle o f
Hastings 134-5; custodian o f Dover
182-3
 GENERAL
Humphrey o f Tilleul, castellan o f Hastings
14 2-3; returns to Normandy xxxviii,
168 n.
Humphrey o f Vieilles xv
hunting 24-5, 148-9
Inventio et miracula Sancti Wulfranni xxvi,
xxvii
Isle o f Wight xxiv
Jerusalem, pilgrimage to 78-9; the
heavenly xli
John, bp o f Avranches, later abp o f Rouen
son of Raoul count o f Ivry 90-1
John, prophetic monk in the Thebaid 86-7
Jugurtha 11 4 - 15
Jumièges, abbey 19 n.; abbot, see Robert
Justin xviii, xxix; see also Index of
Quotations and Allusions
Juvenal xviii, xxix; see also Index o f
Quotations and Allusions
Kent xxiv, 164-5, 182-3
knights xl; Norman 156-7; placed in
castles 16 2-3
La Trinité de Vendôme, abbey 21 n., 22 n.
lance, couched xxxiii, 128 n.
Lanfranc, abp o f Canterbury xx, xxxviii,
152 n.; attacks Berengar o f Tours 80 n.;
his early career 84 n.; respected by
William the Conqueror 84-5, 86-7;
abbot of Saint-Etienne-de-Caen 84-5;
his monastic customs 84 n.; his
appointment as abp 161 n.
law, English xxvii, 12 2-3 ; Norman (cus­
tomary) xviii, xxvii, xxxviii, 42-3, 122-3;
Roman xxxix, 123 n., I59n.; promulga­
ted by William the Conqueror 158-9
Le Mans (Sartre) 58-9, 60-3, 64-5; citadel
62-3; castle xli
Leofric, earl o f Mercia 12 0 -1
Leofwine, son of Godwine, killed in the
battle o f Hastings xxxiv, 136-7
Liber Eliensis xliii
Lisieux (Calvados) xix; archdeacon, see
Gilbert, Gilbert fitzOsbem, William de
Glanville, William o f Poitiers; bp, see
Gilbert Maminot, Hugh; council (1054),
88-9
London xxix-xxx, 4-5, 158-9; submits to
IN D EX 19 5
the Normans 146-7; castles xli, 148-9,
160-3
Lotharingia 3 m ., 440.
Lucan xviii; see also Index o f Quotations
and Allusions
Maine, William the Conqueror's claims in
xix, 58-61; fighting in 51 n., 52-5, 6 0 -1;
men o f xxxiv, fight in the battle of
Hastings 13 0 -1
Malcolm III (Canmore), kg o f Scots 17 n.
Mandubratius, kg o f the Trinovantes
170-3
Mantes (Seine-et-Oise) 62-3
Margaret, sister o f Herbert II count o f
Maine, in exile 62-3; betrothed to
Robert Curthose 62-3; dies 62-3;
buried at Fécamp 62-3
Marius, his triumph 11 4 - 15 ; his leadership
in battle 126 n.
Matilda, queen, wife o f William the
Conqueror, daughter o f Count Baldwin
V of Flanders 32-3; her marriage 32-3;
provides a ship for the invasion fleet
n o n .; acts as regent in Normandy
xxxvii, 178-9; her coronation in 1068
148-9
Mauger, abp o f Rouen, son o f Richard II
duke o f Normandy and Papia; his fail­
ings and deposition 86-9, 92-3; refuses
to go to Rome 88-9
Mauritius, abp o f Rouen 88-9, 90-1
Mayenne, castle xli, 64-7; siege 66-7;
river 66-7
miles used with various meanings xxxix-xl
Mithridates 1 1 4 - 15
Morcar, earl o f Northumbria, son of Earl
Ælfgar xxxviii; captured xxxix; offers
support to Edgar Ætheling 146-7;
submits to William the Conqueror
16 2-3; taken to Normandy 166-7
Mortemer (Seine-Mar.), battle xxii, 48-51
Mouliheme (Maine-et-Loire), castle,
besieged and captured by William the
Conqueror xv, 14 -15
Moulins-la-Marche (Ome), castle xli, 4 2-3
Nigel II, vicomte o f the Cotentin, rebels
8-9, 12 - 13
Norman people 128-9
Normandy 1 0 - 1 1 , 18 -19 an^ passim; dukes
of, see Richard I, Richard II, Robert I,
196 GENERAL
Normandy (cont.)
Robert (Curthose), Rollo, William the
Conqueror; frontier 2çn
Normans 12 - 13 , 18 -19 , 20 n., 26-7, 3 0 -1,
128-9, 16 0 -1, 166-7; an<l passim; their
conquests in Italy 128-9
oath, handfast 12 0 -1; o f fealty 3 0 -1. 144-5,
146-7; see also Harold Godwineson
Odo, bp o f Bayeux, half-brother of William
the Conqueror xvii, xxx, xlii, 90-3; with
William at Hastings as a non-combattant
124-5; entrusted with the castle of Dover
164-5; his ability in both ecclesiastical
and secular affairs 164-5; provokes a
rising o f the English 182-3
Odo, son o f K g Robert the Pious 48-9
omen xxx, 124-5, 142 n.
oral testimony xxviii, xxx, xxxii, xxxiv
Orderic Vitalis, his information about
William o f Poitiers xv-xvi, xx; his use of
William of Poitiers xxii, xxxv-xxxvii,
xliii, xliv, 16211.; his reference to Guy of
Amiens xxix; his early life xxxv, xxxviii
orders xliii
Orne, river 1 0 - 1 1
pallium 20 n., 86-7
Peter’s Pence 153 n.
Pevensey (Sussex) 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 166-7; castle
xli, 1 14 -15
Philip I, kg o f France, his minority 3 1-2 ,
56-7; his step-father Raoul count of
Crépy 178-9
pirates 168-9
Plato 90-1
Plutarch xviii, xxi; see also Index o f
Quotations and Allusions
poets, criticized 28-9
Poitiers (Vienne) 2 0 -1; schools at xv,
xvii-xviii, xxxix; Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand,
church xvii
Polybius 175 n.
Pompey the Great, his triumphs 114 - 15 ;
his humble tomb 14 m ., 176 n.
Ponthieu 32-3; count, see Enguerrand,
Guy
Portus Itius (Wissant) 411.
Préaux (Eure) xv
Priam, 140 n., 142-3
Pyrrhus, 154-7
IN D EX
Ralph de Diceto xliii
Ralph o f Tosny 134-5
Ranulf, vicomte o f Bayeux, his rebellion
8-9
Raoul, count o f Crépy and Valois 178-9
ravaging by armies xxiv, xxv, xxxv, 58-9,
6 0 -1, 124-5
Reginald I, count o f Clermont-en-
Beauvaisis 48-9
Remigius, monk o f Fécamp, contributes a
ship to the invasion fleet i2on.
Rhine, river 48-9
Richard, count o f Evreux 100-1
Richard I, duke o f Normandy 34-5, 73 n.,
78-9, 1 5 0 -1; his son, tti, William count
o f Eu; his daughter, see Emma
Richard II, duke o f Normandy 20 n., 28-9,
34-5, 73 n., 78-9, 1 5 0 -1; his wife Papia
4 0 -1; his sons see Mauger, abp o f Rouen,
William, count o f Arques
Risle, river u n ., 12 -13
Robert (Champart), abp o f Canterbury,
previously abbot o f Jumièges 19-20
Robert, count o f Eu xxiii, 48-9, 10 0 -1
Robert, count o f Mortain, half-brother o f
William the Conqueror 10 0 -1
Robert I, duke o f Normandy, father o f
William the Conqueror 15 0 -1; his
pilgrimage to Jerusalem 78-9
Robert II (Curthose), duke o f Normandy,
son o f William the Conqueror xvii;
betrothed to Margaret o f Maine 62-3
Robert o f Beaumont, son o f Roger o f
Beaumont, fights in the battle of
Hastings xxxiii, 13 0 -1, 178-9; made earl
o f Leicester by Henry I 13 1 n.
Robert Giroie son.
Robert the Pious, kg of France 32-3
Robert o f Torigni xliii, 153 n.
Roben fltz Wimarch, in Essex before the
Conquest 11 6 - 17
Rodulf o f Tosny 49 n.
Roger o f Beaumont xv, 10 0 -1, 178-9; his
son, see Robert
Roger II o f Montgomery, vicomte o f the
Hiémois xxxvii, 26-7, 10 0 -1; his wife
Mabel 26 n.
Rollo, duke o f Normandy 72-3; his wife
Gisla 72-3
Rome xli, xlii, 20 n., 14 2-3; church o f St
Peter 15 2-3; republic of 102-3; see also
empire, Roman
Romney xxvi, n o n ., 142-3
 GENERAL
Rouen (Seine-Mar.) xli, xlii, 32-3, 36-7,
46-7; 176-7; abps of, Vitae xxi; see also
Mauger, Mauritius; citizens o f 1 12 - 15 ;
fortifications 12 -13 ; harbour 108-9
Ruallon o f Dot, allies with William the
Conqueror 74-7
Saint-Aubin-sur-Scie 38 n.
Saint-Etienne-de-Caen, abbey; founded
84-5; dedicated xx; receives gifts from
William the Conqueror 176-7; abbot, see
Lanfranc
Saint-Évroult (Ome), abbey xvi; monk of,
see Samson
Saint-James-de-Beuvron (Manche), castle
72-3
Saint-Léger-de-Préaux, abbey xv, xvi;
abbesses of xv n.
Saint-Valery-sur-Somme xxiv, xxv, xxvi,
109 -10 ; abbey, given land in Essex
10 9 -10
Saint-Wandrille (Seine-Mar.), abbey xix,
9 0 -1; abbot, see Gerbert
Saintes (Charente-Maritime) 58-9
Sallust xviii, xxi, xxxix; see also Index of
Quotations and Allusions
Samson, monk o f Saint-Evrouit xxxviii
Sancho, kg o f Castile 94-5
Scipio 160-1
Scots, kingdom o f 17 n.; kg of, see Malcolm
Seine, river 46-7
Sestos n o - 1 1
Sicily, Normans in 156-7
siege xxiii; see also Alençon, Ambrières,
Arques, Brionne, Dol, Domfront,
Exeter, Mayenne, Mouliheme
siege-castles xxiii, 12 - 13 , 24-5, 38-9
siege-weapons xli
Siward, earl o f Northumbria 12 0 -1
Spain xvi; kgs in 16 -17 , 94-7
speeches, invented xxxi, xxxii, 106-9,
124-5
Stamford Bridge (Yorks.) battle 126 n.,
137-8, 141 n.
Statius, his Thebaid xviii, see also Index o f
Quotations and Allusions
Stigand, abp o f Canterbury xx, xxviii,
88 n., 1 2 0 -1; excommunicated 10 0 -1,
1 5 0 -1; crowns Harold 1 0 0 - 1 ,1 5 0 - 1 ;
submits to William the Conqueror
146-7; his wealth and power 16 0 -1,
166-7; deposed 16 0 -1
IN D EX 19 7
Suetonius xviii, xxi; see also Index o f
Quotations and Allusions
Swein II (Estrithson), kg o f Denmark,
promises support to William the Con­
queror but supports his enemies 104-5
synod 82-3, 88-9, 92-3, 166-7
Tacitus xviii
Taillefer, a jongleur xxxiii
Thames, river 146-7, 182-3
Thebaid, centre o f eremitic life in Egypt
86-7
Thebaidy o f Statius 136-7; see also Index o f
Quotations and Allusions
Theobald III, count o f Blois 15 -16 , 22-3,
44-5; his brother Stephen 22-3 n.
Theodosius, Roman emperor 86-7
Thucydides xxviii n., xxx
Tickford (Essex) 86 n.
Titus, Roman emperor, son o f Vespasian
174-5
Tostig, son o f Godwine, earl o f North­
umbria 1 12 -13 ; defeated and killed at
Stamford Bridge 14 0 -1
Tours (Indres-et-Loire) 20-1
Trojan war xviii,xxxi-xxxii, 142-3
Troy 142-3
Turnus 136-7
Tydeus 136-7
tyrannicide xxiii, 26-7, 156-7
Val-ès-Dunes (Calvados), battle o f xxiii,
1 0 - 1 1 , 8on.
Varaville (Calvados), battle o f xxiii, 32-3
vassal xl, 31 n., 44-5, 54-5, 58-9, 72-3
Vegetius xxii; see also Index o f Quotations
and Allusions
Vergil xviii. xxii, xxxii, xxxix, xl, 1 12 -13 ;
see also Index of Quotations and Allu­
sions
Wace xliii
Wallingford (Berks.) 146-7
Walter I Giflfard o f Longueville-sur-Scie
48-9; at the battle o f Mortemer 48-9;
fights in the battle o f Hastings 134-5
Walter o f Mantes, son o f Drogo count of
the Vexin; becomes count o f Maine
6 0 -1; captured and dies at Falaise 62 n.
Waltham, college o f secular canons founded
by Harold Godwineson 140 n., 152 m
198 GENERAL
Waltheof, earl o f Huntingdon, taken to
Normandy 166-7
Westminster, abbey church o f St Peter,
tomb of Edward the Confessor in 15 0 -1;
William the Conqueror crowned in
15 0 -1
William, count of Arques, son o f Richard II
and Papia; instigates a revolt 34-5, 88 n.;
withdraws service at the siege o f Dorn-
front 34-5; holds Arques with the aid of
the kg o f France 36 -4 1; surrenders
42-3; banished from Normandy 42-3;
received by Eustace of Boulogne 42 n.
William II (Tete-Hardie), count o f Bur­
gundy x v iii,i2 -i3
William, count o f Eu, son o f Richard I
92-3; his son, see Hugh, bp o f Lisieux
William V, count o f Poitou; his son, see
William VI; his wife, see Agnes
William VI (the Fat), count o f Poitou
2 0 -1, 22-3
William (Aigret) V II, count o f Poitou 42,
44-5, 52-3; his brother Guy-Geoffrey
42-3
William (the Conqueror), kg of England,
duke of Normandy; provides a refuge in
his court for the ætheling Edward (the
Confessor) 2-5; avenges the murder of
Edward's brother Alfred 5 n., 6-7; helps
Edward to secure the English throne
18 -2 1; named by Edward as his heir
xxvi, 2 0 -1; armed as a knight 6-7;
troubles o f his minority xv, 8-9; restores
order in Normandy 8-9; fortifies
Rouen 12 n.; his feats o f arms 14 -15 ,
24-5; his struggle against Geoffrey
Martel 22-9; his marriage 32-3; his
delight in hunting and falconry 24-5,
148-9; captures Alençon and Domfront
28-9; crushes the rebellion of William o f
Arques 34-43; repels invasion led by the
kg of France 4 4 -51; presses his claims in
Maine and takes Le Mans 58-65; takes
Mayenne 64-7; rescues Harold God-
wineson from Guy o f Ponthieu 68 -71;
receives Harold's homage 7 0 -1; takes
him on his Breton campaign 70-3;
invades Brittany and captured Dol 72-5;
returns to Normandy 76-7; his piety
78 -8 1; establishes the Truce o f God
8 0 -1; his strict enforcement o f the law
8 0 -1; his reforms o f the Church xviii,
82-3; presides over church synods 82-3,
IN D EX
88-9; monasteries founded in Normandy
in his reign 82-3; founds the abbey o f
Saint-Etienne-de-Caen 84-5; his
Norman court 96-7; his fame 96-7; his
titles in Normandy xli and n.; his
daughters sought in marriage 96-7; his
army and battle tactics xxii-xxv; his
avoidance o f pitched battles 18 n.; his
careful planning xxiv; prepares to invade
England 10 2-3; obtains a papal banner
and papal support 104-5, 1 52-3; said to
have made a pact with the emperor
104-5; his fleet xxv-xxvi, 10 2-3, 108-9,
142 n.; size o f his fleet 11 0 - 1 3 ; size o f
his army o f invasion 102-3, 11 6 - 17 ,
126-7; delay at the mouth o f the Dives
10 2-3, see ako wind; forbids plunder
10 2-3; encourages his troops 106-7; his
use o f military intelligence 106-7; moves
to Saint-Valery-sur-Somme 108-9;
conceals the loss o f some o f his ships
108-9; prays for a favourable wind
108-9; embarks for England 108-9;
feasts in mid-Channel xxxii, xxxv,
1 12 -13 ; lands at Pevensey 1 1 2 - 1 3 ; leads
a scouting expedition 11 4 - 15 ; rejects the
advice o f Robert fitz Wimarch 11 6 - 17 ;
exchanges messages with Harold
116 -2 3 ; his claim to the English throne
H 7n ., 120-3, 1 5 0 -1; challenges Harold
to single combat 120-3; hears Mass
before battle 124-5; encourages his
troops 124-7; disregards omens xxx,
124-5; his valour in battle xxxiv, 13 0 -1,
134-7, 172—3; his victory- 138-42; allows
the English to bury their dead 14 2-3;
captures Dover 144-5; enters Canter­
bury 144-5; fells ill 144-5; approaches
and enters London 146-7; offered the
crown 146-9; urged to accept the crown
148-9; refuses to be crowned by Stigand
1 5 0 -1; crowned by Ealdred abp o f York
in Westminster Abbey 15 0 -1; his royal
title begins with his coronation xxvii,
150 -3; his gifts to churches 152-5;
promulgates laws 158-9; his justice
158-9; levies taxes 16 0 -1; imposes
discipline on his army 16 0 -1; protects
merchants 16 0 -1; distributes lands to
his followers 162-5; places William fitz
Osbem in Winchester and Odo of
Bayeux in Dover 164-5; visits
Normandy 154-5; sails from Pevensey
 GENERAL
166-7; takes Englishmen with him as
honoured hostages 166-7; welcomed in
Normandy 174 -5; celebrates Easter at
Fécamp 178-9; compared to Julius
Caesar 168-75; forbids all ravaging by
his troops 18 0 -1; his treatment o f the
English xxxv, xxxvii-xxxviii; his castle­
building in England xxxviii; see also
Dover, Hastings, Pevensey, London,
Winchester; his mother Herleva 32n; his
wife, see Matilda; his son, see Robert
Curthose; his daughter offered in mar­
riage to Harold 156-7
William, son o f Anschetil xvi
William, son o f Richard count o f Evreux,
fights in the battle o f Hastings 132-3
William o f Apulia 135 n.
William o f Bellême 22-3 n.; his castles
26 n.; his daughter Mabel 26 n.
William de Glanville, archdeacon o f
Lisieux xvi
William o f Jumièges xix, xx, xxi,
xxvii-xxviii, xxxiii
William Malet 14 0 -1
William of Malmesbury xliii
William fitz Osbem, steward o f Normandy
26-7, 10 0 -1, 11 6 - 17 ; fights in the battle
IN D EX 199
o f Hastings 134-5; Put in charge of
Winchester 164-5
William o f Poitiers, archdeacon o f Lisieux,
his career xv-xvii; studies at Poitiers xv,
xvii-xix, xxi, 14 -15 ; chaplain o f William
the Conqueror xvi, xxi, xxix, xxx, 82 n.;
friend o f Hugh bp o f Lisieux 92-3; not
an eye-witness o f the battle o f Hastings
132 n.; his purpose in writing G G xx;
date o f writing G G xx, 5 m, 16 -17 n.,
84-5 n.; textual tradition o f G G xliii-xv;
his sister an abbess o f Saint-Léger-de-
Préaux xv
William I o f Warenne, earl o f Surrey, fights
in the battle o f Hastings 134-5
Winchelsea (Sussex) xxxvii
Winchester (Hants), given to William fitz
Osbem 164-5; castle xli, 164-5
wind, in the Channel xxiv, xxv-xxvi, xxix,
xxxvii, 102-3, 10 8 -13, 168-9
Wissant (formerly Portus Itius) 4-5
Wulfnoth, son o f Godwine, hostage in
Normandy 12 0 -1
Xerxes 11 0 - 1 3 , 126 n.
York, abp of, see Ealdred
Yorkshire 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 142 n.