U nd err? ra^xW-W CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY IN MEMORY OF EDWARD SCHUSTER Date D^^^fl? Boofc DE^^ JN 2337.H35"''" """"""V "-ibrary 'Jornjan institutions. The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924005754860 HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY VOLUME XXIV HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES I. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870. By W. E. B. DuBois, Ph.D., Editor of "The Crisis." 8vo. Ji.sonet. n. The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in Massachusetts. By S. B. Harding, Fh.D., Professor of Euro- pean History in Indiana University. 8vo. ti.tS net. III. A Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina. By D. F. Houston, A.M., LL.D., Secretary of Agriculture. 8vo. $1.25 net. IV. Nominations for Elective Office in the United States. By Frederick W. Dallinger, A.M., LL.B., Member of Congress from Massachusetts. 8vo. $i.soi~net. V. A Bibliography of British Municipal His- tory, including Gilds and Parliamentary Representation. By Charles Gross, Ph.D., LL.D., late Gnmey Professor of History and Political Science in Harvard Univer- sity. 8vo. $1.50 net VI. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest By Theodore Clarke Smith, Ph.D., Professor of History in Williams College. Svo. $i.7S net. Vn. The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America. By Evarts Boutell Greene, Ph.D., Professor of History in the Univerfflty of Illinois. Svo. $r.5o net VIII. The County .Palatine of Durham. A Study in Constitutional History, By G. T. Lapsley, Ph.D., Fellow of Trinity Col- lege, Cambridge. Svo. $3.00 net. IX. The Anglican Episcopate and the Amer- ican Colonies. By Arthur Lyon Cross, Ph.D., Professor of European History in the University of Michigan. Svo. $2.50 net. X. The Administration of the American Rev- olutionary Army. By Louis Clinton Hatch, Ph.D. Svo. $1.50 net XI. The Civil Service and the Patronage. By Carl Russell Fish, Ph.D., Professor of American History in the University of Wis- consin. Svo. $2.00 net. XII. The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts. By C. A. Duni- way, Ph.D., President of Colorado College. Svo. $1.50 net. Xni. The Seigniorial System in Canada. By W. B. Munro, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Municipal Government in Harvard Uni- versity. Svo. S2.00 net. XrV. The Frankpledge System. By William Alfred Morris, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of English History in the University of Cal- ifornia. Svo. $1.50 net. XV. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley. By Everett Kimball, Ph.D.,Professor of History in Smith College. Svo. S2.00 net. XVI. M6moire de Marie Caroline, Reine de Naples. Edited by Robert Matteson Johnston, A.M., Assistant Professor of Modem History in Harvard University. Svo. $2.00 net XVn. The Barrington-Bemard Correspon- dence. Edited by Edward Channing, Ph.D., McLean Professor of Ancient and Modem History in Harvard University. Svo. $2.00 net. XVni. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Mag- nificent. By Albert Howe Lybyer, Ph.D., Professor of History in the University of Illinois. Svo. $2.00 net. Xrx. The Granger Movement By S. J. Buck, Fh.D., Associate Professor of History in the University of Miimesota. Svo. $3.00 net. XX. Burgage Tenure in Mediaeval England. By Morley de Wolf Hemmeon, Ph.D., some- time Austin Teaching Fellow in Harvard University. Svo. $2.00 net. XXI. An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs transacted in the colony of New York from ' 1678 to I7SI- By Peter Wraxall. Edited with an introduction by Charles Howard Mcllwain, Ph.D., Professor of History and Government in Harvard University. Svo. $2.00 net. XXII. English Field Systems. By Howard Levi Gray, Ph.D., Professor of History in Bryn Mawr College. Svo. $2.75 net. XXIII. The Second Partition of Poland. By Robert Howard Lord, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History in Harvard .Univer- sity. Svo. $2.3S net. XXIV. Norman Institutions. By Charies Homer Haskins, Ph.D., LittD., LL.D., Gurney Professor of History and Political Science in Harvard University. Svo. $2.75 net. HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A. NORMAN INSTITUTIONS BY CHARLES HOMER HASKINS GURNEY PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OxioKO UNiVEKsm Fkess I9I8 LIBRARr or edwaud sshuster lW.7f COPYBIGHT, I918 HAKVAKD UNIVEESITY PRESS TO THE SPIRIT OF FRANCE HUMANE UNFLINCHING CLEAR AND FREE THESE STUDIES IN FRENCH HISTORY ARE DEDICATED PREFACE The institutions of the duchy of Normandy occupy a unique place in the history of Europe. They have their local interest, giving character and distinctness to an important region of France; they furnished models of orderly and centralized ad- ministration to the French kings after the conquest of the duchy by Philip Augustus; and they exerted an influence of the first importance upon the constitutional and legal development of Eng- land and the coimtries of English law. Normandy was thus the channel through which the stream of Frankish and feudal custom flowed to England; it was the training groxmd where the first Anglo-Norman king gained his experience as a ruler, and the source whence his followers drew their ideas of law and govern- ment; and during nearly a century and a half of personal union with England it afforded a constant example of parallel develop- ment. In the larger view the effects of Norman institutions upon English lands are the most significant, and these naturally possess the principal interest for English and American students of his- tory. The following studies were undertaken in the first instance for the purpose of seeking light on the constitutional develop- ment of England, and while they necessarily include many mat- ters which bear on this but indirectly, their original purpose has detenniaed their scope and character. They begin with the earli- est trustworthy information respecting the government of Nor- mandy; they end with the loss of the duchy's originality and independence. 'A constitutional history of Normandy in this period is, in any fuU or adequate sense, an impossibility for lack of sufficient in- formation. Normandy can offer no parallel to the abundance and continuity of the English public records; however great their original volume and importance, the documentary sources of Norman history have suffered sadly from war and revolution and neglect, until only fragments remain from which to spell out some VIU PREFACE chapters of the story, It will be necessary more than once to revert to this fundamental fact; ^ it is emphasized here as condi- tioning the nature of this volume. We cannot trace a fuU develop- ment, but must confine ourselves to such periods and topics as have left materials for their treatment, and some of these must await the results of more minute and special study. The continuity of Norman constitutional development has, nevertheless, been kept steadily in view, and however frag- mentary and inadequate the result, it is believed that light has been thrown upon some of the dark comers of Norman history. There is here given for the first time a comprehensive description of the government of Normandy under William the Conqueror, with special reference to conditions on the eve of the Conquest of England, and certain new conclusions are suggested respecting the military, fiscal, and judicial organization of the duchy. The weakness of the rule of Robert Curthose is made more evident by a systematic study of his charters. What is said of the govern- ment of Henry I rests for the most part upon new evidence and points to new conclusions. The persistence of Norman institu- tions under Angevin rule is shown, and the parallel development of England and Normandy imder Henry H is examined. New facts are brought out respecting the establishment of the jury under Geoffrey Plantagenet and Henry H, and other points will be apparent to the special investigator. No attempt has been made to restate matters already well established, notably by the masterly researches of Stapleton, Brunner, and Delisle, but care- ful attention has been paid to their writings as well as to more recent works, such as those of Valin and Powicke. That the re- sults of the parallel labors of students of English history, notably Maitland and Round, have been freely used will be seen from the frequent recurrence of their names in the notes and the index. Certain chapters, as indicated in each case, have already appeared in the American Historical Review and the English Historical Re- view," by whose permission they are here utilized; but these have ' See especially Appendix A. » A summary of these articles has been prepared by M. Jean Lesquier for early publication in the Bulletin de la SocUU des Antiquaires de Normandie. See also my PREFACE IX been carefully revised from the sources and considerably expanded by the use of new matter. Unpublished documents and special discussions will be found in the appendices, which are supple- mented by facsimiles of certain charters of special interest. The documentary pubKcations of the past ten years have reHeved the volimie of many texts which had been gathered for its purposes, while the appendices have been further reduced by reason of the difficulties of collation under present circumstances. So far as this book contains new results, it rests primarily upon a systematic exploration of the documentary sources of Norman history, which in its early stages was made possible by a grant from the Carnegie Institution of Washington and in its later months was aided by the Woodbury Lowery Fellowship of Har- vard University. Begim in 1902, these researches have been prosecuted under certain inevitable disadvantages of distance and interruption, and it has been possible to conduct them only because of the generous and unfailing helpfulness of French archivists and librarians and the patience and good will of their assistants. Space forbids a full list of those who have given such aid, but I must express my special indebtedness to MM. Georges Besnier, archivist of the Calvados, R.-N. Sauvage, librarian of Caen, L. Dolbet, late archivist of the Manche, and J.-J. Vernier, archivist of the Seine-Inflrieure. For access to material in pri- vate hands my thanks are due to the Marquis de Mathan, at Saint-Pierre-de-Semilly, to the proprietors of the Benedictine de F6camp, and, in the days before the Separation Law, to the abbe L. Deslandes, of Bayeux cathedral, and the episcopal au- thorities of Seez and Coutances. At Paris I must acknowledge my constant obligation to the learning and friendship of a dis- tinguished Norman scholar, M. Henri Omont, of the Bibhoth^que Nationale, and to those who administer under his direction its great collections of manuscripts. I owe much to the advice and encouragement of the late Leopold Delisle, and in continuing his work M. Elie Berger has generously placed at my disposal the paper, Qudques probUmes de I'histoire des institutions anglo-normandes, read before the Congifis du Mill6naire normand (Rouen, 191 1); and my Normans in European History (Boston, 1915). X PREFACE proofs of the second volume of the Recueil des actes de Henri II. My thanks are also due to MM. Maurice Prou and Ferdinand Lot of Paris, to Mr, H. W. C. Davis, of Balliol College, Oxford, to my colleagues Professors Edwin F. Gay and Charles H. Mc- Ilwain, and particularly to Professor George B. Adams of Yale University. The Harvard Library has been generous in provid- ing books of a sort not ordinarily accessible in the United Statfes; and Mr. George W. Robinson, Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University, has rendered valu- able assistance in the correction of the proof sheets. If the book has been over-long in the making, this has not been without compensations for the author. He has had time to linger over the great Norman chroniclers with his students and to try his conclusions in the give and take of seminary discussion. He has made the personal acquaintance of a number of workers in the field of Norman history, and has enjoyed several summers of study and research in some of the pleasant places of the earth. And as the work comes to a close, the memories which it recalls are not so much of dusty fonds d' archives or weary journeys on the Ouest-fitat, as of quiet days of study in provincial collections, long evenings of reflection by the Ome or the Vire or in the garden of some cathedral city, and rare afternoons at Chantilly with L6opold Delisle, now gone the way of the Norman historians and chancellors on whom he lavished so much labor and learning. Requiescant a Idborihus suis, opera enim illorum sequuntur illosl To these historians of an elder day must now be added friends and students whose end has come recently and all too soon, French, and English scholars of promise and already of fulfillment, Ameri- can scholars in the making, martyrs to a common cause which is higher than scholarship and dearer than life itself. May their works likewise follow them! Cambridge, December, 191 7. CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGE Normandy under William the Conqueror, 1035-1087 . . 3-61 Importance of early Norman institutions 3 Fragmentary nature of the evidence ... 4 Norman feudalism in 1066 5 The problem of the existence of knights' fees . . ... . 8 The military obligations of the Norman monasteries . . 9 The case of Saint-Evroul 11 Obligations of the bishops: Bayeux and Avranches 14 Other features of feudal tenure ... 19 The military supremacy of the duke . . 22 Sicilian parallels 23 Feudal jurisdiction ... 24 Grants of immunity .... ... 25 Ducal and baronial pleas .... ... 27 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction .30 The council of LUlebonne, 1080 . . ..31 The bishop's ' customs ' . ... 32 The duke's ecclesiastical supremacy ... ■ • ■ 35 The Truce of God . . •• • 37 Restrictions upon private war 38 The duke's revenues ... -39 Evidence of a sj^stem of fiscal administration . 40 Relative superiority of Normandy in finance . .... 44 Local government: the vicomie .... . . . 45 The forests ... . . . 47 Municipal institutions . ... ... .48 The ducal household ... 49 Chapel and chancery 51 The curia as a court of justice .... . . 54 Conditions under William's predecessors 58 Summary 60 CHAPTER II Normandy under Robert Curthose and William Rutus, 1087-1106 62-84 Robert's lack of governance 62 Losses of the Abbaye aux Dames 63 Evidence of the Consttetudines et vusticie and the council of Rouen . 64 Robert's charters 66 XH CONTENTS Their character and geographical distribution 70 Their irregularities show the weakness of the administrative system 7 2 Robert's chancellors and scribes: Ralph of Arri, Amulf of Cheques, and Hugh of Flavigny 74 Scanty evidence of governmental organization 76 William Rufus in Normandy 78 His charters 80 His surviving writs show a stronger government 82 CHAPTER III The Administration of Normandy under Henry I, 1106-1135 . . 85-122 Interest and difficulty of Henry's reign 85 The conquest of the duchy and the reestablishment of ducal authority 86 The central court and the duke's justices . ... 88 Examples of their sessions . 89 The justiciar and the seneschal ... 99 Local justices 99 Ducal administration illustrated by writs from Montebourg . . 100 Restrictions on baronial and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 103 Fiscal organization 105 The Norman treasury and the treasiu-ers . 106 Royal clerks and chaplains no How far had Normandy a distinct administration ? 112 The Co«ifo' Cf. Flach, Origines de Vancienne France, i. 203; and notes 109, 163, below. '" NeustriaPia,p.sy8; M.A. N.,:di.jio; Round, no. 702. Cf. the Conqueror's charter in Cartidaire de S.-Pere de Chartres, i. 168. On the other hand his charter for Saint-D&ir mentions ' consuetudinibus et forisfactis ' {Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 203). Undefined ducal grants of consuetudines will be found in Liwe noir, no. i; Sevue catholique de Normandie, x. 49; La Roque, iii. 26; Cartulaire de Notre- Dame de Chartres, i. 86; Sauvage, Troarn, p. 349 f.; Collection Moreau, xxi. no (Saint-Ouen). '" Brussel, Usage des fiefs (Paris, 1750), i. 253; A. Luchaire, Manuel des institu- tions fransaises, pp. 24s, 256. Valin, pp. 60, 182-193, also criticizes the current view, but in too juristic a fashion, overlooking the early evidence cited below, which was 28 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS ceeded in retaining for himself the monopoly of haute justice throughout his dominions. Now if we mean by haute justice what the lawyers of the thirteenth century meant, jurisdiction by virtue of which the duel could be held and penalty of death or mutilation inflicted, this statement is far from correct, for so-called pleas of the sword are often held by the duke's vassals "^ and the duel is waged in their courts."* If, on the other hand, we mean that a baron could possess such pleas only by virtue of a ducal grant, and that certain of them were never granted, the statement will prob- ably hold. For the pleas of the sword in the twelfth century we have a list drawn up under Henry II, which can be supplemented by certain chapters of the Tres Ancien Coutumier^"^ and confirmed by the Exchequer Rolls. This Hst, however, expressly says that murder belongs " to the duke alone or to those to whom he or his ancestors have granted it," and it is plain that the same Umitation is intended to qualify others of the pleas enumerated. The matter is clearer in the inquest of 109 1, which gives a statement, includ- ing fewer pleas but professedly incomplete, of the 'customs and justice ' exercised by William the Conqueror in the duchy. Assault in the duke's court or on the way to and from it, offenses com- mitted in the host or within a week of its setting forth or its return, offenses against pilgrims, and violations of the coinage — ■ these place the offender in the duke's mercy and belong exclu- sively to his jurisdiction."^ On the other hand, it appears from the same inquest that there are other offenses, such as attacks on houses (hainfara), arson, rape, and imwarranted seizure of sure- ties, jurisdiction over which belongs in some places to the duke printed in 1908 and 1909. His theory of the late development of ducal sovereignty has been answered by Powlcke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 80-84. "s See B. £. C, xiii. 108-109; Stapleton, Magni Rotuli, i, p. xxxiii; and the texts cited below. 1°* See, for example, the duels held in the court of the abbot of Jumifiges in 1036, MabiUon, Annates Ordinis S. Benedicii, iv. 519; and in the court of Roger of Beau- mont, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 202. "" Ed. Tardif, cc. 70 (inquest), 15, 16, 35, S3, 5&, 59; cf. 67, 69. Cf. Pollock andMaitland, ii. 455; andinfra, p. 187. "» Appendix D, cc. 1-3, 12, 13. The protection of the plow by the duke, as we find it in the Tr6s Ancien Coutumier, likewise goes far back into Norman, if not into Scandinavian, history. Dudo, ed. Lair, pp. 171-172; Wilda, Strafrecht, p. 245; council of Rouen, 1096, c. 2. WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 29 and in others to his barons; *"' and we find arson, rape, and hain- fara among the consuetudines which Duke William, in the year of his marriage, granted to the abbot of Preaux.i"' Similar pleas were doubtless included in the consuetudines de sanguine granted by the Conqueror to Bee, which possessed jurisdiction over mur- der and mayhem among the ' royal hberties ' it enjoyed under Henry I; 1"° and while there were probably local differences, as in Anglo-Saxon England, where Domesday shows curious parallels to the Norman forfeitures,"' it is evidently jurisdiction over crimes of this sort which is conferred by the ducal grants of con- suetudines to monasteries. The great lay lords might also have such customs; indeed the forfeiture of life and limb in baronial courts is presupposed in the inquest of 1091.'" The coimts of fivreux and Mortain have blood- justice; "^ the count of Eu has justice in the himdred of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive over all forfeitures except the duke's. army and coinage; "' Robert, count of Meulan, "' Cc. 9, 10. los Appendix D, p. 279; Valin, pieces, no. z. Kings Robert I and Philip I enu- merate ' sanguinem, raptum, incendium, homicidium ' among the consuetudines of Micy: Pfister, Robert le Pieux, no. 68; Prou, Actes de Philippe I, no. 77. "" ' Predicto monasterio tradidit idem comes Normannie omnes consuetudines de sanguine et theloneo quas habebat circa ipsum monasterium ' : before 1066, MS. Lat. 12884, f- 177; rf- E. Porfie, Histoire du Bee, i. 327, 367, 646. The relevant portion of the charter of Henry I for Bee (Round, Calendar, no. 375) is printed below in Chapter III, note 21 ; see also the charter on the next page establishing the jurisdiction of Fecamp over homicide and arson by grant of Henry's predecessors. Cf . also Robert I's grant of Harfleur ' cum sanguine ' to Montivilliers {Gallia Christiana, 3d. instr. 326) ; the Conqueror's grant of ' leugam cum sanguine ' to the monks of Saint-Benoit (Prou and Vidier, Recueil des chartes de S.-Benoit-sur-Loire, no. 78); and Henry I's charter for Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, where, however, pleas relating to the army and the coinage are expressly reserved {Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 157). John, abbot of F6camp (ro28-io79), grants a piece of land ' retenta publica iustitia in consilio nostro ': Collection Moreau, xxi. 25. "" Cf. Pollock and Maitland, ii. 454; Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 87-88; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. iii ff. ^ C. 8. ™ Count Richard of fivreux (d. 1067) gives ' Deo et Sancto Taurino tres con- suetudines quas habebat in terra Sancti Taurini, videlicet sanguinem, septeragium (sesteragium ?), et thelonagium.' ' Little Cartulary' of Saint-Taurin, Archives of the Eure, H. 793, no. 26. For Mortain see B. E. C, xiii. 108, note. "' Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 156-158; cf. col. 203. See also Countess Adeliza's grant of ' omnem vicecomitatum . . . et omnes consuetudines ' to Auchy-Aumale: Archaeologia, xxvi. 359. 30 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS gives the abbot of Preaux, in Saleme, his " forfeitures which ac- cording to human law are collected by ancieiit custom from homi- cides, thieves, and such others as are capitally convicted," and in another district kainfara, arson, and ullac}^* The privileged area of the banleuca also existed."' Whatever view one may hold as to the relative development of seigniorial jurisdiction on the two sides of the Channel before the Conquest, there was one field in which England had much to learn from Normandy, that of ecclesiastical justice. We have the Conqueror's word for it that in England " the episcopal laws had not been observed properly nor according to the precepts of the sacred canons," "^ and it is generally, recognized that we must seek in Normandy the principles underl3Tng the ordinance sepa- rating the spiritual and temporal courts which he issued within ten years of his accession to the Enghsh throne. Of course the Norman precedents must not be scanned too narrowly without due regard to the jurisprudence of the Roman Church as a whole, but it is significant that in this period this jurisprudence came to England through Norman prelates and Norman manuscripts, as has been clearly shown in the case of the Pseudo-Isidorian decre- tals.'" What the Norman practice then was we can in some meas- ure discern from the canons of the council of Lillebonne, issued by an assembly of prelates and barons held by William's com- mand in 1080."' Freeman, it is true, with his splendid indifference "* Cartidary of Pr6aux (Archives of the Eure, H. 711), nos. 68, 347; MS. Lat. n. a. igag, no. 250; Le Pr6vost, Eure, iii. g7 (cf. on p. g6 the grant of Roger of Beaumont); Valin, pieces, no. 4. For vllac see Appendix D, note 16. Tithes of the baron's forfeitures are frequently granted to monasteries, e. g., Le Prfivost, Eure, i. 408 (= Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 41); Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. lag. '" See infra, p. 4g. "6 Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 485, ii. 440, 531; Stubbs-Davis, Sdect Charters (igi3), p. gg. "' See the account of MS. 405 of Trinity College, Cambridge, brought from Bee to Canterbury by Lanfranc, and its derivatives, in H. Bohmer, Die Falschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks von Canterbury (Leipzig, igo2), pp. 61-65. Norman copies of Pseudo-Isidore will be found in MS. Lat. 3856 and MSS. 701-703 at Rouen. For decretals of Alexander II addressed to the bishop of Coutances, see Jaff6- IxSwenfeld, nos. 447g, 4480. "8 Teulet, Layettes du TrUor des Charles, i. 25, no. 22, from an early copy in the WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 31 to such ecclesiastical matters as were not architectural, says that, apart from the renewal of the Truce of God, this council merely pronounced " a great number of enactments of the usual kind " ; "' but when we recall that Henry II began his great struggle with the church by decreeing that the provisions of the council of Lille- bonne should be observed,^'"' we shall hardly dismiss so lightly an authoritative statement of the law of the Conqueror's day on matters of church and state. Unfortunately, these decrees, while affording abimdant evidence respecting the existence of a system of ecclesiastical courts, leave us in the dark on some of the matters we most need to understand. Besides the enforcement of the Truce of God, the bishop has cognizance of offenses committed in churches and churchyards, including the disturbance of worship and assaults on those going to and from church. He has his fines from criminous and delinquent clerks and from offending mem- bers of a clerk's household, and dwellers within the church en- closure are likewise subject to the ' episcopal laws.' Of the offenses of laymen from which the bishop has his fine, specific mention is made of adultery, incest, desertion, divination, as- saults upon priests or monks, and the burning of their houses. A fine is also due from those who fail at the ordeal or are excommu- nicated for resistance to justice. The question throughout is one of fines to be paid the bishop, and while in secular justice it is a fairly safe rule that he who has the fines will also have the juris- diction, it is entirely possible that for certain offenses the bishop should have had fines from laymen who were convicted in secular tribunals, just as he had from those who denied their guilt and failed at the ordeal, and, later, from violators of the Truce of God convicted in the duke's court."^ It is hardly likely, for example, that the fine to the bishop was the only penalty for slaying a clerk. Archives Nationales attested by the seal of Henry I; Ordericus.ii. 316-323; Bessin, Concilia Rototnagensis Provinciae, i. 67; Mansi, xx. 555. Cf. Tardif, fyude sur les sources de I'ancien droit normand, i. 39-43- "' Norman Conquest, 2d edition, iv. 657. "° Robert of Torigni, i. 336; see infra, Chapter V, note 83. The importance of the council is realized by H. W. C. Davis, England under the Normans and Angevins, pp. 527, 533, but his interpretations of its canons are not always sound. "• Bessin, Concilia, i. 81; Tris Ancien Coutumier, c. 71; Round, no. 290. 32 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Little is said of the relation of the clerk to lay courts, either in civil or in criminal matters. With respect to his secular holding the priest is subject to the court of his lord, although if the ques- tion concerns the church he can have it brought before his bishop. Violations of the forest laws by clerks are beyond the sphere of the bishop's authority, and it would seem from the decree of an earlier council that a clerk who exposed himself to the blood-feud could be attacked after due notice to his bishop.^^^ A well known passage of William of Poitiers indicates that the Conqueror was in the habit of interfering when the sentence of the court Chris- tian seemed to him too light, and inflicting discipline on the bishop or archdeacon as well as on the culprit; '^^ but specific instances of this sort are lacking. When the archdeacons of the diocese of Bayeux consult Lanfranc respecting the case of a priest who had committed homicide in self-defense, the question is not one of punishment at their hands, but simply how soon, if at all, the offender can be restored to his priestly fimctions.*''* In an- other case, before William, archbishop of Rouen, a priest con- victed of a variety of offenses suffers degradation and the loss of his benefice. 1^^ Throughout the canons of Lilleboime nms the assertion of the ultimate authority of the duke. The council attempts no innova- tion : duke, barons, and bishops are to have the customs and jus- tice which they have enjoyed under William and his father, but 122 ' Ut etiam clerici arma non ferant nee assaliant vel assaliantur nisi ipsi pro meruerint, neque etiam tunc nisi facta prodamatione apud episcopum rationabili- ter ': Council of Lisieux (1064), c. 5, in Journal des savants, 1901, p. 517. 12' Ed. Duchesne, p. 194; Migne, cxlix. 1241. The participation of the duke in ecclesiastical discipline is also implied in Richard II's charter for Mont-Saint- Michel: Neusiria Pia, p. 378. ™ Lanfranc, Ep. 62, Migne, cl. 550. Cf. Migne, cxlvii. 266 (1061). •2' ' Notum sit omnibus quod Gausfredus presbyter de Verliaco ... ad iudicium utrinque venerunt coram Guillelmo Rotomstgensi archiepiscopo presbyter scilicet et monachi. . . . Ibi presbyter accusatus atque convictus de multis criminibus tam per se ipsum perpetratis quam sua consensione per quendam filium suum, videlicet de furtis, de sacrilegiis, de fomicationibus, et de contaminatione ecclesie sue, cum se de his nulla posset ratione purgare, ab ordine suo depositus est ab archiepiscopo. . . . Veniens in curiam regis Anglorum apud castrum Nielfam guerpivit coram omnibus totum omnino beneficium vel quicquid reclamare poterat ullo modo in ecclesia nostra de Verliaco. Insuper coram tota ipsa curia iuravit non se quicquam eorum ultra reclamaturum.' MS. Baluze 77, f. 61, from cartulary of Marmoutier. WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 33 the judicial privileges are held by virtue of the duke's concession, and in case of dispute as to their extent the court of the duke is to decide.'^^ The bishop's rights over laymen were a matter of cus- tom, and varied from place to place. In many parishes the char- ters show that he had, in whole or in part, lost his jurisdiction, for the episcopal fines and forfeitures were valuable rights, like his synodal dues and visitation fees,i" and were often granted in fief to laymen ^^ or handed over to monasteries in the form of exemp- tion from episcopal consuetudines,^^^ just as ducal consuetiidines were granted by the duke. Thus Fecamp claimed certain churches free from the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Rouen,'^" and by privilege of Archbishop Robert the monks of Saint-Pdre of Chartres held the church of Fontenay in the Vexin free from bishop and archdeacon.i''^ Robert I was said to have given Mont-Saint- Michel the ' episcopal laws ' in half of Guernsey. "^ The abbess of La Trinite had the fines from episcopal forfeitures in two parishes of Caen,''' and the abbot of Saint-Etienne had similar 128 So the author of the Acta archiepiscoporum says of William, after the diffi- culties between the archbishop and the monks of Rouen in 1073 : ' In his omnibus semper apud ipsum cautum extitit ne quid sibi archiepiscopus quasi sub ecclesiastico vigore in causis huius ecclesie insolenter arrogaverit.' Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, p. 226; Gallia Christiana, xi. 35. On the author see Vacandard, in Revtte catholique de Normandie, iii. 121 £f. 1" On which cf. the protest of the canons of Chartres in H. F., x. 498; and Ful- bert of Chartres, Epistolae, nos. 48, 1x5 (Migne, cxli. 225, 265). '^' Supra, notes 12-15. Cf. council of Rouen, 1096, c. 6: ' Nullus laicus habeat consuetudines episcopales vel iustitiam que pertinet ad curam animarum ' (Orderi- cus, iii. 473). For England cf. the grant of ' pladta hominum de christianitate ' in Davis, no. 71. ^'' GalliaChristiana,xi. msti.y.3, 126, 231; Nettstria Pia, pp. sjg, 431; Sauvage, Troam, p. 356; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, nos. 46, 48; Mus6e des archives dSparte- mentales, no. 25 (Lessay) ; Bry, Histoire du Perche, p. 70. The following grant of 1053 is more specific: ' aecclesiam Sancte Marie de Berlo et altare et omnes reditus eorum, decimas scilicet, primitias, sepulturam, sinodalia, circada, et omnes forfac- turas ad ipsam aecclesiam pertinentes, hoc est: sacrilegium, latrocinium, infrac- turam cimiterii, et cum omnibus commissis episcopo pertinentibus ' (charter of William of La Fert6-Mac6, Denis, Charles de S.-Julien de Tours, no. 24; Rewie catholique, i. 168). "0 See Appendix B. 1" Cartulaire, ed. Gu6rard, i. 115; Gallia Christiana, viii. instr. 297. 182 Cartulary (MS. Avranches 210), f. io6v. '" Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 71. 34 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS privileges.^'* In such cases the bishop sought to retain the ulti- mate authority, whose symbol, the administration of the ordeal at his cathedral church, was specifically reserved to him by the council of Lillebonne; ^'^ yet two years later the abbot of Saint- Wandrille established in the duke's court his ancient right to administer the ordeal in the four parishes subject to his jurisdic- tion.*'* That the bishop's jurisdiction was comprehensive and attendance at his court no light matter, appears from the case of Mont-Saint-Michel: the residents of the Moimt complained of their frequent smxmions to Avranches as parties or witnesses in the bishop's court in all matters contra christianitatem, and of the bishop's refusal to accept excuses in time of invasion or storm, so that they were constantly being fined or punished on this accoimt; imtil in 1061 the bishop consented to make the abbot his arch- deacon for the Moimt, reserving to himself, however, the admin- istration of the ordeal, the hearing of matrimonial causes, and the '^ Gallia Christiania, xi. instr. 73; charter of Odo, bishop of BayeiK (copies in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1825; MS. Fr.n. a. 20218, f. 6): 'Tradoistaquehicde- termino, videlicet de omnibus in prefatis ecclesiis donubus terris habitatoribus om- nium forisfacturarum de criminalibus peccatis vel de non criminalibus prodeuntium pecuniam et de ipsis omnibus habitatoribus de non criminalibus peccatis penitentie iniunctionem. Addo etiam ut ex ipsis criminalibus peccatis quandocunque in prefatis ecclesiis domibus terris audiri contigerint ab archidiacono Baiocensi, abbas vel prior predicti cenobii, non ipse super quo crimen auditum fuerit, moneatur et ibidem ab utroque disposito termino congruo ac prefixo die conveniant monachus et archidia- conus et in ipsa parrochia in qua crimen auditum fuerit predictis presentibus in- quiratiir, inquisito discutiatur, et discusso, si inde iudicium portandum prodierit vel cognitio peccati potuerit, Baiocensis ecclesia ut decet requiratur vel causa examinationis vel gratia consequende reconciliationis.' Cf. the similar charter of Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances (in charter of Archbishop William, copied in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1825) : ' De his autem omnibus supradictis si placitum contin- gat, in curia abbatis Cadomi agatur et forisfacturam si contingat abbas habebit. Si iudicium inde portandiun prodierit, ad Hulmum ut constitutum est requiratur, vidente archidiacono, et penitentia detur.' Early in the twelfth century Abbot Eudo ' separavit Robertum Blundum ab uxore sua coram Osberto archidiacono, qui fuit ibi in loco episcopi Ricardi filii comitis,' bishop of Bayeux (Deville, Analyse, P- 32)- "' See the charters quoted in the preceding note, and the arrangement between the archbishop of Rouen and Bee, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 17. There is a curious account of the holding of an ordeal at Bayeux before archdeacons, by order of the duke's court, in Archaeologia, xxvii. 26. William's ordinance separating the tempo- ral and spiritual courts in England likewise reserves the ordeal for the cathedral. "« Bessin, Concilia, i. 76; Lot, S.-Wondrille, no. 39 (cf. no. 40). WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 35 imposition of sentence in other cases."' It appears from other documents that matrimonial matters were an important part of the work of the courts Christian."* The duke's assertion of authority over church courts and his interference, at the council of LiUebonne, in the enforcement of sacerdotal ceUbacy "' are only one phase of an ecclesiastical "' ' Cogebantur enim venire Abrmcas ad respondendum de quacunque accusa- tione contra christianitatem, nee excusare poterat eos mare insurgens nee Britonum insidiequiapreveniri ac provideri poterant, etita sepe in forifacta et emendationes episcopales incidebant et sepe iuramentis fatigabantur. . . Episcopus vero pre- fatus, ut erat animo et genere nobilis, petitioni abbatis annuit et archidiaconum suum in Monte eum fecit, ita tamen ut quod bene non faceret vel nou posset epis- copus corrigeret Abrincis et ecclesiastico iuditio terminaret. De coniugiis autem iUicitis si qui legales testes procederent, apud episcopum audirentur et per sacra- mentum ipsorum lege dissolveretur quod contra legem presumptum erat. De criminalibus culpis venirent ad iuditium et sententiam episcopi confessi vel con- victi coram suo archidiacono, excommunicati ab episcopo ad eius satisfactionem et absolutionem venirent. Iuditium f erri igniti et aque ferventis Abrincis portaretur.' MS. Lat. 14832, f. 183V; Migne, cxlvii. 265; Pigeon, Le diocise d'Avranches, ii. 658^ It should be noted that Richard II's charter had granted to the abbot all ducal and episcopal consuetudines in the Mount, including ' omnes leges omnesque forisfactu- ras clericorum ac laicorum virorum ac muherum eiusdem biurgi ' in terms which suggest a later interpolation (Cartulary, f. 2iv; Neustria Pia, p. 378; MabUlon, Annates, iv. 651. Cf. the description of these liberties in the Roman du Mont- Saint-Michel, lines 2406 ff.). On the other hand, the statement of the rights of the bishop of Avranches over the abbeys of his diocese, preserved in a MS. of the twelfth century in the Vatican (MS. Regina 946, f . 73V) states the matter from the bishop's point of view: ' Salva est autem episcopo Abrincensi in predicta abbatia in omnibus canonica iusticia.' See Appendix K. The agreement of 1061 is of possible interest in relation to the use of sjoiodal witnesses in Normandy; see Chapter VI, note iig. "' See the case from Caen cited in note 134, supra; Barret, Cartidaire de Mar- moutier pour le Perche, no. 18 (109 2-1 100) ; and the notice of the grant by the mcomtes to Saint-Sauveur of freedom ' ab omnibus pladtis et querelas, videlicet de trevia, de adulteriis, et de omnibus aliis rebus que pertinent ad christianitatem, ita ut mo- nachi habeant placita in curia sua onmemque emendacionem ' (Delisle, S.Sauveur, pieces, no. 46) . The penance imposed by the bishop of S^ez upon the slayer of three pilgrims to Mont-Saint-Michel illustrates another phase of the bishop's jurisdic- tion: Lanfranc, Epistolae, no. 9 (Migne, cl. 517). Cf. an agreement of 1084 be- tween the count of Anjou and the bishop of Angers: L. Halphen, L'Anjou au XI' siicle, p. 314, no. 242. ^^ H. Bohmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie (Leipzig, 1899), p. 127 f. On p. 36, note 2, he questions the authenticity, in its present form, of the canon of LiUebonne (c. 3) which deals with this subject. The last sentence is some- what perplexing, but it appears in the text as confirmed by Henry I (Teulet, Lay- ettes, i, no. 22) and may perhaps mean that the judgment of parishioners and the 36 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS supremacy to which the eleventh century affords no parallel."" A familiar passage of Eadmer >^' assigns a Norman origin to the customs which the Conqueror established with respect to church matters in England — control over coimcils and appointments, necessity of the king's approval for the excommimication of his barons and for the reception of letters or legates from Rome — and there is little to add to what is already known concerning his policy in these respects in Normandy."^ WiUiam was regularly present at the meetings of church councils, and their decrees were issued with his sanction. He not only appointed the bishops and abbots, like the stronger princes of his time, but was able on occa- sion to secure their deposition. The monasteries were under the special protection of the duke, and this was so effective as to leave little room in Normandy for the avoues who play so large a part in monastic and feudal history elsewhere."' No bishop succeeded in getting permanent possession of a county or even in acquiring the full rights of a count in his episcopal city, where the presence of the vicomte was a constant reminder of the duke's authority and might, as at Rouen in 1073, even serve to protect the prelate in time of disturbance."* If we may judge by the case of the see of penalty prescribed in the preceding clause had been forced by the king upon the unwilling bishops. "" "Das landesherrUche Kirchenregiment war hier mithin viel starker entwickelt, als in den anderen Staaten des Kontinents: " Bohmer, p. 33. The absence of such control over the bishops was a constant source of weakness to Normandy's powerful neighbor, the count of Flanders: Lot, 6tndes sur le regne de Hugues Capet, p. 219. '" Eisioria Novorum, p. 9; Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 520. 1^ Bohmer's discussion is the best. The council of Lisieux of 1064, discovered and published by Delisle {Journal des savants, 1901, p. 516), should be added to his list of councils. On the appointment of bishops see also Imbart de la Tour, Les elections ipiscopales dans I'iglisfi de France (Paris, 1891), pp. 247, 273, 291-294, 455. "' Brussel, Usage des fiefs, ii. 810; F. Senn, L'institution des avoueries ecd6sias- iiques en France (Paris, 1903), p. 95 ff.; both of whom insist too absolutely upon the exclusion of the avouS from early Normandy. See Valin, pp. 85-88; and Sauvage, Troarn, p. 61. The absence of the vidame is also noteworthy: Senn, L'institu- tion des vidamies p. 98 f. See, however, below, p. 167. i« Gallia Christiana, xi. 34; on the date see Vacandard, Revue catholique, iii. 118 (1893). Geoffrey de Montbray had no land in Coutances when he became bishop, and was obliged to purchase what he needed from the duke: Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 219. The bishop of Lisieux had greater freedom: Stapleton, i, p. cbdx; H. de Formeville, Histoire de I'ancien ivtchi-comti de Lisieux (Lisieux, 1873), PP- dxlvii, 315. WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 37 Bayeux, "' the bishops lost rather than gained by the anarchy of the Conqueror's successor, and when bishops appear taking an important part in secular affairs in the twelfth century, it is as the agents and justices of the duke and not as his rivals. One function of the Norman ecclesiastical courts found no occasion for its exercise in England,"^ namely their enforcement of the Truce of God. Introduced into Normandy in its Flemish form early in the Conqueror's reign,"' the Truce was reaffirmed by councils of 1064 and 1080 and elaborated at the coimcil of Rouen in 1096. The original penalties were ecclesiastical and their imposition was the duty of the bishop and his deputies: before 1067 the bishop of Evreux is trying to punish monks for its infrac- tion;"* under Henry I the bishop's claim to his fine is clearly recognized; "' and as late as 1233 the bishop of Avranches and his rural deans assert their immemorial right to hold placita treuge}^" The duke, however, has likewise an interest in maintaining so important an adjunct to pubhc order: the council of LiUebonne provides that the lord of the land shall aid the bishop in coercing recalcitrant offenders, and, failing his aid, the vicomte of the duke shall take the matter into his hands; while by 1135 the ptmish- ment of serious violations has become the function of the ducal "^ Livre noir, pp. xli, xlii. "' On the absence of the Truce of God m England, see F. Liebermann, Ueber die Leges Edwardi Confessoris, p. 59 ff.; Pollock and Maitland, i. 75 f. Their conclu- sions do not seem to me invaUdated by what Powicke says on the subject {Loss of Normandy, p. 94), although his general views on the Norman phase of the question appear sound. Cf. Liebermann, Gesetze, ii. 687 f. "' Bessin, Concilia, i. 39; Mansi, xix. 597; cf. Gallia Christiana, sd. instr. 202; Acta Sanctorum, August, iv. 834; Analecta Bollandiana, xxii. 438; M. G. H., Scrip- tores, viii. 403. On the date of the council, which is not later than 1047 and is prob- ably of 1042 or 1043, see Tardif, Siude, p. 29 f., where the paraUeUsm with the Flemish form of the text is overlooked. The latest edition of the Norman ordinance, that of the M. G. H., Constitutiones et Acta Publica, i. 600, does not pay sufficient attention to Norman MSS., such as MS. Rouen 1383, f. 9, a MS. of the eleventh century from JumiSges, or MS. Lat. 1928, f. 173V (used by Bessin). The provisions of the various councils are analyzed by Tardif, p. 30 ff. "' Migne, cxliii. 1387. ' "9 Tres Anciln Coutumier, c. 71; Round, no. 290. Cf. Delisle, in B. £. C, xiii. 102. "° L. Auvray, Registres de GrSgoire IX, no. 1308; Collection Moreau, mclxxxviii. 68. 38 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS court, and the bishop's interest is merely pecuniary."" "As it appears in the first part of the Tres Ancien Coutumier, the Truce of God has ahnost become the peace of the duke." "^^ While, however, the ducal authority welcomed such aid in the diflftcult task of maintaining order, it did not owe its supremacy to an ecclesiastical principle imported from without; Normandy was not one of the coimtries where the Landfrieden sprang from the Gottesfrieden. In the reign of Robert I we see the duke's mes- senger separating combatants and putting them imder oath to abide by the decision of his court,"' while their repression of dis- order and their rigorous administration of justice are the constant refrain of Dudo's eulogies of the first three dukes."" From the Conqueror's reign we have his law limiting the blood feud in 1075,"^ and the numerous restrictions upon private war formu- lated in the Consuetudines et iusticie.^^ According to these no one was allowed to go out to seek his enemy with hauberk and stand- ard and soimding horn. Assaults and ambushes were not per- mitted in the duke's forests, nor could a Joust be made an occasion for an ambuscade. Captives were not to be taken in a feud, nor could arms, horses, or property be carried off from a combat. Burning, plimder, and waste were forbidden in pursuing claims to land, and, except for open crimes, no one could be condemned to loss of limb save by judgment of the proper ducal or baronial court. Moreover castles and strongholds could be built only by the duke's Hcense and were required to be handed over to him on demand, and he could also exact hostages as a guarantee of a baron's loyalty."" Coinage was his,"^ and everything relating "1 Supra, note 149. "2 Tardif, p. 49. ii>3 Vita Herluini, in Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vi. 2, p. 348. '" Ed. Lair, pp. 171, 183, 196, 200 f., 205, 245, 248, 255, 259, 261-264, 266, 268 f., 272, 280, 290-293. On the nature of their legislation against disorder see Tardif, &tude, pp. 14-21. 156 Duchesne, p. 1018; see below, Appendix D, note 9. Cf. the restrictions upon private war in the case of clerks, council of Lisieux, 1064, cc. s, 7 {Journal des savants, 1901, p. 517). On the Conqueror's early legislation see Tardif, £tude, p. 31 f. "« Appendix D. "' Respecting the Conqueror's control over castles compare William of JumiSges (bk. vii, c. I, ed. Marx, p. 115 f.) on the beginning of his reign with Ordericus (iii. 262) on conditions after his death, "' Appendix D, p. 280. WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 39 thereto. There was, we have already seen, a well developed ducal jurisdiction, and the maintenance of the duke's judicial suprem- acy was only one form of the persistent assertion of his ultimate authority over his barons. The extermination of disorder and vio- lence was doubtless less complete than the Conqueror's panegyrists would have us believe,i^' but the peace of the duke was already a fact as well as a theory. An authority such as the Conqueror wielded in church and state required a considerable income for its maintenance, and while there are no fiscal records for Normandy earlier than 1180, it is possible to trace back to William's time most of the sources of revenue which appear in detail in the Exchequer Rolls a century later.i™ The duke had his domains and forests, scattered through- out the duchy and sometimes of considerable extent, which might yield a money rent as well as a great variety of payments in kind. He had his mills, such as the eight ' fiscal mills ' on the Eau de Robec at Rouen, his salt-pans, his fishing-rights at certain points on the rivers and on the coast, and his monopoly of the taking of whales and other ' great fish.' Wreck and treasure-trove were his, as well as the profits of coinage.'" He had large possessions in certain towns — he could sell half of Coutances to its bishop '^^ — in addition to tolls, rights over markets and fairs, and other urban consuetiidines}^^ Bernagium for his himting dogs was a burden on 159 William of Poitiers, ed. Duchesne, p. 193 (Migne, cxlix. 1240); Ordericus, ii. 177; Wace, ed. Andresen, lines 5348-5352. ISO See the classical study of Delisle, Des revenus publics en Normandie au dou- zUme siecle, in B. t,. C, x. 173-210, 257-289, xi. 400-451, xiii. 97-135. On the domain of the early dukes, see Prentout, Etude sur Dudon, p. 265. 1^' On the ducal rights over coinage, see Appendix D. 162 Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 219. "' E. g., in a charter of 1068 for Troam, ' in Falesia totam terram Wesman et consuetudines eius ad regem pertinentes ': Sauvage, Troam, p. 350. The follow- ing, relating to Bayeux, is more specific: ' Et ille bene sdt domos infra civitatem et terram extra civitatem positam semper fuisse quietas ab omni consuetudine Normannorum principis, scilicet theloneo, gildo, molta molendinorum, et custodia vigilianim, et dominus predicte terre si faceret adducere vinum suum de Argencis asset quietus suum carragium apud Cadomum et apud Baiocas ' {Archaeologia, xxvii. 27). For Caen see H. Legras, Le bourgage de Caen (Paris, 1911), pp. 39-42, 52, 74 fi- 40 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS the land,"* as was also an exaction called gravaria}^^ The fines and forfeitures of justice and the receipts from feudal dues were naturally important. How the revenues of the Norman dukes were collected and ad- mraistered is a question of great interest, particularly to the stu- dent of English institutions. Since the days of the Dialogue on the Exchequer "^ there have not been wanting those who have main- tained that the English Exchequer was organized on the model of an earlier Norman institution; and while recent investigations have traced portions of the Exchequer system back to Anglo- Saxon times "' and have suggested that an elaborate fiscal system is more likely to have grown out of the collection of a heavy tax like Danegeld than out of the more ordinary and miscellaneous set of revenues which we have just enxunerated,"' the possi- bility of Norman influence upon the Enghsh Exchequer has by no means been eliminated from the discussion. The Norman evi- dence, it is true, is of the most meager sort,'*' the absence of any- thing like the Domesday survey being the greatest gap; but the argument from silence is especially dangerous where the destruc- tion of records has been so great as in Normandy, and it is well to bear in mind that, save for the accident which has preserved a single Pipe Roll of Henry I, the existence of the English Excheq- uer is barely known before Henry II. A ducal treasury appears in Normandy as early as Richard II, who gives a himdred pounds from his camera to redeem lands of Saint-Benigne of Dijon,"" and '" Infra, Appendix D, p. 279; Round, Calendar, no. 2; Monasticon, vii. 1074; Liber Alius of Le Mans, no. i; charter of William I for Saint-fitienne, Archives of the Calvados, H. 1830, 2-2 (' quietum ab omni gravaria et bemagio '); charter of William Rufus for Bee, Davis, Regesta, no. 425 {infra, p. 82). 165 DuCange, Glossarium, under ' gravaria '; Stapleton, i, pp. Ixxxvii, xcvii, cxxviii, clxxxi; P. de Farcy, Abbayes de I'evichS de Bayeux, Cerisy, p. 81 f. (before 1066); Roimd, Calendar, nos. 117, 1175; B. &. C, xiii. 120-122. "* Bk. i, c. 4, ed. Hughes, Crump, and Johnson, p. 66. !«' See especially Round, Commune of London, p. 62 ff.; and R. L. Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1912), chs. 2, 3. "' Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 140. "° The name exchequer appears in Normandy in a document of ca. 1130: Round, E. H. R., xiv. 426; infra. Chapter III, note 18. An exchequer roll of 1136 was cited in the eighteenth century, M. A. N., xvi, p. xxx. See below, p. 175. i'» ' Tactus pater meus divina inspiratione dedit de camera sua predicto Attoni WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 4 1 grants to Fecamp permanently the tithe of his camera."^ The latter grant, which has come down in the original, is particularly- interesting, for the duke goes on to define the camera as compris- ing everything given to him " by reason of the service of any- thing, whether lands purchased or fines or gifts or any sort of transaction " — in other words, any extraordinary or occasional addition to his treasure.^'^ The profits of coinage are separately reckoned, and the fiscalis census and " what are anciently called customs " are expressly excluded. It would be rash to attempt to define too closely the content of the census and the customs, but the census must at least have covered the returns from the demesne and forests, and the customs would naturally include the profits of tolls and markets and justice — altogether much the sort of thing which was later comprised within the farm of the vicomte or prevote. The duke plainly knows the difference between his ordinary and his extraordinary sources of income. So a cen- tury and a half later we find that returns from the mint and re- ceipts of the camera are separately accoimted for; the Exchequer Rolls record only the revenues gathered by the local ofl&cers. Can we discover in the eleventh century any indication of sys- tem in the collection of these fixed sources of revenue ? We may dismiss at the outset, as the report of a later age, Wace's picture of Richard II shut up in a towef with his vicomtes and prevdts and centum libras nummorum.' Charter of Robert I, MS. 1656 of the Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve at Paris, p. 46; printed, inaccurately, in Deville, Analyse, p. 34. Cf. Appendix C, no. 4. '" ' Concedo jtiam decimas monetg nostrae ex integro et decimas nostrg camerg, videlicet de omnibus qugcumque michi alicuius rei servitio dabuntur, videlicet aut emptarum terrarum aut emendarum aut cuiuslibetcumque negotii sive dono muneris gratis dati excepto fiscali censu et exceptis his quae costumas antiquitus dicunt. Do et decimas telonei de burgo qui dicitur Cadumus.' Charter of 1027 for F6camp, Mus6e de la Benedictine, no. 2 ter; Neustria Pia, p. 217; infra, Appendix B, no. 5. The grant of the toll of Caen shows that tolls are not included in the receipts of the camera. Cf . the grant by Robert I of ' decimam denariorum suorum ' to the canons of Rouen: Le Provost, Eure, ii. 520. •" So when Nigel grants Ceaux to Mont-Saint-Michel a pajfment is made to William I's camera: ' Pro cuius rei concessu dedit prefato GuiUelmo centum et 1*" libras quas accepit Radulfiis camerarius' (MS. Avranches 210, f. 107); c£. the cubicularii who are ordered to make a payment from Robert's treasury (William of Jumifeges, ed. Marx, p. 107) ; and the ministri camere sue who draw up the descrip- tion of William's treasure in 1087 {De obitu Willelmi, ibid., p, 146). 42 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS going over their accounts; "' but it is nevertheless possible, by working back from documents of the twelfth century, to reach cer- tain conclusions with respect to the fiscal system of the Con- queror's reign. In the first place it is clear that the farm of the vicomte existed under William I, for we know from a charter of Henry I that certain fiaced items in the later roUs, to wit twelve pounds in the farm and twenty shillings in the toll of Argentan and sixty shillings and tenpence in the toll of Exmes, had been settled as alms to the canons of Seez by grant of his father and mother."* Permanent charges of this sort, either in the form of tithes or of definite amounts, are frequently recorded against the farms in the Norman rolls of the twelfth century, as in the English Pipe RoUs of the same period, but whereas in the English rolls such fixed ahns are of recent creation, ia Normandy they can often be traced back into the eleventh century. Thus Saint-Wandrille produced charters of Richard II to secure its title to the tithes of the toll of Falaise, Exmes, Argentan,"^ and the Hiesmois, of the mcomtes and tolls of Dieppe and Arques, and of the fair of Caen."* By grant of the same prince Fecamp received the tithe of the toll of Caen,'" ajid Jumieges the tithes of the privates of Bayeux and "' Ed. Andresen, lines 2009-2012. The early form of the passage (William of Jumieges, ed. Marx, p. 89) speaks merely of ' quarumdam rerum publicarum totius Neustrie . . . generale placitum.' Cf. E. H. R., xxxi. 151. 1" ' Preterea duodecim libras in firma nostra de Argentomo et viginti et mium solidos in teloneo eitisdem ville et sexaginta solidos et decern denarios de tdoneo meo de Oximis, que dederunt pater meus et mater mea ecclesie Sagiensi ad victmn canonicorum duorum, quod antiquitus in elemosinam statutum fuerat: ' MS. Alenjon 177, f. 98; MS. Lat. 11058, f. 8. See the charter in full in Appendix F, no. 11; andd. infra, Chapter III. These items are duly charged in the rolls of 1180 and 1184: Stapleton, i, pp. Ixxxviii, xcvi, cxxxii, 39, 50, 103; Delisle, Henri II, p. 334- '"■ In the later rolls this has become a fixed rent of 15 pounds: M. A. N., xvi, p. xii; Delisle, Henri II, p. 334. i'6 See the charges in Stapleton, i, pp. xcvi, ci, cviii, cxxiii, cxxxii, 39, 30, 57, 68, 90, 103; and the charters in Lot, S.-WandrUle, no. 11 ABCD, who shows their late origin (pp. Ixxxii f., xcvi f .). Note, however, the grant of the tithe of the markets of the Hiesmois by Robert I in no. 14. "' See above, note 171; Stapleton, i, pp. xxiv, c, 56. Saint-Taurin, later a de- pendency of Fficamp, received from Richard I the tithe of the vicomti of fivreux, but this passed out of the duke's hands and does not appear in the rolls: ' Little Cartulary," fE. 57, iisv; Bonnin, Cartidaire de Louviers, i. i; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 138; Martina and Durand, Thesaurus Anecdotorum, i. 154. The tithe of WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 43 the Bessin.i" The abbey of Cerisy received its tithes, as granted by Robert I and confimied by the Conqueror in 1042, from the vicomtes of the Cotentin, Coutances, and Gavray, and from a number of the ducal forests."' By authority of William I the nuns of Saint-Amand had the tithe of Barfleur, of Saint- James, and of the modiatio of Rouen ; 1*" those of La Trinite had two-thirds of the tithe of the prevdie of Caen; the bishop of Coutances had the tithe of the toU of Cherbourg, and the canons of Cherbourg the tithe of the ducal mills in Guernsey.'*' Specific grants make their appear- ance in the same reign: besides the above mentioned grant to Seez William gives, before 1066, to the nims of MontiviUiers a hundred shillings in the prevdte of Caen.'*^ In none of these cases does the original grant use the word farm, although the duke's revenues at Barfleur and in the vicomtes of the Cotentin, Cou- tances, and Gavray are expressly stated to be in money, but it is altogether likely in view of the charter to Seez that the vicomtes and prevStes were farmed in the Conqueror's time. This was almost certainly true in the case of Avranches, from whose farm of £80 twenty were regularly credited at the Exchequer on ac- count of the ducal manor of Vains and its appurtenances, which had been granted by the Conqueror to Saint-Etienne. If the farm had been established after the date of this grant, it would have been stated net, instead of recording to no purpose the deduction for what was no longer a source of ducal income, so Avranches, granted to the cathedral by Robert I (Pigeon, Le diocese d' Avranches, ii. 667), does not appear in the rolls, for similar reasons. "' NeustriaPia,p. 323; Monasticon, ini. loSy; Delisle-Berger, no.527; Staple- ton, i. 7, 40; Vernier, i. 40, ii. 23. "' Netisiria Pia, p. 432; Monasticon, vii. 1073; Farcy, Abbayes de V&vichS de Bayeux, pj 78; Appendix C, no. 3. "" Monasticon, vii. iioi; Stapleton, i. 37, 40. "1 Stapleton, i, pp. c, 56, kxxiii, 30, kxvii, 27. The tithe of Moulins {ibid., pp. cxxxiv, 105) also went back to a grant approved by William before 1066: Cartulaire de S.-Pere de Chartres, i. 146. »8« Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 328; Stapleton, i. pp. c, 56. The Conqueror also assigned against this prtiSti twelve prebends for his hospital at Caen, and similar charges were made against the prevSti of Bayeux: Stapleton, i, pp. bd, ci; cf. Henry II's charter for the lepers of Bayeux, Delisle-Berger, no. 689. The duke's ofiScers also pay tithes and fixed charges granted by his barons on toUs which have subsequently come into his hands. B.£.C.,x. 178, 196; Stapleton, i, pp. bdv, cxviii, 8, 14, 17, 82. Cf . Diaiogus de Scaccario, bk. ii, c. 10. 44 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS that we must infer the existence of this farm under the Con- queror.i*' In any event, in order to make grants of tithes of fixed amounts, the duke must have been in the habit of dealing with these local areas as fiscal wholes and not as mere aggregates of scattered sources of income; the uliit was the vicomte or pr^dti, and not the individual domain. He can tithe the revenue from such a district as he can tithe the receipts of his camera. One other point of interest deserves to be mentioned in connection with these entries of fixed alms, the fact, namely, that wherever the matter can be tested, the various fixed charges are entered under each account in chronological order.i^^ This cannot be mere chance, nor is it likely that a later exchequer oflicial would have sufl&cient historical interest to rearrange them chronologi- cally; it is much more probable that when each grant was made it was entered, probably on a central record similar to the later exactory roll. If this is the correct explanation, it follows that where the list begins with the grants of Richard II and continues with those of William, i*^ the entries were made as early as the Conqueror's time. There would be nothing surprising in the exist- ence of a record of amoimts due and allowances to be made; such a roll is the natural part of the system of farms and fixed alms which we have fotmd under the Conqueror, if not of the state of affairs existing under Richard 11.^^ Whatever weight may be attached to these inferences, it would seem clear that in the matter of fiscal organization Normandy was well in advance of neighboring lands such as the county of Anjou or the royal domain.^*^ The Capetian charters of the ^^ See the inquest of 1171 in Delisle, Benri II, p. 343; and my observations in E. H. R., xxvi. 327. For the grant of Vains as confirmed by Robert II, see infra, Appendix E, no. i. 's* Stapleton, i. 7, 30, 38, 39, 50, 56, 68, 70, 90, 97, 103, in; M.A. N., xvi. 109. '*' E. g., Stapleton, i. 39, 56. "* Compare the early development of a fiscal system in Flanders: H. Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, i. 109. '" A comparative study of fiscal arrangements in the eleventh century is much needed. The charters of the Angevin counts are listed by L. Halphen, Le comtS d'Anjou au XI' sUcle (Paris, 1906); those of Robert I and Henry I by C. Pfister, &tudes sur k rigne de Robert le Pieux (Paris, 1885), and F. Soehn6e, Catalogue des actes d'Henri I" (Paris, 1907). The charters of Philip I are now accessible in the admirable edition of Maurice Prou, Recueil des actes de Philippe I" (Paris, 1908). WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR 45 eleventh century, for example, indicate fairly primitive economic conditions. The kings are liberal in granting lands and exemp- tions and rights of exploitation, but fixed grants of money are rare and small in amount, and are nearly always charged against an individual domain or a specific source of revenue rather than, as in Normandy, against the receipts from a considerable district. '*» Whereas the Conqueror's grants give evidence of a considerable money income, the ruder economy, or Naturalwirthschaft, of the Capetian kings is shown by the prevalence, well into the twelfth century, of fixed charges which are paid m kind — the tithe of the royal cellars and granaries at Auvers and Poissy,'*' two sellers of salt in the granaries of Perche, fourteen muids of grain in the mills of Bourges, or twenty muids of wine from the vineyards of Vorges and Joui."" It is thoroughly characteristic of the condition of eleventh-century Normandy that the dukes should be sparing in conferring extensive franchises and rights of exploitation, while they were generous in permanent grants of money from the income which their own officers collected. In local government the distinctive feature of the Norman sys- tem is the presence of a set of officers who are public officials, rather than mere domanial agents, and are in charge of adminis- trative districts of considerable extent. As has been anticipated in the account of Norman finance, the chief local officer of the 188 The nearest paralleb to the Norman grants among the grants of the Capetian kings are the gift by Robert I to the church of fitampes of ten sous of ' census de fisco regali Stampensi ' {H. F., xi. 579; Soehn6e, no. 73), an Until the Regesta of Davis shall have created a documentary and chronological basis for the study of this reign in England, it is premature to undertake a systematic treatment of its annals in Normandy.* For the present we must content our- selves with an exploration of the significant points in the admin- istrative system, having regard on the one hand to the restoration of stable government after the overthrow of Robert, and on the other to such institutions of later Normandy as can be traced back to Henry's reign. Parallels and connections with England will inevitably suggest themselves. 1 Revised and expanded from E. H. R., xxiv. 209-231 (1909). ^ Supra, Chapter I. ' Trbs Ancien Coutumier, ed. Tardif, c. 71; Round, Calendar, no. 290. * See Chapters II and IV. ' See, however, the contributions to Henry's Norman itinerary in Appendix G. 86 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS When the victory of Tinchebrai, 28 September 1106, gave Henry complete control of the duchy, it found him already estab- lished at Bayeux, Caen, and fivreux.* Proceeding to Rouen, he renewed his father's privileges to the city: paternas leges renmavit pristinasque urbis dignitates restiUdt, phrases which also point to a general restoration of the Conqueror's system of government throughout the duchy.' Such was also the purpose of a council of barons and clergy held in mid-October at Lisieux, where, accord- ing to Ordericus,* Henry revoked all Robert's grants from the ducal domain and restored the possessions of the church as they had stood at the time of his father's death. General peace was reestablished by the repression of acts of robbery and violence, and we are told that special penalties were enacted against rape and counterfeiting.' The destruction of adulterine castles was also systematically begun.^" Assemblies were held at Falaise in January and at Lisieux in March of 1 107, but no record of their legislation has reached us," and by Easter Henry was back in ' Besides the narratives of the events of 1105-1106 to be found in the chroniclers — Ordericus, Henry of Huntingdon, the Peterborough chronicle, Florence of Wor- cester, WiUiam of Mahnesbxuy, and Wace, who preserves certain local details — there are three contemporary pieces of importance: (i) Serlo, De capta Baiocensi civitate, H. F., xix, p. xci; Wright, Anglo-Latin Poets, ii. 241; see Bohmer, Serlo lion Bayeux, in Neues Archiv, jcdi. 701-738. (2) Henry's letter to Anselm after Tinchebrai, in Eadmer, Eistoria Novorum, p. 184. (3) The account of this battle by a priest of F&, first printed by Delisle, Robert of Torigni, i. 129; reprinted, E. H. R., xxiv. 728, and, more correctly, xxv. 295. ' Ordericus, iv. 233; cf. Tardif, Etude sur les sources, i. 43. That paternas leges applies to the whole duchy is clear from the repetition of the phrase in the speech which Ordericus puts in Henry's mouth in r 119 (iv. 402). Cf. the use of laga Edwardi in England. 8 iv. 233. » According to a statement of uncertain origin in Bessin, ConcUia, i. 79; cf. Le Provost's note to Ordericus, iv. 233; Tardif, £tude, p. 46. The penalties are similar to those proclaimed in England in 1108 and enforced severely in ir2s: Florence of Worcester, ii. 57, 79; William of Mahnesbury, Cesta Regum, p. 476; Eadmer, Historia Novorum, p. T93; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 246; Simeon of Durham, ii. 281; Robert of Torigni, in William of JumiSges, ed. Marx, p. 297; Suger, Louis le Gros, ed. Molinier, p. 47. In a charter issued at Easter 1108 Henry describes this English legislation as ' nova statuta mea de iudiciis sive de placitis latronum et falsorum monetariorum ': Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1338-1340, p. 166; Historians of the Church of York, iii. 22. " Ordericus, iv. 236; Suger, p. 47. u Ordericus, iv. 239, 269. HENRY I 87 England.!" Ordericus tells us, under this same year, that the magistraius populi were often called to the curia and admonished to conform themselves to the new conditions of peace and stricter responsibility." The only meeting of the curia of which we have formal record at this time was held at Rouen, 7 November 1106, in the archbishop's camera, to decide a dispute between the monasteries of Fecamp and Saint-Taurin of fivreux, which had been subjected to Fecamp by charter of Robert the Magnificent; the decision was given by the * counsel and judgment of the bishops, abbots, and barons,' among whom appear the archbishop of Rouen, the bishops of Bayeux, fivreux, Winchester, and Dur- ham, the abbots of Saint-Ouen, La Trinite, Jumieges, and Troarn, the archdeacons of Rouen and Evreux, Robert de Meulan, Richard de Revers, William d'Aubigny, and the king's chancellor Waldric." Another suit of this same winter was decided in favor of the abbey of Bee in the presence of the archbishop and the bishops and barons of Normandy, the charter which records the result being approved by King Henry, the bishops of Bayeux and Avranches, Robert of BeUeme, Robert of Meulan, Eustace of Boulogne, Henry, coimt of Eu, and the archdeacons of Rouen.^^ What means were provided for maintaining the government during the king's absence is a question which we caimot answer from the chroniclers, who are quite fragmentary on events in Nor- mandy between 1107 and 1112. The charters, however, teU us before 1108 of ducal justices in the Cotentin, and before 1109 of a chief justiciar; and, as we shall see, the curia meets to decide an important case in the king's absence in 1 1 1 1 .'' It can hardly be an accident that before his departure in 1107 Henry gave the see of Lisieux to John, who appears at the head of the Norman curia in "2 Henry of Huntingdon, p. 236. '' iv. 269. " Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 127; a fuller list of witnesses in Collection Moreau, xlii. 88. Henry's presence at Rouen is also attested for 30 November of this year by a charter witnessed by his chancellor Waldric (Calendar of Charier Rolls, v. 56, no. 7; Monasticon, iii. 384), who was about this time sought out at Rouen by the canons of Laon: Davis, in E. H. R., xxvi. 88. '' Appendix F, no. i. " See the charters for Montebourg, Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, and JumiSges cited below, p. 93 f. 88 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS the later years of the reign, and who had ahready served a long apprenticeship as judge in ecclesiastical causes in Normandy and as one of Henry's principal chaplains in England." It is probable that Bishop John was, if not the head, at least an important mem- ber of the government of the duchy in these early years; but there is no definite evidence for this period, and little enough for any period, and we are compelled to study the administration of Normandy topically rather than chronologically throughout the reign. Only toward the end do the long sojourns of Henry on the Norman side of the Channel and a somewhat greater variety of evidence give us a rather more connected view. The starting-point for any study of the govermnent of Nor- mandy imder Henry I is the plea, published by Round in 1899, which established for the first time the existence of the Norman Exchequer eo nomine in this reign.^* In this document the great " Ordericus, iv. 273-275 : ' A prefatis itaque magistris, quia ratione et eloquentia satis enituit, ad archidiaconatus ofiScium promotus, ad examen rectitudinis iure proferendum inter primos resedit et ecclesiastica negotia rationabiliter diu disseruit.' Driven out of the archdeaconry of S6ez by Robert of BellSme he fled to England, where ' inter precipuos regis capellanos computatus est, atque ad regalia inter familiares consiHa sepe accitus est.' Note that Bishop John was not only a contemporary of Ordericus but also his diocesan. '* ' Isti simt homines qui fuerunt [presentes] ubi Bemardus disrationavit versus Serlonem surdum virgultum et terram iuxta virgultum de Maton ad dominium suum, sciUcet Robertus de Curci dapifer et Willelmus filius Odonis et Henricus de Pomerai et Willelmus Glastonie et Wiganus Marescallus et Robertus capellanus episcopi Luxoviensis et Robertus Ebroicensis et Martin scriba de capella. Et ibi positiis fuit Serlo in misericordia regis per indicium baronum de scaccario quia excoluerat terram illam super saisinam Bemardi, quam ante placitum istud dis- racionaverat per indicium episcopi Luxoviensis et Roberti de Haia et multorum aliorum ad scaccarium. Et hoc idem testificati fuerunt per brevia sua ad hoc placitum ubi non interfuerunt quia ambo tunc infirmi fuerunt. Et cum Serlone fuerunt ibi Ricardus frater suus et [blank] qui hoc viderunt et audierunt et per de- precationem Bemardi Serlo admensuratus fuit de misericordia regis ad x solidos.' E. H. R., xiv. 426. Valin, pp. 125-132, labors hard to explain away this document, which upsets his whole theory of the origin and functions of the Exchequer, on the ground that it was drawn up, probably later, by a canon of Merton who introduced English terminology. Taken apart from any preconceived theory, however, it is strictly parallel to the other notices concerning the lands of Bernard the scribe which Round has printed (/. c, 417-430), all of which are plainly contemporaneous records of transactions of the reign of Henry I and show no trace of tampering, The form HENRY I 89 officers of the household — Robert de Courcy seneschal, Henry de la Pommeraie and WilUam Fitz Odo constables, William of Glastonbury chamberlain,^* and Wigan the marshal — together with Robert the treasurer ^^ and two other clerks, sit in judgment as ' barons of the Exchequer ' to determine the ownership of a piece of land, as well as to protect possession previously estab- lished at the Exchequer before John, bishop of Lisieux, Robert de la Haie seneschal, and. others. With this clue in our hands, we shall have little difficulty in recognizing the same body in the fol- lowing charter, in which, this time under the name of the king's curia, it sustains the appeal of the abbot of Fecamp against an infringement of the abbey's haute justice ^^ by the king's justices. It is not stated that the witnesses to the charter are the members of the court who rendered the decision, but such is doubtless the case. The bishop of Lisieux, the two seneschals, and WiUiam of Glastonbury are known to us as barons of the Exchequer from the document already mentioned, while William d'Aubigny the can also be found in St. Paul's charters of the same period: 9 Bistorical MSS. Com- mission, p. 61 f. Valin's main argument, the statement that there was no such thing as a Norman Exchequer before 1176, will be disposed of in Chapter V. As Powicke points out (Loss of Normandy, p. 85), the name is of subordinate impor- tance; the existence of the court under Henry I is abundantly established by the documents printed in Chapter III. " The office inherited by William from his uncle Walchelin was a chamberlain- ship {MonasHcon, vii. 1000). He also appears in two other docimients relating to the administration of justice in Normandy: E. H. R., xiv. 424; Liwe noir, no. 8. '■" For proof that Robert of fivremc was treasurer, see below, p. 108 f. As the charter there quoted shows that he was chaplain to Stephen, he cannot be the man of this name whose son appears as a claimant for his father's land in Cornwall in 1 130, so that Round's reason for dating his plea before 1130 fells. ^^ Miurder and arson were pleas of the crown in Normandy, but had been con- ferred on certain immunists by ducal grant. See supra, Chapter I; and Appendix D. For the reign of Henry I the clearest statement is found in his charter of 1134 for Bee: ' Concedimus etiam eisdem monachis ut habeant in tota parochia Becci omnes regias Ubertates: murdrum, mortem hominis, plagam, mehaim, sanguinem, aquam, et ignem, sed et latronem in Becci parochia captum undecumque .fuerit, et omnes alias regias Ubertates quocumque nomine vocentur, excepto solummodo rapto, de quo honestius existimavimus seculares quam monachos iudicare: ' MS. Lat. 13905, f. 9v; MS. Lat. 1S97B, f. i66v; Archives Nationales, JJ. 92, f. 17, no. 58; Round, Calendar, no. 375; Por6e, Bee, i. 658 f. From a comparison of this with the F& charter printed in the text, E. Perrot, Les cos roywux, p. 315, ' argues that the theory of pleas of the crown had not yet become permanently fixed. 90 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS butler and Geoffrey de Clinton chamberlain and treasurer '^^ are well-known ofl&cers of Henry's household. (i) H. rex Angl[orum] iustic[iis] et omnibus baronibus et vic[ecomitibus] et ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis totius terre sue salutem. Sciatis quia iuditio et consideratione curie mee per privilegium ecclesie de Fiscann[o] ex dono et concessione predecessorum meonim remanserunt Rogero abbati Fiscann[ensi] et conventui Fiscann[ensi] .xxi.^ libre de placit[o] de quadam combustione et .xx. libre de plac[ito] de quodam homiddio factis in terra Sancte Trinitatis Fiscamip], unde iusticia mea placitaverat et duellum tenuerat de combustione in curia mea. Ideoque precipio et vole quod amodo teneat predicta abbatia Sancte Trinitatis de Fiscann[o] omnes dignitates suas et rectitudines et consuetudines tarn in placitis quam in omnibus aliis rebus, sicut umquam prefata abbatia melius et quietius et honorificentius tenuit tempore predecessorum meorum et sicut carta ecclesie testatur et sicut per breve meum precipio. T[estibus] lohanne Lexov[iensi] episcopo et Roberto de Haia et Roberto de Curceio et Willelmo de Albany et Galfr[edo] de Clinton[ia] et Willelmo de Glestingeberia. Apud Rothom[agum]." It will be observed that the word curia in this charter is used of two different bodies, the household officials, probably sitting at Rouen, where the charter is issued, and the king's justices (iusticia), from whose jurisdiction in holding pleas of the crown the abbot claims exemption. In the following docimients we see the king and his curia determining questions of title to land, but nothing is said of the composition of the court: (2) H. rex Angl[orum] Ric[ardo] episcopo Baioc[ensi] et omnibus baro- nibus et fidelibus suis deOismeis salutem. Sciatis meconcessisseDeo et Sancte Martino et monachis de Troarz amodo in peipetumn totimi mariscum imde placitvun fuit in curia mea inter monachos predictos et Robertum de Usseio. Ipse enim Robertus predictus recognovit rectum eorum quod iniuste earn (sic) clamabat et illam calumpniam marisci quam habebat in eo Deo et Sancto Martino clamavit quietam coram me. Et volo et concede et firmiter precipio ut amodo in pace et honorifice et quiete et perpetualiter teneat ecclesia supradicta totum iEud mariscum absque calumpnia et teneat et habeat sicut melius et honorabilius et quietius tenet suas alias res. T[estibus] Roberto com[ite] de Mellent et Nig[eUo] de Albinni. Apud Rothomagum.''^ ^ Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 37; Monasticon, vi. 220; Calendar of CItarter Rolls, iii. 27s. " The cartulary has '.xx.' '* Public Record Office, Cartae Antiquae, S. 3; cartulary of Fficamp in the library at Rouen, MS. 1207, no. 7, where only the first of the witnesses is given. Valin, p. 25g, prints from the cartulary. " Original, formerly sealed sur simple queue, in Archives of the Calvados, /omJf Troam (Marais, liasse 2, no. 776*5); copy by La Rue in the Collection Mancel at HENRY I 91 (3) Notum sit domino Normannig et omnibus hgredibus meis, baronibus, prepositis, et ministris quod ego Guillelmus comes de Pontivo cum essem apud Falesiam ante dominum meimi Henricum regem Anglorum habui ver- bum cum Rogerio de Gratapanchia patre et filio de maresco quod calumnia- bantui contra Sanctum Martinum et monachos eius, et rem gestam et tanto tempore a meis antecessoribus possessam et quomodo liberam et communem regi prgfato ostendi. Diiudicavit autem rex et eius curia per verba mea et illorum Sancto Martino et monachis remanere marescum quietum et liberum et amplius non debere fieri inde contra eos calumniam. Quapropter prgcipio omnibus hgredibus meis ut hgc firmiter in perpetuum teneant. Huius finis testes mei sunt Hugo vicecomes et Robertus frater eius, Paganus filius Hugonis de Mesdavid, Guillelmus de CorceUa, Ascelinus et Serlo capel- lani. Hgc autem facta sunt anno ab incamatione Domini .M.C.XXIX. in Pentecosten.^^ In the following plea " of the year iiii, the judges are named, but they are styled optimates and appear to have been taken from the great men of the duchy rather than exclusively from the royal household. Apparently the king was not present. The final agree- ment, dated 18 December 1138, is interesting for its reference to the justiciarship of William of Roimiare, created by Stephen on his departure from Normandy toward the close of 1137,^* and for the list of barons witnessing. The civil strife at Rouen is evidently that of 1090.^' (4) In nomine domini nostri lesu Christi ad noticiam presentium et me- moriam futurorum, ad evitandam in posterum rerum oblivionem et adverse partis controversiam, litteris amiotamus et apicibus subsequentibus non abolendis temporibus commendamus qualiter pontificante papa Paschali anno ab incamatione Domini .M°.C°.XI°. sub rege Henrico abbas Ursus et postea ecclesig Romane presidente papa Innocentio regnante rege Stephano abbas WiUelmus anno ab incamatione Domini .M°.C°.XXX°.VIII°. ca- lumpniam quam heredes Clari, Balduinus videlicet et Clams frater eius, de Caen, MS. 159, f . x. Now also printed in Sauvage, Tfoam, p. 265, n. 3. Anterior to 1118, the year of the death of the coimt of Meulan. "* Original, with seal of red wax in parchment cover, attached sur double queue. Now also printed in Sauvage, p. 368; Valin, p. 262. This and a charter of Wil- liam's son John are found, in original and copy, with the preceding. "' Original notice, with no sign of having been sealed, in Archives of the Seine- Infgrieure, fonds Jiunifiges; copy by Bigot in MS. Lat. 10055, f- 84. Now also printed in Valin, p. 260; Vernier, no. 6r. The personnel of the coiui; is analyzed by R. de Freville, in Nouvelle revue historigue de droit, 1912, pp. 687-696. '' ' Neustrie vero iusticiarios Guillelmum de Roknara et Rogerium vicecomitem aliosque nonnullos constituerat: ' Ordericus, v. 91. See infra, Chapter IV, note 15. 2' Ordericus, iii. 351 ff. A Claras de Rothomago appears as tenant of the bishop of Bayeux in 1133: H. F., xxiii. 701. 92 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS mansione qug est apud Rothomagum txirris Rainerii cognominata et a beato Audoeno Sancto Philiberto et ecclesig Gemmeticensi iure perpetuo possi- denda donata, sicut prmcipali comitis Ricardi auctoritate karta teste robora- tum est, diffinierunt. Que res se ita habet: Dominante in Normannia Rotberto comite in urbe Rothomagensi gravis dissensio inter partes Pila- tensium scilicet et Calloensium exorta est que multa civitatem strage vexavit et multos nobilium utriusque partis gladio prostravit. Inter quos partis Pilatensium erat quidam rebus et nomine quern supra diximus valde Clarus qui abbati et monachis Gemmeticensibus pro suo actu et merito pliui- mum erat cams. Hie ergo, quia domus prefata in munitioii loco consistit, rerum metuens eventurti, ut ibi hospes degeret expetiit et pro sua probitate et bonitate ad tempus impetravit. Quo decedente et rege Henrico principante filius ipsius Balduinus hereditario iure mansionem ibidem violenter voluit optinere, sed abbate Ursone gquitatem iudicii reposcente in causam vocatus et nichil rationis dicere visus, iudicio optimatum eadem domo exire et dein- ceps carere iussus est. Qui videlicet iudices hi fuerunt: Gaufridus Rotho- magensis archiepiscopus, lohannes Luxoviensis episcopus, Rotbertus comes Mellenti, WUIelmus comes Warenne, Gislebertus de Aquila, WiUelmus camerarius de TancardiviUa, Willehnus de Ferrariis. NonnuUis postea evolutis annis cum Balduinus obisset in primordio excel- lentissimi regis Stephani, Clarus eiusdem frater super eodem negocio regias aures pulsare et abbatem WiUehnum cepit vexare. Que causa multis locis et temporibus varie tractata est et multismodis ut penitus finiretiu: a nobiUbus et prudentibus viris utrinque amicis elaboratum est. Tandem in hoc rei summa devenit ut idem Clarus ab abbate uii""'. marchas argenti acceperit et fide data quod nee ipse nee quisquis suorum pro se vel per se de predicta domo ulterius calumpniam moveret abiuravit et filios suos qui tunc non aderant infra .xl. dies adventus eorum ab abbate conventus ad id se inclinaturum sub eadem fide promisit. Itaque Willelmo de Roumara ius- ticiam regis in Normannia conservante, dominica natale Domini proxima precedente quando(?) idem natale mortalibus cunctis honorandimi subse- quente proxima dominica erat celebrandmn,apud Rothomagum in domo que fuerat Audoeni PosteUi ista pactio a Godoboldo de Sancto Victore recitata ac perorata est et pecunia Claro tradita est, sub principibus baronibus et testi- bus his: Ludovico abbate Sancti Georgii, Gualeranno comite Mellenti, Wil- lelmo comite Warenne fratre eius, Hugone de Gomaco, Rotberto de Novo Burgo, lohanne de Lunda, Rogerio de Pavihaco, Radulfo de Bosco Rohardi, Rotberto Wesnevallis, Osberno de Kailliaco, Ingelranno de Wascolio, Walterio de Cantelou, Waleranno de Mellente et Willelmo de Pinu, luhel consanguineo Clari, Luca pincema, Godoboldo de Sancto Victore, Alveredo fratre eius, Stephano filio Radulfi, Radulfo filio Rotberti, UrseUno de Wan- teria, Radulfo de Bellomonte, lohanne fratre eius, Radulfo filio Rainboldi. Ex parte abbatis: Gisleberto de Mara fidei susceptore, Geroldus ad barbam, Rainaldo Vulpe, Willelmo Clarello, Rotberti Filiolo, Waltero de Eudonisvilla, Radulfo Calcaterram fratre eius, Rabello fiho Goscelini. So far the evidence respecting judicial organization has been of a rather general character, but when we come to investigate the HENRY I 93 ducal justices we are on firmer ground. The existence of a regular body of Norman justices under Henry I is plain, first of all, from their enumeration with the other ducal ofl&cers in the addresses of his general charters, and is clearly seen from the writs directed iusticiis suis Normannie '" and from the clause, perpetuated under Geoffrey and Henry II, nisifeceris iusticia mea facial?^ The duke's justices are mentioned as early as 1108 in a charter for Monte- bourg,52 and about the same time — in any case not later than the following year — we find a chief justiciar, meus proprius iusti- tiarius . . . qui super omnes alios vice mea iustitiam tenet,^^ or, '" Livre noir, no. 8; Round, Calendar, nos. 107, 875. Cf. Round, no. 479; Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 737, and nos. 15, 17, and 18, printed below. The following writ, from a vidimus of the mcomte of Pontaudemer in 1338, is imprinted: ' H. rex Angl[oruni] iusticiar[iis] Norm[anme] salutem. Mando vobis quod faciatis habere abbati de Fiscampo terram et prata de mariscis de Aisi ita bene et plenarie et iuste sicut comes de Mellent ea tenuit de eo tempore suo, ne super hoc inde amplius clamorem audiam. T[este] canc[ellario] apud Bonam ViUam.' Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure,/o«(fi Fecamp, box A (Aizier). ^ See no. 13 below, and the Livre noir, no. 37. A vidimus of Philip the Fair of 1313 offers another example: ' H. rex Angl[orum] W[illelmo] de Roumara salutem. Sicut . . abbatissa Sancti Amandi Maeelina et ecclesia sua saisite fuerunt de ecclesia sua de Roumara et de hiis que ad ecclesiam pertinent anno et die qua pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus et postea eam tenuit tempore patris et fratris mei et meo et Enuna abbatissa post eam hucusque, sic precipio quod inde amodo versus nemi- nem ponatur in placito, quia hoc est statutvun terre mee. Sed bene et in pace teneat sicut ecclesia sua in retro tentiit hucusque. Et nisi feceris archiepiscopus et iusticia mea facient. T[este] R[oberto] de Ver apud Rothomagum.' Archives of the Seine- Inf6rieure, fonds Saint-Amand; Archives Nationales, JJ. 49, no. 48; copy in MS. Lat. 17131, f. 100. ^ ' Volo autem et districte precipio ne iusticie mee manum mittant pro iusticia facienda in villa Montisbiu^gi diebus mercati sive nimdinarum ' : Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 737; Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 157. The charter is witnessed by Anselm, and Henry was absent from England from the summer of 1108 until after Ansehn's death. The same phrase appears in a charter for Montebourg piuporting to emanate from William Rufus {Liwe blanc, in Archives of the Manche, H. 8391,, f. i; Gailia Christiana,:d. instr. 229; Neustria Pia, p. 672), but it is evident from the witnesses that this has been forged on the basis of the charter of Henry I; see supra, Chapter H, note 57. ^ Charters for Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 156-160. The first of these, witnessed by William, archbishop of Rouen, who died in February mo, is anterior to Henry's departure for England in the preceding May; it may have suffered some alterations, but the original of the other charter is still pre- served in the Archive of the Calvados, 94 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS more succinctly, iusticia mea capitalis.^^ Ordinarily, as in the Fecamp charter printed above (no. i) and in nos. 5 and 6 below, the word iustitia denotes the body of justices.'' What is perhaps our clearest bit of evidence respecting the justices of Heniy I is contained in the ' Emptiones Eudonis,' a document of 1 1 29-1 131'^ which comprises a series of notices of the acquisitions made by Saint-fitienne of Caen under the adminis- tration of AbbotEudo (i 107-1 140) . Of the suits here recorded the first came before the king and the whole curia at Arganchy; besides the bishop of Lisieux, two of the barons who attest are household officers, namely Robert de Courcy seneschal, and WiUiam of Tancarville chamberlain (d. 1129''). In the second case, which is prior to 112 2, we find a full court {tocius iusticie) of five justices sitting in the castle at Caen, where the Exchequer of "* This phrase occurs in a charter for Beaubec which has come down to us with the style of Henry II, but has the witnesses of a charter of Henry I and is apparently cited in a charter of Stephen which accompanies it in the cartulary: ' Prohibeo ne de aliqua possessione sua trahantur in causam nisi coram me vel coram iusticia mea capitalL Et nichil retineo in aliquo predictorum preter oraciones monachorum. T[estibus] episcopo Bem[ardo] de Sancto David, W[illelmo] de Tanc[ardiviUa] cam- [erario], R[ogero ?] filio Ricardi, apud Clarendonam.' Vidimus of 13 11 (badly faded) , and Coutumier de Dieppe (G. 85 1 , f . s 7v) , in Archives of the Seine-Inffirieure; Archives Nationales, JJ. 46, f . 37V; Delisle-Berger, no. 314, as a charter of Henry II. In England the same phrase is found in a charter of Henry for Holy Trinity, Lon- don: original in Public Record Office, Ancient Deeds, AS. 317 (before 1123). '' Other examples are the assistance given Rabel of Tancarville by the canons of Sainte-Barbe 'erga iusticiam regis Henrici' (Round, Calendar, no. 568); 'per manus iusticie mee ' {J'res Ancien Coutumier, c. 71) ; a transaction under Henry II 'in castello Cadomi coram iustitia regis' (DeviUe, Analyse, p. 52); and the follow- ing notice in a cartulary of Troarn: ' Willelmus rex et Rogerius comes dederunt nobis decimam de crasso pisce Retisville, quam Robertus de Turpo nobis voluit auferre sed reddidit coactus iusticia regis Henrici' (MS. Lat. 10086, f. sv; Sauvage, Troarn, p. 359). '^ It falls between the release of Galeran de Meulan in 11 29 (Simeon of Durham, ii. 283; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Ordericus, iv. 463) and the death of Richard of Coutances, 18 November ri3i (fiailia Christiana, xi. 874; H. F., xxiii. 475). Henry was absent in England from 15 July 1129 to September 1130, and again begiiming with the summer of 1131; see Appendix G. " Annals of Saint-Wandrille, Histoire liiUraire de la France, xxxii. 204. In the Pipe Roll of 1130 we find, not William, but Rabel of Tancarville. If, as seems likely, the order of notices in the ' Emptiones ' is chronological, the judgment at Arganchy was rendered before 1118, the year of the death of William, count of fivreux, who makes the grant which follows next but one. HENRY I 95 the later twelfth century regularly held its sessions; John of Lisieux, Robert de la Haie, and Hugh de Montfort constable/^ are among the judges, but we are hardly justified in assuming that this was a meeting of the Exchequer. The action of the justices in deputing one of their number to take surety from the disturber of the monks should be noted. The proceedings in the third case took place likewise in the castle at Caen, before the king and three justices. Here the justices are sharply distinguished from the barons,'* and Roger Marmion, who acted as justice in the preceding case, attests simply as a baron.*" (s) Emit Eudo abbas a Willelmo de capella molendinum de Drocione iuxta Divam viginti duabus libris in prima emptione, de quo molendino desaisitus per Robertum Frellam dedit prefatus abbas predicto Willelmo alias .xxii^. libras ut ipsum molendinum contra predictum Robertimi dis- rationaret et Sancto Stephano adquietaret. Que disratiocinatio at adquie- tatio facta fuit apud Argenteium ante regem Henricum ibique in presentia ipsius regis et tocius cmie recognitum fuit ipsum molendinum esse de fedio regis. Cuius rei testis est rex ipse et barones ipsius, lohannes scilicet Lexo- viensis episcopus, Robertus de Curceio, WOlelmus de TancardiviUa, Willel- mus PevreUus, Rainaldus de Argenteio. Testes utriusque emptionis et tocius consumnaationis ex parte Sancti Stephani: Robertus de Grainvilla, Warinus de Diva, WiQelmus Rabodus et fratres eius. Ex parte WiUelmi: WiUelmus frater eius, Robertus de Hotot, Radulphus filius Ansfride, Malgerius de Bosa- vaUe, Rainaldus filius Ase. Dedit etiam predictus abbas uxori eiusdem Wil- lelmi pro concessione huius venditionis, quia ipsum molendinum de eius maritagio erat, xl. solidos Rotomagensiimi. Testes: Robertus portarius, Rogerius camerarius, Warinus Cepellus, WiUelmus cocus et alii plures. . . . Rogerius filius Petri de Fontaneto in castello Cadomi in presentia tocius iusticie reddidit Sancto Stephano terram iUam et omnes decimas illas quas ipse sanctus a Godefrido avo Ulius et a patre suo habuerat easque eidem sancto deinceps firmiter in perpetuum tenendas concessit. Et qxiia idem Rogerius abbatem et monachos pro eisdem decimis sepius vexaverat, ex con- sideratione iusticie Gaufrido de Sublis fidem suam affidavit quod nunquam amplius damnum contrarium ac laborem inde Sancto Stephano faceret sed manuteneret et bene adquietaret. Et ut hec omnia firmissimo et indissolubili vinculo Sancto Stephano teneret, abbas et monachi societatem quam pre- decessores iUius in monasterio habuerant iUi concesserunt et insuper de caritate .xl. solidos et unum equum ei dederunt. Testes ipsa iusticia, lohan- ^' Round, Geofrey de Mandeville, p. 326. Hugh revolted in 11 22, and was kept in close confinement after his capture in 1124: Ordericus, iv. 441, 458, 463. " Cf. Delisle, in B. iS. C, x. 273; Fr6ville, in Nouvette revue historique de droit, 1912, p. 70s f. •" Roger Marmion was dead in 11 30, when his son paid relief for his lands: Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. in. 96 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS nes scilicet Luxoviensis episcopus, Robertus de Haia, Hugo de Monteforti, Gaufridus de Sublis, Rogerius Marmio. Ex parte Sancti Stephani: Ran- nulfus de Taissel et Ricardus filius eius, Radulfus de Hotot, Aigulfus de Mer- cato et nepotes illius. Ex parte Rogerii: Radulfus sororius eius, Anschitillus hares de Hotot, Radulfus de luvinneio. . . . Huius autem viUe" ecclesiam quam Sanctus Stephanus antiquitus in magna pace tenuerat Herbertus quidam clericus ei modis quibuscumque poterat auferre querens abbatem et monachos inde diu fortiter vexavit. Quorum vexation! Henricus rex finem imponere decernens utrisque ante se in casteUo Cadomi diem constituit placitandi. Die igitur constituto abbas et monachi cum omnibus que eis necessaria erant ipsi regi et iusticie placitvim suum obtulerunt. Herberto autem ibi in audientia regis et tocius iusticie necnon et baronum deficiente, de prefata ecclesia ipsius regis et iusticie iudicio Sanctus Stephanus saisitus remansit, nemini deinceps ampUus inde responsurus. Testes huius rei ipse rex Hemricus et iusticia, lohannes videlicet Luxoviensis episcopus, Robertus de Haia, Gaufridus de Sublis, et barones Radulfus Taisso, Rogerius Marmio, WiUelmus Patricus, Robertus Car- boneUus. Ex parte Sancti Stephani: Rannulfus de TaisseUo et fihi eius WiUehnus et Ricardus, Robertus de GrainviUa, Radulfus de Hotot, Warinus de Diva et filii eius. Has emptiones quas fecit predictus abbas et donationes quas fecerunt suprascripti barones ego Henricus rex Anglorum concedo et sigiUi mei as- sertione confirmo. Huius rei sunt testes cmh signis suis subscript! barones. Sigmun Henfrici regis. S. Ricardi f Baiocensis episcopi. S. lohannis f Luxo- viensis episcopi. S. Ricarfdi Constanpiensis episcopi. fS. Turfgisi Abrin- censis episcopi. S. Rofberti de sigillo. S. Roberjti Sagiensis episcopi. S. Roberfti comitis Gloecestrie. S. Waleranfm comitis de MeUent. S. Robertti de Haia, S. Rogefrii vicecomitis. S. Willelfmi de Albigneio. S. Roberfti filii Bernardi.'^ " Siccavilla (SecqueviUe-en-Bessin). *2 Original, endorsed ' Emptiones Eudonis,' in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1834, no. 13-56^. The charter, which measures S7 by 66 centimeters, is ruled in dry point and divided into four columns; there is a double queue but no trace of a seal. (Cf. JW. ^.AT., vii. 272, no. 13; a copy by Hippeau is in MS. Lat. n. a. 1406, ff. 76- 8sv). The witnesses are printed by Dehsle, S.Sauveur, pieces, no. 47; the slip which makes John, bishop of Sfiez, appear as Robert between two other Roberts is not of the sort one expects in an original, and the crosses seem to have been made by the same hand, so that we may have only an early copy. There can be no doubt of the genuineness of the contents, as the substance of the notices is reproduced, without the names of justices or witnesses, in one of Henry I's great charters for Samt-fitienne in the same archives (H. 1833, no. 12-3; 63 by 52 centimeters). The witnesses of this are given by Delisle, Caritdaire normand, no. 828; they are identical with those of another charter for the same monastery, evidently issued at the same time (H. 1833, no. ixbis-sbis; 74 by 52 centimeters). The two are incorporated by Henry II into a single charter of extraordinary length: Delisle-Berger, no. 154. The 'Emptiones Eudones ' were transcribed into the lost cartulary of Saint- HENRY I 97 The following document of May 1133 is of greater interest for the procedure than for the composition of the king's court; unfortunately it is known only through an extract from a lost car- tulary, and the omitted portions are plainly of importance. A cer- taiQ Fulk, vassal of the abbot of Troam in respect of a certain fief, also claims to hold of the abbot the entertainment of a man and a horse. The king commands the abbot to do the claimant right, and a duel is waged, doubtless in the abbot's court, and, in accord- ance with a practice abundantlyexemplified in the later Exchequer Rolls, recorded at Caen before the king's justices, who render a decision in favor of the abbot. Fulk, or rather, as before, his guardian for him, then brings forward another claim, this time to a church and twenty acres of land, and the justices again order the abbot to do him right; but the suit is abandoned at the instance of. the patron of the monastery, William, count of Pon- thieu. It should be noted that while the first plea is held per iussum regis Henrici, Henry had been absent from Normandy for nearly two years. There was nothing to prevent the plaintiff's securing his writ from England, but it was probably granted by the justices in Normandy, as in the ensuing complaint. A notice of this kind must not be pressed too hard, but there is no indica- tion that the procedure was exceptional, and there is interest in the suggestion which the accoxmt affords of the justices' issuing writs in the king's name and taking jurisdiction in disputes be- tween a lord and his vassal. Such writs of right indicate that Nor- mandy, as well as England, was already moving in the direction of the procedure found in Glanvill.^' The case also illustrates the procedure in the wager of battle as described by Glanvill: ** the plaintiff offers battle through a champion who still preserves the name, if not also the character, of a witness. The only justice fitienne, a full analysis of which is in the library of Sainte-Genevifive at Paris (MS. 1656), whence it has been published by Deville, Analyse, pp. 44-49. The notices which mention the king's justices are quoted from Deville's text, which is incom- plete and very carelessly printed, by L. W. Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward, p. 26 f. VaUn strangely overlooks the whole document. '^ See G. B. Adams, Origin of the English Constitution, pp. 78-80, 94-105. Pro- fessor Adams has convinced me that in this case Fulk was the tenant, not the lord, of the abbot, as I was inclined to believe in 1909. « Bk. ii, c. 3. 98 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS named besides the bishop of Lisieux is William Tanetin/* who appears to be acting individually when the suit is dismissed. (6) xxiiii" folio veteriscart[arii]. Notum sit omnibus quod anno millesimo centesimo tricesimo tercio in mense maio, per clamorem Fulconis filii Ful- conis et Rog[erii] Pelavillani vitrici eius qui custodiebat eum et terram illius et per iussum regis Henrici, tenuit doninus abbas Andreas placitum et recti- tudinem Ulis de procuratu unius hominis et unius equi quern dicebant ipsum filium Fulconis debere habere ab ipso abbate in feudo cum alio feudo suo. Et in ipso placito fuit inde dueUum iudicatum et captum inter Hugonem de Alimannia qui testis erat filii Fulconis et Rad[ulfiun] filium Fulberti. Deinde in eodem mense apud Cad[omvun] recordatimi est dueUum coram iusticia regis, scilicet coram lohanne episcopo Lex[oviensi] et WiUelmo Tanetin et aliis, et iudicavit curia regis quod habere non debebant quod requirebant, etc. Post finem huitis dueUi fecit clamorem Rog[erius] PelaviUanus coram iusticia regis quod abbas Troamensis toUebat fiho Fulconis ecclesiam de TurfrediviUa '^ et .xx. acras terre, et precepit iusticia regis ut abbas rectitu- dinem inde teneret ill[is]. Interea venit Troarnum WUlelmus comes Ponti- vorum dominus Troarnensis abbatie et interrogavit ipsum Rog[eriimi] si de hoc veUet placitare, et respondit Rog[erius] quod in pace dimittebat ex toto in finem comiti et abbati, etc., totimi id est et placitum et ecclesiam et terram, coram ipso comite et Willelmo Tanetin iusticiario regis. Plures stmt testes.*' The activity of the justices is also seen from writs like the fol- lowing, which should be compared with one in the Livre noir of Bayeux,** addressed to the bishop of Lisieux, Roger de Mande- ville, and William son of Ansger, and ordering them to do full justice to the bishop of Bayeux as regards any disturbance of his rights: (7) Henricus rex Anglorum lohanni episcopo Lexoviensi et Rogerio de Magn[aviUa] salutem. Precipio vobis ut facialis tenere plenvmi rectum abbati de Cadomo de aqua de Vei[m] desicuti ipsa iacebat ad manerium in tempore patris mei, ita ne inde clamorem audiam.*' *5 William Tanetin appears as dapifer (of the count of Ponthieu ?) in 11 27, and as tenant of the count in 113S (Round, Calendar, nos. 590, 970). He is frequently mentioned in the cartulary of Troam in documents ranging from 1117 to 1135: MS. Lat. 10086, ff. 30V, 31, iS2v; Sauvage, Troam, pp. xxxii, 152, 223 f. <6 Tou£fr6ville (Calvados), canton of Troam. Cf. Sauvage, pp. 23, 140. *' Troam cartulary, MS. Lat. 10086, f. 3sv; copy by the abb6 La Rue in MS. Caen 64, f. 46V. Now also printed in Valin, p. 263. *' No. 29; also in Livre rouge (MS. Lat. n. a. 1828), no. 29. Anterior to 1122, when William Fitz Ansger was dead (DeUsIe, Rouleaux des marts, p. 293). *» Library of Saint6-Genevi6ve, MS. 1656, f . 20; incorrectly printed by Deville, Analyse, p. 18. Vains (Manche) had been granted to Saint-fitienne by the Con- queror: Appendix E, no. i. HENRY I 99 With respect to the personnel of the king's court the documents published above, taken with the order of precedence in the address of the king's charters/" fully substantiate Round's assertion that Bishop John of Lisieux was the head of the Norman Exchequer; and while the title is not given him in any document so far known, there can be no doubt that he held the office of chief justiciar. Next to the bishop, Robert de la Haie the seneschal appears as the principal member of the court, indeed the absence of these two on accoimt of iUness is the occasion of explanation. ^^ Robert seems to have been the chief lay officer of the Norman adminis- tration, for his name heads the list of laymen both in the address and in the testing clause of Henry's charters except when he is pre- ceded by some one of the rank of count. ^^ When Robert de la Haie is not one of the court, the other Norman seneschal, Robert de Courcy, is the first lay member. The justiciar and the seneschal would thus seem to have been the important elements in the court. In certain of Henry's writs we find a distinction drawn between his iusticia Normannie and other justices in a way which suggests at first sight the chief justiciar in contrast to his colleagues, but more probably has reference to justices who were local or were at least acting locally. Thus a writ in favor of the canons of Bayeux is addressed iusticiis suis Normannie et Willelmo Glast[oni^ ei Eudoni Baiocensi et G[aufrido] de Subles.^^ Another writ, evi- '" Round, Calendar, nos. 282, 569, 1436 (cf. no. 611); Ordericus, iv. 435. " E. H. R., xiv. 426; supra, note 18. '2 E. H. R., xiv. 424; supra, nos. i, 5; infra, nos. 9, 11, 12, 14; Ordericus, iv. 43s; Round, Calendar, nos. 107, 122, 123, 168, 197, 398, 724, 924, 998, 1191, 1388, 1436 (where Round has Richard, but the Livre noir, no. 34, has simply R.) ; Calendar of Charter Rolls, ii. 137; Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1330-1334, p. 334, 1334- 1338, p. 249; JlfoMtoCMieCorto/ory (Somerset Record Society, 1894), no. 164; Appen- dix F, nos. 10, II. Such exceptions to the precedence of Robert in the testing clause as are foimd in Roimd, nos. 373, 375, 411, and Monasticon, vii. 1071, are not originals; but no. 1052 in Round (from a copy by Gaignifires) and no. 828 in the Cartulaire normand of Delisle seem to be real exceptions. The place of Robert de la Haie in the Norman administration shows the need of serious modification in Vernon Harcourt's view of the unimportance of the seneschal's office in this reign; indeed, in view of the ahnost uniform precedence of the seneschals in Hemy's charters, it is impossible to maintain that they show " no trace of preeminence over other household functionaries " {His Grace the Steward, p. 24). ^ Livre noir, no. 8; U. Chevalier, Ordinaire et coutumier de Viglise de Bayeux, p. 419; Round, Calendar, no. 1437. lOO NORMAN INSTITUTIONS dently issued in the vacancy of the see between 1133 and 113S, is directed iusticiis el custodibus episcopatus Baiocensis, who are ordered to execute a decision of the king's curia in a case between two of the bishop's vassals — et nisi feceritis iusticia Norm[annie] facial fieri.^* There are also writs addressed to local Justices in particular districts: iustilie et vicecomili Archarum,^^ iusliciariis et minislris de Sancto Marculfo el de Varrevilla,^ iusticiis Constatir- lini, iusticiis Constanlini et Valloniarum,^'' Algaro de S ancle Marie Ecclesia celerisque iusticiis Constanlini.^^ In the first of these instances the justice and vicecomes may be one and the same, as occurs in England at this period,^' and the same persons may be acting as justices and custodes in the Bayeux writ; but it is not likely that the justices and ministri of Saint-Marcouf were identi- cal, and the justices of the Cotentin have no other title and are evidently royal judges for the district, whether itinerant or acting imder local commissions it is impossible to say. In some instances, as when the bishop of Lisieux is associated with local magnates like Roger de Mandeville and William Tanetin, the court may have consisted of an itinerant justiciar and a local judge. In order to follow out questions connected with the local administration of justice, we should need to examine a considerable number of writs, or at least a considerable group of tl^ose relating to a particular district or religious establishment; and the Norman writs of Henry's reign are few and scattered.*" Not all of the following documents for the abbey of Montebourg relate to the administra- tion of justice, but they are printed here because they form an interesting group which has not as yet been pubhshed:*' " Livre noir, no. 37. ^^ No. 9, bdow. '* Round, Calendar, no. 398. " No. 11, below. '* Henry I for H^auville, a priory of Marmoutier: vidimus in Archives of the Manche; copy in MS. Grenoble 1402, f. 232; printed in Revue catholique de Nor- mandie, x. 350. " Stubbs, Constitutional History, 6th ed., i. 423; Roimd, Geoffrey de MandeciUe, p. 106 ff. *° The two most important sets of such writs are those in the Livre noir of Bayeux (nos. 8, 29, 34, 37, 38) and the charters and writs relating to Envermeu calendared by Round (Calendar, nos. 393-398). See also the writ for Saint-Pfere of Chartres printed below, Chapter VI, p. 223. »' The cartulary of Montebourg (MS. Lat. 10087) was unknown to Round, as were the valuable copies of documents relating to the Cotentin which were made by HENRY I lOI (8) H. rex Angl[orum] vicec[omitibus] et prepositis et ministris suis tocius Costantini salutem. Precipio vobis quod non capiatis hominem aliquem vel nampnum eius aliqua occasione in mercato de Monteborc die ipso quo mer- catum est, si eum alia die et alibi in terra mea eos capere poteritis. Quia nolo quod mercatum elemosine mee per occasionem destruatiu-. T[este] R[oberto] comite Gloec[estrie] apud Argent[onum ?] per WUlelmum Glastonie.'^ (9) H. rex Angl[oruni] iusticiariis et ministris de Sancto Malculpho et de VarreviUa*' et omnibus dominis de quibus abbatia de Monteborc tenet, salutem. Precipio quod abbatia de Montebxu-go teneat omnia sua ita bene et quiete et honorifice sicut liberior abbacia tocius Normannie, et nominatim elemosinam meam terram de FoucarviUa liberam et quietam de teloneo et de verec et de omnibus consuetudinibus et de omnibus querelis. Nolo enim ut habeant occasionem mittendi manum uUo modo super elemosinam meam. Quod si quid iniurie fecerint, videat iusticia mea ne perdam rectum meum; abbacia namque est propria mea capeUa et ideo precipio vobis ut eam custodiatis. T[este] R[oberto] de Haia. Apud Rotli[omagum]." (10) H. rex Anglie R[icardo] Constantiensi episcopo et vicec[omitibus] et omnibus baronibus et fideUbus suis de Costent[ino] salutem. Sciatis me con- cessisse abbatie Sancte Marie Montisburgi ecclesiam de MorfariviUa «' cum feria et terris et decLmis et omnibus rebus ipsi ecclesie pertinentibus, quam Sanson de ' Morfarvilla predicte abbatie dedit et concessit concessione Roberti de Novo Burgo domini sui et fratrum eius. Et volo et precipio finniter ut bene et in pace et quiete et honorifice teneat. T[estibus] Roberto de Novo Burgo et WiUelmo de Albinneio. Apud Rothomagum.^* Pierre Mangon at the end of the seventeenth century and are now preserved in the library of Grenoble (MSS. 1390-1402) . Cf . Dehsle, Les mimoires de Pierre Mangon, mcomte de Valognes, in Annuaire de la Manche, i8gi, pp. 11-42. Certain docu- ments concerning the Norman possessions of Montebourg are also copied in the cartulary of Loders in the British Museum, Add. MS. 15605, excerpted in Remte catholique de Nortnandie, jrvii-xix. ^ MS. Lat. 10087, no. 8, where the writ is dated ' apud Dug.' The mdimus in the Archives of the Manche (H. 8426, 8527) and in the Archives Nationales (JJ. 52, f. 62, JJ. 118, f. 258); MSS. Grenoble 1395, ff. 9, 58, and 1402, f. 64V; and Add. MS. 15605 of the British Museum, ff . 13V, 14V, 26, all have ' Argent.' For the contents of the privileges of the market of Montebourg, see Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 737; Remte caiholigue, xvii. 308; Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 157. ^ Saint-Marcouf is in the canton of Montebourg. Varreville and FoucarviUe are in the canton of Sainte-MSre-£gUse (Manche). ^ MS. Lat. 10087, no. 9; also in Liwe blanc (Archives of the Manche, H. 8391), f. 2; MS. Lat. 12885, f. r6i; Add. MS. 15605,6. 13V, 14V, 26. Vidimus in Archives of the Manche, H. 8426, 8427, 10881, and in Archives Nationales, JJ. 52, f. 62, JJ. 118, f. 258. Copies in MSS. Grenoble 139S, f . 28V, and 1402, f . 35V, and in the Baluze MSS. of the BibliothSque Nationale, MS. 58, ff. 38, 39V. In MS. Grenoble 1395, f. 9, there is a copy of this writ (from a mdinms of 1315) addressed 'episcopo Con- st[antiensi] et iusticliis] Norm[annie] et omnibus . . .' °5 Montfarville (Manche), canton of Quettehou. *" MS. Lat. 10087, uo. 10. I02 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS (ii) H. rex Angl[orum] iustic[iis] Costentini et Willelmo de Bniis et forestariis suis salutem. Mando vobis atque precipio quod pennittatis habere monachos de Montisburg[o] tot arbores in Bruis " ad focmn suum quot ebdomade habentur in anno et materiem ad sua edificia et pasnagium suum quietum et omnes consuetudines suas liberas et quietas, et de tot arboribus sint quieti forestarii in placitis meis de quot garantizaverint eos monachi per suas taillias. T[este] R[oberto] comite Gloec[estrie] apud Roth[omaguni] per R[obertum] de Haia.»8 (12) H. rex Angl[orum] Ric[ardo] episcopo de Constanc[iis] et W[i]leImo] de Alben[neio] salutem. Precipio ut Unfredus de Alben[neid] teneat terram suam in pace et quiete et decimam de Morsalines '' et molendinimi et quic- quid habet in eadem villa, et concedo ut ecclesia de Montebo[r]c post mortem Unfredi eamdem terram habeat in quiete et pace sicut Unfridus earn eidem ecclesie dedit. T[este] R[oberto] de Haia. Apud Roth[omagum]."' (13) H. rex Angl[orum] W[illelmo] de Albin[neio] salutem. Precipio quod ecclesia de Monteburgo de elemosina mea teneat terram suam de Morsalinis quam Unfridus de Adevilla ei dedit concessu patris tui ita bene et in pace et iuste et quiete sicut breve patris tui quod habet testatiu:. Et nisi feceris iusticia mea faciat, ne inde amplius clamorem audiam pro penuria plene iusticie vel recti. T[este] R[oberto] comite Gloec[estrie] apud Alg' per W. Filiastr[um]." (14) H. rex Angl[orum] Ric[ardo] de AnsgervUla, W. de Sancto Germano salutem. Precipio vobis quod faciatis ita iuste habere abbati de Montisburgo octavam partem ecclesie de HerreviUa " sicut habet octavam partem terre eiusdem viUe et desicut venit in curiam meam ut illam partem disrationaret versus monachos deHaivilla et homines suos et iUi defecerunt se iUucveniendi ad diem suum inde sumptum et datum; ita ne super hoc amplius clamorem inde audiam. T[este] R[oberto] de Haia per Thomam de Ponte Episcopi. Apud Rothomagum." (is) H. rex Anglie episcopo Constancpensi] et iustic[iis] Normannie et omnibus dominis de quibus abbatia de Montisburgo et ecclesia sua tenet, sa- lutem. Precipio quod abbas de Montisbiurgo et ecclesia sua teneant terras et homines et ecclesias et decimas et molendina et consuetudines et omnia sua " Brix (Manche), canton of Valognes. *' MS. Lat. 10087, no- II) Archives of the Manche, H. 8426, 8427; Archives Nationales, JJ. 52, f. 62, JJ. 118, f. 258; MS. Grenoble 1395, f. 9; Add. MS. 13605, ff. 13V, 14. In MSS. Grenoble 1395, f. 29, and 1402, f. 35V, the writ begins: ' H. r[ex] Angl[orum] iustpciis] Constantini et Vallon[iarum] et forestariis de Bruis.' Cf. Henry's general confirmation, Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 737. »' Morsalines (Manche), canton of Quettehou. '» MS. Lat. 10087, no. 12. " Ibid., no. 13. " Helleville (Manche), in the canton of Les Pieux, not far from the priory of Hfeuville. " MS. Lat. 10087, "lo- 14- HENRY I 103 ita bene et in pace sicut abbatia Fiscan[m], quod enim ad me pertinet in ea onine concessi illi in elemosina. T[este] R[oberto] de Ver. Apud Rotho- m[agum]." The glimpse of the forest courts in no. 11 is interesting. Pleas of the forest are mentioned in Normandy as early as the reign of Robert I, and there is evidence of a special forest law under the Conqueror; '* this writ shows the foresters rendering periodic account before the king's justices and offering talKes as their justification for trees that have been taken by the monks. The regarders are also mentioned in Henry's reign," as are the fines and forfeitures of the forest pleas." William de Brix and Richard d'Angerville '^ are also found as royal judges in the Cotentin in a document relating to the abbey of Saint-Sauveur, where the king's justices are apparently sitting in the feudal court of Nigel the vicomte. That they might so sit appears from English practice, and there is also evidence that Henry's officers exercised judicial rights on the lands of the bishop of Bayeux.^' (16) Sciant etiam omnes quod monachi Sanctj Salvatoris omnes decimas et maxime medietatem campartorum, quod est decima pro qua inceptum fuit, totius terrg Nigelli vicecomitis et suorum omnium hominvun diracioci- navenmt in curia sua, quibusdam eius militibus et vavassoribus contradi- centibus, quibusdam concedentibus. Et ibi nemine resistente sed omnibus adquiescentibus iudicatum est atque diffinitum tam a regis quam a Nigelli iudicibus ut abbatig extunc et deinceps recta decima et maxime medietas " MS. Lat. 10087, no. 15 (where the witness appears as ' R. de Weu ') ; Livre blanc (H. 893i),f. iv; MS. Lat. 12885, f. 161; Add. MS. 15605, ff. 13V, 14V, 26;MS. Grenoble 139s, f • 28v; vidimus in Archives of the Manche, H. 8426, 8427, 8692, and in Archives Nationales, JJ. 52, f. 62, JJ. 118, f. 258. In MS. Grenoble 1402, f. 3sv, the witness is given as ' Ric. de Redvers.' " Supra, Chapter I, notes 215-218. '8 Infra, note 156. " Appendix F, no. 17. '" William de Brix witnesses charters of Henry I for Saint-fitienne (Round, Cal- endar, nos. 1411, 1412; Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 828). Richard d'Angerville appears as a witness in January iioi in the Troam cartulary (MS. Lat. 10086, f. 149) and in 1 104 in Delisle, S.Sameur, pieces, no. 46. Roger Suhart was a promi- nent sub-tenant of the bishop of Bayeux in 1133, H. F., xxiii. 699 f. (cf. Tardif, Coutumiers de Normandie, i. i, p. 112). " Livre i:oir, no. 16. Cf. the presence of Henry I's judges in the court of the bishop of Exeter, E. H. R., xiv. 421. I04 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS campartorum a predictis sine caliunpnia reddereUir. Histestibus: Willelmo de Bruis, Ricardo de Ansgervilla, Rogero de Rufo Campo, Waltero de Hainou, Rogero Suhart.'" As regards ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Henry I seems to have adhered in general to the practice of his father, the principles of whose poKcy, as formulated in the canons of LiUebonne, he con- firmed by the apposition of his seal.*^ Barons as well as prelates sat in the curiae which decided the independence of Saint-Taurin from Fecamp and the rights of Bee over Notre-Dame-du-Pre.*^ If the court which establishes the right of Geoffrey the priest to the church of Saint-Sauveur at Caen is composed of bishops and clergy, it is still the king's court and the result is transmitted to the bishop and chapter of Bayeux by royal writ.*' For slaying in violation of the Truce of God the bishop now has a fixed fine of nine pounds; aU personal property beyond this is forfeited to the king, in whose court the duel must be held and whose justices collect the fine due the bishop.** The Norman evidence, like that for England in the same period, does not suffice to give a clear picture of the judicial system, yet it is plain that there is such a system and that it is creating a body of law. The justices issue writs, take sureties, try pleas of the crown, and hear possessory as well as petitory actions. If we may trust Henry I's charter for the town of Verneuil in the form in which it has reached us, the use of writs is already so common that they are granted by local officers, although the writ concerning land stands on a different footing from the others.*^ Very likely the *" In pancarte of Saint-Sauveur, British Museum, Add. Ch. 15281, formerly sealed (' sigillum Rogerii vicecomitis '). Printed by Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 48, from the cartulary of the abbey at Saint-L6, no. 13, where the words ' tam a regis quam a NigeUi iudicibus ' are omitted. *' Teulet, Layettes du TrSsor des Chartes, i. 25, no. 22. 82 Qallia Christiana, Lx. instr. 127; Appendix F, no. i. See supra, notes 14, 15. ^ ' In curia mea ante episcopos meos et ante clerum meum ': Livre noir, no. 38 (1107-1123). ^ Ordinance of 1135 in Trh Ancien Coutumiet, c. 71; Round, Calendar, no. 290; ct. Tardit, £,tnde, p. 48 f.; infra, p. 140. ** ' Et si aliquis burgensium breve aUquod a prelato pecierit, illud habebit sine precio, preter terram: ' Ordonnances des Rois, iv. 639, c. 10. The text of these privileges is very corrupt; for prelato (of. DuCange, s. v.) we should probably read pretore or preposito. HENRY 1 105 king's court administered some form of procedure by sworn inquest; such inquests were certainly held by Henry's command, and within ten years of his death they had developed into regular assizes.*^ Of the fiscal side of the Norman administration no records have survived anterior to the Exchequer Roll of 1 180, but a roll of 1 136 is mentioned in the eighteenth century,*' and a careful study of the later rolls and of the incidental evidence of earlier sources shows that the essential features of the Exchequer of Henry II existed under Henry I and even earlier. As in England, there was no sharp separation between the Judicial and the financial duties of the king's officers: in 11 23 the iustiiiarii regis took possession of the county of fivreux and the lands of the rebels and added them to the king's demesne,** and after Robert of Belleme had been removed from office in 11 12 for failure to render account for the royal revenues in his vicomtes of Argentan, Exmes, and Falaise, we find Bishop John of Lisieux in charge of the royal stores at Argentan.*' The system of collection and account which appears in the later rolls, being based upon the vicomte and prevoti and not on the newer bailliage of the Angevin dukes, plainly goes back to the time when these were the important local areas; and the tithes and specific pa3Tnents charged against the farms can in many instances be traced back well into the eleventh century.'" Even the amount of the farm might long remain un- changed, in spite of such a general revision as was made in 1176; the forest of Roumare, for example, was let at the same amount in 1 180 as in ii22.'i An excellent illustration of the continuity of the Exchequer arrangements is furnished by the following ex- tracts from a charter of Henry I for Seez cathedral, in which, as in 86 See infra, Chapter VI. ** Ordericus, iv. 453. «> M.A. N., xvi. p. XXX. 8' Ibid., iv. 303, 305. ^'' Supra, Chapter I. '1 ' Et in parco meo Rothomagi totam decimam feni et .c. solidos de foresta mea de Romare, scilicet decimam per annum: ' charter of Henry I in 11 22 for Notre- Dame-du-Pr6, early copy in Archives of the Seine-Inf^rieure,/o»Mfi Bonne-Nouvelle, box B; certified copy in MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, f. 37. In 1180 the tithe is still 100 solidi (Stapleton, i. 75). On the revision of 1176 see Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 23, Io6 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS a charter for Bocherville,'^ the farm of the vicomte is shown to have existed under William the Conqueror: Ipsis quoque fratribus regularibus damus et confirmamus quindecim libras Rothomagensis monete quas dedi in dedicatione ipsius ecclesie in unoquoque anno habendas, scilicet septem libras et decern solidos in teloneo meo de Falesia et septem libras et decern solidos in teloneo meo de Oximis. . . . Preterea duodecim libras in firma nostra de Argentomo et viginti et imum solidos in teloneo eiusdem ville et sexaginta ioUdos et decern denarios de teloneo meo de Oximis que dederunt pater mens et mater mea ecclesie Sagiensi ad victum canoniconmi duorum, quod antiquitus in elemosina statu- tum fuerat.^' . . . Normandy also offers an interesting parallel to England in the matter of its treasury. Round has shown the significance, for the history of fiscal institutions in England, of Henry I's grants to the French monasteries of Cluny, Tiron, and Fontevrault, especially the grant to Tiron of fifteen marks receivable each year de thesauro meo in festo Sancti Michaelis Wintonie, which imder Henry II became payable from his treasury at the Exchequer.^* Now the first of these charters to Fontevrault also contains a charge against the Norman revenues, namely £ioo in the rent of the king's mint at Rouen,'^ while a still clearer piece of evidence is found in a charter for the leprosery of Le Grand-Beauheu at Char- tres. Issued originally between 1121 and 1131 and renewed in 1 135, this runs as follows: ^ (17) H. rex Anglorum archiepiscopo Rothomagensi, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, iusticiariis Normannie et thesaurariis et omnibus fidelibus suis per "2 Romid, no. 198; Stapleton, i. 68. " See the charter in full in Appendix F, no. 11 (fromMS. Alenfon 177, f. 98; and MS. Lat. 11058, f. 8). These items are duly charged in the roUs (Stapleton, i. pp. Ixxxviii, xcvi, cxxxii, 39, 50, 103) , except the payment from the preposUura of Falaise, which is los. too small in 1180 but appears in full in 1198 (ibid., ii. 414). s* Calendar, pp. xliii-xlv, nos. 998-1003, 1052, 1053, 1387-1390, 1459, 1460; Commune 0} London, p. 81; Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 40, note. " Round, nos. 1052, 1459. '" Cartulaire de la Uproserie du Grand-Beaulieu, ed. R. Merlet and M. Jusselin (Chartres, 1909, Collection de carttUaires chartrains, ii), no. i, from a vidimus of 1469 in the Archives of the Eure-et-Loir. All the essential phrases are repeated in a charter of Stephen, issued at fivreux in 1136, of which the original is preserved in the same archives (ibid., no. 11; see infra, Chapter IV, notes s, 9, 13). Being witnessed by the earl of Gloucester and Robert 'de sigillo,' Henry's charter cannot be earlier than 11 21; in its original form it is anterior to the general confirmation of Innocent II, 13 September 1131 (Cartulaire, no. 6). HENRY I 107 Nonnanniam constitutis salutem. Sciatis quia dedi et concessi in perpetuam elemosinam Deo et Sancte Marie Magdalene de Bello Loco et infirmis ibidem Deo servientibus, pro anima patrum et parentum meorum et pro remissione peccatorum meorum et statu et incolumitate regni mei Anglie et ducatus mei Normannle, omni anno X libras Rothomagensium de thesauro meo, et semper eas simul habent ad festum Sancti Michaelis quando firme et pecunia mea colligimtur, et ipsis thesaurariis meis precipio ut eas eis omni anno et termino prenominato sine distiurbacione omni et occasione liberent. Hoc itaque donum meum illi ecclesie et fratribus infiimis sine fine mansurum regia auctoritate statuo et adeo michi collata potestate inviolatmn permanere confirmo. Testibus lohanne episcopo Lexoviorum et Roberto de sigillo et Rogerio de Fiscanno et Roberto comite de Gloecestrie et Rpcardo] filio comitis et R[oberto] de Ver et Roberto de Cmrci, et Gaufrido filio Pagani et Gaufrido de Magnavilla et Roberto de Novo Biurgo et WiUelmo de Roumaro. Apud Rothomagum. Anno ab incamatione Domini M°C°XXX° quinto hec carta renovata fuit, quia prior igne combusta erat. Here we have a Norman treasury as well as Norman treasurers, one of whom can probably be identified in the witness Roger of Fecamp,'' and we learn that, as in England, Michaelmas was the term when the king's ' farms and money are collected.' No place is mentioned, but the later history of the endowment and the connection of a treasurership with a canonry in Rouen cathe- dral '* make it probable that the treasury here mentioned was at Rouen. Stephen repeats all the provisions of his uncle's grant, but Henry II makes it an annual charge, still at Michaelmas, against the mcomte of Rouen, where it appears in the Exchequer RoUs.*' Treasure was stored at other centers also, for at Henry's death we know that the bulk of his treasure was at Falaise,'"" and imder Henry II Caen and Argentan were used for the same purpose."^ The custom of keeping treasure in various royal castles is not, however, inconsistent with a single administration of the treasury of receipt and disbursement.^^ The English Pipe Roll of 1 130 shows the Norman treasury re- ceiving pa5Tnents on English accoimts and certifying credits by " See below, notes 119, 120. 9* See the following paragraphs. " Cartulaire du Grand-Beatdieu, nos. 11, 28, 65; Delisle, Henri II, p. 126; Delisle-Berger, no. 434; Stapleton, i. 70. "» Ordericus, v. 50; Robert of Torigni, 1. 200 f. "1 Chapter V, note 115. i 54, 63- '" J^; P- 37- "' Round, Calendar, no. 1388; and the following conclusion of a charter of the chapter of Chartres, issued, as appears from the lists in R. Merlet, Dignitaires de I'Sglise Notre-Dame de Chartres, subsequently to 11 26: ' Postea vero Mauricius et Petrus, alii fratres, concesserunt hoc ipsum apud Rotomagiun et vadimonia sue concessionis transmiserunt per manus domni Henrici prepositi, videntibus et audi- entibus Andrea de Baldement, Willelmo de Fraxineto, Nigello thesaurario, Heinrico de Richeborc, Radulfo de Mercato, Ansoldo de Bellovidere canonico, Guillelmo de la Ventona, Roberto de la Haie ' (MS. Lat. 5185 I, p. 90, copied from the original). ''" Round, Calendar, nos. 122-124, 287, 373, 1388; Sarum Documents, p. 7; Ap- pendix F, no. 10; Monasticon, iv. 538, vi. 240, viii. 1271; E. B. R., xxiii. 726. "" Cf. the document witnessed by them, E. H. R., xiv. 422, which was probably issued in England. Hubert Hall, Red Book of the Exchequer, p. ccc, seeks to identify them with the milites episcopi of the Conslilulio domus regis. "" Stapleton, i. pp. xciii, cxxi, 40, 77, go, 99, 100, 118, 146, 157, 167, 168, 246, ii. 461, S49, 560. Cf. infra. Chapter V, note 139. i28 Pipe Roll I Richard I, p. 205. "^9 I have brought together the facts concerning Thomas Brown in an article 112 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS enter into the controversy respecting the relation of the Anglo- Norman Exchequer and the Sicilian diwan to which these facts in Thomas's biography have given rise. In view of what is now known concerning its Byzantine and Saracen antecedents it can no longer be maintained that the Sicilian fiscal system was im- ported from England by Thomas Brown ; but it is possible that he may have exerted some influence in matters of detail, and it is certainly worth noting that, if we are justified in connecting him with the clerks of the same name under Henry I, he probably had some acquaintance with the workings of Anglo-Norman administration before he entered the service of the Sicilian king. Precisely to what extent Normandy and England had sep- arately organized govermnents under Henry I, it is not possible to say without further genealogical study and a more careful examination of the dociunentary evidence. Wholly distinct the two administrations cannot have been, for so long as kingship was ambulatory and the government centered in the royal household, a considerable number of the king's officers must have been com- mon to the kingdom and the duchy.. Thus William of Tancarville, though his castle was in Normandy and though he received a fixed grant from the Norman treasury, is styled ' chamberlain of Eng- land and Normandy,' "" and the seneschalship of Humphrey de Bohun was likewise common to both countries.'" William Brown we have just seen as a landholder on both sides of the Channel; Simon the dispenser is with the king in Normandy between 1117 and 1 1 20 and in England in 1130.1^^ Not only the great body of personal servants, but such departments as the chancery and the chapel, certainly followed the king. Thus in the transfretation of 1 1 20, of which the chroniclers have left some record because of the loss of the White Ship, the king was accompanied by chap- on England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century, E. H. R., xxvi. 438-443, where (pp. 651-655) the Sicilian fiscal system is also discussed (1911). ™ Annals of Saint-Wandrille, Histoire liitlraire de la France, xxxii. 204; cf. Walter Map, De Nugis, ed. M. R. James, p. 244. For the grant from the treasury see Monasiicon, vii. 1066; Stapleton, i. 68, 157. "' Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll Society), no. 27. "2 Round, King's Serjeants, p. 189; Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, pp. s, 79. HENRY I 113 lains, dapiferi, camerarii, and pincerne.^^^ The fiscal administra- tion was naturally more stationary than the household proper, for the collection and disbursement of the revenue had to go on in the king's absence; and, while we know even less of the Norman treasury than of the treasury at Winchester, there was at least a separate treasurer and probably some other permanent ofl&cials."* Yet in this department too a cormection was maintained between the kingdom and the duchy. Treasure was carried back and forth, not only with the king, as on his return from Normandy in 1120,1'* but also at other times, a considerable part of the large sum stored at Falaise at the time of Henry's death having been recently brought from England."^ Such transshipments must have been accompanied, as under Henry H,'*' by royal ofl&cers — indeed the possession of the castle of Porchester by one of the chamberlains of the Exchequer may have been connected with this process of transfer ''* — while some system of balancing accounts between the two treasuries is involved in the practice of receiving pay- ments on one side of the Channel to apply on accounts due on the other. Intercommunication of this sort is, of course, quite com- patible with the existence of two separate corps of oflEicials, but the appearance in Normandy of the two chamberlains, Geoffrey de Clinton and Robert Mauduit, as well as such fiscal ofl&cers as ™ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 242; William of Malmes- bviry, Gesta Regum, ii. 497. Ordericus (iv. 415-419) mentions by name William, one of the four principal chaplains, William de Pirou dapifer, and Gisulf the scribe. Cf. the transfretation of 1130, John of Worcester (ed. Weaver), p. 33. 1^ There was also a separate Norman mint at Rouen, and pleas concerning the coinage were held apttd arcam monete: Round, Calendar, nos. 1053, 1459; Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 122; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 157. "' Ordericus, iv. 412, 419. "6 Hid,, V. so; Robert of Torigni, i. 201. 1" E. g.. Pipe Roll 6 Henry n, p. 47; i3HenryII, p. i93f.; 21 Henry H, p. 200. ^' Round, in Victoria History of Hampshire, i. 432; Ancestor, v. 207-210. The history of this Mauduit chamberlainship is, in spite of Round's researches, not yet entirely clear. It is not true that, as the editors of the Oxford edition of the Dialogus suggest (p. 20), the office of William Mauduit was acquired by William de Pont de I'Arche in ir30, for, apart from the fact that William Mauduit would not be men- tioned in the Constitutio domus regis if he was no longer in office, we find him re- ceiving money in the camera curie in 1130 (Pipe RoU, p. 134) and witnessing as chamberlain in the summer of 1131 {infra, Appendix F, no. 11; cf. Round, Calen- dar, no, 107). 1 14 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Nigel nepos episcopi and Osbert de Pont de I'Arche, would seem to indicate that the two administrations were not wholly dis- tinct."' In judicial matters the chief link between the kingdom and the duchy was the king, although the officers who came with him from England might also constitute an important element in the meetings of the Norman curia. In general, however, the Nor- man judicial system possessed a considerable measure of distinct- ness. The cases in which the king sat were more likely to leave a record in the charters, yet we have seen abundant evidence of the activity of the courts in his absence and of the existence, in addi- tion to the local officers, of a body of Norman justices, among whom the justiciar and the two seneschals stand out with such prominence as to suggest that they constituted the nucleus of the Norman central government. Our conception of Henry's Norman household will depend in large measure upon our interpretation of that curious and unique record, the Constitutio domus regis, which contains a detailed list of the officers of the court with their daily stipends and allowances of food, wine, and candles."" Drawn up not long after Henry's death,"' this is based upon the conditions of his reign and is thus much the earliest of the many household ordinances of European royalty. It is true that in its present form it is not so much an ordinance as an attempt at an up-to-date account of the royal household; but the word constitutio points to a formal act, and the consistent use of the future tense shows that in the body of the document we are dealing, not with a mere description, but with the language of one who commands and prescribes. If we call to mind the contemporary mention of Henry's reform in the prac- tices of his courtiers,"^ and particularly the specific statement of 1*' Cf. introduction to Oxford edition of Dialogus, p. 19, note 3. "" Liber Niger Scaccarii, ed. Hearne, pp. 341-359 (the best text); Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall, pp. 807-813. For modern discussions, see Hall's introduc- tion, pp. cclxxxvi-ccci; Bateson, Media,eval England, pp. 5-8; Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, pp. 94-99; Round, The King's Serjeants and Officers of State, especially p. 54 ff. '*>■ Whether under Stephen, as is generally assumed, or in the early years of Henry II (cf. Liebermann, Veher Psettdo-Cnuts Conslitutiones de Foresta, p. 25) does not greatly affect our purpose. "2 Eadmer, p, 192 f.; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii, 487, The re- HENRY I 115 Walter Map that he established scriptas domus etfamilie sue con- siietudines, including fixed liveries for the barons of his curia and regular allowances for the members of his household,"' we shall not hesitate to identify this reform with the original nucleus of the Constitutio, so far as this can be separated from glosses and later additions. Some elements were doubtless still older, since a charter of the Conqueror"* in 1070-107 1 mentions court liveries, demaine and common bread, candles and candle ends, such as appear in the Constitutio, and since many of the serjeanties of the Constitutio can be followed back as far as Domesday. As regards place, the Constitutio contains no specific reference to either side of the Channel, save for the mention of the modius Rotomagensis as a standard of measurement, and this phrase has been used as an argument both for and against the compilation of the document in Normandy."^ Clearly its scope cannot be restricted to the duchy, for most of the persons therein mentioned are found in possession of lands and offices in England, and the Pipe RoU of 1 130 not only shows two of the chief, men of the household receiv- ing the per diem allowance fixed in the Constitutio,^*^ but also form probably antedates 11 21, since Robert Peche before becoming bishop ' in cura panum ac potus strenue ministrare solebat ': Florence of Worcester, ii. 75. Another larderer, Roger, had been made bishop in iioi: William of Mahnesbury, Gesta Pontificum, p. 303. 1** ' Scriptas habebat domus et familie sue' consuetudines quas ipse statuerat: domus, ut semper esset omnibus habunda copiis et certissimas haberet vices a longe provisas et communiter auditas ubicunque manendi vel movendi, et ad earn venientes singuli quos barones vocant terre primates statutas ex liberalitate regis liberationes haberent; familie, ne quis egeret sed perciperet quisquis certa don- aria.' De Nugis Cwialium, ed. James, p. 219 (ed. Wright, p. 210). '^* Davis, Regesta, no. 60. "5 The Norman view is maintained by Stapleton, Magni Roluli, i, p. xxi; Hall, Red Book, p. ccc; id., Studies in English Official Historical Documents, p. 163. Poole, p. 95, argues that if the household was settled in Normandy, there would have been no need to call upon the bakers to spend 40^. in procuring the measure; but it seems clear that the reference is rather to the piffchase of a given quantity of grain. If that is the correct interpretation, we have an illustration of fixed prices for the court's purchases, such as seem to be implied in the passages of Eadmer and William of Malmesbury cited in note 142. "' Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, pp. 129, 131, 140, where the liveries of the chancellor and William de Pont de I'Arche the chamberlain are reckoned at s^. a day. When officers served in the curia, they were paid from the camera curie, so that their wages do not appear in the Pipe Rolls, where they are mentioned for the most 1 16 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS mentions most of its lesser members — ushers, bakers, larderers, cup-bearers, butterymen, naperers, and archers, the velterer and the master of the harriers, hosarius, scutellarius, bordarius, corti- narius,^*'' the cook who pays half a mark of gold for his father's office,"' down to the sumpter-man and the Serjeants of the chapel and the kitchen."^ All this, however, does not show that these were members of a purely English household, for the king had spent nearly the whole of this fiscal year in England, and there is no record how many of them accompanied him to Normandy in September. It is impossible, from the records now extant, to follow out the officers of the Constitutio on Norman soil, for we have no Ex- chequer RoUs for this period and little other material of the sort which has enabled the patient learning and ingenuity of Round to identify so many of the king's Serjeants in England. In the ab- sence of any such body of conquered land as in England, it is likely that in Normandy the officers of state were less freely re- warded by land and were dependent in large measure upon the fixed endowments from the ducal revenues of which we find traces here and there. Thus Henry's treasurer, as we have already seen, had the tithes of certain vicomtes,^^" and we know that his cham- berlain of the family of Tancarville had a fixed grant of £60 from the farm of Lilleboime."i Similar charges in the roll of 1180 in favor of the dispenser of LiUebonne "'^ and the duke's larderer may also have an early origia."' Normandy was familiar with the part as excused from Danegeld, the amount remitted serving as an accurate meas- ure of the hides which they owned in each county. Cf. Poole, Exchequef, p. 125. "' Pipe RoU, pp. 1, 4, IS f., 22 f., 41, 45 f., SI, s6, S9, 6i, 72 f ., 75 f ., 80, 83, 86, 99, 102, 104, 107, 126; and Roimd, King's Serjeants, under these words. "' Pipe Roll, p. 84. If the cook Radulphus de Marchia of the Constitutio is the Radulfus de Marceio of St. Paul's documents, he was dead before 1127 (9 Historical MSS. Commission, p. 65 f.). "' Pipe RoU, pp. 102, 107 f., 126; cf. E. H. R., xiv. 423. ''" Supra, note 108; cf. infra, Chapter V, note 139. "' Monasticon, vii. io56; Stapleton, i. 68. "^ Stapleton, i. 68. "' Ibid., i, pp. Ixxxiii, 30, 99, 274, ii. 471, S72, S73- As the alms here charged against the farm of Valognes, like the other fixed charges in the rolls, appear to be arranged in chronological order, the assignment to the larderer is probably earlier than the grant to the chapelry of Valognes, transferred to the abbey De Voto by an early charter of Henry II (Delisle-Berger, no. 135). HENRY I 117 system of daily allowances described in the ConsHtutio, for Wace, who would carry this back to the time of Richard the Good and Robert I, speaks of the duke's provision De chandeile e de vin e d' altre livreisim,i" and teUs us that the dignitaries of the household Chascun iur orent livreisuns E as granz festes dras et duns."^ This is confirmed and amplified by a curious charter which bears the royal style of Henry II but on the ground of its witnesses is probably to be assigned to the reign of his grandfather.'*^ This document, which gives us the most concrete accoimt of the Nor- man household, grants to Odoin de Malpalu, the king's serjeant, along with various lands and rights, ' the whole ministry of the king's panetaria, with all its appurtenances, with livery in the court every day that the king is at Rouen, namely four pennyworth of bread from the depensa, and one sextary of knight's wine from the cellar, and four portions from the kitchen, one of them a large one, two of the size for knights, and one dispensaUle. And Odoin is to j&nd the king bread in his court, and to reckon by tallies with his dispensers and with aU his bakers, and he shall receive the money and give quittances to the bakers. And when the king sends to Rouen for bread, Odoin is to bring it at the king's cost, and every pack horse shall have i2d. and every pannier-bearing one 6d. and every basker-carrier a pennyworth of bread, and if the bread is brought by water the boatman shall have 6d. a journey. When the king makes a joiurney, Odoin is to have all that is left of the bread of the panetaria; and he is to have charge of and jurisdiction over the king's bakers at Rouen and within the hanlieue of Rouen, and aU their forfeitures, and the weighing of bread, and all fines of bread and forfeited bread. Odoin shall also have one free fishery in the Seine, and all his wheat shall be ground in the king's mills of Rouen free of charge, immediately after the wheat which he shall find in the hopper; and he is to be one of the regarders of the king's forests, at the king's cost, and to be quit of pannage in aU these forests for aU his swine, and every Christmas he is to have twenty shillings or four swine,' etc."' 1" Chronique ascendante, ed. Andresen (i. 214), line 211. 1'' Roman de Rou, ed. Andresen, ii, line 799 ff. I's Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 14; Delisle-Berger, no. 705; Round, Calen- dar, no. 1280; there is also a copy in MS. Lat. 9067, f. 141V. On the difficult question of the nature and date of this charter, see Delisle, in B. E. C, Ixvii. 395- 397; Round, in Archaeological Journal, bdv. 73-77; Delisle, Hemi II, p. 34, note; Round, Serjeants, p. 199 f . "' This is, substantially. Round's analysis. Il8 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Here the serjeant remains at Rouen and, apart from his con- tinuing privileges, draws his livery only while the king is there, so that he belongs with the chaplains and porters attached per- manently to the royal castles rather than with the ofl&cers who follow the king. So in an early charter of Henry II his serjeant Baudri, besides his daily wages as porter and jailer at Rouen and his gifts and Hveries as regarder and pannager of the forests, is confirmed as marshal whenever the king sojourns at Rouen, re- ceiving for each of these days six loaves of bread, six portions from the kitchen, and a sextary of wine, besides a shield each year and every Christmas two swine from the larder of Rouen and a beech in one of the forests."' Henry II had a way of rewarding his Serjeants with town houses, notably in the growing port of Dieppe,'*' and one of his grants of this sort may explain an im- explained ofl&cer of the Constitutio, namely Ralph le Robeur, or le Bobeur, whom I am inclined to identify with Ralph le Forbeur, who held a house at Bayeux on condition of furbishing the king's hunting arms.'^" Rouen was doubtless the principal center for these officials of the more local and stationary type,"' although too much must not be argued from the survival of documents respecting serjeanties which owed their value principally to the later growth of the city. It would still be an anachronism to speak of Rouen as a capital, yet it has special significance in connection with the treasury, and it appears much more frequently than any other Norman place in the king's charters,'*^ while his park at Sainte-Vaubourg and his palace at Le Pre were close by.'*' Next to Rouen, Caen holds the "8 Delisle-Berger, no. 212. For another Rouen marshalship see Geoffrey's charter, infra, Chapter IV, no. 13; and cf. the services due Henry I from Roland d'Oissel: Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 2; Round, Calendar, no. 1278. '" See the Coutumier of Dieppe, in Archives of the Seine-Inffirieure, G. 851; Delisle-Berger, nos. 1x5, 329, 398, 479, 709, 713, 719. IS" ' Servitio furbiandi venabula et alia arma mea ': Cartulaire de Normandie (MS. Rouen 1235), f. 24V; Delisle-Berger, no. 723; Valin, p. 151, note 4. Cf. ' Aldwinus forbator ' in Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 41. '°' To the treasurer and Serjeants mentioned above should be added ' Robertus capellanus mens de Rotomago ': Monaslicon, vii. 1043, 1099; Round, no. 475. 102 See Appendix G, supplemented by the great number of charters which cannot be specifically dated. '" B. t,. C, xi. 438; Stapleton, i, p. cxli; fitienne de Roueo, ed. Omont, bk. iii, HENRY I 119 chief place in the description of his enlargement and strengthening of the older Norman castles,^'* and in his itinerary Caen, Falaise, and Argentan appear most frequently after Rouen. The sessions of court and justices at the castle of Caen '^* foreshadow the later meetings of the Exchequer there, while the king's loricarii at Argentan are reminders that such strongholds were also needed for sterner work."^ Henry's sojourns elsewhere are scattered through his itinerary without indicating any such degree of fre- quency or length of stay; besides the ports of Dieppe and Bar- fleur and the older towns and fortresses of the interior, they include his newer strongholds on or near the frontier — Vemeuil and Vire, VaudreuU and Lions-la-Foret, where he died. Besides the Norman parallels to the Serjeants and liveries of the Constitutio, there is definite evidence that the officers who ac- companied the king to Normandy received the same stipends as in England. In the Pipe Roll of 1 130 William de Pont de I'Arche, the chamberlain, has an allowance for the period of sixty-three days intervening between his departure from the king in Nor- mandy and his taking over of the bishopric of Durham,'" a jour- ney partly in Normandy and partly in England during which he is paid at the luiiform rate of $s. a day fixed in the Constitutio. This further shows that the liveries of the Constitutio are reckoned in sterling, due allowance being doubtless made for the different standards in Normandy. Moreover, if a difference existed be- tween allowances in England and in Normandy, the Constitutio could hardly have avoided mentioning it in tracing the increase in the stipend of the keeper of the seal, Robert, a constant com- panion of the king in these later years, who was receiving his maximum remimeration in Normandy at the moment of Henry's death. We may conclude that there is no reason for ascribing the linessff. (Hewlett, Chronicles of Stephen, ii. 713); Delisle-Berger, no. 523; Rottdi Chartarum, p. 3. '«* On his castles see Robert of Torigni, i. 164, 197; id., in William of Jumifiges, ed. Marx, p. 309; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, p. 275 f. "' Supra, no. 5; Deville, Analyse, p. 47 f. i«« Appendix F, no. 21. Note the attestations of the two marshals. 1" ' In liberatione Willelmi de Pontearcanim de .bdii. diebus .xv.l. et .xv.s. ex quo recessit de Rege in Normannia et accepit episcopatimi Dmielmensem'; p. 129, cf. p. 131. I20 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Constitutio exclusively to either side of the Channel, but, as the compiler speaks particularly of conditions at the time of the king's death, he doubtless had most freshly in mind the household of the last two years of the reign, which were spent in Normandy. Hence the tnodius Rotomagensis, which seems to have been the standard measure of the Norman Exchequer."* This official or semi-official description of the household in Henry's later years may be supplemented by the witnesses to the charters which he issued in Normandy 1133-1135."' The most solemn of these, the ordinance respecting the Truce of God which is the only surviving monument of his Norman legislation,"" was promulgated at Rouen in presence of the archbishop and the bishops of the province, and by the common coimsel and consent of the attesting barons who comprised only earls and high officers of the curia: Robert, earl of Gloucester, the king's son, his nephew Stephen, the earl of Leicester and Earl Giffard, Brian Fitz Count constable, Robert de Courcy and Hugh Bigod seneschals, Wil- liam Fitz Odo chamberlain, and William Fitz John, whose office has not been identified. The bishops of Ely and Carlisle and the keeper of the seal are noted as present, but are carefully distin- guished from the barons. A charter of the same year issued at Caen "^ adds to Henry's entourage the names of Geoffrey Fitz Payne, Roger the treasurer, and three royal chaplains, Robert archdeacon of Exeter, Richard de Beaufage, and Richard, son of Robert of Gloucester, the last two already designated as bishops respectively of Avranches and Bayeux."'' Charters of the pre- ceding year "' add to the names of officers of state who were with 1" Stapleton, i. 32, 39, where we read of rents and allowances in the Cotentin of ' modii avene ' and 'modii bladii,' 'ad mensuram Rothom[agensem].' "» See Appendix G. "" Tris Ancien Couiumier, ed. Tardif, c. 71; Round, Calendar, no. 290. ™ Round, no. 590. "' Ordericus, v. 44 f. "' Round, nos. 37s, 959. See further no. 374; supra, no. 18; E. H. R., xjdii. 726, no. iv {Monasticon, viii. 1275), which adds William, Earl Warren {ibid., vii. 1 1 13). From the lists of those who were with the king in England just before the transfretation of 1133 (Monasticon, vi. 177; Madoz, Baronia Anglica, p. 158; cf. Round, Feudal England, p. 426 f.) it appears that many of these must have crossed with him. HENRY I 121 the king at Rouen Robert de la Haie and Humphrey de Bohun seneschals, and Robert de Vere constable. Three other chamber- lains, Aubrey de Vere, William of Houghton, and William of Glastonbury, are found at Falaise in a royal charter of the same period,"* and two marshals appear with the king at Argentan."° At Henry's death, i December 113 5 at Lions, there were present, in addition to his chaplains, the archbishop of Rouen, the bishop of Evreux, the earls of Gloucester, Surrey, and Leicester, and the coimts of Meulan and Perche."" In their joumejdngs to and fro across the Chaimel the kings of the twelfth century made use of a royal galley (esnecca) ,^'" pay- ments for which are a regular item in the Pipe Rolls of Henry H. Li the Conqueror's reign this service seems to have been in charge of Stephen Fitz Airard, who appears in Domesday holding lands in Berkshire, and is probably the ' Stephanus stirman ' who has a house in Warwick and the rent of two houses in Southampton."' After Stephen's death the privilege does not seem to have passed to his family, and when his son Thomas claimed the feudal right by placing the White Ship at the disposal of Henry I in 11 20, provision had already been made for the king's crossing."' Who possessed the ministerium esnecce under Henry I and his grandson we learn from a charter issued by Henry H at the beginning of his reign: Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Willelmo et Nicholao, filiis Rogeri generi Alberti, et heredibus Bonefacii et Azonis et Roberti et Radxilfi fratrmn ipsorum ministerium meum de esnecca mea cimi liberatione que pertinet et "* Ramsey Chronicle, p. 284, no. 33s; Ramsey Cartulary, i. 250. i'6 Appendix F, no. 21. "* Ordericus, v. 50 f. "' ' Rex Anglie ad suam transfretationem navem propriam solet habere. Can- cellarius ei fieri fecit non imam solam sed tres simul naves optimas: ' Fitz Stephen, Vita S. Thome {Materials, iii. 26). It is not clear whether the ministerium of the Hastings esnecca which was held under Henry I by the ancestors of Roger of ' Bumes ' (Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 39b) was distinct from the service of the esnecca mentioned below. Under Henry II it passed to Hugh de Bee, husband of Roger's sister Illaria, and was claimed under John by Roger's niece Avicia. What may be a Chester esnecca appears in 1168 (Pipe Roll, p. 92). >'8 Ordericus, iv. 411; Domesday Book, i. 52, 63b, 238. Stephen Fitz Airard also appears in a charter of the early years of Henry I which permits him to grant lands to Ramsey: Calendar of Charter Rolls, ii. 102, no. s (cf. nos. 7 and 15). •" Ordericus, iv. 411. 122 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS totam terrain Rogeri generi Alberti et f eoda omnia que ipse Rogerus tenuit in capita de rege H. avo meo et de quocunque tenuisset die qua fuit vivus et mortuus. ^^ Roger, son-in-law of Albert, is otherwise known. He had held lands in Wallop (Hampshire) before 1130,1'' as well as lands in Southampton which he and his wife gave to the abbey of St. Denis,'*^ and he witnessed a royal charter in Normandy which cannot be earlier than 1123.''^ The ministerium doubtless came to him from Albert with his wife Avizia, which would carry it well back into Henry's reign. The interesting fact to note is that while none of the names in his family are Anglo-Saxon, and none are necessarily Norman, one at least, Boniface, is evidently ItaHan,'^ while the names Albert and Azo, as weU as the form Avizia, though not necessarily ItaHan, point toward Italy. The appear- ance of an Italian shipmaster in charge of the royal galley under Henry I is surely a matter of interest, and suggests that inter- course with the South in this period may well have been more active than is commonly supposed. '8° British Museum, Campbell Charter, xxix. g; printed in Archaeologia, vi. 116; Delisle-Berger, no. 26. Cf. N. H. Nicoljis, History of the Royal Navy, i. 433; Guide to Manuscripts exhibited in the Department of Manuscripts (1899), p. 41, no. 17. ^^ Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 39. 182 Calendar of Charter Rolls, iii. 337; cf. my paper in M Manges Charles Bemont^ p. 78. 183 Charter for Walter de Beauchamp, given at Vaudreuil: Appendix F, no. 9. '8* On the rarity of the name Boniface in England in this period see Andrew, in the Numismatic Chronicle, fourth series, i. 208. CHAPTER IV NORMANDY UNDER STEPHEN OF BLOIS AND GEOFFREY PLANTAGENETi The conquest of Normandy by Geoffrey of Anjou raises an in- teresting question for students of Norman history, since by estab- lishing between the two countries a personal union which was to last sixty years it opened the way to Angevin influence in the affairs of the duchy and to the possible modification of Norman institutions in accordance with Angevin practice. The problem of the nature and extent of this influence presents itself in its simplest form during Geoffrey's own reign of six years, not only because the new duke was, unlike his successors, exclusively the product of Angevin training and tradition, but also because under him the Norman and Angevin lands led a life of their own, dis- tinct from that of the larger empire of which they afterward formed a part. Unfortimately the available information is meager, especially with reference to the preliminary elements in the problem, for we know but httle of conditions in Normandy under Henry I, and no special study has yet been made of Anjou tmder Fulk of Jerusalem and his son.^ In general it appears that the state which Fulk the Red and his descendants hammered out on the borders of the Loire was smaller and more compact than the duchy to the northward, and the government of its rulers was more direct and personal, so that its administrative needs were simpler and seem to have been met without the creation of a fiscal and judicial system like the Norman and without any such fixity of docmnentary form or rigor of official procedure as are dis- cernible in Normandy by the beginning of the twelfth century. ' Revised from E. H. R., xxvn. 417-444 (1912). ^ For the eleventh century there is an admirable study by L. Halphen, Le cowM d' Anjou au XI" siecle (Paris, igo6). For the twelfth, a certain amount of useful material is contained in C. J. Beautemps-Beaupre, Coutumes et instikttions de V Anjou et du Maine, part ii, i (Paris, 1890) ; see also F. M. Powicke, The Angevin Adminis- tration of Normandy, E. H. R., xxi. 625-649, especially 648 f., xxii. 15-42; and his Loss of Normandy, ch, ii. 123 124 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS In point of organization there is no ground for considering the Angevin government to have been in advance of the Norman, nor, unless it be in the more immediate control of affairs by the count, is there inherent reason for expecting it to have had the marked effects upon Norman policy which are sometimes ascribed to it. Statements on these matters are, however, premature until more is known of the state of Anjou during this period, but it is possible in the meantime to bring together the Norman evidence for Geoffrey's reign and consider it with reference to the persistence of older institutions as well as to possible innovations. For such a study the death of Henry I forms the natural point of departure. In Normandy, as in England, the reign of Stephen seems to have had a merely negative importance. After Henry's death the Norman barons invited Theobald of Blois to rule over them, but the news of his brother's accession in England decided them to accept the lord of whom their English fiefs were held. Stephen took the title of duke of the Normans, and had it engraved on his seal, but he used it rarely, even in Norman docixments,' and never exercised an effective government over the whole of the duchy. The great strongholds of the southern border, Argentan, Exmes, and Domfront, had been promptly handed over to the empress by a loyal vicomte, as had also the castles of the count of Ponthieu, notably S6ez and Alengon, which were restored to Count William in return for his support of the Angevin party. From this basis, after a short truce, Geoffrey and his followers carried their ravages westward into the vale of Mortain and the Cotentin, and northward as far as Lisieux, while the party of Stephen waited in vain for the arrival of its leader.* It was not till March 1137 that the king, accompanied by the queen, the bishops of Winchester, Lincoln, and CarKsle, and his chancellor, Roger,^ arrived at La Hougue and proceeded by way of Bayeux ' Delisle, Henri II, p. 115 f. * Ordericus, V. 56-78; Robert of Torigni, i. 199 f., 205; John of Marmoutier, in Marchegay, Chronigues des comtes d' Anjou, p. 294 (ed. Halphen and Poupardin, p. 225); William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, p. 538; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 260. ' See their attestations in Delisle, pp. 11 7-1 19, nos. 2-8, 10. For Alexander of Lincoln, see also Henry of Huntingdon, p. 260, and two notifications issued in his favor by Stephen at Rouen and preserved in the Registrum Antiquissimum of GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 125 and fivreux to the valley of the Seine. Although he was well re- ceived by the Normans, who had been embittered by the excesses of the Angevin soldiery, and was recognized by the French king, Stephen's presence was not suflSdent to bring peace to the coun- try. Geoffrey was able to lead an attack on Caen and force money from Norman monasteries as the price of safety for their lands, and after an abortive attempt at an expedition against Argentan, Stephen was, early in July, forced to purchase a truce by the annual payment of two thousand marks. Through this parching summer and until his return to England early in Decem- ber, Normandy enjoyed whatever of order its duke was able to give it. Certain robber barons were coerced into obedience ^ and the forms of administration were maintained, but Stephen's own partisans were obhged to admit that he was a weak ruler.' His strongest support seems to have come from the Norman church: the archbishop of Rouen and four of his suffragans had hastened to his court in England early in 1136; Archdeacon Arnulf of Seez was his chief envoy to Rome in the same year; ' and most of the Lincoln Cathedral, nos. 180, 194, a reference which I owe to the kindness of Mr. H. W. C. Davis (cf. Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 103, no. 29, 140, no. 17). The king was accompanied as far as Portsmouth by Roger of Salisbury and several other members of the curia who do not seem to have crossed: Calendar of Charter Rolls, iii. 338. On Stephen's sojourn in Normandy see O. Rossler, Kaiserin Mathilde, pp. 185-193; Ramsay, Foundations of England, ii. 359-364. His presence at Bayeux is shown by a charter for Montebourg O^elisle, p. 117, no. i; Robert of Torigni, i. 206), which is dated 1136, and must accordingly have been issued between Stephen's arrival in Normandy, in the third week of March, andEaster (11 April 1137). So a charter for Le Grand-Beaulieu of Chartres (Cartu- laire, ed. Merlet and Jusselin, no. 11, from the original in the Archives of th& Eure-et-Loir) is given at fivreux in 1136 ' regni mei vero secundo.' Other points in Stephen's itinerary which appear from the charters but are not mentioned in the chroniclers are Falaise (Round, Calendar, no. 611), Lions-la-For6t (ibid., no. 1404), Rouen (ibid., no. ro55; D. Gumey, Record of the House ofGoumay (London, 1848- 1858), i. 108; Calendar of Charter Rolls, iii. 374; infra, note 9). • Ordericus, v. 81-91; Robert of Torigni, i. 206 f. On the date of Stephen's- return see also Gervase of Canterbury, i. loi ; John of Worcester, ed. Weaver, p. 45 ; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 260. ' ' Nonnannia . . . totam eflScaci gubematore provinciam carere mesta vide- bat ': Ordericus, v. 9r. « Round, Geoffrey de MandeviUe, pp. 252 f., 260, 262 f. On the attitude of the Norman clergy cf. Actus Pontijicum Cenomannis, ed. Busson and Ledru (Le Mansy 1901), p. 446. 126 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Norman prelates continued to adhere to him with a loyalty which was to cost them dear at the hands of his successor. It is not sur- prising that, of the score of Stephen's charters which relate to Normandy,' two confirm the bishops in their privileges," and most of the others concern the religious establishments of upper Nor- mandy. Both in form and in substance these documents follow closely the charters of Henry I and assume the maintenance of his administrative system, with its justices, vicomtes, and subordi- nate officers. They also show that the ducal revenues were kept at farm, at least in eastern Normandy " — indeed, a fiscal roU of 1 136 is said to have once existed ^^ — and that the Norman treas- urers, among them Robert of Evreux, continued in office.^' It is, however, noteworthy that only one order to a Norman official has survived, and while it refers to an earlier writ on the same subject, it is perhaps significant that this previous command has not been obeyed : 1* ' Delisle, Henri II, pp. 117-120, nos. 1-13 (no. i is printed without the witnesses in Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 238; nos. 3 and 4 are in Le Prevost, Eure, ii. 477, 488; no. 7 is in part in Neustria Pia, p. 778, and is indicated, probably erroneously, in the Inveniaire sommaire as having been in the Archives of the Eure, H. 592); Round, Calendar, nos. g, 239, 291-296, 427, 570, 611, 800, 802, 1055, 1404. Also a charter for Beaubec issued at Rouen (Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 851, f. S7v; Archives Nationales, JJ. 46, f. 37V; printed from a vidimus of Charles VI in Gumey , Record of the House of Gournay, i. 108) ; a writ for Bee, printed below, no. i ; a charter for Bee given at Marlborough (MS. Lat. 1390S, f ■ 2iv) ; another addressed to his officers of Wissant and Boulogne and given at Rouen (ibid., i. 86) ; a charter for the cordwainers of Rouen (La Roque, iii. 149, where it is wrongly attributed to William I) ; and an agreement in his presence at Rouen in 113 7 between the canons of Saint-fivroul and the monks of Notre-Dame de Mortain, notified by Richard, bishop of Avranches (MS. 292, f. 309V, of the Library of Caen, from the original; MS. Lat. S4II, part ii, p. 409; Collection Moreau, Ivii. 126; MS. Fr. 4900, f. 70). Of these nos. 11-13 in Delisle and nos. 9, 295, 296, 427, 800, 802 in Round were issued in England, leaving fifteen documents issued in Normandy, if we include the charter for Fontevrault (DeUsle, no. 10; Round, no. 1055). To these may be added four others given at Rouen for establishments outside of Normandy, namely one for Boulogne {Calendar of Charter Rolls, iii. 374), one for the leprosery of Chartres [Cartulaire, ed. Merlet and Jusselin, no. 11) confirming its alms from the Norman treasury, and the two for Lincoln mentioned above, note 5. i" Delisle, nos. 5, 11; Round, nos. g, 291. " Round, nos. 292 f., 570. '^ It is mentioned in 1790: M. A. N., xvi, p. xxx. " Supra, pp. 106-110; charter for Le Grand-BeauUeu of Chartres (Cartulaire, no. 11) confirming Henry I's grant of £10 in his Norman treasury. " Fragment of cartulary of Bee in the Archives of the Eure, H. 91 , f . 33, Prob-. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 12/ (i) S. rex Angl[orum] Ing[eranno] de Wasc[olio] salutem. Scias quoniam vehementer miror de hoc quod non fecisti preceptum meum de terra mona- chorum de Becco de Turf re villa de elemosina Willelmi Pevrellp]. Quare tibi predpio quod facias in pace et iuste et quiete terrain illam tenere sicut melius tenuerunt die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, ita quod non requiras aUquam novam consuetudinem de hominibus in terra iUa residentibus. Teste comite de Mell[ento] apud Pont[em] Ald[omari]. At his departure Stephen left the government of Normandy in the hands of certain justiciars, among whom we have the names of only Roger the vicomte, who met his death shortly afterwards in the effort to maintain order in the Cotentin, and William of Rou- mare,!^ who is mentioned as justiciar in a Rouen docimient of i8 December 1138." Beyond this point no regular administration of the duchy can be traced, and even in the castles and towns which continued to recognize Stephen his authority must have become merely nominal after the outbreak of the civil war drew the leaders of his party across the sea." Wilham of Ypres and Richard de Luci, who are fighting for him in Normandy in 1 138, join him in England at the close of the year; Galeran of Meulan and his brother the earl of Leicester are with him in 1139; and ably issued in June, when Stephen was at Pontaudemer (Ordericus, v. 85; cf. Delisle, no. 8). 1' Ordericus, v. 91 f., 105; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, p. 28 f. '5 Printed, supra, Chapter III, no. 4; Valin, p. 260; Vernier, no. 61; all from the original in the Archives of the Seine-Inferieure. ^' The charter of Stephen as count of Mortain, purporting to have been issued at Mortain ' in aula comitis ' in 1139 {Gallia Christiana, xi. 478), is false, at least so far as the date is concerned, for Stephen spent that year in England, and the bishop of Avranches was then Richard, not Herbert, whose seal was attached to the accom- panying charter (MS. Lat. 5441, ii. 416). Charters of Stephen as count of Mortain are known for Bee (Round, no. 378); for Saint-fitienne (DeviUe, Analyse, p. 18); for the Dames Blanches of Mortain (Stapleton, i, p. kv); for Savigny (cartulary in Archives of the Manche, no. 211) ; and for the nuns of Moutons, in the style of the Anglo-Norman writ, as follows: ' St. comes Bolonie et Mortonii Stephano vice- comiti omnibusque suis baronibus atque servientibus salutem. Mando et precipio vobis ut onmes res dominarum Sancte Marie de Muston, scilicet in terra et in vaccis et in aliis bestiis, in pace et qvdete dimittatis, easque et quidquid ad eas pertinet honorifice custodiatis et manuteneatis. Tibi autem, Stephane, firmiter precipio ne de aliqua causa implacites eas nisi per me et coram me, quia sunt in mea custodia illisque deffendo ne placitent sine me. Istis testibus: Hamfredo dapifero et Addam de Belnayo et Hamfredo de Camerayo [or camerario].' Copies, based on a vidimus of 1310, in Archives of the Manche, /c»»if Moutons. 128 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS William of Roumare goes over to the empress in 1140.** Left to itself, the coimtry quickly fell back into the disorder and blood- shed from which it had never really emerged during Stephen's nine months' sojourn. The descriptions of the Norman anarchy lack something of the realism with which William of Newburgh and the Peterborough chronicler depict conditions on the other side of the Channel, but the account in Ordericus is vivid enough, both in its general summary and its concrete examples, and its venerable author saw no hope of better days when he brought his work to its noble close in 1141.1' Yet this same year proved the turning-point in the reestabhsh- ment of ducal authority.^" Secure in the possession of Argentan '8 Ordericus, v. 108, 115, 125; Round, Geofrey de Mandeville, pp. 46, 55; Ram- say, Foundations of England, ii. 396; E. H. R., xxv. 116. '' Ordericus, v. 57-77, 79 f., 89-91, 104-109, 114-117, 130 f., 133. One of the regions which suffered most severely was the Avranchin, where the account of Ordericus (v. 89) and Robert of Torigni (ii. 234) is supplemented by an original notice from the archives of Mont-Saint-Michel (Archives of the Manche, H. 14997; MS. Avranches 210, f. 8ov) : Certain men of the Mount 'post mortem enim caris- simi domini nostri Henrici regis in abbatem dominum suum et contra totius villg salutem nequiter cum pluiibus huiusce mali consciis conspirationem fecerunt. Quo comperto a pluribus abbas consilio fidelium suorum eos convenit et super tot et tantos malis conquestus eos alloquitur, quibus negantibus et obtestantibus iterum fidelitatem tam sug salutis quam totius villg iuraverunt. Qui iterum in proditione ilia vehementer grassati hominibus alteritis Tegionis ad tantum facinus patrandum adheserunt, iterum allocuti et tercio sacramentis adstricti funditus in malitia sua perseveraverunt. Ad ultimum congregata curia ad dies pliuimos constitutos onme iuditium subterfugerunt et sic malitia eorum comperta omnibus patuit. Quo com- perto Uberales ipsius villg et ipsius provintig proceres super ignominia tanta confusi eos omnino exterminaverunt et sacramento affirmaverunt extunc illos non recepturos nee cum eis deinceps habitaturos. . . . [Rogerius camerarius] post mortem regis Anglie sacramentimi irritum fecit, Britanniam cum omni suppellectili petiit, unde multa mala non solum per se verum etiam dux f actus inimicorum qui tunc temporis nimia aviditate Normanniam infestabant terre et hominibus ecclesie irrogavit.' It will be noted that in this document there is no trace of ducal authority after Henry's death, and the barons take matters into their own hands. '" On Geoffrey's recovery of Normandy see Kate Norgate, Angevin Kings, i. 338-342, and the authorities there cited. That, as Miss Norgate says, " the story of this campaign, as told by the historians of the time, is little more than a list of the places taken, put together evidently at random," is true only of William of Malmesbury, who lacked local knowledge. The succession of events in Robert of Torigni and John of Marmoutier is intelligible and consistent, and of the additional places mentioned by William of Malmesbury, Bastebourg and TreviSres were ap- parently the result of special expeditions from Caen and Bayeux, while the others GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 1 29 and the adjoining vicomtes, and controlling Caen and Bayeux through his alliance with Robert of Gloucester, Geoffrey of Anjou in 1141 won Lisieux, Falaise, and the country as far as the Seine, and the following year gave him not only the outstanding places in the Bessin, but the county of Mortain, the Avranchin, and the Cotentin.^i By January 1144 he was able to enforce the submission of the city of Rouen, followed three months later by the surrender of its tower.^^ Although the castle of Arques held out until the summer of the following year, the barons of the duchy had already made their peace with the new duke, who had won over their leader, the count of Meulan, as early as 1141 ; and even the Norman church, which had received Stephen's nephew as abbot of Fecamp in 1140 and his chancellor as bishop of Bayeux in 1 142, was driven to acknowledge the king's defeat. John of Lisieux, the justiciar of Henry I, submitted to Geoffrey just before his death in 1141; the bishop of Avranches led the procession which welcomed the Angevin army to his city in the following year; and even the archbishop of Rouen, maximus regis propug- nator at the outbreak of the civil war in England, who dated his dociunents by Stephen's reign as late as 1143, was doubtless present when Geoffrey was received into his cathedral upon the city's surrender, and thenceforth recognized him as ruler of the — Briquessart, Villers, Plessis, Vire — lay in the direction of Mortain, though not " up the left bank of the Ome." ^1 The chroniclers say nothing of the Channel Islands, although modem writers upon the islands say that Geoffrey sent a certain Raoul de Valmont there to estab- lish the duke's authority and ascertain his rights. It would be interesting to know the origin of this statement. See G. Dupont, Histoire du Cotenlin et de ses lies (Caen, 1870), i. 354-357; F. B. Tupper, History of Guernsey (Guernsey, 1876), p. 76; E. P£got-Ogier, Histoire des lies de la Manche (Paris, 1881), p. 133 f. We know very little of the history of these islands in the twelfth century. ^ As Geoffrey crossed the Seine at Hilarymas and received the submission of Rouen 19 or 20 January, his charter for ChAteau-l'Hennitage, given 28 January 1144 at Mayet {Archives historiques du Maine, vi. 45), can hardly belong in this year. On the surrender of Arques in the following year see Cartulaire de S.-Laud d' Angers, ed. Planchenault, p. 65. The completion of the conquest as far as the Seine in 1143 is confirmed by a charter of that year given ' Andegavis civitate in anno quo annuente Deo et sancta matre eius partem Normannie que est citra Sequanam adquisivimus ': P. F. Chiflflet, Histoire de I'abbaye de Totmms, preuves, p. 424 (Ju^nin, preuves, p. 156), I30 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS duchy.'' Although he had been so styled by his partisans some time before,'^ Geoffrey did not assume the ducal title imtil the acquisition of Rouen gave him full control of his new dominions and Justified his prompt recognition by the king of France.^* Geoffrey's reign as duke of Normandy extends from 1144 to early in 11 50, when he handed the duchy over to his son Henry, the heir of Matilda and Henry I.'^ This transfer, accomplished 2' Bohmer, Kirche und Stoat in England und in der Normandie, p. 313 f. The archbishop still recognizes Stephen in a document of 1143 in Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 23, but acknowledges Geoffrey in charters of 1145 (Pommeraye, HistoiredeS- Oiien, p. 425; P. Laffleur de Kermaingant, Cartulaire de I'abbaye de S. -Michel du Triport, p. 31; C. Mfitais, Cartulaire de la TriniU de VendSme, ii. 331; Collection Moreau, bd. 188, 206) . So Amulf of Lisieux dates a charter for Fecamp by Stephen's reign in 1142 (Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, fonds F6camp), but attests a charter which recognizes Geoffrey in September 1143 (see the next note), and is soon busy securing the favor of the new prince (Epistolae, no. 2). That Geoffrey had been able to put pressure upon the Norman church appears from the instance of the treasurer of Lisieux, who was kept out of his church of Mesnil-Eudes (Calva- dos) ' propter ducatus divisionem ': letters of Bishop John in MS. Lat. 5288, f. 68. " Charter of William, count of Ponthieu, for Vignats, 19 September 1143, wit- nessed by the bishops of Seez, Lisieux, and Coutances, and three abbots: Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 162. On the other hand Geoffrey is called count in a charter of Reginald of Saint- Valery issued some time before the capture of Dieppe: Roimd, Calendar, no. 1057; Fr^viUe, Histoire du commerce de Rouen, ii. 9. 26 On the assumption of the ducal title, see DeUsle, Henri II, p. 135 f.; and cf. the date of no. 728 in Round's Calendar. According to Robert of Torigni and the annals of Mont-Saint-Michel (ed. Delisle, i. 234, ii. 234), Geoffrey became duke upon the surrender of the tower of Rouen (23 April), but a charter of tJlger, bishop of Angers (DeUsle, Henri II, p. 135), places 29 June 1145 in the first year of his reign. Lucius II addresses him 16 May 1144 as count of Anjou merely: Livre noir de Bayeux, no. 206. 2' Against the annals of Saint-Aubin (Halphen, Recueil d'annales angevines, p. 1 2) , which give 1 149, and Miss Norgate's argument for 1 148 (Angemn Kings, i. 369 f ., 377; Dictionary of National Biography, sub ' Henry II '), the date of 1150 seems to me clearly established from Robert of Torigni (i. 253), and the annals of Caen {H. F., xii. 780) and Saint-fivroid (Ordericus, v. 162), and especially from the regnal years in certain of Henry's charters. Gervase of Canterbury (i. 142), who is not quite clear as to the year, gives January as the month of Henry's return to Nor- mandy; and two charters for Savigny, given in the eighth year of his reign as duke and issued before the beginning of April 1157, show that he became duke before the end of March (Delisle, pp. 122, 231, 279 f., 515, nos. 30, 30a; Berger, i. 183, con- fuses the whole matter of these charters by dating Henry's reign from the end of 1150, following an unsupported statement of Delisle, p. 121). A charter of Arch- bishop Hugh (La Roque, iii. 45) is dated 1150 'principante in Normannia duce Henrico.' On the other hand Geoffrey drops the title of duke in a charter of 28 GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 131 when the young duke was in his seventeenth year, shows plainly that the count of Anjou had won and held Normandy for his son and not for himself, and earlier evidence points to the same con- clusion. Besides the few weeks which may have intervened be- tween his return and his assiunption of the ducal title in 1150, Henry was on the Norman side of the Channel from the end of 1 146 to the spring of 1149,^' enjoying the instruction of the most famous Norman scholar of the time, William of Conches, who prepared for his use a choice selection of maxims of the Gentile philosophers; 2* yet even at this tender age his name was used to give sanction to ducal acts. A charter for Bec^' and one for Saint- WandriUe ^^ are issued by Geoffrey with the advice and consent of his son Henry; another confirmation for Bee '^ and one for Fecamp '^ are issued by the two jointly; while a document of 1 147 for Saint-Ouen, attested by Geoffrey's chancellor, Richard October 1150 {Liber aUms Cenomannensis, no. 6; cf. Delisle, p. 138) and in a notifi- cation at Montreuil, addressed to the archbishop of Rouen, evidently in 1150- 1151 {infra, note go). ^^ On the dates of Henry's crossings see Round, Geojjrey de Mandeville, pp. 405- 410. 28 William's Dragmaticon is dedicated to Geoffrey as duke of Normandy and count of Anjou in an introduction which praises his care for the education of the young princes (R. L. Poole, Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought, p. 347 f .) ; and his treatise on moral philosophy, De honesto et utili, is dedicated to Henry before the assumption of the ducal title. See this work, attributed to Hildebert of Le Mans, in Migne, ckxi. 1007-1056; and, on its authorship, Haur6au, in Notices et extraits des MSS., xxxiii, 1, pp. 257-263. Curiously enough, it was used by Giraldus Cambrensis in writing the De principis instructione, where Henry H serves as a terrible example. Adelard of Bath also appears to have been one of Henry's tutors: E. H. R., xxviii. 516. 2' ' Non lateat vos nee quenquam presentium sive futurorum me consiUo H. filii mei et baronum meorum concessisse quod ecclesia SancteMarie de Becco et monachi Ulius ecclesie habeant omnes consuetudines et quietudines et Ubertates quas habebant in tempore H. regis. Quapropter ego precipio ut omnes res eiusdem ecclesie sint quiete et libere in terra et in aqua et in piano et in nemore per totam Normanniam ab omni consuetudine et vexatione, sicut erant in tempore Henrici regis ' (extract by Dom Jouvelin-Thibault, in MS. Lat. 13905, f. 85V). "• Round, no. 170; Delisle-Berger, no. 9*; Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 78. 3' " Geofroy due de Normandie et d'Anjou, Henri 2'' son fils, confirment et de- clarent que monachi de Becco et omnes res eorum sunt quiete de theloneo et passagio et pontagio et de omni consuetudine, sicut a retroactis temporibus fuerunt apud Archas et apud Diepam ": MS. Lat. 13905, f. 85V. '^ Delisle, p. 508, no. 6* and facsimile no. i; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*. 132 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS of Bohun, is given by Henricus duds Normannorum et comitis Andegavie filius and addressed to his officers of Normandy." We should also expect to find the empress taking an active part in Norman affairs; but her absence in England from 1139 to 1148 ^* removed her from any share in the events of these critical years on the Continent, nor has any trace been found of her participa- tion in her husband's administration after her return. The lack of documents which can be specifically referred to these two years is, however, probably accidental, for we have a grant of land at Argentan to one of her followers before her departure for Eng- land,'^ and several charters, issued in her own name or conjointly with her son, which show her activity in the years immediately following his accession.'^ The sources of information for the study of Geoffrey's govern- ment of Normandy are remarkably scanty and fragmentary. The narrative writers fail us entirely, for Ordericus stops before the conquest is completed, and Robert of Torigni and John of Mar- moutier give us nothing beyond an enumeration of campaigns. We are perforce restricted to the charters, among which those of the duke himself, about forty in number, are so fundamental as to caU for somewhat special examination. The following list in- ^' Neustria Pia, p. 15; La Roque, iv. suppl., p. 10; Delisle, p. 508, no. 3*; De- lisle-Berger, no. $*. Delisle and Berger query the date, but we know that Henry was solemnly received at Bee on Ascension Day, 1147 (Robert of Torigni, i. 243). Henry likewise makes a grant to the nuns of Almenfeches as son of Duke Geoffrey: Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 5; Delisle-Berger, no. 7*- ^ Delisle, Henri II, p. 140, and the older Norman writers give 1147 as the year of her return, which took place ' ante Quadragisimam.' There is some tmcertainty because of the confusion of chronology — which is, however, less than has been supposed (see Round, Geofrey de Mandemlle, pp. 405-410) — in Gervase of Canter- bury, but as he (i. 133) places Matilda's return after the death of Robert of Glouces- ter (31 October 1147) and just before the council of Rheims (21 March 1148), it would seem to fall in 1148. Rossler, Kaiserin Mathilde, pp. 410-412, assimies 1147, but his book has no value for Matilda's later years. " Original in MS. Lat. 10083, f- 3? analyzed in M. A. N., viii. 388; Delisle, p. 141, no. 4; Roimd, no. 591. As this charter is given at Argentan and witnessed by Matilda's brother Reginald, who attests as earl of Cornwall after 1141 (Roimd, Geofrey de Mandemlle, pp. 68, 271), it must be anterior to her departure in 1139. '» Delisle, pp. 126, 141-143, nos. S-13; Delisle-Berger, nos. 11*, 45*. See also her charters for Silly, Round, Calendar, nos. 679 f., 683; aad Sarunt Charters, p. 14 (1148). GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I33 dudes such Norman charters of Geo£frey as I have been able to find, arranged, since few of them are dated, in the alphabetical order of the places for whose benefit they were issued: Almeneches. Delisle, Carkdaire normand, no. 4, and p. 273. Bayetjx. Probablyii4S-n47. Eight charters andwrits of Geoffrey: i.ijtf-e noir, nos. 16-19, 24, 25, 39, 100 (1147). Also four reports addressed to him by his justices: nos. 43, 44, 89, 90. These are all, except no. 100, attributed to Henry II in the edition (see, however, the corrections at the end of the second volume), but in the cartulary the initial G appears in every case on the margin. See A. H. R., viii. 618; infra, Chapter VI; Delisle, Henri II, pp. 137 f., sii. nos. 42*, 43*, where the attribution of the last two to Henry II is corrected by Berger, i. 3. . No. 17 is also in the Livre rouge (MS. Lat. n. a. 1828, no. 401), of which there is a poor edition by Anquetil (Bayeux, 1909). Bec. Extracts from two charters, printed above, notes 29, 31. Beg, priory of Notre-Dame-du-Pr6. 27 March 1149, at Bec. Original, printed below, no. 2. Beg, priory of Saint-Ymer. 1147, at Saumur. MS. Lat. n. a. 2097, p. 9; Collection Lenoir at SemiUy,lxxii, 2, p. 169. Cartulaires de S.-Ymer-en-Auge et de Bricquebec, ed. C. Br^ard (Paris, 1908), p. 7; Round, Calendar, no. 360; Delisle, no. 3* A; cf. DeUsle-Berger, i. 2. Cluny. Before 1147, ^ it is attested by Hugh, archbishop of Tours. A. Bruel, Charles de Cluni, v. 447 ; cf . G. F. Duckett, Charters and Records of Cluni, ii. 78. In Martene and Durand, Thesaurus Anecdotorum, i. 383, it is attributed to a duke R. CouTANCES. At Saint-L6. A. E. R., viii. 630; infra, Chapter VI, note 95. Cf. DeUsle, Carkdaire normand, no. 162; Henri II, no. 17* A; Delisle- Berger, i. 2. Ascribed to Henry II by Round, no. 960. EvEtXJX. At Rouen. Printed below, no. 6. Fecamp, (i) At Rouen.- Original, misplaced, in Archives of the Seine- Inferieure; modern copies in MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, ff. 122-123; MS. Rouen, 1210, f. 17." (2) With his son Henry; at Rouen. Original, in same archives. Delisle, Henri II, no. 6*, with facsimile; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*; Round, no. 126, omitting most of the witnesses. Lessay. At Saumur. Original, printed below, no. 3. LisiEUX, Saint-Desir, and the Knights of the Hospital. 1147, after Easter (?'in Pascha precedenti'), at Mirebeau. Modern copies in Archives of the Calvados. Extract in Grente and Havard, Villedieu-les-Poeles (Paris, 1899), p. 6; Roimd, no. 576, where it is dated at Easter and the wit- " ' Gaufredus dux Normannorum et comes Andegavorum omnibus hominibus Fiscanni salutem. Sciatis me vidisse cartam ecclesie Fiscanni que testatur ecclesie Fiscanni portus maris de Stigas usque ad Leregant. Idee mando vobis et prohibeo quod vos non intromittatis de aliqua re que ad portus istos veniat vel sit, nisi per inanum Henrici abbatis vel servientixun suorum, quia in ipsis nichil habeo. Teste Ragioaldo de Sancto Walerico apud Rothomagum.' 134 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS nesses are omitted; M. A. N., xiv. 382, xvii. 325 (translation). Lechaud6, M. A. N., vii. 247, ascribes it to William Rufus! Marmoutier, priory of HeauviUe. At Argentan. Printed below, no. 7a. MoNTEBOURG. (i) At Argentan. Printed below, no. 4. (2) At Lisieux. Printed below, no. 5. MoRTEMER. II October 1147, ^•t Rouen. La Roque, iii. 152, iv. 1396, 1636, suppl.,p. 8; NetistriaPia,p.iyg. Aaalyzed'm Bulletin des AnPiquaires de Normandie, xiii. 115; Round, no. 1405; cf. H. F., xiv. 511. '^ Preaux. 1 149, at Rouen. Notice of transaction in curia sitting at Geof- frey's order. Archives of the Eure, H. 711, no. 453. Printed in VaUn, p. 265; cf. Le Prevost, Eure, iii. 324. ROTIEN, cathedral. At Rouen. Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 7, p. 793. Printed in VaUn, p. 266 (where the undeciphered word is scilicet); Delisle-Berger, no. 39*. The initial is left blank in the cartulary, so that the author may be either Geoffrey or Henry II. Delisle, no 37*, ascribes it to Henry, but gives no reason. Geoffrey's authorship seems to me likely from the phrase ' tempore H. regis AngUe,' for ii; such cases (e. g., Livre noir de Bayeux, nos. 27, 28, 32; Neustria Pia, p. 15) Henry II adds ' avi mei,' as in the writ for H6auviUe (Delisle-Berger, no. 29*), which we can compare with an exactly parallel one of his father (no. 7a below). Rouen, town. Probably in 1144 and doubtless at Rouen. Incorporated in Henry II's charter: A. Chdruel, Eistoire de Rouen, i. 241; Round, no. 109; DeKsle-Berger, no. 14*. Rouen, gild of cordwainers. At Rouen. Vidimus of 1267 in MS. Lat. 9067, f. issv; and MS. Rouen 2192, f. 189. Printed from vidimus of 1371 (Archives Nationales, JJ. 102, no. 317) in Ordonnances des Rois, v. 416; translated in Cheruel, Rouen, i, p. cxiv. Cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 16* Rouen, Henry the Marshal, the duke's serjeant. Probably before 1147, at Rouen. Printed below, no. 13. Rouen, leprosery of Mont-aux-Malades. (i) At Rouen. Original writ, printed below, no. 12. (2) Charter notifying the reception of the Palmers of Rouen into confraternity: translation in P. Langlois, Eistoire du prieurg du Mont-aux-Malades-les-Rou^n (Rouen, 1851), p. 4. Rouen, Saint-Amand. At Lisieux. Printed below, no. 7. Rouen, Saint-Ouen. ' Gaufredus dux Normannorum et comes Ande- gavorum coniirmat donationem c[omitis] Walterii Giffardi. Testibus Ro- berto de Novoburgo, Widone de Sabluel.' MS. Lat. 5423, f. 232V. SAZNT-ANDRi-EN-GouEFERN. At Argentan. Printed below, no. 10. SAiNT-fivROUL. Probably in 1144. Printed below, no. 8. Saint- Wandrille. (i) At Rouen. Printed E. E. R., xxvii. 438, note 97 ; Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 1 19. (2) At Argentan. Neustria Pia, p. 176 (extract) ; Round, no. 170; in fuU in Lot, no. 78; DeUsle-Berger, no. 9*. Savigny. (i) At Argentan. Original, Archives Nationales, L. 969; cartulary in Archives of the Manche, no. 408; Round, no. 812. (2) At Ar- '* The epact in this charter is of 1148, showing that it was calculated from i September, as in a charter of Geoffrey in the Cartulaire de S.-Laud d' Angers, no. 49. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 135 gentan. Vidimus, printed below, no. 11. (3) At Montreuil; 1150-1151. Original, printed below, note 90. Seez, Saint-Martin. Printed below, no. 9. For a reign of six years this is a respectable number of docu- ments, if we take into accoimt the relatively small body of Nor- man charters which has survived from the first half of the twelfth century, and their geographical distribution is significant. Four of the episcopal sees are represented, the archives of the others being an almost total loss, and the monasteries of the list are scattered throughout the duchy, from the ancient establishments in the region of the Seine to Montebourg, Heauville, Lessay, and Savigny on the west. All this bears evidence of an effective rule of the whole land. At the same time it is noteworthy that, if we except the charter for the town of Rouen, which was granted under special circumstances, there are among them all no general enumerations and confirmations of lands and privileges such as are fotmd under Henry I and in still greater number under Henry H.^' What we have instead is specific grants, letters of protection, declarations of freedom from toll, and orders to the duke's ofl&cers to hold inquests, make payments, and maintain rights. The writs bulk large in proportion to the charters. This cannot be mere accident, for the detailed confirmations which are so nvunerous under Henry II rarely mention his father,*" but hark back constantly to the conditions of his grandfather's time. We get distinctly the impression of a reign which restores rather than creates, and administers rather than ordains, of a regency rather than a permanent government. Considered from the diplomatic point of view, Geoffrey's char- ters show variety, but they also show something of the regularity and definiteness of form which come only from an organized " An apparent exception, the long charter for Bayeux (Liwe noir, no. 39), is merely a statement of the results of inquests held to determine the ancient rights of the see. The difference from the policy of other dukes may be seen even in the case of Stephen by comparing his detailed confirmation for Montebourg {Gallia Christi- ana, xi, instr. 238) with the charters of Geoffrey for the same abbey printed below, nos. 4, s- *" Later references to Geoffrey's official acts are rare. See infra, notes 89,91,121; Round, no. 1296; and the grant to Aunay cited in a bull of Eugene III (Bulletin des Antiquaires de Normandie, xix. 256), 136 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS chancery. That Normandy had the advantage of such a system under Henry I is of course well known, but we caimot speak with equal certainty of conditions in contemporary Anjou. Down to the close of the eleventh century the counts of Anjou, like the kin gs of France, had not entirely differentiated their chancery from their chapel, the same man appearing at one time as chaplain and at another as chancellor, nor had they developed a regular set of forms for their official acts. Until 1 109 at least, the only period which has been carefully studied, almost all of their docu- ments were drawn up by the monasteries in whose favor they were issued,*^ and the evidence of style would indicate that this custom persisted in large measure imder Fulk of Jerusalem and even under his son. Geoffrey's Angevin charters have something of the variety, the prolixity, and the narrative form which belong to the monastic notice rather than to the charter proper, and which are in sharp contrast with the brevity and fixity which the Anglo-Norman charter, and especially the writ, has attained before the close of the Conqueror's reign. StiU, mention is found from time to time of the chaplain or notary who composed the document, and especially of Thomas of Loches, the historian of the counts of Anjou, whose attestation appears as early as 1133 and continues as chaplain or chancellor throughout the reign.^^ Thomas also accompanied Geoffrey on his Norman expeditions, for his signature as chancellor appears in documents issued at Argentan, Lisieux, and Rouen, and he wit- nesses as chaplain a charter given at Bee in 1149.*' Curiously enough, this last document bears likewise the name of the duke's principal chancellor, Richard of Bohun. Dean of Bayeux since " Halphen, Le comti d'Anjou, pp. 192 f., 237. For the confusion of chancellor and chaplain under the Capetians see Prou, Recueil des actes de Philippe I", pp. liv-lvi. ^ On Thomas see Mabille's introduction to Marchegay, Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, pp. xiv-xxv; Beautemps-Beauprfi, Coutumes, part ii, i. 220-222; and now the introduction to Halphen and Poupardin, Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, pp. xxvii-xxxvi. *' Infra, nos. 2, 4-73. Thomas is mentioned in a writ of the empress for Cher- bourg (Delisle, Henri II, no. 84*; Round,no.938) in a way that suggests (particu- larly if we conjecture ' tenuerunt ' in the missing portion) that Geoffrey may have given him some part of the considerable possessions of Roger of Salisbury (of. Round, no, 909) in the Cotentin. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I37 the days of Henry I, Richard bought the chancellorship from Geoffrey by pledging the income of his deanery for an amount which he had much difficulty in paying and which subsequently brought him into trouble with his bishop and with the Pope; and in 1151 he was rewarded with the bishopric of Coutances.^* Nine of Geoffrey's charters and writs bear his attestation,^^ and as one of these is dated at Saumur,^^ it is plain that he followed the duke beyond the confines of Normandy. No chronological separation between the charters of Richard and Thomas seems possible: the Bayeux writs attested by Richard belong to the early years of the reign; two of the others fall in 1147 '" and one in 1149; *' and he appears as chancellor in five docmnents issued by Henry 11.^' Probably the explanation is that Richard was chancellor in Nor- mandy and Thomas chaplain, as in the charter for Bee, but that in Richard's absence Thomas took the title and perhaps the func- tions of chancellor, which he had claimed in Anjou as early as 1142.^" Richard's work can be tested in two originals, issued at places as far apart as Bee and Saumur, but written by the same scribe ^' " ' Postmodum vero venientis ad nos venerabilis fratris nostri Philippi Baiocensis episcopi suggestione accepimus quod antedictus frater noster pecuniam illam, non pro ecclesie Baiocensis utUitate aut sui honesta necessitate suscepit, sed ut cancel- lariam sibi nobilis memorie Gauf ridi quondam Andegavensis comitis compararet, et cum in capitulo Baiocensi se infra biennium soluturum eandem pecuniam promisis- set, licet multum post decanatum habuerit, debitum tamen ipsum, ut promiserat, nequaquam exsolvit ' {Liiire noir, no. 185). As Richard continued to hold the deanery, not only for two years but ' multum post,' he evidently became chancellor not long after Geoffrey's conquest of the duchy. He had been dean under Bishop Richard Fitz Samson {ibid., no. 480), who died in 1133, and is mentioned with this title in several Bayeux documents: ibid., nos. 60, 100 (1147)1 103 (1146), 106, 207 (1146), 2gi; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 20* (1151). On the date of his elevation to the bishopric see Robert of Torigni, i. 257 and note; and cf . Delisle-Berger, nos. 35*, 45*- *^ Livre noir, nos. 17, 19,39; Round, nos. 126 (= Delisle,no. 6*, with facsimile; DeUsle-Berger, no. 8*), 170, 960, 1405; infra, nos. 2, 3. *^ Infra, no. 3. " Round, no. 1405; Neustria Pia, p. 15. *' Infra, no. 2. " DeUsle-Berger, nos. 5*, 12*, 28*, 40*, 42*. Delisle, p. 88, note, is incorrect. '» Cartulaire de I'abbaye du Ronceray, ed. Marchegay, p. 244 {Archives d' Anjou, iii) . Halphen and Poupardin, l.c.,p. xxix, doubt whether Thomas was really chan- cellor, the title being at times taken by a mere notary. '' That Richard was not himself the scribe is seen from the recurrence of the same hand in the notice printed below (note 90), issued by Geoffrey as count of Anjou at Montreuil-Bellay in 1150-1151, in which Richard is not mentioned. 138 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS and showing such resemblances in their formulae that the first, excellently preserved with its seal, may safely be used to supply some of the gaps in the mutilated text of the second. These are: (2) G. dux Norm[annorum] & com[es] And[egavorum] H. archiep[iscop]o & omnibus ep[iscop]is comitibus baronibus iusticiis Norni[annie] & omni- bus suis iidelibus sal[utem]. Notum sit vobis atque omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod ego dedi & concessi monachis Sanctg Marie de Becco tres prebendas de Buns, ea conditione quod post quam ill§ fuerint liberatg a tribus presentibus clericis, scilicet Ivone Hugone atque Alexandro, monachi Sanctg Marig de Prato iUas perpetuo libere & quiete possideant. Huius rei sunt testes: Ric[ardus] cancell[arius], Gaulr[edus] Roth[omagensis] decanus, Tomas capellanus, Robertus de Movoburg[o] (sic) & alii quam plures. Hoc autem concessum est anno ab incarnatione Domini .M.C.XLIX. in Pascha instanti die dominica de ramis palmarum in Beccensi capitulo.'^ (3) G. dux Norm[annorum] et comes And[egavorum] H. archiepiscopo & omnibus ep[iscopis comitibus] baronibus iusticiis & omnibus suis servienti- bus salutem. [Notum sit vobis] atque omnibus hominibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod ego concessi donationem quam WiUelmus de Aureavalle fecit ecclesig Sanctg Trinitatis de Exaquio, videlicet de molendino de Sancta Oportuna quod predictg ecclesig dedit cum omnibus consuetudinibus &molta & omnibus rebus que ad iUud molendinum pertinebant & de parte ilia quam in ecclesia Sanctg Oportung habebat [ecclesig] Exaquii dedit sicut carta iUius testatur. & ut hec dona[tio et concessio] perpetuo fiat sigilli mei testimonio illam confirmari [T]estes autem inde sunt Ric[ardus] cancel- larius, WiUelmus de Vernone, Engelg[erus] de Boli[one], Alex[ander] de Boh[one], Robertus de Montef[orti], de Sancto lohanne, Rualocus de Saeio, Iosl[inus] de TyT[onibus], Pi[ppinus de Tyronibus], WU- lelmus de [Sai ?], Adam de Sotewast. Apud Salmu^am]."* '2 Original, sealed en double queue, in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure. See the facsimile, Plate 7 b. Cf. G. Demay, Invenlaire des sceaux de la Normandie, no. 20; Porde, Bee. i. 397. The phrase ' in Pascha instanti ' seems at first sight to indicate that the style of Easter was here used, which would bring the date g April 1150. This is, however, inconsistent with the fact that Henry had by this time become duke (supra, note 26), and we should need stronger evidence to establish so striking a variation from the practice of beginning the year at Christmas or i January, which prevailed in both Normandy and Anjou (Delisle, Henri II, p. 230; Halphen, Le comtS d' Anjou, pp. 237-239) . Evidently the phrase has no reference to the beginning of the year, as is likewise true of 'in Pascha precedenti' in the charters of 1147 in Neustria Pia, pp. 15, 779, in the latter of which, dated 11 October, the reference to Easter could have no significance under any system of reckoning, a fact over- looked by Berger, Henri II, no. 5*- The Bee charter belongs accordingly to 27 March 1149. ^ Original, with double queue, but no trace of seal, in Archives of the Manche, H. 7771. Printed in Invenlaire sommaire; d. Delisle, Henri II, p. s°9, ^°- i7*B; Berger, i. a. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 139 No originals have been discovered from the hand of the chan- cellor Thomas, but we can follow him with some confidence in certain early copies. Let us begin with two charters in the cartulary of Montebourg: " (4) Ego Goffr[edus] diix Norm[annorum] et comes And[egavorum] rela- tione multorum cognoscens audiendo et audiens cognoscendo quoniam H. rex predecessor meus abbatiam Montisburgi Sancte Marie tanquam pro- priam capellam nimio dilexit amore diligendo custodivit augmentavit no- bilitavit, similiter abbatiam eamdem in mea custodia et in tuitione capio et quicquid ille contulit vel concessit in bosco et in piano et in omnibus con- suetudinibus et in omnibus modis unde habent monachi cartas et brevia prefate abbatie diligenter annuo. Insuper illi addo do et concede in perpe- tuam elemosinam perpetuo iure habendam pro salute mea et filiorum meorum necnon et predicti regis omniumque predecessorum meorimi Ulam terram que est in suo aisimento inter suam terram et forestam usque ad rivulum sicut oritur et descendit de veteri fonte, et ipsum rivulum cum alveo concede Ita ut rivulus fesseatus sit firma divisa inter ees et forestam, cum censtet quia redditus nichil inde foreste minuitur sed melius clauditur munitiu: atque defenditur. Testibus Thema canceU[ario], Alex[andro] de Beh[ene], Ric[ardo] de Haia, Ric[ardo] de Wauvilla, W[iIIelmo] Avenel, Olivier de Albiniaco, Gisleb[erto] archidpacono], Rob[erto] de Valeniis, Rob[erto] Berdel, Unfr[edo] de Bose- viU[a] et aliis multis, apud Argent[omiun]. (s) Ego Gaufridus comes Andegavis {sic) et dux Normannorum cunctis baronibus meis vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus hominibus meis salutem. Sciatis quod habee in mea propria custodia abbatiam de Monteburgo emnes menachos et omnes res ad ees pertinentes tanquam meam propriam elemo- sinam sicut habuit rex Henricus antecessor meus, et concede abbatie et ipsis monachis quicquid concessit eis predictus rex in omnibus rebus et in omnibus consuetudinibus et unde habent ipsius regis cartas et brevia, et ut habeant omnes censuetudines suas in ferestis meis liberas et quietas et fecum in Monteburgo, et ut sint quieti a theloneo et consuetudine ubicunque ven- dant vel emant vel conducant aliquid qued homines eorum pessint af&dare esse proprium ecclesie et monacherum, et omnes denationes barenum quas dederunt vel dederint ipsi ecclesie. Precipio igitur vobis ut abbatiam et quicquid ad eam pertinet manuteneatis et defendatis et regatis sicut meam propriam elemosinam, ne pro penuria recti inde clamerem audiam. T[estibus] WiU[elmo] de Vemen, Alex[andro] de Bohun, Pag[ano] de Claris VaUibus, Th[oma] canceUario, Rob[erte] de Curc[eio], apud Luxovium. + Preterea concede eidem abbatie coram supradictis testibus iUam terram que est inter suam terram et forestam usque ad rivum et ipsum rivum sicut descendit de veteri fonte et quoddam warlocum quod est in altera parte. " MS. Lat. ioo?7, nos. 35, 36. 140 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS The first of these uses a comparatively untechnical phraseology and has something of the more literary flavor of the Angevin charter. The second, from its substance evidently posterior, is full of the legal terminology of the charters of Henry I on which it is based,'^ and culminates with the characteristically Norman clause, ne pro penuria recti inde clamorem audiam.'^ Such repeti- tions of the language of earlier charters for the same establish- ment are perfectly natural and are familiar to all students of diplomatics." When, however, we find Thomas adopting the brevity and precision of the Anglo-Norman writ, as well as its typical phrases, we see how thoroughly Norman an institution the chancery of Geoffrey has become. The first of the following re- lates to the see of Evreux, the second to the nuns of Saint-Amand, the third to H6auviIIe, a priory of Marmoutier: (6) G. dux Normann[orum] et comes And[egavoruin] G[uidoni] de Sablo- l[io] et Will[elino] Lovello atque prepositis et ballivis suis de Vemolio et de Nonancort salutem et dilecitionem. Mando atque vobis precipio quod episcopo Ebroicensi reddatis omnes decimas suas de Vernolpo] et de Nonan- cort sicut eas umquam melius habuit in tempore H. regis et sicut carta eius garantizat, ita quod eas habeat prout tempus ierit ad voluntatem suam, et de tempore transacto quicquid ei debetur absque dilatione reddatis. Insuper etiam vobis precipio ne quid inde amittat neque pro ref actura molendinorum neque pro augmentatione reddite supradictarum villanmi. De pace vero fracta mando vobis quod ei inde quicquid habere debuerit plenarie reddi faciatis, scilicet .ix. libras sicut carta H. regis garantizat. Tibi etiam, Wil- lelme Lovel, precipio quod iusticiam ei facias de Gilleberto nummario (?). Teste Thoma cancellario apud Rothomagum.'s (7) G. dux Normann[orum] et comes And[egavorum] R. de Sancto Wa- lerico et ministris suis de Archis salutem. Precipio quod habere faciatis S. Amando decimam suam de forestis de Awi et de Alihermont in denariis '' Supra, Chapter III, nos. 8-15; Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 737. " E.H.R., xxvi. 446 f . Can we see Thomas's hand in a writ of Geoffrey in 1 146, mentioned in a notice from La Trinitg de Venddme (Cartulaire, ii. 343), where we have ' ne ampUus super hoc clamorem audiret ' ? " An excellent illustration is furnished by the charter of Geoffrey cind Henry for F6camp (Delisle, Henri II, p. 508, no. 6*, with facsimile; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*), which reproduces the language of the early grants of immunity: ' absque uUa in- quietatione vel imminutione secularis vel iuditiarie potestatis.' See Appendix B. " Archives of the Eure, G. 122, no. 204, G. 123, no. 196, printed in Le Pr6vost, Eure, ii. 488, who reads ' munario ' before the testing clause where I conjecture 'nummario.' For the charter of Henry I see Tris Ancien Coutumier, c. 71; Round, Calendar, no, sgo. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I4I frumento et avena sicut earn melius habuit tempore Henrici regis, quia nolo ut elemosina mea minuatur. Teste Toma cancellario apud Lux[ovium]." (7a) G. dux Norm[annorum] et comes Andeg[avorum] episcopo Constan- tinensi et iusticiis et vicecomitibus et baronibus Constantini salutem. Pre- cipio et volo quod monachi Sancti Martini Maiorismonasterii de Heavilla teneant omnes terras et ecclesias et decimas et omnes res suas que pertinent ad elemosinam meam de Heavilla ita bene et in pace et honorifice et iuste et quiete sicut melius et quietius tenuerunt tempore regis H. Et nemo eis vel rebus eorum ullam iniuriam vel conttuneliam faciat. Teste Thoma cancellario apud Argent[omum].™ The triumph of the traditions of the Anglo-Norman chancery can also be seen in documents in which no chancellor is men- tioned. The following, which probably belongs to the early part of 1 144, is a good example of a brevity which is literary rather than legal in its phraseology: *' (8) Notum sit omnibus tam futuris quam presentibus quod ego Gaufridus Andegavormn comes, Fulconis bone memorie Iherusalem regis filius, mo- nachis Sancti Ebrulfi res eorum universas ita habendas et possidendas libere et quiete concedo et affirmo, sicut habebant in tempore regis Hainrici anteces-r soris mei. Et omnibus communiter ne predictos monachos de rebus suis in causam mittant precipio, insuper illis ne cmn aliquo inde placitentiur pro- hibeo, et amicis meis ubicunque fuerint, sicut me diligunt, ut eos manuten^ eant et ab omnibus defendant cirni summa diligentia submoneo et rogo. The next is similar, though Geoffrey is now duke: '^ (9) Goffridusdux Normannorum et comes Andegavensium omnibus dapi- feris et prepositis villicis et servientibus suis salutem. De his que pertinent ad proprium victum et vestitum monachorum Sancti Martini de Sagio et serviens eorundem monachorum proprium esse eorum affiducare poterit, nullum inde capiatis teloneum aut pedagixmi aut consuetudinem ahquam minimam vel magnam. Quod si feceritis meum incurretis odimn et cum sexaginta solidis reddetis. 59 Copy by Gaignieres in MS. Lat. 17031, p. 137. «» Vidimus of 1524 after sealed origmal, " fort consumfi en queue simple,'' in BibliothSque Nationale, Collection de Touraine, xxxi. 57, no. 8. Cf. A. H. R., xx. 29; Delisle-Berger, no. 29*. ^ Cartulary of Saint-£vroul, MS. Lat. 11056, no. 681 ; Round, Calendar, no. 637. In the absence of place and witnesses this charter presents some curious features. Geoffrey speaks as successor of Henry I, yet he has not taken the ducal title. The news of Fulk's death, which occurred 10 November 1143 (R. Rohricht, Geschichte des Konigreichs Jerusakm, p. 229), could hardly have reached his son before the capitulation of Rouen, where Geoffrey remained until his assumption of the ducal title; yet a charter issued at Rouen in such an ahen style is rather surprising. •^ Copy from Livre rouge of Sfiez, m MS. Fr. 18953, pp. 37, 222- 142 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS In the following charter the same matter is thrown into the legal language of Henry I's time; indeed, except for the insertion of sicut mee res proprie, it reproduces exactly the terms of a writ of Henry for the same monastery: *' (10) G. dux Norm[annonmi] comes And[egavorum] baronibus et omni- bus vic[ecoimtibus] et ministris tocius Anglie et Normannie et portuum maris salutem. Precipio quod totum corrodium et omnes res monachorum de abbatia de Vinaz quas servientes eorum affidare poterint pertinere suo dominico victiii et vestitui sint in pace et quiete de theloneo et passagio et omnibus consuetudinibus sicut mee res proprie. Et super hoc prohibeo quod nullus eos disturbet iniuste super .x. libras forisfacture. Testibus comite de Pontevio et Alexandro de Bohun et Roberto de Noburg' (sic), apud Argen- tomum. The following is parallel, but contains a further provision: '* (11) G. dux Normannorum et comes Andegav[orum] omnibus baronibus et fideKbus suis et ministris totius Normannie et Cenomaimie et portuum maris salutem. Precipio quod totum corredium abbatis de Savign[eio] et monachorum suorum et abbatum qui sunt de obedienda Savign[eii] et omnes res quas ministri sui affidare poterunt esse suas sint quiete de theloneo et passagio et omni consuetudine ubicunque venerint, et prohibeo ne ullus eos super hac re disturbet super decern libras forisfacture. Precipio etiam quod monachi Savigneii totam terram suam et homines et omnes res suas in iirma pace teneant et non inde pladtent, quia terra et omnes res eorum in mea custodia et defensione sunt et nolo quod aliquis eis inde contumeUam faciat neque de ahqua re eos inquietare presumat. Teste {sic) Guidone de Sabl[olio] et Alexandro de Bohun, apud Argen- tomagum. Another writ of a well known type is: ** (12) G. dux Norm[annorum] et com[es] And[egavorum] vicec[omitibus] Roth[omagensibus] sal[utem]. Precipio quod tradatis leprosis Roth[omagen- sibus] xl. sol[idos] Roth[omagensium] singuUs mensibus sicut rex .H. eis dedit et carta eius testatur. T[este] Rob[erto] de Novo burgo, apud Roth[omagu]m. " Cartulary of Saint-Andr6-en-Gouffem, in Archives of the Calvados,f.22V, no. 90; no. 72 is the writ of Henry I. Note that Geoffrey has even let Anglie stand. This type of writ is familiar in England; see, for example, J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, p. 150, no. 34. For a quite different Angevin form see CarMaire de Tiiron, i. 63. °* Copy of 1237 under seal of William, bishop of Avranches, in Archives of the Mandie, fonds Savigny. "' Original, with fragment of simple queue, in Archives Nationales, K 23, 15^. See the facsimile, Plate 7 a. Printed m Delisle, Henri II, p. 136; Langlois, Histoire GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I43 Further illustration is unnecessary. We recognize not only the sobriety, conciseness, and clearness which Delisle notes as the characteristics of the Anglo-Norman chancery,^^ but also its regular terminology, such as the address, the nisifeceris clause," sicut umquam melius habuit, ne inde amplius clamorem audiam, ita bene, etc., and the ten poimds' penalty for infringement.** In aU essential matters Geoffrey's ducal chancery was a Norman institu- tion, and, what is more important, it was an instrument for maintaining the rights which his predecessors had granted and the administration through which they had governed. Since few of Geoffrey's charters are dated, it is impossible to construct an itinerary or form any estimate of the distribution of his time between Normandy and Anjou. He visited Normandy every year of his reign as duke,'' but, apart from his sojourns at Rouen and Argentan and an occasional military expedition, the only places at which he can be traced are Bayeux, Bee, Lisieux, and Saint-L6. By far the greater number of his charters are issued from Rouen, which seems to have acquired new importance as the capital of the duchy. Geoffrey rebuilt the tower and the du prieurS du Mont-aux-Malades-Us-Rouen, p. 397; calendared in Tardif, Monu- ments historigues, no. 516. '° Henri II, pp. 240-246. " Hvre noir, no. 24. *' A further indication of Norman influence is seen in Geoffrey's second seal, where he takes the title of ' dux Normannorum ' and carries still further the imita- tion of the Norman type which his father had begun. Only one original of this seal is known to exist (see the facsimile, Plate 7b), attached to a charter for Bee, printed above (no. 2), and described by Demay, Inventaire des sceaux de la Normandie, no. 20; but there are also certain drawings (Delisle, Henri II, p. 138 f.). On the intro- duction of the Norman type into Anjou, see G. de Manteyer, Le sceau^matrice du comte d' Anjou Foulques le Jeune, in Mimoires des Antiquaires de France, be. 305- 338; on the distinction between the ' sigillum ducatus ' and the ' sigillum comitatus,' the Cartulaire de S.-La/ud d' Angers, no. 83; of. Cartidaire deS.-Auhin, ii. 112. " In ii4she is at Arques and Rouen (Robert of Torigniji. 237, 239); inii46at Rouen {ibid., i. 242) and Courcy-sur-Dive (charter for Cormery given ' in presentiam meam apud Curciacum super Divam in exercitu meo . . . aimo Domini miUesimo centesimo quadragesimo sexto regnante Ludovico rege Francorum qui tunc crucem Domini assumpserat ': Bibliotheque Nationale, Collection Housseau, v, no. 1718); in 1 147 at Argentan {Liwe noir, no. 100) and 11 October at Rouen (Round, no. 140s); in 1148 at Fauguemon, near Lisieux (Robert of Torigniji. 247); 27 March 1149 at Bee {supra, no. 2). 144 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS bridge over the Seine,'" and after Rouen became the abode of the empress in 1148'' a local poet did not hesitate to compare to im- perial Rome the ancient and noble city which resembled it so closely in name and claimed JuUus Caesar for its founder^'' To Geoffrey Rouen owed a detailed and comprehensive charter, the earliest of the city's surviving mimiments,'' which restored to the citizens the privileges which they had enjoyed under Henry I, safeguarded particularly their Jurisdictional and fiscal immuni- ties, confirmed the gild organization, as represented in the mer- chant and cordwainers' gilds,'^ and guaranteed the rights of Rouen merchants in England and their monopoly of the commerce of the Seine and the Irish trade of Normandy. Rouen had no rival in poKtical or commercial importance, nor can much trace of mimi- cipal life be discovered elsewhere in the duchy during this reign. Vemeuil and Nonancourt on the southern border seem to have '" Robert of Torigni, i. 239, 242, 368. Cf . A. Deville, Secherches sur I'ancien pont de Rouen, in Pricis des travaux de I'Acadlmie de Rouen, 1831, pp. 171-173. 1 Supra, note 34. Most of MatUda's Norman charters are dated at Rouen or Le Pr6: Delisle, Henri II, p. 142 f., nos. 6-13; Round, nos. 263, 679 f., 683. " ' Rothoma nobilis, urbs antiqua, potens, speciosa, Gens Normanna sibi te preposuit dominari; Imperialis honorificentia te super omat; Tu Rome similis tam nomine quam probitate, Rothoma, si mediam removes, et Roma vocaris. Viribus acta tuis devicta Britannia servit; Et tumor Anglicus et Scotus algidus et Galo sevus Mimia protensis manibus tibi debita solvunt. Sub duce Gaufredo cadit hostis et anna quiescunt, Nominis ore sui Gaufredus gaudia fert dux; Rothoma letaris sub tanto principe felix.' The remaining nine lines are a eulogy of King Roger of Sicily (cf. E. E. R., xxvi. 43S) : MS. Fr. 2623, f . 1 14V, printed in C. Richard, Notice sur I'ancienne BiblioMque des &chm,ns de Rouen (Rouen, 1845), p. 37. ' Imperialis honorificentia ' is, of course, an allusion to the coming of the empress. For the tradition respecting Caesar, see Ordericus, ii. 324, where its size and prosperity are also spoken of. " Ch&raA, Histoirede Rouen, i. 2^1; Round, Caienrfor, no. 109; Delisle-Berger, no. 14*. Cf. A. Giry, &tabUssements de Rouen, i. 25-27. '* The privileges of the cordwainers are contained in a special charter: Ordon- nances des Rois, v. 416; supra, p. 134. See the similar charters of Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II in La Roque, iii. 149 (cf. Round, no. 107; Delisle-Berger, no. 16*), where the charter of Stephen, found in his name in MS. Lat. 9067, f. 155, is wrongly attributed to William the Conqueror. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 145 continued something of the prosperity which they owed to the fostering care of Henry I," but it is perhaps significant that Geof- frey's charters make no mention of Caen or of its religious estab- lishments, and the fortunes of both Caen and Dieppe waited upon the reestablishment of close relations with England under his son.'* Charters and chroniclers are also silent in Geoffrey's reign respecting another phase of local hfe, namely castle-building, which had been a traditional practice of the Angevin coimts at home and played a prominent part in the Norman policy of Henry I and Henry H." On his visits to Normandy Geoffrey was often accompanied by Angevin barons, such as the seneschal Joslin of Tours and his brother Pippin, Geoffrey de Cleers, and Vdijae of Clairvaux; but he had also an important Norman following. His most frequent attendants were the seneschal Reginald of Saint- Valery, Robert de Neufbourg, Robert de Courcy, William de Vernon, Guy de Sable, Alexander and Enjuger de Bohun, Osbert de Cailli, Richard de la Haie, and Enguerran de Vascoeuil. The attestations of the great men of the duchy, such as the counts of Meulan, Roumare, and Ponthieu, appear more rarely, while the subscriptions of the bishops occur only in occasional documents dated at Rouen,'* where they doubtless attended the more formal meetings of the court, although they played no regular part in the ducal adminis- tration. The appearance of Norman barons with Geoffrey in Anjou '' likewise goes to show that there was no mechanical separation between his two groups of followers; but the regular officers of government were quite distinct in Normandy from '' SeeHenry'schartertoVememlmOr(Zo«»o«ceideji?oM, iv. 638; and the docu- ments mentioning these towns in Le Pr6vost, Eure, ii. 476 f., 488, iii. 345, 347; Round, nos. 282 f., 287, 292 f . For Geofifrey's reign see supra, no. 6; and Ordericus, V. 132, where the conventus of Vemeuil in 1141 is estimated at 13,000 men. '6 For Dieppe under Geoffrey see below, note 97; and Round, nos. 109, 170, 1057 f. The growth of the town under Henry II is seen in the various grants of houses to the king's officers preserved in the Coutumier de Dieppe (Archives of the Seine-Inf^rieure, G. 851): Delisle-Berger, nos. 115, 398, 709, 713, 719. " For the Norman castles of the twelfth century see Powicke, The Loss of Nor- mandy, ch. vii. '" Livre noir, nos. 17, 19; Round, no. 126; Delisle-Berger, no. 8*; infra, no. 13. " Supra, no. 3; Cartulaire de S.-Ymer, p. 7; Round, no. 1058, 146 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS those in his other possessions, in which indeed there does not seem to have been entire unity of organization.*" It was in this nucleus of administrative ofl&cers that the breach of continuity created by time and dvil war between the curia of Henry I and that of his son-in-law was most serious, yet it is significant that the new recruits came from Normandy and not from Anjou. The change was most marked on the ecclesiastical side, for Henry's justiciar, John of Lisieux, had died in 1141, and Archbishop Hugh and the bishop of Coutances were the only pre- lates who survived from Henry's time. The bishops had taken Stephen's part; Philip of Bayeux, the most experienced of them in public affairs, had even been his chancellor; ^^ and it was not to be expected that Geoffrey would turn to them for confidential advice or place one of them at the head of his administration. Under these circumstances the suppression of the justiciarship was natural, particularly as no such ofi&ce existed in Anjou. The principal seneschal of Henry I, Robert de la Haie, was also dead,*^ and his son Richard had held Cherbourg for Stephen; ^ so that this dignity feU to a new man, Reginald of Saint- Valery,^ under whom it seems to have gained something of the relatively greater importance which, in the absence of a justiciar, it had come to possess in Anjou.*^ We hear very little of the other seneschals, although Robert de Courcy, dapifer under Henry I, has the same '°, What has been said above of the chancellors can hardly be considered an ex- ception to the distinctness of Nonnandy. For Geoffrey's other dominions note the mention of Hugh and Geoffrey de Cleers as seneschals besides Joslin of Tours in Marchegay, Chroniques des Iglises d' Anjou, p. 88 (cf . the documents cited in Delisle, Henri //, p. 387 f .) ; and also the special officers for Maine who appear in a charter given at Le Mans in 1146 (B. &. C, xxxvi. 433). " Register of St. Osmund, i. igi f.; Calendar of Charter Rolls, v. 17, no. 8. For Philip's biography see Bourrienne's articles in Revue cathoUque de Normandie, xviii ff . '^ On his place under Henry I, see supra, p. gg. He disappears after Henry's time. 83 John of Marmoutier, ed. Marchegay, pp. 2gg-3oi, ed. Halphen and Poupaidin, p. 2 29 f . If, as John says, Richard was carried off by pirates, he would seem to have returned to Normandy, where he holds an important position under Geoffrey and Henry H. There may, of course, have been two barons of this name; the seneschal, {infra, note 88) was a son-in-law of WiUiam de Vernon (Stapleton, i, p. cxlv). ** On Reginald see Delisle, p. 421. " On the seneschal in Anjou see Beautemps-Beauprfi, Coutumes, part ii, i, chs. 8, 10; and cf. Powicke, E. H, R., xxi. 649; Loss of Normandy, p. 38. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET I47 title in one of Geoffrey's charters; ** and while I have not found the title applied to him before Henry II's reign, I believe that Robert de Neufbourg, whose signature regularly precedes that of Robert de Courcy in the charters," must also have been dapifer under Geoffrey before he became chief seneschal under Henry II. The same title may have been restored to Richard de la Haie, who uses it in 1152.'* Of actual meetings of the curia we have few notices, and these are concerned entirely with its judicial decisions. It was in Geo£frey's court that Philip of Bayeux established his rights over Ducy and Louvieres *' and released to the abbey of Savigny his claim to land in Escures; '" here also the abbot of Fecamp won *' Livre noir, no. 19. Robert de Courcy, who was in Normandy in 1138, when he befriended Geoffrey (Ordericus, v. 109), in 1141 (Tardif, Tres Ancien Coutumier, p. 117; cf. Roimd, Calendar, no. 1198), and in 1145 (B. &. C, xxi. 127, 131), may not be identical with the Robert de Courcy who as dapifer attests charters of the empress in 1142 (Round, Geoffrey de Mandevilh, pp. 170, 183). The Courcy genealogy needs clearing up; see Tardif ,/. c. ; Delisle, p. 440. 8' Liwe noir, no. 39; Round, Calendar, no. 170; Neustria Pia, p. 15; infra, Chapter VI, note 95; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 8*; and the charter for Bee, supra, no. 2. Robert de Neufbourg was one of the early partisans of Geoffrey: Ordericus, V. 68. On his position under Henry II see Delisle, pp. 445-447. *' See his charters in the Archives of the Manche, H. 4622, 5130; and cf. H. 692. Stapleton, i, p. xjodv, note, says he was dapifer under Geoffrey, but cites no evidence. " ' Quas in curia nobihs memorie Gaufridi quondam Normannie ducis per iudi- ciiun obtinuisti ': Xiwe noir, no. 156. "• ' H. Dei gratia Rothomagensi archiepiscopo totique capitxdo Rothomagensis ecclesig G. Andeg[avorum] comes salutem et dilectionem. Notimi sit vobis atque omnibus hominibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod Philipus Baiocensis episco- pus in pace dimisit et quietam clamavit terram de Escuris quam ipse adversum monachos Saviniacenses calumpniabatur et quam monachi in tempore regis H. et duorum Baiocensium episcoporum predecessorum eius libere et quiete tenuerant. lUam autem terram dimisit eis quietam et liberam ipse Ph. Baiocensis episcopus in presentia GuiUelmi Cenomannensis episcopi et mea aput Cenomannos, presente Raginaldo de Sancto Walerico et Guidone de Sabl[eio] et Gofferio de Brueria atque plurimis aUis. Quare vobis mando ac vos diligenter deprecor ut si Baiocensis episco- pus vel aliquis alius super hoc reclamare aut terram calimipniari presumeret, mo- nachi prefati vestram protectionem atque adiutorium inde haberent. Testibus Gaufredo de Claris Vallibus et Guillelmo de Botevilla et magistro Hugone decano Sancti Martini, apud Mosterolpum].' Original, with double queue, in Archives Nationales, L. 969; cartulary of Savigny, in Archives of the Manche, no. 201; Round, no. 809, where the place and witnesses are omitted and Geoffrey's title is arbitrarily altered by the insertion of ' duke of the Normans.' For the date see above, note 26. Another account of the transaction, showing that Hugh de Cleers 148 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS control of the port against the townsmen,'^ and the canons of Rouen established their privileges in the forest of Aliermont.'^ In these instances the duke appears to have been himself present; '' but the curia at Rouen, which effected a compromise between the abbot of Pr^aux and Enguerran de Vascoeuil, was composed of indices, baillivi, and proceres under the presidency of Reginald of Saint- Valery as dapifer Normannie,^^ Possibly Angevin prece- dents may have done something to develop the seneschal's im- portance on such occasions, but as an itinerant justice he is in no way distinguished from his associates. As under Henry I,'^ the judicial authority of the duke seems to have been exercised chiefly by travelling justices who acted under his writs. Such officers are constantly found in the inquests held on behalf of the bishop of Bayeux, specific mention being made of Reginald of Saint- Valery, Robert de Neufbourg, Robert de Courcy, William de Vernon, Richard de la Haie, Guy de Sabl6,Enjuger de Bohtm,and Galeran, count of Meulan.'^ Certain of these reappear in the same capacity in other parts of Normandy: Robert de Neufbourg and was also among those present, is given in the following letter of William, bishop of Le Mans: ' H. Dei gratia Rotomagensis ecclesie archiepiscopo totique eiusdem ecclesie capitulo G. eadem gratia humiUs Cenomannensis episcopus per bona tem- poralia inunarcescibilis vite coronam feliciter attingere. Discretioni vestre notum fieri volumus quod Philip^jus Baiocensis ecclesie episcopus terram de Escuris, quam abbati et monachis de Savinneio calmnpniabatur et quam predictus abbas et mon- achi solute et quiete in tempore duorum episcoporum predecessorum suorum et Henrici regis tenuerant, in presentia nostra et domini Gofredi Normannorum ducis et Andegavorum comitis et Guidonis de Sablon et Raginaldi de Sancto Galerico et Goferii de Brueria et Hugonis de Cleriis et aliorum midtorum in pace dimisit. Hoc ideo vobis scripsimus quod si prefatus episcopus vd aliquis alius erga ecclesiam Savinneii insurrexerit, prescripte ecclesie, sicut decet sanctos, ius suum defendatis.'- Original in MS. Lat. 92x5, Savigny, no. i; cartulary, no. 202; omitted by L. Celier, in his Catalogue des actes des Piques du Mans (Paris, 1910); cf. Auvry, Histoire de la congregation de Savigny, iii. 44. " ' Sicut eum disrationavit in curia patris mei et postea in curia mea' : charter of Henry H, Delisle-Berger, no. 120; Round, no. 132. 92 Valin, p. 266; Delisle-Berger, no. 39*; cf. supra, p. 134. " Pleas ' ante ducem Normannorum ' are mentioned in the charter to Rouen (Delisle-Berger, no. 14*) . In the eulogy of Geoffrey by fitienne de Rouen his justice is especially praised: Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, ed. Marchegay, p. 313; Hew- lett, Chronicles of Stephen, ii. 772. " Valin, p. 265. »» Supra, Chapter IH. •° Livre noir, nos. 17, ig, 24, 25, 39, 43, 44, 89, 90, GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET l^f) William de Vernon at Arques and Dieppe; " Guy de Sable, this time with William Lovel, at Verneuil and Nonancourt.'* In the Cotentin we read of an inquest held at the duke's assize {in assisia mea) at Valognes; no justice is mentioned, but four who are otherwise known to have exercised such functions witness the charter of Geoffrey which declares the result.^' Evidently the system extended throughout the duchy; evidently also the jus- tices were chosen from the principal lay members of the curia, without recourse to the clergy. The problem of chief interest in connection with Geoffrey's justices is their administration of the sworn inquest in the deter- mination of disputes concerning land, a question which need not here be treated at length, as we shall have occasion to discuss it with some fullness later.i"" The evidence comes for the most part from the Livre noir of Bayeux and is connected with the active efforts of the bishop, Philip d'Harcourt, for the recovery of his property in the years immediately following the Angevin con- quest. For his benefit Geoffrey provided for a general recognition of the demesne, fiefs, and other rights of the see, as well as for the determination by inquest of neighbors of disputes between the bishop and any of his tenants, and he added special writs to individual justices with reference to particular estates and feudal holdings. The facts were determined by the oath of lawful men of the vicinage, and each of the justices in charge made a written return to the duke, four such returns having survived as detailed evidence of the procedure employed. The sworn recognition was also used under Geoffrey to determine the rights of the bishop of Coutances over Tourlaville '"' and those of the chapter of Rouen in the forest of Aliermont; i"'' and its diffusion is further shown by " E. H. R., xxvii. 438, note 97; Lot, S.-WandriUe, no. 119. Reginald of Saint- Valery was also concerned with Dieppe, where he held the revenues of the port: Round, nos. 1057 f. " Supra, no. 6. In the region of Argentan Fulk d'Axinou and Robert de Neuville seem to have been justices: Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 4, p. 273. "' William de Vernon, Enjuger de Bohun, Robert de Neufbourg, and Robert de Courcy: infra, Chapter VI, note 95. "» Infra, Chapter VI. 1™ Itifra, Chapter VI, note 95. !« Delisle-Berger, no. 39*. On the attribution to Geoffrey see above, p. 134. 150 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS the practice of submitting tKe question of a champion's profes- sionalism to the oath of ten citizens of Rouen selected by the duke's Justice,'"' and by a case in the baronial court of the count of Meulan where the parties put themselves on the verdict of eight lawful knights.'"* The sworn inquest was nothing new in Normandy, having been prescribed by Henry I in 1133 to deter- mine the possessions of the bishop of Bayeux,'"^ and in employ- ing it again for the bishop's benefit Geoffrey expressly states that he is following in Henry's footsteps.'"^ It was obviously a Nor- man, not an Angevin institution. The evidence for its use under Geoffrey, however, is much more abundant than under the pre- vious Norman dukes, and two writs of his directing his justices to cause lands of the bishop of Bayetix to be recognized secundum assisiam meam led Brunner to conclude that the duke, whom he supposed to be Henry II, was here citing a general ordinance which introduced this procedure as a regular method of trial in cases concerning land. No other mention of such an assize has been found in Geoffrey's reign, and it is possible to interpret the phrase in other ways; but the reappearance of these words in the early years of Henry II, along with clear evidence of the use of the recognition as a remedy regularly open to ordinary liti- gants, adds weight to Brunner's conclusion. On the whole, it seems probable that the regularization and extension of this form of procedure, which are well attested by 11 59, had aheady begun imder Geoffrey and had perhaps been formulated by him in some specific document now lost."" Next to the justices, who may be considered as both central and local oflScers, came the vicomtes, who had since the eleventh cen- tury been the principal agents of local administration, charged with the general oversight of the vicomte, and particularly with the "* Delisle-Berger, no. 14*. '" Valin, pp. 201, 264; Chapter VI, note 128. 105 Supra, Chapter I, p. 15. 106 ' Vestigiis regis Henrid inherentes qui hoc idem iuramento antiquorum homi- num fecerat recognosci. . . . luramentum quod rex Henricus fieri fecerat ratum esse volentes, iuramento eorundem qui tempore regis Henrici iuraverunt et aliorum recognosci fecimus iura, possessiones, consuetudines, libertates quas ecclesia Baio- censis tempore Odonis episcopi habuerat et habere debebat.' Livre noir, no. 39. "" See the discussion of this evidence in Chapter VI. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 151 collection of the duke's revenues and the payment of the farm at which their district was let.'"' These fiscal arrangements, which also covered the parallel but inferior jurisdiction of the prevdts, show remarkable fixity from the time of WiUiam the Conqueror to that of Henry II,!"' and it is not surprising that Geoffrey sought to reestablish and maintain them, especially since his resources had been diminished by the extensive grants from the ducal demesne which he had been obliged to make as the price of the barons' support."" He is careful that the bishop of Evreux shall have his tenths from the farm of Verneuil and Nonan- court,"' the nuns of Saint-Amand their tithes in the forests of Eaui and Aliermont,"^ the monks of Saint-Wandrille their ancient rights in his rents at Arques and Dieppe, in the proceeds of the fair at Caen, and in the toll of Rouen, Exmes, Falaise, and Argen- tan."' We have the actual writ ordering the vicomte of Rouen to pay the lepers of the city the forty shillings monthly which King Henry had given them,"* and the charter to the citizens of Rouen shows the duke's ofi&cers collecting the tolls and customs and wine-dues which are mentioned in the documents of his prede- cessors."* While, however, the vicomtes and prevdts continued to accoimt to the Exchequer ' for the issues of their more ancient jurisdictions,' the Angevin dukes superimposed upon the local government of Normandy the new area of the bailliage}^^ It is not likely that under Geoffrey this new unit acquired any such im- portance as it possesses in the miUtary returns of 1172; yet the •"^ Stapleton, i, pp. xxxiv-xxxvi, Ixi; Delisle, in B. E. C, x. 264 f.; id., Henri II, pp. 212-218; supra, p. 46 f. '™ Supra, pp. 42-44, los f. "" Supra, no. 6. "» Robert of Torigni, i. 267. "^ No. 7. "' Lot, S.-WandriUe, nos. 78, 119. Another example of the continuity of the fiscal system is seen in the empress's grant to Saint-Andrfi-en-Gouffem (1151-1154) of 46 J. ()d., which had been paid annually to the vicomte of Argentan for the gravaria of Montgaroult: Round, no. 593; Delisle, p. 142, no. 10. "* Supra, no. 12. Cf. the charters of the empress and Henry for Le Grand- Beaulieu: DeUsle, p. 126; Delisle-Berger, nos. 11*, 45*. "^ Round, no. 109. On the dues collected at Rouen under the Norman dukes see Charles deBeaurepaire,iaFico»««^(/e I'Eau de Rouen (Evreux, 1856), pp. 2, 18- 20, 40-52. "' Stapleton, i, p. xxxiiif.; B. J§. C, x. 259 f.; Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 22 f.; and, more fully, in his Loss of Normandy, pp, 71-73, 103-116. 152 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS name hailia, probably in the more general sense of an officer's dis- trict, occurs first in his reign,"' and the bailUvi make their appear- ance in his charters, where, however, the term, like the more common ministri, may have been applied collectively to all below the rank of vicomte}^^ We meet also with the duke's constable at Cherbourg,"' the wardens of his forest of Argentanj'^" his gold- smith at ArqueSji^i and his moneyer at Vemeuil or Nonancourt,'^^ as well as a group of servientes — a loose term which in one in- stance describes those who exercise the duke's authority on the lands of the bishop of Bayeux,'^' and in another denotes the Ser- jeants of Rouen whose offices the charter of the city promises to restore.!^* One hereditary serjeanty of this sort, that of Henry the marshal in Rouen and its banlieue, is known in its curious privi- leges from the document, preserved in a corrupt form, by which Geoffrey conferred it: ^"^ (13) G. dux Normeim[orum et] comes Andeg[avorum] . . archiepiscopo Rothomagensi et omnibus episcopis Normemiie et comitibus'''* et iusti- ciis suis salutem. Noveritis quod ego dedi et concessi Hemico le Mareschal "' Livre noir, no. 24. Cf. no. 40, issued shortly after Geoffrey's death; and Stapleton, i, p. xxxiv. ''' Liwe noir, no. 16; Neustria Pia, p. 15; Valin, p. 265; supra, nos. $, 10, 11. Cf. Delisle, pp. 207, 219. "' Delisle, pp. 142 f., 409, 513, no. 84*, facsimile, pi. i. This is a writ of the em- press, probably issued between 1151 and IIS4, but the constable in question, Osbert de la Heuse, was a companion of Geoffrey (John of Marmoutier, ed. Halphen and Poupardin, p. 174), and had doubtless been placed by him in charge of Cherbourg. '^'' Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 4. ^^ Charter of Henry II granting ' Waltero cambiatori aurifabro et heredibus suis totam terram Roberti cambiatoris patris sui sitam apud Archas quietam et liberam et totum cambium et totam aurif abricaturam toscius castellarie Archarum et tocius Deppe . . . preterea . . . omnes consuetudines et quittancias et libertates quas pater mens G. comes Andegavorura dedit et concessit Roberto patri suo et carta con- finnavit.' Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 851, f. 5S^.', MS. Lat. 9209, Rouen, no. 2; Delisle, Henri II, no. 527; Delisle-Berger, no. 719. ^ Supra, no. 6, reading ' Gisleberto niunmario.' '^ Livre noir, no. 16. The general meaning is also found in nos. 3 and 9, supra. •^ Delisle-Berger, no. 14*, where the ' proprium marescallum civitatis ' is also mentioned. ^^ Archives Nationales, JJ. 72, no. 191, based on a vidimus of Philip V in 1318. The charter is probably anterior to 1147, as it is witnessed by the count of Meulan. For other serjeanties connected with Rouen under Henry I and Henry II see Chap- ter III, notes 156-158, and Chapter V, notes 145-147. ■^' MS, cormmmibus. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 1 53 servienti meo sergenteriam de bagnileuca Rothomagensi sicut se proportat de feodo de Pratellis et de feodo de Cailliaco, et dedi eidem Henrico et suis heredibus sergenteriam de Cailliaco sicut se proportat in longum et in latum et sicut extendit de feodo de Cailliaco et de feudo de Pratellis et de feodo de Feritate usque ad partes de Gournayo, et omnia alia ad placitum spate per- tinencia, tenenda et habenda dicto Henrico le Mareschal et suis heredibus bene et in pace servientium {sic) faciendo. Et volo et concede quod dictus Henricus le Maxeschal et eius heredes habeant omnes robas tallatas omnia- que superlectillia et omnia vasa nisi fuerint argentea et aurata, et carnes ba- conum nisi bacones fuerint integri, et dolium nisi plenum sit vini, videlicet eorum et earum que membra sua forefadent, et de domibus que cremabuntur forefactxu-a que eidem Henricus et eius heredes habeant tantum quantimi poterimt sursum percutere de moura •*' spate sue si eques fuerint ignem def- fendendo. Volo etiam et concedo quod eidem Henricus et eius heredes habeant suum hardere et suum edificare in foresta mea de Tisone et pastu- lagia ab omnibus libera et quieta. Et quia volo quod omnia et singula predicta dicto Henrico et eius heredibus rata et stabilia in perpetuum tene- antur, banc presentem cartam munimine sigiUi mei confirmavi. Testibus Hugone Rothomagensi archiepiscopo, Ern[ulfo] Luxoviensi episcopo, Philippo Baiocenso episcopo, Galerano comite Mellendi, Reginaldo de Sancto Walerico, Rogero de Claris vallis {sic), Gaufredo de Cleres, apud Rothomagum. Respecting Geoffrey's policy toward the Norman church, there is little to add to what Bohmer has said on the subject. '^^ On three occasions during his reign the effort was made to exercise freedom of election in place of the practice of ducal appointment which had prevailed under Henry I and even under Stephen; but while in each case Geoffrey ended by accepting the candidate so chosen, he asserted his authority with a vigor which left his real control xmdiminished. He held the property of the see against Amulf of Lisieux for two years and three months, and restored it then only after the exaction of a heavy payment; Gerard of Seez, elected imder questionable circumstances about the beginning of 1 144, suffered at the hands of Geoffrey's followers acts of violence which were subsequently compared to the murder of Becketj'^' and was not reconciled to the duke until Easter 1147; the abbot whom monks and pope set over the monastery of Mont-Saint- Michel was compelled to purchase his peace with the duke at a ^2' I. e., the blade: Old French moure, meure (Godefroy). ^^ Kirche und Stoat in England und in der Normandie, pp. 310-325. ^' Giraldus Cambrensis, viii. 301. 154 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS price which left his house under a heavy burden of debt."" Con- tests such as these, as well as the long adherence of the prelates to Stephen's cause, make it plain why the bishops play so little part in the secular affairs of the duchy during Geoffrey's reign, the only notable exception being the use of Amulf of Lisieux as inter- mediary in the difi&culties of 1 150 with Louis VII.'^i Apart, how- ever, from the energetic assertion of his claims during vacancies, when he doubtless did much to earn Saint Bernard's characteriza- tion of malleus bonorum, oppressor pads et lihertatis ecclesie,^^^ Geoffrey can hardly be accused of injustice in his dealings with the Norman church. If the case of Bayeux may be taken as an example, we find him placing the full machinery of judicial ad- ministration at the bishop's disposal for the recovery of rights and property which had been lost during the anarchy and earlier,^'' and it is significant, in contrast with conditions in Anjou,"^ that no complaints of Geoffrey's exactions in Normandy meet us at the outset of the succeeding reign. It was in accord with the ten- dencies of the age that the Norman church should in Geoffrey's time be drawn into closer relations with Rome and with the rest of northern France, but it is noteworthy that he did not permit Eugene III or his legates to enter his dominions; "' and, with due allowance for the inevitable growth of curial influence and of solidarity within the church in this period, it would seem that the ducal prerogative was handed on unimpaired to his successor. I'D Annals of Mont-Saint-Michel, in Labbe, Nova Bibliotheca (1657), i. 352. ■^ H. F., XV. 521; Oeuwes de Suger, ed. Lecoy de la Marche, p. 267. "2 Epislolae, no. 348, in Migne, clxxxii. 553. So Peter of Cluny says: ' totius ecclesie Dei que in partibus illis est hostis comes Andegavorum audiatur.' H. F., XV. 637. 133 Infra, pp. 204-212; Remie cathoUque de Normandie, xix. 167-172, 266-272, 295-301 . Observe also the enforcement of the fine of £9 for breach of the bishop's peace: supra, no. 6. "< See the charters of Henry II for Saint-Florent and Fontevrault, in Delisle- Berger, nos. 22*, 27*, 30*. ™ ' Certus erat se Romanam ecclesiam offendisse, quod nee domnum papam nee aUquem legatum passus erat ingredi terram suam: ' John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, in M. G. H., Scriptores, xx. 531. B6hmer overlooks this passage. The mission of the legates Alberic and Imarus, upon which he bases his statement that legatine authority was freely exercised in Normandy, belongs to 1144 and hence can hardly be considered typical. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 80; Livre noir, no. 58; H. F., XV. 696 f. GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET 1 55 So far as this investigation furnishes an answer to the question with which we started, it is that in his administration of Nor- mandy Geoffrey continued the institutions and the policy of Henry I. The judicial and fiscal system and the organs of local government remain as before, with no trace of Angevin admix- ture. The personnel of the curia undergoes some change, and the seneschal perhaps acquires somewhat greater importance; but if the justiciar disappears, it is only to reemerge under Henry H, and the department which stands in the most intimate relation to the new ruler, the chancery, is Normanized even to its smallest phrases. Where, as in the case of the sworn inquest, some de- velopment appears probable, it roots in the practice of Henry I's reign and follows no discoverable Angevin precedents, nor do we find in Normandy that direct and personal rule which is so char- acteristic of the government of the counts of Anjou. All the evi- dence goes to show that Geoffrey observed for himself the policy, which at the close of his life he laid down for his son, that of avoid- , ing the transfer of customs or institutions from one part of his dominions to another. ^'^ How far this advice was followed by Henry II is a problem for the next chapter. i» ' Terre vero sue et genti spiritu presago in posterum previdens, Henrico heredi suo interdixit ne Normannie vel Anglie consuetudines in consulatus sui teiram, vel e converse, varie vicissitudinis altematione permutaret: ' John of Marmoutier, ed. Marchegay, p. 292; ed. Halphen and Poupardin, p. 224. CHAPTER V THE GOVERNMENT OF NORMANDY UNDER HENRY II ' In the great Plantagenet empire of the twelfth century Nor- mandy held the central place, mediating historically, as well as geographically, between the England which it had conquered a century earher and the Angevin and Aquitanian lands which shared its Prankish traditions and were beginning to feel with it the nascent centripetal power of the French monarchy . The begiimings of this empire were the result of Norman initiative, and upon Normandy fell the brunt of, the attacks under which it collapsed. Yet Normandy, though central, was not dominant. It was boimd to its neighbors, not merely by a personal union, but by a common imperial policy, by certain elements of a common administration, and by constant communication and interchange of officials; and it took its place by their side as a member of the strongest and most remarkable state of its time. Be our interest military or economic, ecclesiastical or constitutional, we cannot hope to understand any part of this realm without constant refer- ence to the other parts and to the whole. What is true of the several countries is true of their sovereign. Henry II has too often been viewed merely as an English king, yet he was bom and edu- cated on the Continent, began to rule on the Continent, and spent a large part of his later life in his Continental dominions. He was, it is true, not a foreigner, as was William the Conqueror, for England had a share in forming him which it had not in the mak- ing of his great-grandfather; yet he is not, even retrospectively, a national figure, either English or French. In a later age he would have been called international, or even cosmopolitan, for he had wide-ranging tastes, and knew the languages of the world from France to Syria.^ 1 Revised and expanded from A. H. R., xx. 24-42, 277-291 (1914-1915). A sum- mary was read before the International Congress of Historical Studies at London in April 1913. ^ 'Linguarum omnium que sunt a marl Gallico usque ad lordanem habens «s6 HENRY 11 157 It is natural that Henry's reign should have been most thor- oughly studied in the land where his descendants still rule, but it is significant of his wider influence that the Continental relations of his legal reforms were first clearly seen by a German jurist, and that the greatest French scholar of our time should have begun his long Ufe of labor with a study of Henry's financial adminis- tration and closed it by dedicating to the Continental documents of his reign a masterly volume of the Chartes et dipldmes relatifs a Vhistoire de France. Where Brunner and Delisle are masters, one must perforce follow; yet this period of Norman history is not ex- hausted, as Powicke has recently shown us, and one may still seek to contribute a bit of new evidence or a new suggestion to the understanding of what will always be a reign of imcommon inter- est. In presenting the results of any such study much depends on the point of view. When the institutions of Normandy approach those of its Continental neighbors, they wiU impress the Enghsh student more than they impress the French, while other elements which seem famihar and hence commonplace to an English writer become highly significant when seen against a Continental back- groimd. The point of view in this chapter is Enghsh in the sense that it examines the government of Normandy under Henry II particularly for light which may be thrown upon the government of England in the same period; and, while it is based upon an inde- pendent exploration of the available evidence, it will pass Ughtly over institutions which, like the chancery, are already well under- stood, or which, like the fiscal system, are interesting chiefly by way of contrast to Continental conditions.' The central subject must be the courts of law. The great obstacle to any careful study of Normandy in this period is the paucity of original information, especially as con- scientiam, Latina tantum utens et Gallica,' says Walter Map, De Nugis CuriaUum, ed. M. R. James, p. 237 (ed. T. Wright, p. 227). ' For the fiscal system Delisle's study, Des revenus publics en Normandie au XII' sUcle, B. £. C, X, xi, xiii, is still fundamental. For legal matters L. Valin, Le due de- Normandie et sa cow, is useful, though inadequate in its use of materials and at times too juristic. F. M. Powicke's Loss of Normandy, supplemented at certain, points by his articles in E. H. R., xxi. 635-649, xxii. 15-42, gives the best survey of the Angevin period but treats constitutional matters less fully than other aspects, of the subject. 158 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS trasted with the wealth of record in contemporary England. For Henry's reign the only Norman chronicle is that of Robert of Torigni,^ pieced out by occasional local annals and by the casual references of English writers to Norman affairs, and there is little to add in the form of letters ^ or other literary remains. Over against the splendid series of the Pipe Rolls, unbroken after 1155, Normandy can show only the Exchequer Roll of 1180 and two fragments of 1184.* There is no Dialogiie on the Exchequer and no Glanvill, and the earliest customal is not earlier than iigg.'' Henry's charters are fairly numerous, in originals, in cartulary copies, or in the vidimus of French kings, and an admirable basis for their study at last exists in Leopold Delisle's Introduction,^ now being followed by the publication of the full texts; yet of those here collected the four hundred or more which relate to Normandy are an insignificant part of the thousands which once existed and from which it would have been possible to recon- struct the whole course of administrative and judicial procedure in the Norman state. The charters of bishops and barons and lesser persons are more numerous and offer much to reward the investigator of local and family history and of legal and economic relations, but they too often tell us what we least want to know, and the result of prolonged explorations is in many respects disappointing. Equally fatal is the loss of Henry's Norman legislation. At best, as Maitland has reminded us,' his law-making was done in * Cited from Delisle's edition (Soci6t€ de THistoire de Nonnandie, Rouen, 1872-1873); Howlett's reprint in the RoUs Series {Chronicles of Stephen, iv) is much less useful. ' The letters of Amulf of Lisieux, for example, are disappointing. " Cited from the edition of Thomas Stapleton (London, 1840-1844); the second fragment of 1184 from Delisle's Henri II, pp. 334-344. That the Exchequer had other types of roUs appears from the notice of 1186 printed by Delisle, Mlmoires de I'Acadimie des Inscriptions, xxiv, part 2, p. 353; and by VaUn, p. 278. ' E.-J. Tardif, Le Tres Ancien Coutumier, in his Coutumiers de Normandie, i (Rouen, 1881); cf. Viollet, in Histoire littlraire de la France, xxxiii. 43-62. ' Recueil des actes de Henri II roi d' Angleterre et due de Normandie concemant les provinces francaises et les affaires de France, Introduction, with a fascicle of facsimiles, Paris, 1909; tome i, revised and published by filie Berger, Paris, 1916; tome ii in press. Cf. my review, E. H. R., October 1917. ' History of English Law, i. 136. On the legislation of the dukes of Normandy HENRY II 159 an informal fashion and has left few monuments, even in England, and for Normandy the only formal ordinances that have been preserved are the levy of the Palestine tax in 11 66 and the Con- tinental prototjqjes of the Assize of Arms and the regulations con- cerning the Saladin tithe.^" Here again time has dealt imkindly with records which are known to have existed. The Bee annalist tells of the Christmas court at Falaise in 11 59, whose acts he evi- dently had before him in writing his provokingly meager sum- mary," and three years later we hear of a Lenten assembly at Rouen which seems to have had legislative importance.^'' There were probably, as we shall see, one or more specific assizes estab- lishing the use of the recognition, and tenure by parage seems to have been introduced by a definite statute.^' Now and then, in an age when no line was drawn between legislation and adjudication, there are instances of general enactments in the form of judicial decisions.** Next to the Exchequer Rolls, the fullest information respecting Norman institutions under Henry was contained in the returns from the great general inquests ordered at different occasions in his reign. One of these, the inquest of 1172 concerning military tenures, has long been known and used, but for the others we have little more than a bare mention. In Normandy, as later in Eng- land, the new ruler began at once the gradual recovery of the lost portions of his demesne through the machinery of the sworn in- quest; and we have record of such inquests held at Caen before 1 1 54 to determine the duke's rights at Bayeux, and, then or shortly afterward, throughout the Bessin,'* while in 11 63 two of see Tardif , &Uide sur les sources de I'ancien droit normand, read before the Congrfa du Mill^naire in 191 1, of which the part covering Henry II has not yet appeared. On Henry's early legislation see infra. Appendix I. 1" Gervase of Canterbury, i. 198 (Delisle-Berger, no. 255); Benedict of Peter- borough, i. 269, ii. 30. Cf. also the general ordinance concerning the debts of Cru- saders issued at Vemeuil in 1177, ibid., i. 194; DeUsle-Berger, no. 507. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 180; cf. infra, Appendix I. •2 Robert of Torigni, i. 336. ^ Powicke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 69, loi. " See Robert of Torigni, ii. 241; the various reforms attributed to William Fitz Ralph in the Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 60-65; and the unpubUshed example in Appendix H, no. 9. " Livre noir, nos. 13, 35, 138; Delisle-Berger, nos. 68*, 76*, 38. On the pro- cedure see infra. Chapter VI., l6o NORMAN INSTITUTIONS his justices made inquiry, diocese by diocese, concerning the rents and customs pertaining to the duke and his barons.'* This was not entirely effectual, and in 1 171 the income of the duchy was almost doubled by an inquest held throughout Normandy to ascertain the lands and forest and other portions of the demesne which had been occupied since the death of Henry I." Of this systematic survey we are fortunate in having, besides the references in the Exchequer Rolls '^ and possible indications in cartularies " and in the Couiumier desforets of Hector of Chartres,^'* the full returns for the vicomte of the Avranchin,^' which give us an exact picture of the king's rights and his administration in this district. Per- haps we may coimect with the same inquest a still more important document of Henry's reign, the so-called iurea regalis, preserved in the Tres Ancien Coukimier ^^ and containing a statement of the •' Robert of Torigni, i. 344. Roger of Wendover (i. 25) speaks of an 'inquisitio generalis ' in England this year, but he plainly has in mind the inquest of knights' fees of 1 1 66. The Inquest of Sheriffs of 11 70 is the nearest English analogy to the Norman inquests of 1163 and 1171; see Stubbs-Davis, Select Charters (1913), p. 174; and on thereturns Round, The Commune of London, pp. 125-136. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 28. 1' Indicated by the phrase ' recuperatus per iuream,' Stapleton, passim. " Notably in the cartulary of Fecamp (Valin, p. 269; Delisle-Berger, no. 338), where there is a reference to the rights of the duke as recognized and recorded in his roU; and in the Bayeux cartularies (Liwe noir, no. 46; Liitre rouge, no. 46), where the phrase ' recognitum autem fuit ' shows that an extract has been made from a more comprehensive document. Being subsequent to the accession of Bishop Henry in 1165, the Bayeux document is not a part of the earUer inquests for this district nor connected with the general inquest of 1163, and the mention of William Fitz John seems to place it before the close of 1172 (see, on the date of his death, DeKsle, p. 480, where it should be observed that the entry of 11 80 refers to an old account). The portion of the original inquest which concerned the king would naturally be omitted in drawing up a statement for the benefit of the bishop. 2° Preserved in the Archives of the Seine-InfMeure; see Michel Pr6vost, ^ude sur la forlt de Roumare (Rouen, 1904), pp. 354-365. The numerous references to Henry in the Coutumier, which appeared to Beaurepaire (B. 6. C, kvii. 508) to point to a general inquest on the forests, seem rather to cite his charters. » Printed by Delisle, pp. 345-347. Cf. Powicke, in E. B. R., xxv. 710 f.; and for the date, Haskins, ibid., xxvi. 326-328; and Appendix K. 22 Ed. Taidif, pp. 59-65. The iurea cannot be later than the death of William Patric in 1174, and it is anterior to 1172 if we accept Sir George Warner's date for the death of William Fitz John (supra, note 19) ; but there is nothing to connect it with any one year, and it may belong with the inquest of 1163 or with the earlier inquiries in the Bessin. In any case, in spite of its general form, it was the result of HENRY II l6l duke's reserved jurisdiction and his rights over wardship, craspice, wreck, and treasure trove. Ducal example, if not ducal precept, is doubtless responsible for the exact surveys of the possessions of religious houses which were made in this reign and of which the chief Norman instance is the detailed inquest on the manors of La Trinite de Caen.^* The military inquest of 1172 ^ was a natural consequence of the English inquiry of 1166, itself perhaps sug- gested by Sicilian precedents,^^ but, save in the case of the bishop of Bayeux ^* and the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel," we have only the general summary and not, as in the parallel English case, the original returns made by the tenants. It would be especially interesting to know in some detail the history of Henry's early years as duke, not only because of their importance in forming the youth who was at twenty-one to be- come ruler of the vast Norman empire, but also because we might then study the institutions of the duchy and the policy of its ruler before the union with England reopened the way to possible modi- fication from without. Unfortimately the thirty ducal charters a local inquest, for all the jurors are in some way connected with the Bessin and the statement concerning the fishing rights of the bishop of Bayeux and the earl of Chester points to the same region. That William Fitz John was connected with earUer inquests in the Bessin (infra, note 74) is pointed out by Tardif {Aiide sur les sources, i. 12), who, however, knows nothing of the inquest of ii7r, in which year William was also justiciar (Round, no. 456; M. A. N., xv. 198). E. Perrot, Les cos roywux (Paris, 1910), p. 306 f., assigns the iurea to ca. iiso. ^ MS. Lat. 5650, ff. 60V-87, where the mention of William du Hommet (f. 82) shows that the inquests belong to the latter part of this reign and not to the earlier half of the century, as suggested by H. Legras, Le bourgage de Caen, p. 37, note. The whole is to be published by R. N. Sauvage in the BibUotheque de droit normand. English examples of monastic inquests in this period are those of the Ramsey Cartulary, iii. 224-314; the inquest of ii8i in the Domesday of St. PavVs; and the Glastonbury inquisition of 1189. For a writ of Henry II granting the monks of Canterbury permission to hold such inquests on their lands, see Delisle-Berger, no. 425- ^ B.. F., xxiii. 693-699; Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 624-647. On the text see Powicke, in E. H. R., xxvi. 89-93; 0° the importance of the document for the "history of the Norman baronage, see his Loss of Normandy, pp. 482-520. '^ See my discussion in E. H. R., xxvi. 66r-664. ^ M. A. N., viii. 425-431; H. P., xxiii. 699-702. These returns were based on the inquest of 1133 and represent still earUer conditions, supra, p. 15. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 296-303; H. F., xxiii. 703-705. l62 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS which constitute our sole source for Norman government between 1 1 50 and 1154 give few answers to the many questions we should like to put. So far as they tell us anything, they show the young duke surrounded by his father's advisers and maintaining his father's policy, itself a continuation of the system of Henry I,^* but we can also discern certain new names which are to rise to importance in the ensuing period. Reginald of Saint- Valery is still seneschal,'" and so are Robert de Courcy, Robert de Neufbourg,'" and Richard de la Haie; '^ but Manasses Bisset and Humphrey de Bohun also appear with this title,'* while William the marshal, Richard du Hommet the constable,'' and Warin Fitz Gerald the chamberlain'* are new. Besides Richard de Bohun, who con- tinues to act as chancellor, at least until 1151, we find another chancellor, William,'^ and a chancellor's clerk and keeper of the '' Supra, Chapter IV. The writ for Hfiauville in Delisle-Berger, no. 29*, is, save for the witnesses and the insertion of am mei, an exact repetition of the writ of Geof- frey for the same establishment printed above, Chapter IV, no. 7a. The following charter of 1150-1151 for the chapter of Chartres is not in DeUsle-Berger: ' H. dux Normannorum G. comiti Mellendi et Willehno de Hangemara et Roberto de Havilla et omnibus fideUbus suis totius Normannie salutem. Sciatis me resaisisse canonicos Sancte Marie Camotensis ecclesie de decima et de ecclesia de Havilla, ideoque mando et firmiter precipio quod ecclesiam et decimam teneant in bono et in pace iuste et integre salvis rectis suis omnibus iUis hominibus, ubi ea sibi fieri debent, qui in predicta ecclesia aut decima aliquid clamaveiint rationabiliter. Testibus Alexandre de Bohun, Willehno Trosebot, Stephano de BeUo Campo, apud Rotho- magum ' (MS. Lat. 5185 I, p. 328; not in the printed cartulary). Delisle-Berger also omit a charter of 1x52-1154, printed in Revue cathoUgiiedeNormatidie,\Ti. 446. ^ DeUsle-Berger, nos. 8*, 11*, 3S*-37*, 44*- See in general the Ust of witnesses to Henry's early charters in Delisle, p. 133 f., where, however, the official titles are not always given and no distinction is made between Normandy and Anjou. '" Robert de Neufbourg is not called seneschal in documents before 1155, but his activity as justice and his precedence in charters make it probable that he held this dignity also under Geoffrey and during the early years of Henry. See Chapter IV, note 87. " Delisle, p. 133 f.; Liiirenoir,no. 7. '2 Dehsle-Berger, nos. 48*-5o*, 63*, 65*, 68*, 76*; cf. Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward, p. 37. *" Delisle-Berger, nos. 50*, 51*, 63', 65*-68*, 72*, 76*. Humphrey Fite Odo and William of Roumare also appear as constables (Delisle-Berger, nos. 10*, 42*), and still others appear in no. 55* For William the marshal see no. 13*. " Delisle-Berger, nos. 48*, 49*, 57", 76*. »' Delisle, p. 88, note; Dehsle-Berger, nos. 13*, 15*, 36*, 50*, 52*, 65*. I do not understand why DeUsle dismisses the early chancellors with bare mention; certainly Henry's chancery does not begin its history in 1154. See E. H. R., xxxii. 597. HENRY II 163 seal, Maurice,'* who need clearing up. The most notable among these new men is the clever and ambitious Bishop Amulf of Lisieux, who heads the lists of witnesses to Henry's charters and the list of Justices in his curia,^'' thus restoring the office of justiciar which his predecessor Bishop John had held under Henry I and which had disappeared under Geoffrey. Of himibler servants we find Odo hostiarius, doubtless the usher of this name who appears in the Pipe Rolls and perhaps the Odo of Falaise, regiorum com- putator redituum, who was cured of blindness at the tomb of Becket.'* The curia meets in different parts of Normandy '' — Rouen, Lisieux, Domfront — and has its share of judicial busi- ness: there the abbot of Aunay proves his right to the church of Cenilly, the abbot of Fecamp to his tithes in the neighboring forest, the abbot of Savigny to the land claimed by Robert Fitz Ralph.*" We get ghmpses of a body of justices busy with the hold- ing of sworn inquests and the protection of legal rights; *' and there are local vicomtes and baillis and porters, all receiving their orders in the sharp, crisp language of the Anglo-Norman writ.*'' So far as the sources of information are concerned, the period from 1154 to 1 189 is divided into two almost equal parts by the change of the king's style in 1 172-1173, which separates his char- ters into two groups, according as they do or do not contain the words Dei gratia in the title.*' These groups do not differ notably in number, but the materials for the second half of the reign are the fuller, since the charters are there reenforced by the Exchequer Rolls and by a larger mmaber of records of judicial de- cisions. The earher period, is, however, the more interesting from a constitutional point of view as being a period of origins, and this '^ Delisle-Berger, nos. 20*, 37*, 44*. " Ibid., nos. 11*, 34*-37*, 42*, 45*, 68*, 72*, 75*, 76*, 80*. For the disappear- ance of the justiciarship vinder Geoffrey, see supra, p. 146. " He is the sole witness to Dehsle-Berger, no. 38*. For Odo of Falaise see Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ii. 185. " Delisle-Berger, nos. 32*, 67*, 75*; Robert of Torigni, i. 255, 259. Cf. also the large gathering at Bayeux in November 115 1: Delisle-Berger, no. 20*. *" Delisle-Berger, nos. 32*, 67*, 75*; Appendix H, no. 3. " Delisle-Berger, nos.28*, 29*, 32*-34*, 41*, 66*, 67*, 80*; Revue catholique,vu.44.6. « Delisle-Berger, nos. 11*, 14*, 15*, 35*, 36*, 38*, 43*, 66*. « Delisle, pp. 12-38. 164 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS is notably true of the years between 11 54 and 1164, preliminary to the struggle with the Church and the great legislative measures of the reign in England, but as yet obscure on both sides of the Channel. The possibility of Norman precedents, especially in matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and civil procedure, requires a careful sifting of all the information that has reached us from what seems to have been a formative period in Henry's policy. Let us first consider the administration of justice. Of the judi- cial business that came before the duke himself in his curia we have only the slightest indications,^ and these tell us next to nothing in the earlier years. Between 11 54 and 1164 the king spent half his time in England, while the affairs of his other dominions claimed many of the busy months he passed on the Continent. If Normandy was to have an efifective judicial system, it must be organized to work in the king's long absences as well as under his immediate supervision. From his father and grand- father Henry inherited the institution of a regular body of jus- tices, both in the curia and in local affairs, which he had only to develop and adapt to the needs of a rapidly expanding ducal jurisdiction. In this process there was doubtless constant experi- mentation, both with men and with methods, such as we can follow somewhat more closely in England later in the reign ; but for the earlier years the Norman evidence happens to be fully as abundant as the English,^^ and shows us some features of the system with reasonable clearness. First of all there is a distinction between the ordinary justices and the justiciar of Normandy, iusticia rnea Normannie.^ Ordi- narily, as imder Henry I,*' there would seem to have been two ** M.A. N., XV. 198; Delisle, p. 43; infra, Appendix H, no. 3. An example from the latter part of the reign is found in an agreement between the abbot of Saint- Pierre-sur-Dive and Gervase de Fresnay, i May 1181, ' coram domino rege et iusticia sua' (original in Archives of the Calvados, /owdj Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive). ^' On which see Stubbs, introduction to Benedict of Peterborough, ii, p. bdv. *' Notably in the clause of the king's writs, ' nisi feceris iusticia mea Normannie faciat fieri ': Delisle-Berger, nos. 13, 14, 365, 368, 382; Round, nos. 44, 949; cf. Livre noir, no. 37, of Henry I. In other writs we find in the same clause only iusticia mea: Delisle-Berger, nos. 38, 91, 99, 155, 206 f., 228 f., 335, 342, 346, 369 f. Sometimes the justice is mentioned by name: ibid., nos. 66* f., 75*, 21, 22. *' Supra, Chapter HI. HENRY II 165 justiciars, a bishop and the chief seneschal, who frequently sit together, but at least five persons are known to have acted in this capacity in this period, and the available sources do not enable us to fix their succession and relation to one another with the pre- cision which has sometimes been sought.*^ As under Geoffrey,^' the courts held by the justiciars are called assizes,*" often, by way of distinction from the lesser courts, full assizes {plena assisia);^'^ and if we may judge from a fuU assize held at Caen in 1157 and attended by the barons from the four grealt regions of the west,*^ they comprehended several administrative districts. Meetings at Caen and Rouen are frequent, but not sufl&ciently regular to indicate the existence of a permanent central curia, and the justiciars are clearly itinerant. The lack of any rolls prevents our tracing their circuits, but the records of cases are more numerous than those which have been collected for England in the same period.*^ In 1155, before the king had returned from his corona- tion. Bishop Amulf of Lisieux and Robert of Neufbourg the chief seneschal, as master justices of all Normandy, hold assizes at Carentan and Domfront.^ In 1157 they appear in two judgments of the curia at Caen,** and about the same time in another pro- <8 Notably by Vernon Haicourt, His Grace the Steward, pp. 43-50. His at- tempt to sustain his theory of the unimportance of the seneschal by explaining away the dapifership of Robert de Neufbourg has been satisfactorily disposed of by Valin, p. 157 f. The charter of Henry H for Savigny (Delisle-Berger, no. 80), in which Harcourt considers Robert's style ' unofficial embellishment,' is also in the Cartulaire de Normandie (MS. Rouen 1235), f. 8ov. *' ' In assisia mea apud Valonias,' infra, Chapter VI, note 95. '" Robert of^Torigni, ii. 241; M. A. N., xv. 197. Note in Henry's writ in Liiire noir, no. 10, ' quando fui apud Baiocas ad asisiam meam,' the order to William Patric to be ' ad primam asisam que erit citra Lexovium ' (anterior to 1172-1173, Delisle-Berger, no. 33s). '' 'In plena assisia apud Abrincas': Deville, Analyse, p. 18; Valin, p. 268; Delisle-Berger, no. 153. 'In plena assisia apud Rothomagum': Appendix H, no. 6; cartulary of Saint-fivroul, no. 172. ' In plena assisia apud Argentomum ': ibid., no. 250 (1190). ^ ' In plenaria curia regis, utpote in assisa ubi erant barones iiii comitatuum ': Robert of Torigni, ii. 251. '' On records in England, see PoUock and Maitland, i. 156. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 241. '' Ibid., ii. 251; M. A. N., xv. 197 (original in Archives of the Ome, H. 3912). Cf. Delisle-Berger, nos. 98, 102. 1 66 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS ceeding, likewise at Caen, in part of which the bishop of Lisieux is in his absence replaced by two barons.^ Before his death in 1 1 59 we find Robert de Neufbourg in various other cases at Avranches, Bayeux, Caen, and Rouen.*' In 1 157 there appears with him at Rouen Rotrou, bishop of fivreux,'* who is active in the administration of justice throughout the duchy during the next seven years and is specifically called ' justiciar of Nor- mandy.' '' At times Rotrou is accompanied by Reginald of Saint-Valery as justiciar,*" and in 11 63 they hold an iter throughout the duchy to ascertain the respective rights of king and barons. *i Richard du Hommet the constable also appears " Appendix H, nos. 3, 4. " Livre noir, nos. 27, 28, 35; Valin, p. 267 f.; M. A. N., xv. 198; Deville, Analyse, pp. 18, 42; Delisle-Berger, nos. 21, 22, 38, 121, 153; Round, no. 341; Appendix H, nos. 3-5. He is still ' dapifer et iusticia totius Normannie ' when he retires to Bee in 1159: Robert of Torigni, i. 322, ii. 174. Cf. Delisle, pp. 445-447; Harcourt, p. 46 f. '* ' In presencia domini Rotroldi episcopi Ebroicensis et Roberti de Novo Burgo dapiferi et Gualeranri comitis de Mellent et Rogerii abbatis Sancti Wandregisili et Rogerii abbatis Sancti Audoeni Rothomagensis et Hugonis de Gomaio et Godardi de Vallibus et Adam de Wacnevilla et Roberti filii Haimerici, apud Rothomagum. Huius pactionis sunt testes. . . .' Cartulary of Saint-Wandrille, D, ii, 14. The first set of witnesses is different in the other version which follows in the cartulary and is printed by Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 88; Round, no. 172. The following charter shows Rotrou and Robert de Neufbourg in the court of Galeran, count of Meulan, probably sitting as ducal justices, such as we find under Henry I (Chapter HI, no. 16) and later in Henry H's reign {infra, note 179): ■ Arnio etiam ab incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo quinquagesimo quinto residentibus in curia mea apud Brionnium domino Rotroth venerabili Ebroicensi episcopo et domino Rogerio abbate Becci et honorabili Michaele predicti monas- terii patre atque domino Roberto de Novoburgo multisque aliis nobilissimis viris, ego Gualerannus comes de Mellent. . . .' Cartulary of Pr6aux, no. 68. 69 Delisle, p. 455 f.; Valin, pp. 268, 270; infra. Chapter VI, note 93; Appendix H, nos. 6, 8. A document of Rotrou for Foucarmont (originals in Archives of the Seine-InfMeure; also in MS. Rouen 1224, f. 87) ends: ' Hoc autem totum factum est me presente et audiente et tunc temporis existente iusticia Normannie.' In Henry's great charter for Saint-fitienne, 1136-1161 (Delisle-Berger, no. 154), he attests as ' iustic[ia] Norm[annie].' '" Delisle, p. 455; Valin, p. 270; Round, nos. 133, 134, 491; Harcourt, p. 48 f.; Delisle-Berger, nos. 221, 223, 397; and Appendix H, nos. 7, 8. Reginald was ab- sent in the East from 1158 to 1160: Robert of Torigni, i. 316, ii. r66; cf. also Jaff6- Lowenfeld,/?egeria,no. 10363. Pardons of Danegeld in 1136 (Pipe Roll 2 Henry II, pp. 9f., 23) indicate that Rotrou and Reginald were already members of the curia. " ' Rotrocus episcopus Ebroicensis et Rainaldus de Sancto Walerio fecenint in HENRY II 167 with this title,'^ and Bishop Philip of Bayeux may also have held it.«' These courts were doubtless attended by the chief barons and royal officers of the region,*^ some of whom evidently acted as Judges, although the title of justice appears rarely in the notices of decisions and our lists of royal officers are so incomplete that in most instances it is impossible to distinguish the officials from the barons. A good example is furnished by an assize held at Ba- yeux *^ by the bishop of fivreux and Reginald of Saint-Valery between 1161 and 1165, where we find the bishops of Lisieux and Avranches, Richard son of the earl of Gloucester, Godard de Vaux, one of the king's justices, Etard Poulain, one of his hailUs in the Bessin,*^ Osbert de la Heuse, constable of Cherbourg,^^ Robert Fitz Bernard, prevot of Caen,^^ Graverend d'fivrecy, mcomte,^^ Richard de Vaux, vidame of the bishop of Bayeux/" and Roger d'Arri, canon of Bayeux and later a permanent official of the Exchequer.'! The vicomtes and baillis acted as judges in their Normannia recognoscere iussu regis, per episcopatus, legales redditus et consuetu- dines ad regem et ad barones pertinentes': Robert of Torigni, i. 344. ^ A judgment of 1164 is rendered ' apud Cadomum [coram] abbate de Troamo, Ricardo de Humet tunc tempoiis iustitia regis, Guillelmo filio lohaimis, Renaldo de Gerponvilla, Godardo de Vaux, Guillelmo de Varaville, lordane Taxone, Ricardo fiUo comitis, Guillelmo Crasso, Henrico de Agnis, Nicholao de Veies, Graver[endo] de Vrecie, Roberto filio Bemardi, Sjrmone de Scuris, Henrico filio Corbini, Roberto Pigache, Guillelmo Forti, Philippo f ratre Vitalis monachi, Guillelmo Gemon, Rogero Darriedf Ricardo de Vaiuf, lohaime Cumin ': cartulary of S.-Wandrille, Q, ii, 36. See also infra, Appendix H, no. 6. '^ He is specially mentioned with Robert de Neufbourg in Delisle-Berger, no. 120, and with Rotrou in Valin, p. 268 (Delisle-Berger, no. 153). Cf. Harcourt, p. 47, note. ** ' Interfuerunt huic concordie comes de Mellent, comes Ebroicensis, comes Giffardus, et multi barones et servientes regis de diversis partibus.' Charter of Rotrou: Delisle, p. 455; Le Provost, Eure, i. 551. ** M. A. N., XV. 197; Valin, p. 270. Cf. the longer list in the assize at Caen in 1164, supra, note 62, in which nearly all these names reappear. '^ Infra, notes 77-79. " Delisle, p. 409. «8 Delisle-Berger, no. 66*; Robert of Torigni, ii. 251. •9 Ibid., ii. 248. "• Ibid., ii. 258. ^ See infra, note 125, the index to the Livre noir, and the list of later assizes in Appendix J, l68 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS own districts,'^ where an ordinance of 1 159 required them to hold court once a month," and they naturally sat with the justiciars in the larger assizes, where they are sometimes specifically called justices. Thus WiUiam Fitz John and fitard Poulain, the chief royal officers in the Bessin,'^ both with the title of baillim regis,''^ are constantly found in the assizes of Lower Normandy. WiUiam can be traced in the local administration of justice as well as in the assizes, and later in the reign becomes dapifer, justice, and pro- curator NormannieJ^ Etard sits in two cases at Caen in 11 57, in one of them apparently with the title of justiciar," is iusticia regis at Lisieux in 1161,'' and appears in the court elsewhere." He is frequently accompanied by Godard de Vaux, who replaces the bishop of Lisieux at Caen at the beginning of the reign, sits at Caen and Rouen in 1 157,*° and appears at various other sessions at Rouen in this period, often with a certain Adam de Wanneville, who may also have been a justice. ^^ Our information does not permit us to separate the local from the itinerant judges in the records of the assizes, still less to follow the work of the local courts. Doubtless arrangements varied locally and in the course of the reign, and apparently the confusion of local areas stood in the way of a set of courts as simple and uniform as the EngUsh. ™ Thus at Pontaudemer and in the territory of Brionne, William de Morville is ' custos et iusticia iussu regis Henrici ' : cartulary of Pontaudemer (MS. Rouen 1232), ff. 18, 28; Delisle-Berger, no. 368. At Mortain in 1162-1163 we find the constable, Robert Boquerel {Analecta Bollandiana, ii. 527; cf. Delisle-Berger, nos. 79, 364), holding the king's court (Delisle, p. 440; original in MS. Rouen 3122, no. 4); and somewhat later the seneschal of Mortain, Nigel, addressed as one of the king's justices (Stapleton, i, p. kv; Delisle, pp. 210, 408). See infra, note 170. Cf. 'the king's justices of Caux ' (1154-1165): Somm^nil, Chronicon Valassense (Rouen, 1868), p. 83. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 180. " Delisle, pp. 366, 479 f.; Tardif, Tres Ancim Coutumier, p. no; Livre noir, nos. 9, 12; Delisle-Berger, nos. 13, 228. '* Delisle, p. 447; infra, Appendix H, nos. 3, 4. " Liwe noir, nos. 27, 28, 35, 36, 46; Robert of Torigni, ii. 31, 251 f.; Delisle- Berger, nos. 66*, 14, 21, 22, 38, 305; M. A. N., xv. 198; supra, notes 56, 62. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 252; M.A. N., xv. 197. '" Infra, note loi. '» Appendix H, no. 5. 80 Supra, note 58; infra. Appendix H, nos. 3, 4. 81 Supra, notes 58, 59; infra. Chapter VI, note 93; Appendix H, nos. 3, 5-8; Delisle, p. 456; Delisle-Berger, no. 366; Round, no. 341 ; also, perhaps, as justice, in an illegible charter in the Archives of the Manche, H. 212. HENRY II 169 The one clear point of special importance is the existence of a well defined system of itinerant justices. Of even greater interest is the question of procedure, which bears directly upon the development of the jury. This problem will be discussed in detail in the following chapter, so that at this point it is necessary only to indicate its relation to these formative years of Henry's poUcy. In England, in spite of the occasional employment of the sworn inquest since the Conqueror's time, we have no evidence that it was a normal mode of trial before the appearance of the assize utrum in 1164, followed shortly by the other possessory assizes and the grand assize. In Normandy, on the other hand, writs ordering the determination of questions of possession and ownership in accordance with the duke's assize {secundum assisiam meani) are found in 1156, as well as in Geoffrey's reign, while we find an ordinary litigant demanding an assize against Saint-Etienne before 1159. In that year a question concerning tithes and presentation is decided by recognition on the duke's court, while at Christmas Henry issued a formal ordinance directing the use of the evidence of neighbors in his local courts. Accordingly it would appear that the recognition had become the normal procedure in certain types of actions con- cerning land, while the testimony of the vicinage had been pre- scribed in ecclesiastical courts much as in the Constitutions of Clarendon. That matters had reached this point on the English side of the Channel does not appear from any evidence as yet brought to Ught, and in the existing state of our knowledge it is highly probable that Henry drew upon the results of his Norman experience in drafting his Enghsh assizes. There was, of course, no mechanical transfer, for a restless experimenter like Henry was constantly reshaping his materials, and if we could follow the process in Normandy, we should probably find him modifying in various ways the procedure and the assize which he had inherited from his father. Something, too, must be allowed for the natural development of the institution as it passed into more general use, but the exceptional is not likely to have become normal without some direct action of the sovereign in extending his prerogative procedure to his subjects, and in this respect the evidence avail- lyo NORMAN INSTITUTIONS able from the years before 1164 places Normandy in advance of England. There is another field in which the practice of the Norman courts before 11 64 has a special interest for England, namely that of ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. The struggle between Henry II and Becket, says Maitland,*^ "has a long Prankish prologue"; has it also a Norman prologue ? A short prologue, at least, it must have had, for in February 1162 a great council was held at Rouen, in which Henry " complained of the bishops and their officers and his vicomtes and ordered that the provisions of the council of Lille- bonne should be observed." *' No details are given, but the men- tion of the local officers and the coimcil of Lillebonne shows plainly that the question was one of encroachments by the Church which his officers failed to prevent. Just which of the canons of this council the king believed to have been violated we can only surmise, but he clearly sought to base his protest, as in England two years later, upon an appeal to ancient and well estabUshed practice, as contained in a document which had been drawn up under the Conqueror in 1080 and confirmed by Henry I,^ and which thus presented a more definite formulation of the "customs, liberties, and dignities of his ancestors " than was at hand in England. Erom the ecclesiastical point of view, these canons had become somewhat antiquated by 1162, since they referred con- stantly to local Norman usage rather than to the general prin- ciples of canon law which had been more sharply formulated in ^ Pollock and Maitland, i. 18. " ' Querimoniam fadens de episcopis et eorum ministris et vicecomitibus suis, iussit ut concilium lulie Bone teneretur: ' Robert of Torigni, i. 336. ** The best text of the council of Lillebonne, now preserved in the Archives Nationales, bears the seal of Henry I: Teulet, Layettes, i. 25, no. 22; Delisle, Cartu- laire normand, no. i. The canons are also given by Ordericus, ii. 316-323; cf. the analysis given by Tardit, &tude sur les sources, pp. 39-43 ; and supra, Chapter I, pp. 30-35. Evidence that they were observed in the twelfth century is found in a charter of Audoin, bishop of fivreux from 1118 to 1139: ' Convocatis ex more ad synodum omjiibus presbiteris nostris; circadam quam ab illis exigebam ex concilii lulibone institutione et ecclesiarum episcopalium Normannie consuetudine, quoniam ilia gravari conquerebantur, eorum communi petitioiie et nostrorum canonicorum in- tercessione perdonavi ': Archives of the Eure, G. 122, no. 36. The canons of the council were frequently copied in legal collections relating to Normandy. HENRY II 171 the interval, and since they recognized the supremacy of the duke and the arbitrament of his curia in church matters to an extent which would not have been admitted by the Church in Henry II's time. It is, indeed, highly probable that Henry's complaint was based particularly upon the closing enactment of the assembly of LiUebonne, that the bishops should seize no right of justice or cus- tomary dues beyond those there enumerated until they had established their claim in the king's court; but the absence of evidence precludes us from examining the bearing of this canon upon the vexed question of criminous clerks. Some idea of their treatment in Normandy can be gained from a case described by Amulf of Lisieux, that of a certain Henry, who, apparently before 1 166, manufactured false money and put it into circulation at Eayeux. Convicted after confession, it is not stated in what court, he was imprisoned and fettered by the king's officers, but finally much effort of the diocesan secured his release on condition of abjuring the duchy, and he was degraded by the archbishop.*^ An ordinance of 1159 requiring the testimony of neighbors in accusations by rural deans ^ shows that Henry's dissatisfaction with the exercise of jurisdiction by archdeacons and deans had found expression in Normandy as well as in England before the Constitutions of Clarendon, in which it occupies a definite, though, subordinate, place. Still another claim which Henry made in 11 64 we are able to test by Norman practice, namely the jurisdiction of the king's court over suits respecting advowson and presentation.*' In 1 159, when the bishop of Coutances had smnmoned Ralph de la Mouche to show by what right he claimed the presentation of the priest of Mesnil-Drey, a certain Osmund proved his right against Ralph *' Ep. 123 (Migne, cci. 144). Addressed to N' (this, not Nicolao, is the reading of the MS. used by Giles, St. John's College, Oxford, 126, as Mr. R. L. Poole has kindly ascertained for me), bishop of Meaux, who does not appear to have existed, the text of this letter requires further examination. The priest's brother Amfredus had forfeited his lands and gone into exile fifteen years before, and if Henry's offenses are of the same period, they would fall at least as early as n66. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 180; cf. Constitutions of Clarendon, c. 6. See infra. Chapter VI, note 94; and Appendix I. <" Constitutions of Clarendon, c. i. On the probability of previous English legislation concerning advowsons, see Appendix I. 172 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS by sworn recognition in the king's court at Gavray.'' In another case anterior to 1164 the bishop of fivreux, acting as the duke's justiciar in full assize at Rouen, had adjudged the presentation of Le Sap to the monks of Saint-£vroul against a lay claimant. ** There are also examples of the bishop's jurisdiction in such cases when one or both of the parties were ecclesiastics,'" so that there was some foundation for the assertion of Amulf of Lisieux that such matters had always pertained to the bishop; '^ but the com- prehensive inquest of 1205 states specifically that in Henry's reign disputes respecting patronage had to be settled in the duke's court or in the court of the lord of whose fee the church was held,'2 and this is borne out by the documents.'^ Indeed more than a generation before 11 64 the monks of Chartres, claiming the church of Chandai in the court of Richer of Laigle, plead in the lay court iuxta morem Normannie.^ In the latter part of Henry II's reign the question whether a holding was lay fee or alms was matter for a recognition in the king's court, as we see from various cases in the cartularies and Exchequer Rolls, '^ as well as from the *' Robert of Torigni, ii. 259. *' Chapter VI, note 93. '° Robert of Torigni, ii. 259; dispute between Archbishop Hugh and the abbot of Pr^aux, cartulary of Pr^aux, no. 51; Jordan Taisson ji. a clerk in the court of Henry, bishop of Bayeux, Archives of the Calvados, H. 5606, 3; cartulary of Saint-fivroul, nos. 231, 233; infra, note 125; Appendix H, no. i. '^ Ep. 116: ' Mota est ei qui presentaverat questio patronatus in iudicio secu- lari, cum semper ab antiquo cause huiusmodi ad episcopalem audientiam per- tinerent.' ^ DeUsle, Cartulaire normand, no. 124; Round, no. 1318. " Stapleton, i. 5, 12, 64, 96, 114; cartulary of the chapter of Rouen (MS. Rouen 1193), f. 131; charter of Bishop Lisiard of Sfiez in cartulary of Saint-fivroul, no. 250 (1190); and the assizes of danein presentment in Round, no. 438; Delisle, Jugements de V&chiquier, no. 35; the cartulary of Fecamp (MS. Rouen 1207), f. 70V; and Delisle-Berger, no. 651. ^ CarMaire de S.-Pere de Chartres, ii. 607; Round, no. 1237. *' Stapleton, i. SS, 64; JB. &. C, i. 545; Delisle-Berger, no. 406; charters of Jordan de I'fipesse, in Archives of the Manche, H. 1034, 6452 (printed in Inven- taire sommaire) ; charter of John P6ril granting ' presentationem ecclesie Sancti Martini de Mairoles (Marolles, canton Lisieux) cum omni iure patronatus eiusdem ecclesie et duas garbas dedme eiusdem ville et totius patochie, que recognite fuerunt in assisa apud Monfort tempore domini regis Henrici ad laicum feodum ' (copy of cartulary of leprosery of Lisieux, Archives of the Calvados, H. suppl. 486, f. 9; cf. infra, Appendix J, no. 20). HENRY II 17-^ Coutumier and from the inquest of 1205; '* yet it is not possible to say how clearly this principle was established in Normandy before the appearance of the assize utrum in the Constitutions of Clarendon." That this assize had a somewhat independent history in Normandy may perhaps be argued from the divergence of the Norman ireoe defeodo et elemosina from the English assize utrum.^^ While we have clear cases of the decision of questions of tithes and parish lands in the duke's court before 1164,'' there are traces of the bishop's authority here also,"" and there is some indication that the two jurisdictions might deal with the same case, apparently without rivalry.^^ Here, as in aU questions con- cerning the Norman antecedents of the Constitutions of Claren- don, the evidence is interesting but too scanty to be conclusive. In working back from this document it is always well to remember Maitland's dictum that " if as regards criminous clerks the Con- stitutions of Clarendon are the high-water-mark of the claims of '' Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 18; Delisle, Cartulaire normand, no. 124. " The case of the rights of Saint-fivroul over Le Sap cannot be considered an authentic example of this: infra, Chapter VI, note 93. " Bnmner, Schwurgerichie, pp. 236 f., 324-326; Maitland, Collected Papers, ii. 216; Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 4 f . '' Robert of Torigni, ii. 259; infra. Appendix H, nos. 3, 5, 6. Cf. Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres, i. 187 (1171); MS. Lat. 5650, f. 80. ^°° E. g., Neustria Pia, p. 351 (= Le Provost, Eure, iii. 82); cartulary of Saint- fivroul, no. 233; Vernier, no. 75; infra. Chapter VI, note ro9; Appendix H, no. 9. "" Thus (ris6-iiS9) we find the prior of Perrieres establishing his right to the tithe of fipaney (Calvados) in the coiuts of the bishop of Sdez (Collection Moreau, Ixviii. 9), the archbishop of Rouen {ibid., liv. 243; Archives of the Ome, H. 2026), and the king, the judgment being finally confirmed by Henry: ' teneat bene et in pace et quiete tptam decimam suam de Espanaio sicut earn dirationavit in curia mea coram iusticiis meis et in curia archiepiscopi Rothomagensis ' (Delisle-Berger, no. 109). We also find the king's justices sitting in the court of Bishop Amulf of Lisieux in ii6r in a case between Alice Trubaud and the abbot of Caen against the abbot of Troam concerning the advowson of Dives: 'Huius autem actionis sunt testes et ipsius iudicii cooperatores extiterunt Normannus et lohannes archidiaconi, Fulco decanus, Rogerius filius Aini canonicus et alii plures canonici Lexovienses, sed et barones regis Radulfus de Tomeio, Robertus de Montfort, Aicardus Puldn iustida regis ': cartulary of Troam (MS. Lat. 10086), f. 159; cf. the charters of Amulf and Cardinal Henry of Pisa, f. iS2v.; and Sauvage, Troam, p. 166, n. 5. For a case of T147 ' iustitia archiepiscopi Rothomagensis et comitis de Mellent,' see Valin, p. 264. See also Round, no. 138; Delisle-Berger, no. 650; Liverani, SptdlegUtm Liberianum (Florence, 1864), p. 579. 174 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS secular Justice, as regards the title to lands they are the low-water- mark." 102 After 1 1 64 the point of view of our study must be somewhat shifted. Thanks to a series of legislative monuments and treatises which have no Norman analogues, we can trace with some con- fidence the course of English constitutional development, while our knowledge of Norman affairs is too scanty to permit following the evolution of institutions or poUcies. The most that we can attempt is to reconstruct the chief elements of judicial and fiscal organization and procedure, in the hope of furnishing an instructive parallel to better known English conditions. The turning-point in the constitutional history of Normandy during the latter part of Henry's reign is the year 1176, when the death of the seneschal and justiciar, William de Courcy,^"' led the king to appoint in his place as ruler of Normandy Richard of Ilchester, bishop of Winchester, long a trusted officer of the Eng- hsh Exchequer, where he had charge of a special roll and proved himself particularly " alert and businesslike in reckonings and the writing of rolls and writs.""* Very possibly the constitutional development of Normandy may have lagged behind that of Eng- land in the busy years which intervened between the Constitu- tions of Clarendon and the Assize of Northampton; very likely its administration had fallen into disorder after the rebellion of 1173 ; certain it is that Richard was excellently qualified by talent and experience to undertake the reorganization of governmental iiB Collected Papers, ii. 216. '^ On whom see Delisle, Benri II, pp. 476-478. 1" Dialogus, bk. i, c. s (Oxford ed., p. 77). On Richard see Miss Norgate, in Dictionary of National Biography, xlviii. 194; Delisle, pp. 431-434; R. L. Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 1 16 ff . It is not quite true, as Miss Noigate says, that we have no trace of his activity during his sojourn in Normandy. He is mentioned in three documents: a charter of Philippa Rosel given at the Exchequer in 1176 (original in British Museum, Add. Ch. 15278; Round, no. 517); an assize which he held at Caen in January, 1177 {Livre noir, no. 95; Delisle, p. 347); and an assize held at Montfort ' quo tempore Ricardus Wintoniensis episcopus in Normannia post regem iudex erat et maior iustitia ' (Appendix H, no. 10). A tallage levied by him is still carried on the roll of 1180 (Stapleton, i. 74). Delisle- Berger, no. 569, probably belongs to these years; ct. the witnesses with the justices in Appendix H, no. 10, HENRY II 175 business which seems to have been effected during the year and a haK which he now spent in Normandy. It is not without signifi- cance that the roll of 11 76 remained the basis of reckoning for more than twenty years, and that from this year we begin to fol- low with some clearness and continuity the judicial work of the Norman Exchequer. It has indeed been maintained that the term exchequer does not previously occur in Normandy, and hence that Richard is the creator of the institution.'"^ The author of the Dialogus, however, who began his treatise while Richard was in Normandy, refers to the Norman Exchequer as an ancient institution, as old perhaps as the Conqueror,"^ under whom we can trace the regular ac- counting for the farm of the vicomUs which is the essence of such a fiscal system; "' and the name scaccarium occurs in 1171 "' and in a notice of Henry I's reign discovered by Round.'"' At what epoch there was introduced the distinctive method of reckoning which gave the Exchequer its name, is an even darker problem in Normandy than in England. According to an ingenious conjec- ture of Poole,"" the employment of the abacus for balancing the royal accounts came to England from the schools of Laon in the reign of Henry I. To me the epoch of its introduction seems prob- ably earlier and connected with the abacists of Lorraine in the "' Valin, pp. 116-136. On Valin's own showing we can hardly imagine Richard creating the Exchequer between his arrival toward Michaelmas of 1176 and the regular session of that body, doubtless also at Michaelmas, mentioned in the Rosel charter of that year (see the preceding note). "8 Bk. i, c. 4 (Oxford ed., p. 66). i*" Supra, pp. 40-44; E. H. R., xxvi. 328 (1911) (a terra data under the Con- queror). For accounts which run far back of 11 76 see Stapleton, i. 12, 92, 94. On the administrative organization as the essence of the Exchequer cf. Liebermann, E. H. R., xxviii. 153. For the use of tallies under the Conqueror see Stapleton, i, p. xxii. i»8 Delisle, p. 345; cf. E. H. R., xxvi. 326-328 (1911). No reliance can be placed on the early mention of the Exchequer in a highly suspicious charter for Saint- fivroul: Round, nos. 638, 639; Delisle, p. 316; Delisle-Berger, no. 513. There is an important document from the Exchequer, 1178-1180 (Round, no. 1123), which Valin overlooks. ■ His misreading of ' rotuUs trium annorum ' (p. 135) as a single roll covering three years hardly requires comment. "'' E. H. R., xiv. 426 (1899); supra, Chapter III, note 18. "" Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, pp. 42-59. 176 N0RM4N INSTITUTIONS preceding century; "' but in any case the English evidence ante- dates the Nonnan, and, although the personnel and the language of the Enghsh Exchequer were Norman, the process may very well have been, as Poole urges, " from England to Normandy, not from Normandy to England." The absence of earlier rolls deprives us of all basis for fixing the nature of Bishop Richard's reforms, which probably had less to do with the mechanism of administration than with the reestablish- ment of order in the finances through the collection of back accoimts — arrearages of seven, fifteen, even twenty years meet us in the roll of 1180"'' — the revision of the farms, and the change of ofl&cials in Normandy and the other continental dominions which is recorded in 11 77."' Whatever Richard accomplished, he did not make the Norman Exchequer a copy of the EhgUsh, for in 1 1 78-1 1 79 the author of the Dialogue, who had more than once been in Normandy, tells us that the two bodies differed " in many points and wellnigh in the most important." "* What these great differences were, apart from the absence of blank farm in Normandy, it is impossible to say, for we have no Norman Dialogue. The terms of the Norman Exchequer are the same as the English, Easter and Michaelmas; the ofl&cers are like- wise called barons; the place is fixed at Caen, where the principal treasury was."' One point of divergence which appears from the rolls is that in Normandy each section begins with a statement of "1 See my article on The Abacus and the King's Curia, E. H. R., xxvii. 101-106 (1912). Norman clerks also were in relations with the schools of Lorraine: Orderi- cus, iii. 265. "* Stapleton, i. 12, 92, 94. "' Benedict of Peterborough, i. 198. The words of Ralph de Diceto (i. 424) ' fiscalia diligenter recensens ' need mean no more than is here suggested. On these points I am glad to find myself in agreement with Powicke (pp. 73-75, 85). "* ' In plurimis et pene maioribus dissident: ' bk. i, c. 4 (p. 66). Cf. Liebermann, Einleitung in den Dialogus, p.m. For Richard Fitz Neal's sojourns in Normandy see Eyton, Itinerary, pp. 112, 190; Delisle-Berger, no. 384. "' That the principal treasury was at Caen as early as 1172 is clear from Robert of Torigni's account (ii. 297) of the deposit there of the barons' returns of that year. See also Stapleton, i. 56, and another mention on p. no, where (cf. p. 77; Rotuli Normanniae, p. 50) the treasury at Rouen is likewise important. Treasure was also kept at Falaise (Stapleton, i. 39), which had been a principal place of deposit under Henry I (Robert of Torigni, i. 200; Ordericus, v.. 50), and at Argentan Pelisle, p. 334). See Chapter III, p. 107 £f. On the use of castles for HENRY II 177 the total amount due, whereas in the Pipe Rolls, until 8 Richard I, this can be discovered only by computation."' Variation in nomenclature is seen in the Norman heading misericordie, pro- missiones, et fines, corresponding to the placita, conventiones, and oblata of the EngHsh record. The Norman rolls tell us next to nothing respecting the royal judges and their circuits, while the absence of anything corresponding to Danegeld renders it impos- sible to trace the members of the curia by means of amoimts par- doned them. The author of the Dialogue was perhaps impressed by the absence from the Norman rolls of the capital headings and other rubrics which he so carefuUy describes in the English, but so far as we can compare the surviving records the 'great differences' seem to have consisted in externals rather than in essentials. Though the two Exchequers kept their transactions quite dis- tinct,"' the two sets of rolls rest upon the same fundamental system of accoimting,"' the greater subdivision and local detail of the Norman roll resulting from the existence of a set of govern- mental areas much more complex and irregular than the English shires. The older vicomte and prevoti persist in spite of the super- position of the newer hailliage; "' many of the tithes and fixed the custody of treasure see Round's introduction to the Pipe Roll of 28 Henry II, p. xxiv. The Pipe Rolls make frequent mention of transshipments of treasure from Eng- land to Normandy for the king's use on the Continent, and there is evidence that the various treasuries in the empire were regarded 'asparts of a single system' (Powicke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 347-350). For the year 1198 Ramsay {Angemn Empire, p. 372) has calculated that the Norman revenue was greater than the English. "' Stapleton, i, p. xi; Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 130. "' Thus we rarely find one Exchequer crediting a pajonent made at the other, as in the case of the relief of Hugh de Goumay: Pipe Roll 32 Henry II, pp. xxviii, 60. For such examples under Henry I, see Chapter III, note 103. "' Even to the form of the rolls and the use of tallies: Stapleton, i, pp. ix, xiii, 84; Wace, ed. Andresen, ii, line 2012. Cf. also the parallel treatment of the crown debtors: Stapleton, i, p. xii; Powicke, p. 74. See, however, infra, note 215. "' In what may be considered our only contemporary description of the Norman Exchequer under Henry II, Wace's account of Richard the Good in his tower, we read (ed. Andiesen, ii, lines 2009-2012): Venir ad fait de cest pais Tuz ses provoz e ses baillis, Ses gravereins et ses vescuntes; Ses tailles ot e ses acuntes. On the whole subject of local geography, see Powicke, pp. 61-79, 103-119. 178 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS allowances go back to the Conqueror's time or even earlier; ''" and the farm, less affected by terre date than in England, seems to have imdergone little change except in the case of important com- mercial centers Uke Rouen, Caen, and Dieppe."^ The whole sub- structure of ducal finance was evidently very ancient, and for that reason in Henry's time quite inadequate, and the rolls show clearly that, as in England, the chief means for supplementing it were found in the administration of civil and criminal justice.'^ However interesting it might be to follow out in detail the points of agreement and divergence in the methods of the two Excheq- uers, the fact of primary importance is that, so far as northern Europe is concerned, England and Normandy stand in a group by themselves, well in advance of all their neighbors in the development of a money economy and in the mechanism of fiscal administration. As regards its functions as a court, it has recently been argued '=" that the Exchequer of the Norman dukes was in no sense a judicial body and was in no wise connected with the later Echiquier de Normandie. This view is a natural reaction against those writers who approached the earlier institution with the ideas of an age when the Exchequer was known only as a court, but it assumes a breach in that continuity of law and institutions which is in general so noteworthy in passing from Angevin to Capetian Nor- mandy, and it does not fully realize the fluidity of the Anglo- Norman curiaP^ What we seem rather to find is a curia which sits for fiscal purposes at Caen and for judicial purposes at various places in the duchy, and which, when Philip Augustus transfers its fiscal duties to Paris, retains its judicial functions and its Anglo-Norman name. The chief thing to avoid in tracing its history is the projection back into the Anglo-Norman period of "i" Supra, pp. 42-44- "' Supra, p. 105; Stapleton, i. 56, 68, 70. 122 Cf. Delisle, B. &. C, x. 288, xiii. 108 £f. ^ Valin, pp. i37-i39> 249-251; the two passages are not wholly consistent. See, contra, Powicke, pp. 85, 398. ''^ On the fundamental identity of curia. Exchequer, and assizes see R. de Frfiville, hude sur I'organisalion judiciaire en Normandie aux XII' el XIII' sUdes in Nouvelle revue historique de droit, 1912, p, 683. HENRY II 179 the more fully organized Echiquier which we know from the Grand Coutumier and the arrets of the thirteenth century. From the reigns of Henry 11 and Richard a small but definite body of cases furnishes conclusive evidence of the activity of the Excheq- uer in Judicial matters, and indicates that there was no clear dis- tinction between its competence and that of the curia regis}^ As in England in the same period,^^ it seems probable that the dif- ference was essentially one of place: when the curia sat in the Ex- chequer chamber at Caen, it was said to sit at the Exchequer, when it sat elsewhere it was called simply the curia. Certainly the distinction was not, at least among the higher ofl&cers, one of persoimel, for the same men appear at one time as barons, or justices,!" Qf tiig Exchequer and at another as justices holding assizes in various parts of Normandy.*^* «5 For cases and transactions before the Exchequer in this period see M. A. N., XV. 198-201; Delisle, p. 349; Valin, pieces, nos. 19, 24, 25, 28; Round, nos. 309, 310, 438, 461, 485 (another version in MS. Lat. 10086, f. logv), 509 (also in the British Museum, Add. Ch. 15289, no. 2), 517 (original in Add. Ch. 15278; some additional witnesses in the confirmation in Archives of the Calvados, H. 322, no. 3), 560, 606 (where the witnesses are omitted; original in Archives of the Calvados, H. 6607, 301-303), 608, 1123; cartulary of F6camp, f. 25 (letter of archbishop of Rouen to William Fitz Ralph and the other barons of the Exchequer notifying them of the settlement of a question of presentation in the court of the bishop of Bayeux); Cartulaire de Normandie, f. 68v (infra, note 127); Archives of the Calvados, H. 5716, 6607 (78-83, 309), 6653 (338-342), 6672 (293-301), 6679 (186-191), 7707; Archives of the Ome, H. 3916 (infra, Appendix H, no. 11); and the following pas- sage in Richard's great confirmation of the privileges of Saint-fitienne: 'Recuperavit idem [abbas Willelmus, d. 11 79] super Robertum de Veim in curia H. regis patris nostri apud Cadomum hereditagium quod idem Robertus clamabat in tenendo manerio de Veim et de Sancto Leonardo, et super Robertum de Briecuria ecclesiam Sancti Andree de Vilers de qua monachos violenter dissaisierat sed iuditio baronum qui erant ad scacarium apud Cadomum adiudicata est ecclesia predicta Sancto Stephano et restituta ': Archives of the Calvados, H. 1836; cf. Deville, Analyse, p. 52. Most of these documents relate to agreements or acknowledgments before the Exchequer, but good examples of judicial proceedings will be found in the last ex- tract; in Valin, nos. 24, 25, 28; in Round, nos. 309, 310, 438 (Delisle-Berger, no. 647) ; and in the documents given in facsimile va.M. A. N., xv. ''^ Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, pp. 174-182; cf. G. B. Adams, mA.H. R., xviii. 357 (i9i3)- 127 ' Hoc autem factum f uit apud Cadomum ad scacarium coram iusticiis domini regis tempore Willelmi filii Radulfi senescalli Normannie ' : Cartulaire de Normandie, f. 68v. SoalsoinValin, nos. 19, 24; Round, nos. 509, 517. Barons of the Exchequer appear in Valin, no. 25; Round, no. 11 23; Delisle-Berger, no. 647. ^' See the list of assizes, infra, Appendix J. l8o NORMAN INSTITUTIONS In the sessions of the Exchequer the seneschal naturally pre- sided, accompanied by certain men who bear the title of barons or justices but in the documents are not always distinguishable from the other barons and clerks in attendance. In a charter of 1178- 1180,1''' besides William Fitz Ralph the seneschal, we find as barons William du Hommet the constable. Master Walter of Coutances, who had served as clerk of the king's camera and keeper of the seal and was perhaps treasurer of Normandy,"" Osbert de la Heuse, constable of Cherbourg, Ranulf de Grandval, Richard Giflard, and Gilbert Pipart, justiciars of the king, the last two having served as justices in England and as barons of the Norman Exchequer imder Richard of Winchester."' Later we find most frequently Haimo the butler, the justices William de la Mare and Richard Silvain, Jordan de la Lande, and certain clerks, of whom as many as four appear in one charter of the period."^ Most of these clerks are only names to us, but we can follow with some clearness two members of the clerical family of Arri, Roger, canon of Bayeux since the early years of Henry's reign and a regular witness in records of the curia and Exchequer from 11 64 to 1191,"' and AnquetU, who attests less frequently but receives a Uvery as clerk of the Exchequer as late as 1 198 ; "* while another type appears in WiUiam Calix, a constant witness from the time of Richard of Ilchester, a responsible disbursing officer in .the roll of 1 184, and a large money-lender on his own accoimt, forfeiting "' M. A. N., XXX. 672 (c/. xix. 66); Round, no. 1123. "" Delisle, pp. 106-113, The title ' thesaurarius Rothomagensis ' (Delisle, p. loi; Round, no. 34) means treasurer of the cathedral (Delisle-Berger, nos. 510, 567) rather than royal treasurer at Rouen; but Ralph de Wanneville, treasurer of Rouen, was also treasurer of Normandy (Round, no. 21; Stapleton, i. 110), and we know that the office of ducal treasurer had been combined with a canonry in the cathedral from the time of Henry I (supra, p.^iog f.). There are relations between the duke and the treasurer of Avranches (Delisle, p. 346) and the treasurer and chaplain of Bayeux (A. H. R., xiv. 471; Livre noir, nos. 13, 138, 27r, 275) which may have had some significance. For the conversion of the plate of Rouen cath- edral to the uses of Henry II, see MS. Rouen 1403, p. 18 (Round, no. 274). ™- Delisle, pp. 376, 428. "* Appendix H, no. 11. "* Supra, note 62; Livre noir, nos. 45, 73, 128, 129, 135, 139, 182, 442; Round, nos. 432, 435, 437, 438, 456, 461, 485, S09, 1446, 1447, I4SI ; Delisle-Berger, no. 689; the Exchequer notices cited in note 125; and the list of assizes in Appendix J. •" Stapleton, i. 145, 225, ii. 376, 384; and the lists just cited. Cf . Osmund d'Ani in assizes imder Philip Augustus: CartulairedeMontmord, ed.Duhosc, nos. 34-36. HENRY 11 l8l to the crown at his death a mass of chattels and pledges ''^ which suggests on a smaller scale the operations of that arch-usurer William Cade.^'' The rolls show other ecclesiastics active in the business of the Exchequer, notably the king's chancellor, Ralph de Wanneville, later bishop of Lisieux and treasurer of Nor- mandy; '" but imtil Henry's faithful clerks are rewarded with the sees of fivreux, Lisieux, and Rouen toward the close of the reign, the higher clergy are less prominent in the admihistration than they were in his earlier years."* Of those who serve the king in Normandy many have served or will serve him elsewhere; his officers and treasure are passing to and fro across the Channel; his household is ever on the march, and some elements in it are common to the whole Plantagenet empire; yet Normandy has also officers of its own. Some are clerks, such as the treasurer,"' the subordinates in the Ex- chequer,!^" and the chaplains of the great castles; "^ some are ^^ Round, no. 517, and index; Stapleton, i, pp. cli, no, 129, 130, 145, 170, 171, 183, 194-198, 226, 228, 240, ii. 375, 379 (the countess of Richmond as a debtor), 465-469; and the lists cited in note 133. "* On whom see E. H. R., xxviii. 209-227, 522-527, 730-732. ^^ Delisle, pp. 99-103. 138 Yet Froger, bishop of Sfez, is said to have been ordered by Alexander III to give up his bishopric or his place in the royal administration {Memoires de la Societe d' agriculture de Bayeux, viii. 244); and Nigel Wireker heard in Normandy that the bishops of the English realm attend curia and Exchequer so assiduously that they seem ordained ' ad ministerium fisci ' rather than ' ad mysteria ecclesie ' (Wright, Anglo-Latin Poets, i. 203). "' The relation of the treasurer to the chamberlain on the one hand and to the custody of local treasure on the other is not perfectly clear. In the rolls of 11 80 and following the Norman treasurer has an assured income unconnected with service in the king's household and consisting of the tithes of the vicomtes of Fficamp, Caux, Auge, Lieuvin, Roumois, and the country between Risle and Seine, and of the great forests of the Seine vaUey, as well as a special endowment at Vaudreuil (Rotuli Chartarum, p. 17; cf. Round, nos. 193, 561). Certain of these can be fovmd in the possession of Henry I's treasurer, and the antiquity and situation of these vicomtSs may point to an even earlier origin: supra, Chapter III, note 108. The duke's chaplain at Bayeux similarly had the tithe of the regards of the forest of Vemai (Stapleton, i. 5). Can this have some connection with a local treasury {supra, note 130) ? "» Supra, notes 132-135; and cf. the clerks who appear in the roU of 1180. Stapleton, i. 37 f ., 56-58. "' Ibid., i. 5, 90; RoluK Normanniae, pp. 7, 23; Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 69, 107, "3- 1 82 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Serjeants, acting as ushers,^^'' money-changers,'^' scribes,'" mar- shals,"' pantlers,'** and larderers;"' and for local government there are the keepers of jails, parks and forests,"* and fairs,"' as well as the vicomtes, privois, baillis, and constables upon whom the whole system rested — in all a multitude of officials, compared by Peter of Blois to an army of locusts,"" with the bureaucratic element rapidly gaining on the feudal in a way which anticipates the gens du roi of the thirteenth century. Wace, himself a person of some knowledge of the law,"' gives us a picture of the growth of officialism and htigation in his own time in the complaints which he puts into the mouths of the peasants revolting in 996 against the prevSts, beadles, baillis old and new, who leave one not an hour's peace with their constant simimons to pleas of every sort: Tant i a plaintes e quereles E custummes viez et nuveles, Ne poent une hure aveir pais: Tute iur sunt siununs as plaiz: Plaiz de forez, plaiz de moneies, Plaiz de purprises, plaiz de veies, Plaiz de bies faire, plaiz de moutes, Plaiz de defautes, plaiz de toutes, Plaiz d' aguaiz, plaiz de graveries, Plaiz de medlees, plaiz de aies. Tant i a prevoz e bedeaus E tant bailiz, viels e nuvels, Ne poent aveir pais une hure, Tantes choses Iur mettent sure Dunt ne se poent derainier. '''' "2 Valin, p. 151, note 3; RoMi Chartarum, p. 82; Eyton, Court, Household, and Itinerary of Henry II, p. 9. 1** Delisle-Berger, nos. 328, 562, 719; Stapleton, i. 77; ' Symon cambitor tunc prepositus Andeleii ' in cartulary of Mortemer (MS. Lat. 18369), f. 103 (1168). ^** Hereditary ' scriptor prepositure Cadomi ' in Olim (ed. Beugnot), i. 417. "^ Delisle-Berger, no. 212; supra. Chapter IV, no. 13. "' Dehsle, Cartulaire normand, no. 14; supra, Chapter III, p. 117. "' Stapleton, i. 30, 99, 274, ii. 471, 572 f.; B. &. C, xi. 410, note 14. "' Delisle, Henri II, p. 209; Delisle-Berger, nos. 171-173, 212. On the Norman forests at this period see Borrelli de Serres, Recherches sur divers services publics, XIII' siide, pp. 406-417. "° Delisle, Henri II, pp. 210, 271, note, 346. "° Ep. 95, in Migne, ccvii. 298. "' Tardif, £tude sur les sources, i. 9, note 4. "' Ed. Andresen, ii, lines 841-855. Cf. the extortionate Serjeant in Tris Ancien Coutumier, c. 64. HENRY 11 183 Normandy had its full share of the great court days of Henry's reign, when the king kept some great feast amid his barons and officials. Christmas was often spent in this way, at Bayeux, Bur,"' Domfront, Falaise, twice each at Cherbourg and Argen- tan, thrice at Caen. The most splendid of these assemblies was the Christmas court of 1182 at Caen. On this occasion Henry's barons were forbidden to hold courts of their own, and they and others flocked to Caen to the number, we are told, of more than a thousand knights. The Young King was there — his last Christ- mas — and his brothers Richard and Geoffrey, their brother-in- law, Henry the Lion of Saxony, the archbishops of Dublin and Canterbury, with many bishops and abbots.^^ The feudal char- acter of such a curia is illustrated by the episode of William of Tancarville, summus ex feudo regis camerarius, who pushed his way through the crowd to assert his hereditary right to serve the king and princes and to retain for himself the silver wash-basins, such as his father had thus received and placed in his monasteries of Sainte-Barbe and Saint-Georges de BocherviUe; and by the decision of the barons on the following day that the claim had been sustained and the chamberlain vindicated against the accusations of the seneschal and others."^ A more modem touch is given by the ' full assize ' held shortly afterward by the sen- eschal, William Fitz Ralph, and attended by barons and others whose names have reached us to the number of nearly eighty.^" Throughout the administration of justice the seneschal is the important figure. Something of his enhanced importance was doubtless due to the absences of Henry H and Richard and the decline of the personal justice of the sovereign, but something must also be ascribed to the personality of William Fitz Ralph, who in 1 1 78 came fresh from his experience as itinerant justice in England and held the office until his death in 1200, exerting an ^'^ Cf. also the Young King's court at Bur m 1171, attended, among others, by more than no knights named William: Robert of Torigni, ii. 31. iM Robert of Torigni, ii. 117; Benedict of Peterborough, i. 291. 166 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, ed. James, pp. 242-246 (ed. Wright, pp. 232-234); cf. Round, King's Serjeants, p. 115 f.; and for the chamberlain's duties, Wace, lines 1873 ff., 2322 ff. "» Delisle-Berger, no. 638; Valin, p. 274; Round, no. 432. 1 84 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS influence upon Norman law which may still be traced in the Tres Ancien Coutumier}^'' As the alter ego of the king the seneschal was the head of the whole judicial system, and in his sovereign's absence he alone could preside in the judgment of those who had the privilege of appearing only before the duke or his chief jus- ticiar."' We find him holding court, not only at Caen, where the traces of his activity are naturally better preserved, but at Ar- gentan, Bemai, Longueville, NeufchS,tel, Saint-Wandrille, and Rouen. With him sit such men as William de la Mare, Richard Giffard, Richard of Argences, and John d'Eraines, archdeacon of Seez, who also in groups of two or three hold assizes in various parts of Normandy."' With no help from the Exchequer Rolls and only scattered references in the charters, it is impossible to define the composition of these assizes or determine how often they were held. In the documents the hst of justices is often in- complete, and they are frequently indistinguishable from the other witnesses; yet we can identify many of them with the bailUs and constables who meet us in the rolls, and occasionally an assize is held by a group of constables covering a considerable dis- trict. According to the custumal of 1 199-1 200, a doubtful witness for our period, assizes are held once or twice a year in each mcomte and are attended by the ducal officers within the district and by the local lords, who are forbidden to hold their own courts during the session of the assize.^^" FuU roUs are kept of the cases considered and the names of the jurors, and the clerks have also 167 Delisle, pp. 219-220, 481-483; Tardif, Tris Ancien Coutumier, p. los; Valin, pp. 160-163, where the fines carried in later Pipe Rolls are wrongly taken as evi- dence that William was justice in England after 11 78. The Norman roll of iiSo (PP- S6> 57) shows that he received pay for the full [year 1179-1180 and ad- ministered justice in a preceding year. 1'* For examples of this privilege see Delisle, pp. 162, 219. "9 See the list of assizes in Appendix J. Note the assize held by the constables in no. 2. "» Trds Ancien Coukimier, cc. 25-29, 36, 37, 44, 55, 56; Robert of Torigni, ii. 117. R. de Fr^viUe has pointed out (Nouvelle revue historique de droit, 191 2, pp. 715-724) that the Tris Ancien Coutumier cannot be taken as an unmixed source for the judicial organization of the Plantagenet period; its statements respecting law and procedure are less likely to have been affected by French influence. The growing importance of the official element in the administration of justice in the twelfth century is well brought out by Frfiville (p. 682 ft,), who, however, goes too far in HENRY U 185 their little parchments to record the various fines and payments."' The theory still survives that all chattels of offenders are forfeited to the duke, for " the function of the sworn affeerers is to declare what goods the offender has";"^ but there are maximum pay- ments for the various classes of society, and knight and peasant enjoy exemption of their arms and means of hvelihood in a way which suggests the well known clause of Magna Caria}^^ The justices have a reputation for extortion on technical pretexts,"* and the Exchequer Rolls show them bent on upholding the dignity and authority of their court by fines for contradiction and foohsh speaking, for leaving its session without permission, and for dis- regarding or transgressing its decrees."* There are fines for those ■who go to the ecclesiastical courts against the justices' orders; "* and even lords of the rank of Hugh de Longchamp and Hugh de Goumay are heavily mulcted for neglecting the simomons to the regard of the forest."' The ordinary local courts of the vicomte and bailli are not men- tioned in the Tres Ancien Coutumier and have left few traces in the charters. Early in the reign they had been ordered to meet at least once a month;"* in the Avranchin the vicomte held pleas thrice a year in Ardevon and Genest."' In Guernsey in 1179, the court of the vicomte is still curia regis, and he has an official seal."" excluding the non-professional element, and propounds a general theory which inverts the real order of development. His studies of the meaning of the word baron in this period are worth pursuing further. 1^ Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 25, 28, 29, 65. 162 Pollock and Maitland, ii. 514. ^^ Tris Ancien Coutumier, cc. 55, 56; Magna Carta, c. 20; and on its interpreta- tion, Tait and Pollard, E. H. R., xxvii. 720-728, xxviii. 117. '" Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 65. "* Stapleton, i. 5, 16, 21, 34, 41, 51, 54, 58, 80, 86, 113, 116. 1S5 liid,^ i. 21 (' quia ivit in curiam episcopi contra defensum iusticie '), 47, 102. '" Ibid., i. S9, 74. On pleas of the forest see the F6camp cartulary (MS. Rouen 1207), f. 36V. 1'* Robert of Torigni, ii. 180. This is also the period prescribed by Philip Augus- tus for his baillis in iigo: Rigord, ed. Delaborde, p. 100 f. i«8 Delisle, p. 346. Cf. the pleas held by Nigel, seneschal of Mortain: Stapleton, i, pp. kv, 11; Delisle, p. 408. "" ' Actum est hoc in curia domini regis in Guenerreio coram Gisleberto de Hoga tunc vicecomite, et quia sigillum non habebam sigillo Gisleberti de Hoga vicecomitis consideratione et assensu amicorum hanc cartam sigillari constitui ': original, with Gilbert's seal, printed in Historical MSS. Commission, Various Collections, iv. 53. 1 86 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Once the sole agent of the duke in all departments of local ad- ministration, the vicomte saw his power greatly reduced by the development of the itinerant justices, and we have no means of knowing just what he still retained imder the pleas which re- mained a constituent element of his farm. The newer jurisdictions of the iailli and constable have also to be reckoned with, and there were probably differences of local custom as well as changes in the course of the Angevin period. Thus the pleas of the sword regularly stood outside of the local farm "^ and fell naturally to the itinerant justices, yet in the district of Falaise a charter of Henry II specifically reserves them to the baillis."^ The local officers also possessed a minor civil jurisdiction, as we see from a writ in which Henry orders the constable and bailUs of Cherbourg to do full justice in a certain case unless the land in question be a knight's fee or a burgage of more than a hundred shillings' annual value, in which event the matter doubtless went to the higher court."^ In general, however, the local writs are administrative i"- This is specifically stated for the Hiesmois (see the following note), for the Lieuvin (Rotuli Normanniae, p. ii6), for the castle of Gaillon (Delisle, Cariulaire normand, no. 120), and for the vicomte of Bonneville and the pr&i>8Us of Falaise and Domfront (ibid., no. iii). "2 Cariulaire de Fontenay-le-Marmion (ed. G. Saige), no. i; Delisle-Berger, no. 701; cf. VaUn, p. 227. Later they are held here by the itinerant justices: Rotuli Normanniae, p. 20. For the bailli of Rouen see Henry's charter in Chfiruel, Eistoire de Rouen, i. 247; Delisle-Berger, no. 526 (on date, see Valin, Prlcis of Rouen Acad- emy, 1911, pp. 9-42)- ™ ' H. Dei gratia rex Angl[orum] et dux Norm[annorum] et Aquit[anorum] et comes And[egavensium] constabulario et baiUivis suis de Cesarisburgo salutem. Pre- cipio vobis quod sine dilatione plenum rectum teneatis priori et canonicis Sancte Marie de Voto iuxta Cesarisburgum de terra que f uit Preisie apud Cesarisburgum et de domo quam ipsa eis dedit, quas Willelmus Pichard et uxor Richer' eis diffortiant,. nisi sit feodum lorice vel burgagium quod valeat plusquam .c. solidos per annum. Et nisi feceritis iusticia mea Norm[annie] faciat, ne amplius inde clamorem audiam pro defectu recti. T[este] Hug[one] Bardulf dapifero apud Bonam villam.' Original, with fragment of simple queue, in Archives of the Manche, H. 1963. Printed from a poor copy by Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 367; Round, no. 949; Delisle- Berger, no. 688. This writ is interesting further as one of the rare Norman examples- of a writ of right, approaching more nearly the type addressed in England to the lord (Glanvill, bk. xii, cc. 3, 4) than that addressed to the royal officer (ibid., bk. xii, cc. 11-20). It is indicative of the lesser importance of the local officers in Nor- mandy that the justice appears in the nisi feceris clause, as in this writ (cf . those listed in note 46), more commonly than in similar writs in England. A controversy concerning a mill is settled 30 June 1175, ' in presentia W. de HENRY II 187 rather than judicial,"* and throw no light on the work of the local courts, which are plainly less important than in England. With respect to the criminal jurisdiction of the duke, we have a list of pleas of the sword drawn up before 11 74,"* elaborated at certain points in the earher part of the Tres Ancien Couiumier,"^ and confirmed by the fines recorded in the Exchequer Rolls and the cases reserved by Henry in his charters."' The enumeration includes murder and slaying, mayhem, robbery, arson, rape, and the plotted assault, offenses against the peace of the house, the plow, the duke's highway and the duke's court, against his army and his coinage. In large measure this list goes back to the Con- queror's time, when many of these pleas had already been granted to the great immunists, lay and ecclesiastical, who still continued to retain them under Henry H."* Barons, however, whose courts encroach on the duke's jurisdiction must expect to be fined by his justices,"' as must those who seek to settle such crimes out of Huechon conestabularii regis ': Liwe blanc of Saint-Martin de S6ez, f. 13. Cf. the constable of Mortain, supra, note 72. "* For examples see Round, nos. 25, 26, 131, 205-207, 492 (where the original has ' Beiesino ' in the address), 939, 1282; Dehsle, pp. 164 f., 179 f.; supra, note 46. 1" Tres Ancien Cotdumier, c. 70. For the date see supra, note 22. '™ Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 15, 16, 35, 53, S4i $8, 59; cf. Pollock and Mait- land, ii. 455. 1" Round, nos. 375, 382; Delisle, Carkilaire normand, no. 16; id., Eenri II, no. 495. The charter for Cormeilles (DeUsle-Berger, no. 707; Round, no. 420) reserves ' incendiariorum iusticia et invasorum euntium et redeuntium ad nostram curiam et retrobanni et auxilio redemptionis nostre et falsariorum monete nostre.' "' Supra, p. 28 f.; Appendix D. Cf. Powicke, p. 80 ff.; Perrot, Les cas royaux, pp. 301-315. 1" ' Pro placitis ensis iniuste captis ': Stapleton, i. 21. ' Pro duello latrocinii male servato in curia sua . . . pro duello de combustione male servato in curia sua' : ibid., i. 123. On the right of barons to hold pleas of the sword see Chapter I, notes 103, 104; Valin, p. 220 ff.; Powicke, pp. 80-88. That the justices might sit in franchise courts is seen from a charter of John for William of Briouze (Rotuli Nor- manniae, p. 20; see Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 18) and from the following extract from the cartulary of Savigny (f. 27V) : ' Fidelibus universis GiiiUeknus Avenel salutem. Sciatis quod Robertus pincema et GuiUelmus frater eius in presentia mea in curia comitis in plenaria assissa coram baronibus domini regis concesserunt monachis Savigneii ... in manu mea qui time eram senescallus domini comitis Moretonii.' Cf. the justices in the courts of the bishop of Lisieux and the count of Meulan, supra, notes 58, loi. The baron's jealousy of losing his court is illustrated by the following: ' B. de Sancto Walerico maiori et paribus communie Rothomagensis salutem et magnum amorem. Audivi quod vos misistis in placitum Walterum 1 88 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS court."'" Since the early years of the reign the itinerant justices are proclaiming outlaws in the marketplaces,'*' and men are flee- ing the realm for murder, robbery, and similar offenses, which already bear the name of felonies,'*^ while their chattels become a large element in the ducal revenues.'*' Nothing is said of their accusation by a jury of presentment, but we have reason for thinking that such juries were in use after 1159,'*^ and the chattels of those who fail at the ordeal by water are accounted for in the roll of 1 180 as they are in the Pipe Rolls after the Assize of Claren- don.'** The pleas of the crown are viewed as a source of income analogous to the various portions of the ducal demesne; in the Avranchin, at least, they are in charge of a special officer, or coroner, as early as 1171.'*^ In civil matters the ducal courts had cognizance of disputes concerning church property, so far as these did not come under ecclesiastical jurisdiction,'*' and of such suits concerning land as involved the use of the recognition. From early times the prop- fratrem meum de masura mea que [est] iuxta atrium Beate Marie de Rothomago. Unde non parum miror, cum non defecerim alicui de recto tenendo. Mando igitur vobis quod dimittatis mihi curiam meam sicut alii barones regis vel etiam minores habeut, quia libenter quando requisitus fuero rectum faciam.' Cartulary of the chapter of Rouen (MS. Rouen 1193), f. 112; Delisle, p. 358. IS" Stapleton, i. 25-27, 32; cf. p. 51; Tres Ancien Coulumier, c. 36. "' Appendix H, no. 4. On the importance of thefora patrie in such cases see the Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 36, 37; cf. Wace, ii, line 334; Amulf of Lisieux, Ep. no. 182 ' j^isi sijij f ugitivi de terra mea pro muldro vel furto vel alio scelere ' : charter of Henry for Fecamp (1162), in Valin, p. 269; Ddisle-Berger, no. 221; Round, no. 133, where a curious misreading of indicium makes the document relate to a court instead of a fair. In another charter of 1162 for F6camp we have (Delisle- Berger, no. 222) : ' Habeant meam firmam pacem in eimdo morando redeundo, nisi nominati[m] calumpniati fuerint de proditione vel felonia.' ^ See the catalla fugitivorum in Stapleton, i. 4, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 27, 29, 32-34, 43, 49, SS, S8, 72, 89, 94; Delisle, pp. 335, 339, 340, 343; and cf. Tres Ancien Coutumier, cc. 36, 37. In the cartulary of La Trinitfi de Caen, MS. Lat. s^So, f. 84V, we read in an inquest of this reign: ' De feodo Rogeri Terrici fugitivi pro latrocinio inquirendum est ibidem.' "* Infra, Chapter VI; Appendix I. "5 Stapleton, i. 62; and for England, Stubbs, Benedidus, ii, p. Ixii, note. i8« Delisle, p. 346; E. H. R., xxv. 710 f., xxvi. 326 f. For mention of coroners in England before 1194, see C. Gross, Coroners' Rolls, pp. xv-xix. '" Tris Ancien Coutumier, c. 53. Cf. supra, p. 172 f. On the prejudice of the author of the Tres Ancien Coulumier in favor of the Church, see Viollet, in Histoire lilteraire, xxxiii. 52-ss. HENRY II 189 erty of churches and monasteries had been assimilated to the dtike's own demesne {sicut res mea dominica) , and charters re- peatedly declare that particular establishments shall be impleaded only in the king's court, in some cases only before him or his principal justiciar.^** The protection of possession by the duke, praised especially by the author of the first part of the Tres Ancien Coutumier as a defense of the poor against the rich and powerful, is secured, as in England, by recourse to twelve lawful men of the vicinage. The possessory assizes described in this treatise 1*' cor- respond to the four English assizes, and the Exchequer Rolls furnish abimdant evidence that they were in current use by iiSo.!'" On the other hand the principle that no man should answer for the title of his free tenement without royal writ does not seem to have been so broadly recognized in Normandy as in England, nor do we find anything which bears the name of the grand assize ,"i but its Nornian analogues, the Ireve de stabilia and breve de superdemanda, appear in the early Exchequer RoUs,"* as does also the writ of right."' In the few instances where com- parison with Glanvill is possible, the Norman writs seem to have preserved their individuality of form, while showing general agree- ment in substance. Even in the duke's court, the law of Nor- mandy has its differences from the law which is being made beyond the Channel, nor can we see that its development shows any dependence upon the law of England."* 18' Brmmer, Schwurgerichte, p. 238 ff.; Delisle, pp. 162, 219. '" Cc. 7, 16-19, 21, 23, 57. See Bruimer, c. 15, who, however, points out that the Norman parallel to the assize utrum, the breve defeodo et elemosina, is a petitory writ. 1'° E. g., Stapleton, i.'s, 12, 13, r9, 64, 65, 96; cf. 114, 115 (1184). Cf. Brunner, p. 307- "1 Brmmer, pp. 410-4T6. "* Ibid., pp. 3r2-3i7; Stapleton, i. 11, 13, 29; Delisle, p. 339; Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 85, where Tardif (p. Ixxv) points out that the appearance of the sene- schal's name in the writs carries them back of 1204, when the office was abolished. i** Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 30; and the numerous pasrments in the rolls pro recto habendo. For an example see supra, note 173. ^'* Cf. the order of Henry III for the maintenance in the Channel Islands of ' assisas illas que ibi temporibus antecessorum nostrorum regum Anglie, videlicet H. avi nostri, R. regis avimculi nostri, et J. regis patris nostri, observate fuerunt': Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1216-1225, P. 136. 190 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS If we ask what limitations existed upon the ducal authority in Normandy, the answer must be that there were none, beyond the , force of feudal custom and the body of law and precedent which the ducal court was creating, and that the only sanction of these was rebellion. Not until 1315, however, did revolt secure a definite formulation of the local rights and liberties of Normandy in the Charte aux Normands of Louis X; '^^ the scribe who sought to pass off as the work of Henry II a version of Magna Carta as reissued in 1225, though he deceived older antiquarians, has long since been discredited."^ The position of the duke in Normandy required of him none of those chartered promises which are often regarded as the foundations of English liberty. Yet if, with Stubbs,"' we are to consider the charter of Henry I and its successors as an amplifi- cation of the coronation oath, we must not overlook the fact that the coronation oath of the dukes, with its threefold promise of peace, repression of disorder, and justice, is in exact verbal agree- ment with that of the English king as repeated since Anglo-Saxon times."^ When, however, we recall that both in England and in Normandy these obligations were explained and accepted with especial care and ceremony at the accession of John,"' we learn to attach less significance to such promises. And by the time that the Great Charter has declared the king below the law, England and Normandy have started on separate paths of constitutional development. In the twelfth century, however, the resemblances between Normandy and England stand out the more clearly the further we explore and compare their institutions. There are of course fun- damental differences in local government, but the essential central organs of finance and judicature are similarly constituted and fol- '"^ Ordonnances des Rois, i. 551, 587. For the revolt see Dufayard in Reeue historique, liv, Iv; Coville, Les Stats de Normandie, pp. 32-40. i'« Delisle, Henri II, pp. 312-316, who by a slip gives 1227 as the date. 1" Select Charters, gth edition, p. 116. For the opposite view see H. L. Cannon, A. H. R., XV. 37-46. "* Compare the two forms in the MS. of Rouen cathedral: The Benedidional of Archbishop Robert, ed. H. A. Wilson (Bradshaw Society, 3ndv), pp. 140, 158. On the English coronation oath, see Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 163-165; on the Norman ceremony, Valin, pp. 43-45. "' Stubbs, i. 553 f. ; Roger of Hoveden, iv. 87 f. ; Magna Vita S. Hugonis, p. 293 f . HENRY II 191 low similar methods of work. The matter would be much clearer were it not for the disappearance of many thousands of royal writs which alone could reveal the daily routine of administration on both sides of the Channel; but Henry II had only one chan- cery, and its methods show remarkable tmiformity in all of his various dominions and testify to similar administrative condi- tions throughout. The chancery was an extraordinarily active and effective mechanism, and we may well join with Delisle in prais- ing its regularity, finish, and irreproachable precision, the terseness and simplicity of its documents, their ' solid and severe ele- gance.' ^'"' Its charters and writs, like Glanvill and the Dialogus, tell the story of a remarkably orderly and businesslike govern- ment, which expected obedience and secured it. A parallel story of order and thrift is told in the records of the Exchequers, in the Norman rolls quite as expUdtly as in the EngKsh Pipe RoUs. The king's writ is necessary for every new disbursement; his ofl&cers must account for every penny of cash and every bushel of grain; the ' seller of justice ' must have his fee or his amercement; the land of the ducal castles is farmed ' up to the very walls.' ^"^ The thrifty detail of Henry's housekeeping is further illustrated in the inquest concerning his rights in the Avranchin, the only region for which an ofl&cial statement has been preserved. Besides the an- cient farm of the vicomte, the king has his monopoly of the fair of Saint Andrew, where even the abbot of the Mount pays his due of wax and pepper; he has his custom of wine in the ' Valley ' and his rights over the ' customary ' houses of the city, including fourpence from each, his meadows, and his chestnut grove; he has recovered by inquest an oven, a bit of land which yields ten quarters of grain, the treasurer's new house, and a room which has encroached on his demesne. The pleas of the crown are also a part of the demesne and have their special custodian, like the fair and the chestnut grove ; his men of the neighborhood must bring the chestnuts to the king in Normandy, and he keeps the sacks which they are obliged to furnish for this purpose.^"^ The sovereign who 2»» Delisle, Benri II, pp. i f., 151. 2»i Powicke, Loss of Normandy, p. 298. ™ Inquest of 1171 in Delisle, pp. 345-347; cf. Appendix K. 192 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS saves chestnut bags shows equal watchfuhiess in his own house- hold, wherever it journeys: its written ordinances fix the daily allowances of bread and wine and candle ends, and the master marshal requires tallies of receipt from all its officers.^"' The military bookkeeping is Hkewise careful: the Norman returns of service in 1 172 correspond to the English cartae of 1166, and the registers of military obligations extend to minute fractions of a knight's fee. Norman in origin,^"^ the military system was by this time as much at home in England as in Normandy, and in both countries it offered convincing evidence of the Norman capacity for methodical and efficient organization. What more specific elements the Normans contributed to the Anglo-Norman state must remain in large measure a matter of speculation. It would be interesting, were it possible, to ascertain what, in an institutional sense, Normandy had given and received during a century and a quarter of imion with England and par- ticularly during more than a generation of membership in the Plantagenet empire. A study of Normandy and England under the Conqueror suggests fields in which Norman influence was exerted, while the reigns of Henry I and Geoffrey show the per- sistence and further development of the institutions of Nor- mandy; but the process of change under Henry H was too rapid to permit of definite conclusions respecting the influence of one region or set of institutions upon another. Certainly the move- ment under him was not all in one direction. If the two chief figures in Norman administration in Henry's later years, Richard of Ilchester and WilHam Fitz Ralph, had served an EngHsh apprenticeship, there had earlier in the reign been Norman pre- cedents for Henry's English legislation. If the English mihtary inquest of 11 66 preceded the Norman returns of 1 172, the Assize of Arms and the ordinance for the Saladin tithe were first pro- mulgated for the king's Continental dominions. The order of these measures may have been a matter of chance, for to a man of Henry's temperament it mattered httle where an experiment was first tried, but it was impossible to administer a great empire upon his system without using the experience gained in one region 2'» See Chapter III. s" See Chapter I. HENRY II 193 for the advantage of another. There was wisdom in Geoffrey's parting admonition to his son against the transfer of customs and institutions from one part of his reahn to another,'"'* but so long as there was a common element in the administration and frequent interchange of ofl&cers between different regions, it could not be fully heeded. A certain amoimt of give and take there must inevitably have been, and now and then it can definitely be traced. On the other hand, it must not be supposed that there was any general assunilation, which would have been a still greater impos- sibility. Normandy preserved and carried over into the French kingdom its individuahty of law and character, and as a model of vigorous and centralized administration it seems to have affected the government of Philip Augustus in ways which are still dark to yg 206 When that chapter of constitutional history comes to be written, if it ever can be written, it will illustrate from still another side the permanent importance of the creative statesmanship of the Norman dukes. That creative work, so far as we can discern, was completed with the death of Henry II. It is true that no one has yet studied in fuU detail the law and government of Normandy under Richard and John,^"' and that the materials are in some respects more abundant than under their father. Richard's charters have not been coUected,^"* nor does his reign yield any new types of record, but the Exchequer Rolls of 1195 and 1198 are the fullest which have been preserved, and the first Norman customal probably belongs to the year following his death.'"" Under John, as is well 206 See the quotation from John of Marmoutier at the end of the preceding chapter. 206 According to Benedict of Peterborough, i. 270, Philip Augustus and the count of Flanders had early imitated the Assize of Arms (cf. Guilhiermoz, Origine de la noblesse, p. 227). Ralph of Diceto, ii. 7 f., says Phihp followed Henry's adminis- trative policy on the advice of his household. Cf. also supra, note 168. 20' See, however, the discussion of military organization and finance in Powicke, Loss of Normandy, chs. vii and viii. 208 The copies collected by Achille DeviUe are in MS. Lat. n. a. 1244 and MS. Ft. n. a. 6191. A working list of Richard's charters is given by Cartellieri, Philipp II. August, ii. 288-301, iii. 217-233. 209 Tardif, Tres Ancien Coviumier, pp. Ixv-hxii; see, however, VioUet, in His- toire littiraire, xxxiii. 47-49. No Norman court rolls have been preserved from this period. 194 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS known, Normandy has its place in the great series of continuous records which begin with this reign, the charter rolls, patent rolls, and liberate rolls, from which material a separate set of Norman rolls was also drawn ofif.^^" At no period are the workings of administration in the Norman duchy so well known as just before its faU. At no time, one is tempted to add, are they so little worth knowing, save for the illustrations they afford of the government of Henry II. What can be seen only fragmentarily or in outline in his reign is now revealed in explicit detail — the work of the Exchequer and camera, the activity of the royal clerks and Ser- jeants, the king's wines and the queen's furs, the royal prisoners and the royal sport, the control over trade and shipping, the strongholds upon which Richard lavished his treasure, the loans and exactions of John. The itinerant justices which had existed since Henry I first meet us by this name vmder John; ''^ the writs presupposed in the earlier Exchequer RoUs can now be read in the Rotuli de contrabrevibus?^ What they offer, however, is new examples, not new principles: there is no evidence of any change in the system of Henry II. The mechanism which in England " was so strong that it would do its work though the king was an absentee, "21' was in Normandy strong enough to work though the king was present. Even John could not destroy it or seriously weaken it. It would be rash to assert that the fifteen years of Richard and John were not in some degree years of development in Normandy, especially in the field of law, but there is no evi- dence that they were years of innovation. What was strong and permanent in Norman law and Norman government had been written in before. From an institutional point of view, the inter- est of these two reigns lies rather in the transition from Angevin to Capetian administration, and it is worthy of note that it is the conditions anterior to 1190, not those of 1204, which the inquests 21" Rotuli Charlarum, 1199-1216 (1837); Rotuli Litlerarum Patentium, 1201- 1216 (183s); Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis regnante Johanne (1844); Rotuli Normanniae in Turri Londinensi assenati (1835); all edited by Hardy foi the Record Commission. The last is reprinted ia M. A. N., xv. 89-136. 2'i Rotuli Chartarum, p. SQ! Rotuli Normanniae, pp. 20, 97. ^^ Rotuli Normanniae, pp. xv, 22-37, 45-98. "' Pollock and Maitland, i, 169. HENRY II 195 of Philip Augustus seek to establish."^ What the new rulers of Normandy preserved and imitated was the work of Henry II and the state-builders who preceded him.^*^ To their Capetian successors the Norman rulers handed over a t3^e of weU organized and e:^dent government such as they had also developed in England. In the fields of finance, judicature, and military organization the modem features of this state, as of "^its contemporaries in Aragon and Sicily, stood out in sharp relief against the feudal background of the twelfth century. Like theirs, its institutions set strongly in the direction of centralization and royal authority. Unlike them, it had also an element which, while as yet royal, possessed great importance for the future in the development of more popular institutions, the sworn inquest which was to become the jury, the jury of England and of 'king- less cormnonwealths beyond the seas.' The special interest of the jury in the history of legal procedure and representative government sets it apart for special treatment in the following chapter. ^" See Delisle, Cartulaire normand, nos. iii, 120, 124; H. F., xxiv, preuves, nos. 10, 21, 22, 39, 69. ^^ H. Jenkinson's valuable paper on The Financial Records of the Reign of King John (fa Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, 191 7, pp. 244-300) reached me too late for discussion in this chapter. It makes new suggestions concerning the proc- esses ol the Norman Exchequer, touching upon the problems of Thomas Brown and Richard of Ilchester, and ascribing noteworthy administrative changes to the reign of John. CHAPTER VI THE EARLY NORMAN JURY' The Continental derivation of the institution of trial by jury is now generally accepted by scholars. First demonstrated in 1872 by Brunner in his masterly treatise on the origin of juries,^ this view has at length triumphed over the natural disinclination of Englishmen to admit that the palladium of their liberties " is in its origin not English but Prankish, not popular but royal." ' What- ever one may think of the Scandinavian analogies, there is now no question that the modem jury is an outgrowth of the sworn inquests of neighbors held by command of the Norman and Angevin kings, and that the procedure in these inquests is in all essential respects the same as that employed by the Frankish rulers three centuries before. It is also the accepted opinion that while such inquests appear in England immediately after the Nor- man Conquest, their employment in lawsuits remains exceptional imtil the time of Henry II, when they become, in certain cases, a matter of right and a part of the settled law of the land. From this point on, the course of development is reasonably clear; the obscure stage in the growth of the jury lies earlier, between the close of the ninth century, when ' the deep darkness setties down ' over the Frankish empire and its law, and the assizes of Henry II. Information concerning the law and institutions of this interven- ing period must be sought mainly in the charters of the time, and ' Revised and expanded from A. E. R., viii. 613-640 (1903). 2 H. Brunner, Die Enisiehung der SchwurgericMe (Berlin, 1872). Brunner's re- sults are accepted by Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 652 ff.; Pollock and Mait- land, History of English Law, i. 138 ff.; J. B. Thayer, Development of Trial by Jury, ch. ii; cf. W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, i. 145 f.; J. Hatschek, Englische Verfassungsgeschichte (Munich, 19J3), p. 123 f. Valm, Ledtic deNormandie (igro), pp. 194-220, uses Pollock and Maitland and a few new documents, but makes no use of Brunner or of this chapter as first published in 1903. M. M. Bigelow, The Old Jury, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xlix. 310-327 (1916), deals with other questions. Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, pp. 6-8, emphasizes the Scandinavian element in the jury of presentment. ' Pollock and Maitland, i. 142. 196 THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 1 97 it is upon their evidence that Brunner based his conclusions as to the persistence of the Prankish system of inquest in Normandy. Unfortunately this great historian of law was obliged to confine his investigations to the materials available at Paris, and while further research tends to confirm most of the iaferences which his sound historic sense drew from the sources at his disposal, it also shows the need of utilizing more fully the docxunents preserved in Norman libraries and archives. For the jury, as for other aspects of Norman institutions, these are not abundant, but they enable us to determine some questions which Brunner raised and to illustrate more fully the earlier stages in the development of recog- nitions. The most important body of evidence, the cartulary of Bayeux cathedral known as the Livre noir, is now accessible in print,* though imfortunately in an edition marred by many inac- curacies of transcription and defects in dating the docmnents, so that its evidence can now be subjected to careful analysis and verification. * AntiqiMS Cartulanus Ecdesiae Baiocensis (Liwe noir), edited by V. Bourrienne, (Sod6t6 de I'Histoire de Normandie, Rouen and Paris, 1902-1903). Through the courtesy of the abb6 Deslandes I had ample opportunity to examine the MS. at the cathedral in 1902 and again in 1905. A defective analysis of the cartulary was published by Lfichaudfi d'Ardsy, M. A. N., viii. 435-454, and extracts from it are in his papers at the Bibliotheque Nationale (MS. Lat. 10064) and in the transcripts made by him for the English government and preserved at the Public Record Office (' Cartulaire de la Basse Normandie,' i. 46-53). It would be hard to find anything more careless and unintelligent than this portion of L6chaud6's copies, which form the basis of the analyses in Round's Calendar (no. 1432 ff.). As a specimen may be cited his account of nos. 34 to 42 of the cartulary: " Suivent neuf autres brefs du mfime roi Henry 11 qui n'oEErent maintenant pas plus d'int&fit que les vingt-six prfic&ientes." As a matter of fact only three of these documents emanate from Henry II, three being of Henry I, one of Geoffrey, one of Robert, earl of Gloucester, and one of Herbert Poisson; while three of the documents are of decided impor- tance in relation to the Norman jury. Some use was made of the Liwe noir by Stapleton in his edition of the Exchequer Rolls and by DeUsle in his essay on Nor- man finance in the twelfth century (5. ^. C, x-xiii). Brunner used Delisle's copies, from which he published numerous extracts in his Sckwurgerichte. Sixteen of the documents of most importance for the history of the jury are printed from the Lon- don copies by M. M. Bigelow in the appendix to his History of Procedure (London, 1880), nos. 40-55, but without any serious effort to determine questions of date and authorship (cf. Brunner in Zeitschrift der SavignySHftung, Germ. Abt., ii. 207). The other Bayeux cartularies preserved at Bayeux {Livre noir de I'SvlchS, MSS. 206-208) and Paris (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1828, 1925, 1926, the last two formerly at Cheltenham) throw no further light on the jury. 198 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS One of the most interesting problems in the history of the jury is to determine how and when the procedure by recognition ceased to be an exclusive privilege of the king and became part of the regular system of justice. This extension of the king's preroga- tive procedure may have been made " bit by bit, now for this class of cases and now for that," ^ but Brunner believes it can have been accomplished only by a definite royal act or series of acts.* The jurists refer to the recognition as a royal favor, an outgrowth of equity, a relief to the poor, while the very name of assize by which the recognition came to be known points to the royal ordi- nance, or assize, by which it was introduced. The author of this ordinance he considers to have been Henry II. The whole ma- chinery of the various assizes appears in well developed form in the treatise ascribed to GlanviU and written near the close of Henry's reign, whereas none of them has been traced in England back of 1 164, when the assize utrum makes its appearance in the Constitu- tions of Clarendon. A charter of King John seems to place the introduction of recognitions in his father's reign, and one of Henry's own writs refers to the grand assize as ' my assize.' The English assizes cannot, then, be older than Henry's accession in 1 1 54; they may be somewhat yoimger. When we turn to Nor- mandy, we find likewise a full-grown system of recognitions in existence in the later years of the twelfth century, as attested by the earliest Norman customal,the Tres Ancien Coutumier, and the numerous references to recognitions contained in the Exchequer Rolls of 1 180 and the following years.' Between these records and GlanviU there is Uttle to choose in point of time, and priority might be claimed for England or for Normandy with equal inconclusiveness. Brunner, however, discovered in the Bayeux cartulary three docimients which not only antedate any mention of assizes so far noted in English sources, but also, he maintained, afford clear proof that the regular establishment of the procedure by recogni- tion was the work of Henry II as duke of Normandy before he ° Pollock and Maitland, i. 144. ' Ch. xiv, " Die EinfUhrung des ordentlichen Recognitionsprocesses." ' Supra, Chapter V, note igo. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 1 99 ascended the EngKsh throne. One of these documents, issued in the name of Henry as king and belonging to the year 1156, orders William Fitz John to hold a recognition, by means of the ancient men of Caen, with reference to the rights of the bishop of Bayeux at Caen, and to do the bishop fuU right according to Henry's assize (secundum assisam meam).^ The other two writs rim in the name of a duke of Normandy and count of Anjou whose name is left blank in the cartulary. One of them ' directs two of the duke's justices to determine by recognition, secundum asisiam meam, who was seized of certain fiefs in the time of Henry I; the other commands another justice to hold recognition throughout his dis- trict, secundum assisiam meam, concerning- the fiefs of the bishop of Bayeux, and at the same time threatens one of the bishop's tenants with such a recognition unless he gives up a knight's fee wrongfully withheld from the bishop.*" While the author of the second and third of these docimients (nos. 25 and 24) is not named, the style of duke of Normandy and count of Anjou was used only by Geoffrey Plantagenet and by Henry 11 between his father's death in 1151 and his coronation as king in 1154." That the duke in question was not Geoffrey, Brunner was led to main- tain from the recurrence of the phrase assisa mea in the writ of Henry relating to Caen; if ' my assize ' meant Henry's assize in the one case, it must have meant his assize in the other.*^ Inas- ' Liwe noir, no. 27; Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 393, no. 48; La Rue,. Essais historiques sur la vUle de Caen, i. 37s; Brunner, p. 302, no. i; Round, Calen- dar, no. 1443; Delisle-Berger, no. 21. Brunner places the document between 1156 and 1159; the king's itmerary fixes it in October 1156. For the text and a fuller discussion of this and the two other documents see below, pp. 209-214. ' Livre noir, no. 25; Bigelow, p. 393, no. 47; Brunner, p. 302, no. 2; Dellsle, Henri II, p. 138, no. 6 ; not in Round. " Livre noir, no. 2^; Bigelow, p. 392, no. 46; Brunner, p. 302, no. 3; Round, no., 1439; Stapleton, Magni Rotuli, i, p. xxxiv; Delisle, p. 137, no. s- " Henry received the duchy of Normandy from his father in 1150 and became count of Anjou on his father's death, 7 September ri5i. His marriage with Eleanor in May 1152 gave him the additional title of duke of Aquitaine, but he did not take this style in his charters until 1153, so that its absence does not prove a doctmient to be anterior to his marriage: seeDelisle, pp. 120-133. Nos. 24and2S,ifof Henry, would fall between 1151 and 1153; Brunner places them between 1150 and 1152. ^ Schwurgerichle, p. 303 and note, where the silence of no. 39 in the Livre noir is also urged. Brunner's conviction seems to have been fortified by the authority of Delisle (see Zeitschrift der SamgnySlifUmg, Germ. Abt., ii. 207), although Delisle 200 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS much as the assize referred to is obviously a general ordinance concerning the procedure by recognition, the introduction of this form of procedure is to be ascribed to its author, the young duke Henry II. Such is the essence of Bruimer's argiunent, which hinges upon two points: the meaning of the phrase assisa mea, and the author- ship of the two anonymous writs, nos. 24 and 25. In the matter of authorship Brunner, while confident of his interpretation — and his confidence seems to have grown into certitude after the pub- lication of the Entstekung^^ — stiU admitted that a final decision was impossible before the rich treasures of the Livre noir should be accessible in print. Now that the published cartulary lies before us, it appears that while the editor follows Bnumer in ascribing " the critical documents to Henry II, he brings no new evidence to Kght; the name of the duke does not appear in the printed text. Fortunately, however, a close examination of the manuscript of the cartulary reveals something more. Those familiar with the habits of mediaeval scribes are aware that when, as here, the initial letter was left blank for the rubricator, it was usual to give him some indication of the omitted letter by marking it lightly in the blank space or on the margin." Now an attentive examina- tion of the well thumbed margins of the Livre noir shows that the initial was clearly indicated in a contemporary hand, and that not only in nos. 24 and 25 but in ten other documents left anonymous in the edition '* the initial is G. The author of the writs in ques- had formerly assigned no. 24 to Geoffrey (B. £. C, x. 260, note 2) and in his last work {Henri II, p. 137 f .) comes out decisively for Geoffrey's authorship. Round, who does not calendar no. 25, ascribes no. 24 to Geoffrey {Calendar, no. 1439). " In 1896 in a review of Pollock and Maitland he says: " Nach Lage der Urkun- den des Liber niger capituli Baiocensis ist es zweifeUos, dass die Einfuhrung der Recognitionen in der Normandie 1150-1152 stattfand." Zeilschrift der Savigny- Stiftung, Germ. Abt., xvii. 128. Cf. ibid., ii. 207; Holtzendorff, EncydopMie der Rechtswissenschaft, edition of 1890, p. 325; Political Science Quarterly, xi. 537; Brunner, GeschicMe der engUschev Rechtsquellen (1909), p. 65. " Where they have often been cut off in binding. " Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 39, 43, 44, 89, 90, 100. Throughout the cartulary the initial letter of charters is again and again indicated in this way, only in most of the other cases the rest of the first word was written out in the text, so that the missing letter could readily be supplied without recovirse to the margin. The charters of Henry II regularly (no, 436 seems to be the only exception) have somethmg more TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 20I tion was accordingly not Henry, but his father Geoffrey. ' My assize ' was Geoffrey's assize io the first instance, even if the ex- pression was later adopted by Henry; and if Brunner's contention is sound as to the conclusion to be drawn from the phrase, it was Geoffrey Plantagenet who first established the recognition as a regular form of procedure in Normandy. In continuing the em- ployment of this procedure in Normandy and in extending it to England Henry II was simply carrying out the policy begim by his father. This conclusion necessarily follows if we accept Brun- ner's premises, but one of them, the phrase assisa mea, requires further investigation. Before undertaking, however, to analyze in detail the writs in which this expression is found, it is necessary to place them in their proper setting by tracing the history of the htigation concerning the rights and possessions of the bishop of Bayeux and by examining, as carefully as the material at hand permits, the procedure employed in the bishop's behalf. The see of Bayeiix, which had occupied a position of wealth and importance in the eleventh century, especially in the days of Bishop Odo, the famous half-brother of WilHam the Conqueror, suffered serious losses from the weakness and neglect of Odo's immediate successors, Thorold and Richard Fitz Samson.'* After Richard's death in Easter week, 1133,'' "in order that the church of the duke's name than the initial. In all the charters of Geoffrey, as well as in many others, there is also a marginal ' sic ' in what appears to be a somewhat later hand, evidently that of a mediaeval collator. In the Livre rouge (MS. Lat. n. a. 1828, f. 154) no. 17 of the Liwe noir likewise appears with the initial G indicated, this time in the blank space itself. M. Henri Omont, head of the department of manuscripts of the Bibliotheque Nationale, who happened to visit the chapter library just as I had finished examin- ing the manuscript of the Liwe noir in August 1902, had the kindness to verity my reading of the marginal initials. So now Delisle, Henri II, p. 137, supplemented by Berger, i. 3. In the corrections at the end of the second volume of his edition (1903) Bourrienne ascribes nos. 16-19, 24, 25, 89, and 90 to Geoffrey, but without giving any reason for changing his opinion and without referring to the marginal initials, to which the archivist had called his attention after my visit. The same silence is observed in his articles in the Reime catholique, xix (1909) , in which con- siderable use is made of the article inA.H. JR., viii. Valin, p. 209 f ., overlooks these corrections as well as my readings. '* On the history of the possessions of the see cf . Bourrienne's introduction to his edition of the Livre noir, p. zxziii ff.; and his articles on Phihp d'Harcourt in the Revue catholique, xix ff. " Ordericus Vitalis, v. 31, 202 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS of Bayeux might not be utterly ruined," Henry I ordered an in- quest to be held, on the oath of ancient men who knew the facts, to ascertain the holdings of the church as they had existed in Odo's time, with respect both to the demesne and to the fiefs of knights, vavassors, and rustics. Accordingly "all these were sworn and recognized and by the king's command restored to the said church," which was confirmed in its possessions by a royal charter. 18 -phe writ directing this inquest, the record of the returns from the bishop's demesne," and the confirmatory charter are referred to in documents of Geoffrey and Henry II, but they have not come down to us. Fortunately, however, the returns of the inquest relating to military tenures have been preserved and give an idea of the procedure employed. The recognition was held before the king's son, Robert, earl of Gloucester, sent to Bayeux for this purpose immediately after the death of Bishop Richard. Twelve '"' men were chosen, and sworn to tell the truth concerning the fiefs and services ; and their returns, besides stating the mihtary obligations of the bishop and the customary reliefs and aids due Mm, cover in detail the holdings and services of his knights and vavassors, beginning with the principal tenant. Earl Robert him- self, whose statement is incorporated verbally into their report.^^ 1' ' Ne f unditus ecclesia predicta destrueretur, provide Henricus rex, avus meus, instituit ut iutamento antiquorum hominum qui rem norant recognoscerentur tenedure iam dicte ecclesie sicut f uerant in tempore predict! Odonis, tam in domini- cis quam in feodis militum, vavassorum, et rusticorum. Ipsius equidem tempore hec omnia iurata simt et recognita et sepe dicte ecclesie precepto eius resignata et munimine carthe sue, quocumquemodo a possessione ecclesie alienataessent.reddita sunt et confinnata.' Writ of Henry II, Livre noir, no. 14; Brunner, p. 264; Bige- low, p. 389; Delisle-Berger, no. 33*- The inquest of Heniy I is also mentioned in a bull of Lucius II (Livre noir, no. 206) and in a later writ of Henry II {Und., no. 32). The date is fixed by a document of Geoffrey {ibid., no. 39): 'post mortem Ricardi episcopi, filii Sansonis.' " ' Recognitum est sicut continebatur in scripto quod factum fuerat secundum iuramentum quod rex Henricus antea fieri preceperat.' Livre noir, no. 39; Bigelow, p. 395. That this scriptum was not the same as the carta seems probable from the different word used and from the preservation of a separate record of the military tenures. *» Only eleven are given in the returns, but twelve are named in the Red Book of the Exchequer, the name of Helto the constable having been omitted from the Bayeux text. ^ The document was first published by Lfichaudfi from a private copy (now MS. Lat. 10064, f. 3) made from a register formerly in the episcopal archives: M. A. N., THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 203 How much was accomplished by these proceedings toward the recovery of the bishop's rights, we have no means of knowing. That they were for a time more carefully observed may perhaps be inferred from the fact that the profits of the see would naturally fall to the king during the interval of two years which elapsed before Henry's nominee to the vacant see could be consecrated,^^ and that during this period the king remained in Normandy.^' However, the new bishop, Richard of Kent, was a son of Robert, earl of Gloucester, and in the stormy times that followed the see seems to have been at the mercy of his father, who soon succeeded in usurping the greater part of its property.^* The reestablish- ment of the bishop's fortunes was the work of Richard's succes- sor, Philip d'Harcourt, bishop from 1142 to 1163, within whose episcopate the evidence of value for the early history of the Nor- man jury is chiefly found. ' Wise in the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God,' as the contemporary abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel describes him,^^ Philip seems to have begun his arduous struggle for the recovery of his possessions imme- diately upon his accession, and to have sought from the beginning the support of the papacy. When his sentences of excommunica- tion proved ineffective in spite of papal sanctions,^^ he made in 1 144 the first of a nimiber of journeys to Rome," and 16 May of viii. 425-431 ; also in Eeziers, Mimoires pour servir d I'Hat historique et gSographique du diocese de Bayeux, i. 142; and in H. F., xxiii. 699-702, which furnishes the best text. These returns are abo found in L6chaud6's copies in the PubUc Record Office (' Cartulaire de la Basse Normandie,' i. 53), but are not mentioned in Round's Calendar. Upon them is based the summary of services due from the bishop of Bayeux contained in the Red Book of the Exchequer (ed. HaU, pp. 645-647; E. F., xxiii. 699). On the importance of these returns for feudal tenure, see Chapter I, supra. ^ Ordericus, v. 31, 45. ^ See Appendix G. " Livre noir, no. 190. 2* Robert of Torigni, i. 344. Cf . also H. F., xiv. 503 ; and the Epistolae of Amulf of Lisieux (Migne, cci) , no. 6. The various possessions recovered by Philip's efforts are enumerated in a bull of Eugene III of 3 February 1153, Livre noir, no. 156. ^^ BuU of Innocent II, 18 June 1143 (probably), ibid., no. 195; bull of Celestine II, 9 January 1144, ibid., no. 179. " He appears in the Pope's presence three times under Eugene III, in 1145 {ibid., no. 173), in 1146 {ibid., no. 207), and in 1153 {ibid., no. 200). His presence at Rome when the bulls were obtained from Lucius II is also attested by a bull of IS May, in which he appears as a witness: Martfine and Durand, Thesaurus, iii. S87; Jaflfe-Lowenfeld, Regesta, no. 8609, 204 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS that year obtained from Pope Lucius 11 three important bulls which mark a turn in the fortunes of the church of Bayeux. One, addressed to Philip himself, emunerated and confirmed the ancient privileges and possessions of the see.^' The second com- manded the clergy and people of the diocese to render due obedience to the bishop, and, after annulling all grants and sales of church property made since the time of Bishop Odo, ordered its restitution to the church of Bayeux on the tenure by which it should be proved, on the oath of lawful witnesses, to have been held in Odo's time.''' The third bull was addressed to Geoffrey, count of Anjou, who had just succeeded in making himself master of Normandy, and directed him to cause the possessions of the see of Bayeux to be declared by the sworn statement of lawful men of the region, in the same manner as they had been recognized in the time of his father-in-law, Henry I.^" These bulls were re- issued in March 1145'^ by the successor of Lucius, Eugene III, who also rebuked the encroachments of various monasteries and individuals upon the rights of the bishop j'^ but from this point on we need concern ourselves no longer with the acts of the popes, but can turn our attention to the machinery of secular justice which they seem to have set in motion. For a study of the recognitions held> concerning the lands of the bishop of Bayeux imder Duke Geoffrey the evidence in the Liwe noir consists of ten documents emanating from Geoffrey or his justices,^' and a number of references to these and to others made in documents of Henry 11.'^ The inquests to which these writs '* Livre noir, no. 154. ''' Ibid., no. 157; Jafffi-Lowenfeld, no. 8612. "> Liwe noir, no. 206. " Only the reissues of the first two have come down to us {ibid., nos. 155, 173), but it is implied in no. 39 that the bull to Geoffrey was likewise repeated. '2 Ibid., nos. 190, 159 (the Pope's itinerary makes it clear that these are of 1145); 186, 199 (these two may be of either 1145 or 1146); 198 (clearly of 1146); 191 (of 1 147 — cf. the Pope's itinerary and no. 41); and 192. " Nos. 16, 17, 19, 24, 25, 39, 43, 44, 89, 90. Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 390 £f., nos. 43-47, 51-55- Cf . Brunner, Schwurgerichte, pp. 265 ff., 302. The first letter of each of these is in blank in the cartulary, but in every case G appears, on the margin. " Nos. 9, 12, 14, 32, 36; Delisle-Berger, nos. 33*, 13, 14, 72, 228. Of these only nos. 14 and 32 of the Liwe noir are in Bigelow (nos. 42 and 49). TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 205 and charters relate are of course subsequent to the conquest of Normandy by Geoffrey in 1 144 and anterior to his relinquishment of the duchy to his son Henry in 1150,^^ and it is altogether likely that they fall after the bulls of Eugene III of March 1145.='' The documents are issued at various places — Rouen, Le Mans, Bayeux — and witnessed by various of the duke's followers, but none of them are dated, and our knowledge of the itineraries of Geoffrey and his justices is not sufl&cient to permit of drawing close chronological limits. It is, however, probable that the proc- ess of recovering the bishop's possessions began soon after the papal bulls were received, and there is some reason for placing at least two of the docimients before the summer of 1147.'' Clearly the material which has reached us from these inquests is only a portion of what once existed, but it illustrates the different stages in the process of recognition and gives a fair idea of the procedure employed. Apart from the general order to try by sworn inquest all disputes which might arise concerning the bishop's fiefs,'* a document to which we shall return later, the duke must have pro- vided for a general recognition of the rights and possessions of the see, similar to the one which had been held under Henry I and to that which was afterward ordered by Henry II.'' This was " For these dates see Chapter IV, supra. " 'Predictorum patnim nostrorum Lucii pape et Eugenii litteris commoniti': Liwe noir, no. 39. " Galeran, count of Meulan, who appears as witness in no. 16 and as the justice who makes the return in no. 89, took the cross at Vfeelay in 1146 and followed Louis Vn on the second crusade (Robert of Torigni, i. 241 ; Chronicon Valassense, ed. Sommfinil, Rouen, 1868, pp. 7-9), so that he was away from Normandy from the summer of 1147 until 1149 or thereabouts. The bulls of Eugene III and other documents in the Liwe noir indicate that the active period in the recovery of the bishop's rights Ues between 1145 and 1147. See nos. 159, 189, 190, 199, 186, 207, 198, 191, r92 for the papal bulls, and for the other documents nos. 41, 52, 100-104. C. Port, in his Dictionnaire historique de Maine-et-Loire, ii. 255, says that Geof- frey himself went on the crusade in 1147, but I have found no authority for the statement. Geoffrey issued a charter for Mortemer at Rouen, 11 October 1147, whereas the crusaders started in June: Bulletin de la SociiU des Antiquaires de Normandie, xiii. 115, no. 2; Round, Calendar, no. 1405; supra, p. 134. " Liwe noir, no. 16. " The order of Geoffrey for a general recognition has not been preserved, but is clearly presupposed in his charter describing the results of the inquests (no. 39) and in the similar order of Henry II (no. 14). 206 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS supplemented, at least in some cases, by special writs issued to individual justices and relating to particular estates.*" After holding the local inquest each justice made a written return to the duke,*' and the results were finally embodied in ducal charters.*'' The course of procedure can be followed most clearly in the various documents relating to the rights of the bishop of Bayeux in the banlieue of Cambremer, a privileged portion of an enclave of his diocese lying within the limits of the diocese of Lisieux.*' The duke issued a writ to Reginald of Saint-Valery, Robert de Neufbourg, and aU his justices of Normandy, ordering them to hold a recognition on the oath of good men of the vicinage con- cerning the limits of the banlieue, its customs, forfeitures, and warren, and to put Bishop PhiKp in such possession of them as his predecessors had enjoyed imder WiUiam the Conqueror and Henry I." The inquest was held by the duke's justices, Robert de Neufbourg and Robert de Courcy, in the church of Saint- Gervais at Falaise. The jurors were chosen from the old and lawful men residing within the district in question, some of whom had been ofi&cers {servientes) of the banlieue in the time of King Henry, and care was taken to svimmon a larger nimiber than the justices ordinarily called, eighteen *^ in all, and to see that they represented the lands of different barons. On the basis of what they had heard and seen and knew the recognitors swore to the boundaries of the banlieue and to the bishop's toUs, fines, warren, and rights of justice. The justices then drew up returns addressed to the duke, stating the verdict found and the names of the jurors,** and on the basis of these the duke issued a charter *" Nos. 17, 24, 25. Similar writs are presupposed in nos. 89 and 90 and in no. 36. « Nos. 43, 44, 89, 90. ^2 Nos. 39 (cf. nos. 9, 12, 32), 19 (cf. 18); reference to such a charter in no. 36. ^ On the banlieue (leugata) in Normandy see supra, p. 49. On the enclave of Cambremer, B^ziers, M6moires sur le diocese de Bayeux, i. 28, iii. 152. " Liwe noir, no. 17; Liwe rouge, no. 401. *' Eighteen, according to the return of Robert de Neufbourg, but only seventeen names appear in the lists. ^« Nos. 43, 44 (cf. 32). There are some differences in the two returns: Bour- rienne, in Reime cathoUque, xix. 269 f . Each of these returns is in the name of both justices, but in one case the name of Robert de Neutbouig, and in the other that of THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 20J embodying the results of the recognition.*' The inquest concern- ing the other manors of the bishop was held in the choir of the cathedral at Bayeux by Richard de la Haie, Robert de Neufbourg, Robert de Courcy, and Enjuger de Bohun, specially deputed by the duke for this purpose. The evidence of the recognitors, com- prising several ancient and lawful men from each manor, was found to be in entire agreement with the written returns of the inquest held under Henry I, and a statement to this effect was embodied in a charter of the duke, which further specified as belonging to the bishop's demesne the estates of Carcagny and Vouilly, the fosse of Luchon, and " the Marsh and its herbage, including the reeds and rushes."*' A special charter was also issued for Carcagny and Vouilly.*' The bishop's forests were like- wise the object of an inquest, but the writ and charter issued in this case, though cited by Henry H,^" have not come down to us. It win be observed that all the documents so far examined re- late to the bishop's demesne, and that, while the preservation of a larger body of material from Geoffrey's time enables us to see more clearly the different stages in the process of recognition, there is no indication that the procedure differs in any way from the practice of Henry I's reign, which it professes to foUow. In- deed, so long as the subject-matter of the inquest is the bishop's demesne, it is not likely that there will be much advance in the direction of the trial jury; except that the rights in question are claimed for the bishop instead of for the king or duke, such recog- nitions as have been described show no significant difference from a fiscal inquest, such, for example, as the Domesday survey. The application of the inquest to the feudal possessions of the bishop, Robert de Courcy appears first. Brunner (p. 266) suggests the natural explanation that in each case the document was drawn up by the justice whose name appears first. The similar reports of the recognition in regard to Cheffreville (nos. 89, 90) are made by the justices individually. *' No. 39, where the facts with regard to Cambremer are set forth at length along with the returns from other domains, the two justices appearing among the witnesses. References to this recognition are also made in nos. 9, 12, 32, and> 156. *8 No. 39, end. *' No. 19; Brunner, p. 268. Cf. also the notification in no. 18 of the quitclaim of the fosse of Luchon. «» No. 36; Ddiale-Beiger, no. 14. 208 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS on the other hand, brings us a step nearer the later assizes. There is, it is true, no distinction in principle between recognizing the bishop's demesne and recognizing his fiefs; but inasmuch as dis- putes between lord and tenant constitute a large proportion of the cases arising under the later assizes, the submission of any such controversy to the sworn verdict of neighbors is a movement away from the inquest that is primarily fiscal, and toward the general application of the inquest to suits concerning tenure. Whether Geoffrey also imitated the example of Henry I in order- ing a general inquest with regard to the fiefs of the bishop does not clearly appear. Henry H indicates that such was the case," and an extant writ directs one of the duke's justices to have the bishop's fief in his district recognized,'" but no set of returns for the fiefs has been preserved, and the compiler of the list of the bishop's tenants in the Red Book of the Exchequer went back to the returns of the inquest of Henry I.^' There is, however, another writ of Geoffrey relating to the bishop's fiefs which deserves care- ful attention. It is addressed to all his barons, justices, bailiffs, and other faithful subjects in Normandy, and provides that " if a dispute shall arise between the bishop and any of his men con- cerning any tenement, it shall be recognized by the oath of lawful men of the vicinage who was seized of the land in Bishop Odo's time, whether it was the bishop or the other claimant; and the verdict thus declared shall be firmly observed unless the tenant can show, in the duke's court or the bishop's, that the tenement came to him subsequently by inheritance or lawful gift."" Here " Livre noir, no. 14. '' Ibid., no. 24. '^ Pp. 645-647; H. P., xxiii. 699. " ' Yolo et predpio quod si de aliqua tenedura orta fuerit contentio inter episco- pum et aliquem de suis homrnibus, per iuramentum legitimonim hominum vidnie in qua hoc fuerit sit recognitum quis saisitus inerat tempore Odonis episcopi, vel ipse episcopus vel ille cum quo erit contentio; et quod inde recognitum fuerit firmiter teneatur, nisi ille qui tenet poterit ostendere quod tenedura ilia in manus suas postea venerit iure hereditario aut tali donatione que iuste debeat stare, et hoc in curia episcopi vel in mea.' Livre noir, no. 16; Bigelow, p. 390, no. 43; Brunner, p. 265. It is also provided that no officer shall enter upon the bishop's lands, for judicial or other purposes, except in accordance with the practice of King Henry's time. The writ is witnessed at Rouen by the count of Meulan, so that it must be anterior to the summer of 1147 or, what is much less likely, subsequent to his return from the East in 1149 or thereabouts. TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 209 we have something new, so far as existing sources of infonnation permit us to judge. Instead of a general inquest to be held once for aU by the king's officers to ascertain the tenure of the bishop's fiefs, the writ in question confers a continuing privilege — in any controversy that may arise between the bishop and any of his men the procedure by sworn inquest shall be applied. The remedy is designed for the benefit of the bishop, not of his tenants; no attempt is made to deprive the bishop of his court or extend the competence of the court of the duke; but the establishment of the principle that, not merely in this case or in that case, but in any case between the bishop and one of his tenants the oath of lawful neighbors shall decide, is a considerable advance in the extension of the dtike's prerogative procedure to his subjects.** It is in the light of this document that we should read the two writs of Geoffrey which make mention of the duke's assize. As they were both witnessed at Le Mans by Payne de Clairvaux** and appear together in the cartulary, it is probable that they were issued about the same time. One of them, resembling the later Praecipe quod reddat, is directed to Enjuger de Bohun, this time not as one of the king's justices but as in wrongful possession of two fiefs of the bishop of Bayeux at VierviUe and Montmartin. He is ordered to relinquish these to the bishop and to refrain from further encroachments; unless the fiefs are given up, Geoffrey's justice Richard de la Haie is directed to determine by recognition, in accordance with the duke's assize, the tenure of the fief in King Henry's time and to secure the bishop in the possession of the rights thus found to belong to him. The writ adds: " I likewise command you, Richard de la Haie, throughout your district *^ to ^ In such cases, too, the writ could be issued in the duke's name without the necessity of his initiative in every case. " An Angevin knight, who was one of Geoffrey's favorite companions (Halphen and Poupardin, Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, pp. 178, 207) and frequently ap- pears as a witness to his charters, e. g., Roimd, Calendar, no. 1394; MSS. Dom Housseau in the Bibliotheque Nationale, iv, nos. 1503, 1567, 1387, 1614; Delisle, Henri II, p. 410. " The proof that Geoffrey is the author of this writ is of importance in connec- tion with this passage because of its bearing upon the date of the institution of bailiae in Normandy. For the discussion on this point see Stapleton, i, p. xxriv; Delisle in B. £, C, x. 260; Brunner, p. 157; supra, Oiapter IV, note 117. 2IO NORMAN INSTITUTIONS have the bishop's fief recognized according to my assize and to see that he possesses it in peace as it shall be recognized according to my assize."^ The other writ is addressed by Geoffrey to his jus- tices Guy de Sable and Robert de Courcy, and directs them to ascertain by recognition, according to his assize, who was seized of the fief and service of William Bersic in King Henry's time, and if it is recognized that the bishop of Bayeux was then seized thereof, to secure his peaceful possession. They are also com- manded to determine by recognition, according to the duke's assize, who was seized of the land of Cramesnil and Rocquancourt in Henry's time, and if it be recognized that Vauquelin de Cour- seulles was then seized of it, to secure him in peaceful possession and prohibit Robert Fitz Emeis and his men from doing him injury, at the same time compelling them to restore anything they may have taken from the estate since the duke issued his precept in relation thereto.'' " ' G. dux Normannorum et comes Andegavie E[ngengero] de Buhvin salutem. Mando tibi et precipio quod dimittas episcopo Baiocensi in pace feudum militis quod Robertas Marinus de ipso tenebat Wirenille et feudum suum quod Willelmus de Moiun de ipso apud Mmunartin tenere debet, quod hue usque iniuste occupasti; quod nisi feceris, precipio quod iusticia mea R[icardus] de Haia secundum assisiam meam recognosci faciat predictimi feodum episcopi quomodo antecessores sui tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici, et sicut recognitum fuerit ita episcopum in pace tenere faciat. Et te, Engengere, precor ne de aliquo iniuste fatiges episcopum, quia ego non paterer quod de iure suo aliquid iniuste perderet. Tibi etiam, Ricarde Lahaia, precipio quod per totam bailiam tuam, secundum assisiam meam, recog- nosci facias feudimi episcopi Baiocensis, et ipsum in pace tenere sicut recognitum fuerit secundum assisiam meam. Teste Pag[ano] de Clar[is] Vallpbus], apud Ceno- manos.' iinre woir, no. 24; Stapleton, i, p. xxxiv; Brunner, pp. 80, 302 ; Bigelow, p. 392, no. 46; Round, Calendar, no. 1439. '' ' G. dux Norm[annorum] et comes Andegavie G[uidoni] de Sableio et R[oberto] de Curc[eio] iusticiis suis salutem. Mando vobis quod sine mora recognosci fadatis, secundum asisiam meam, de feodo Guillelmi Bersic et de servicio eiusdem quis inde saisitus erat tempore regis Henrid; et si recognitum fuerit quod episcopus Baiocensis inde saisitus esset vivente rege Henrico, ei habere et tenere in pace f aciatis. Preterea vobis mando quod recognosd faciatis, secundum asisiam meam, de terra de Cras- mesnil et de Rochencort quis inde saisitus erat tempore regis Henrici; et si recog- nitimi fuerit quod Gauquelinus de Corceliis inde saisitus esset eo tempore, ei in pace tenere faciatis et prohibete Roberto filio Emeis ne aliquid ei forifaciat neque sui homines; et si Robertus filius Emeis sive sui homines aliquid inde ceperint, post- quam precepi in Epipphania Domini quod terra esset in pace donee iuraretur cuius deberet esse, reddere faciatis. Teste P[agano] de Clar[is] Vallpbus], apud Ceno- manos.' LivrenoW, no. 2$; Brunner, p. 302; Bigelow,p. 393, no. 47; not in Round. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 211 If we compare these writs with the only other special writ of Geoffrey in the Livre noir, that directing the recognition concern- ing the banlieue of Cambremer,*" we find the essential difference to be that whereas in the case of Cambremer it is expressly pro- Added that the facts shall be ascertained by the oath of good men of the vicinage (faciatis recognosci per sacramentum proborum hominum de ■uicinio), in the two other writs no statement is made regarding the procedure except that the facts are to be found according to the duke's assize (recognosci faciatis secundum asisiam meavi). The same difference appears in the writs of Henry II for Bayeux; indeed, in a single doctunent provision is made for the determination of one question by the verdict of ancient men, and of others in accordance with the assize." The absence from the cartulary of any returns from the justices who were instructed to proceed in accordance with the assize precludes our comparing the procedure; the analogy of the practice in re- gard to the bishop's demesne and in the matter of his feudal rights at Cheffreville ^^ leads us to look for the sworn inquest of neighbors in these cases as well. The word ' assize,' as Littleton long ago pointed out,'' is an ambiguous term. It seems to have meant originally a judicial or legislative assembly, from which it was extended to the results of the deliberations of such an assem- bly, whether in the form of statute or of judgment, and was then carried over from the royal or ducal assizes which established the procedure by recognition to that form of procedure itself.** In the writs in question ' my assize ' may refer to an ordinance of Geoffrey regulating procedure, it may denote the procedure so » No. 17. '^ No. 27; Delisle-Berger, no. 21. ^ Nos. 89 and go (Bigelow, pp. 398, 399, nos. 54, 55; Brunner,p. 269, ascribing them to Henry 11), the returns made by the duke's justices, Galeran of Meulan and Reginald of Saint- Valery, of an inquest held in regard to the respective rights of the bishops of Bayeux and Lisieux at Cheffreville. The bull of Eugene III (no. 156) which enumerates the possessions recovered by Philip d'Harcourt mentions the recovery of fiefs at Ducy and LouviJres by judgment of Geoffrey's coiu-t, but noth- ing is said of the procedure and none of the documents are preserved. "^ Tenures, c. 234. " Brunner, p. 299. Cf. Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 614; Murray's Dic- tionary, s. 11. 212 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS established, or it may conceivably mean only the prerogative pro- cedure of the duke — his not in the sense of origination but of exclusive possession. Brunner's contention, that the phrase can refer only to an ordinance by which a particular sovereign intro- duced the procedure by recognition as a regular remedy through- out Normandy, involves a number of assimiptions which need proof. Even if it be admitted that the assize here mentioned was a ducal ordinance, the use of the same expression by Geoffrey and Henry 11 stands in the way of ascribing the exclusive credit for the act to either of these rulers, while it is still unnecessary to assume that the supposed ordinance covered the whole duchy. There is nothing in either of the writs which goes beyond the sphere of the bishop's interests,^^ and unless new evidence can be brought forward for other parts of Normandy, we have no right to conclude that the supposed ordinance affected any one except the bishop of Bayeux. Now we have just such a special privilege for the bishop in the writ providing for the use of the sworn in- quest in disputes between the bishop and his men concerning any tenement.*^ This covers exactly the sort of cases which appear in the two special writs that mention the duke's assize, and may well be the assize to which they refer.*' So far the hypothesis that the general writ preserved in the cartulary is the much-discussed assize of Geoffrey seems to meet the conditions of the case, but it is subject to modification when we examine the documents in which the word assize appears under Henry 11. *' It is not specifically stated in no. 25 that Cramesnil and Rocquancourt were fiefs of the bishop, but we know from other sources that Cramesnil was, and they were evidently connected. See the inquest of Henry I (M. A. N., viii. 427; H. F., xxiii. 700; Bfoiers, Memoires, i. 144); also B£ziers, i. 153; and C. Hippeau, Dk- iionnaire topographique du Calvados, p. 90. «« No. 16. " There is, it is true, a discrepancy in the periods set as the basis of the recogni- tion; in no. 16 the lands are to be held as in Bishop Odo's time, while in nos. 24 and 25 the tenure of Henry I's time is to be established. The difference is, however, of no special importance; the documents in the cartulary do not appear to make any sharp distinction between the two periods, and the writs may well have varied ac- cording to circumstances. The returns concerning the feudal rights at Cheffreville (nos. 89, 90) go back to the tenure of Henry's time, those relating to Cambremer mention both his and Odo's, while in the latter portion of no. 16 the practice of Henry's time is to be observed in regard to the immunity of the bishop's lands. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 213 For the reign of Henry II the Livre noir yields much less than for that of Geoffrey, under whom the bishop would seem to have succeeded in regaining the larger part of his lands and privileges. The use of the sworn inquest continues — indeed Henry was compelled to employ it repeatedly for the recovery of his own ducal rights, which had suffered severely during the anarchy imder Stephen,*^ so that we hear of inquests held in the early years of his reign to ascertain the duke's demesne and customs at Bayeux *' and in the Bessin." On behalf of the bishop of Bayetix Henry issued not later than 1153 a general precept, which, after reciting the proceedings imder Henry I and Geoffrey, directed the recognition of the bishop's demesne, fiefs, Uberties, and customs by the oath of ancient and lawful men acquainted with the facts, as they had been sworn to in the time of his father and grandfather.'^ In 1 1 56 a similar writ was issued with reference to the bishop's forests,'" and while no new recognition seems to have been held for the banlieue of Cambremer, the justices were repeatedly in- structed to secure the observance of the bishop's rights there as defined in Geoffrey's timeJ' The bishop's multure at Bayeux and his rights in the ducal forests of the Bessin were likewise the object of a recognition in 1156,'* and still other inquests related to his rights at Isigny and Neuilly '^ and his possessions at Caen. The only matter deserving special remark among these various inquests is foxmd in the writ of 11 56 touching the rights at Caen, which, like the others, is addressed to the chief local officer, William Fitz John, and runs as follows: " I command you to have recognized by ancient men of Caen from how many and which houses in Caen the bishops of Bayeux were wont to have «8 Cf. Robert of Torigni, i. 284. " Livre noir, nos. 13, 138; Delisle-Berger, nos. 68*, 76*; M. A. N., vii. 179. "• Liwe noir, no. 35; Delisle-Berger, no. 38. " Livre noir, no. 14; Bigelow, p. 389, no. 42; Brunner, p. 268; Delisle-Berger, no. 33*. '" Livre noir, no. 36; Delisle-Berger, no. 14. " Livre noir, nos. 9, 12, 32; Delisle-Berger, nos. 13, 72, 228. " Livre noir, nos. 28, 35; Delisle-Berger, nos. 22, 38. Cf. Chapter V, note 19, supra. '' Livre noir, no. 46 (also in Livre rouge, no. 46), subsequent to the accession of Bishop Henry in 1165. 214 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS rent and profits in the time of King Henry, my grandfather, and what services and customs they had from them. And you shall cause Philip, bishop of Bayeux, to possess the houses fully and justly and in peace according as the recognition shall determine. And you shall do him full right, according to my assize, in respect to the land where the bishop's bams used to stand, and full right in respect to the arable land by the water, according to my assize, and full right in respect to the tithes of woolens at Caen, accord- ing to my assize." '* Here we have again, and three times, the puzzling words secundum assisam meam, and Brunner drew from them the conclusion that Henry was the creator of recognitions in Normandy." The phrase is not found in the writ which seems to have been issued at the same time for the recognition of the bishop's multure and his rights in the forests of the Bessin, where, however, there is the difference that the rights in question touched the king's own privileges and were recognized by the Jurors specially appointed to swear to Henry's customs and demesne in the Bessin.'* No other Bayeux document referring to the duke's assize has been found, and there is nothing in this one to show that the assize included anything outside of the bishop's possessions or involved any method of procedure different from " the oath of old and lawful men who know the facts," as pre- scribed in the general order for the recognition of the bishop's " ' Henricus rex Anglie et dux Normannie et Aquitanie et comes Andegavie Wil- lelmo filio lohaiinis salutem. Precipio tibi quod facias recognosci, per antiques homines Cadomi, quot et quarimi domonmi in Cadomo episcopi Baiocenses solebant habere censum et redditus tempore Henrici regis avi mei, et que servicia et quales consuetudines inde tunc habebant; et sicut fuerit (MS. fuerat) recognitum, ita in pace et iuste et integre eas facias habere Philippo episcopo Baiocensi. Et plenum rectum ei facias de terra ubi grangee episcopi esse solebant (MS. esse bis) , secundum assisam meam; et plenum rectum ei facias de terra arabili que est iuxta aquam, secundum assisam meam; et plenum rectum ei facias de decimis (blank in MS.) et lanifeciorum de Cadomo, secundum assisam meam. Et nisi f eceris, Robertus de Novo Burgo faciat. Teste Toma cancellario apud Lemovicas.' Litre noir, no. 27; La Rue, Essais historigues sur la mile de Caen, i. 37s; Bigelow, p. 393, no. 48; Brunner, p. 302; Round, no. 1443 (incomplete); Delisle-Berger, no. 21. " Schwurgerichte, p. 303. " Writ in Livre noir, no. 28; returns, ibid., no. 33: ' per sacramenta iuratorum qui sunt constituti ad iurandas consuetudines meas et dominica mea de Baiocensi.' Delisle-Berget, nos, 2s, 38- THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 21 5 rights which was issued by Henry before he became king7' This general precept may not be the assize in question, but it certainly covers the ground of the special writ for Caen, and we are not obliged to infer that anything broader was meant by Henry's use of the term assize. Whether he also issued a general writ similar to that of Geoffrey providing for the regular use of the sworn inquest in suits between the bishop and his tenants, it is impos- sible to say. No such document has been preserved, nor do any of the documents of Henry's time in the Lime noir relate to cases where the fiefs of the bishop are concerned. Taken in themselves and interpreted in their relations to the other Bayeux dociunents, the three writs which contain the phrase secundum assisiam meam do not demonstrate Brimner's thesis that a system of recognitions was created throughout Nor- mandy by a ducal ordinance, whether of Henry II or of his father, for they do not necessarily take us beyond the bishopric of Bayeux and its possessions. On the other hand, there is nothing in the writs inconsistent with such a general ordinance, and any men- tion of a ducal assize elsewhere in Normandy would point clearly toward some more comprehensive measure establishing procedure by recognition. Such a reference to an assize meets us early in the reign of Henry II in connection with the monastery of Saint- fitienne de Caen. For this favored foundation of the Norman dukes a series of documents, unfortunately less numerous and less detailed than those extant for the see of Bayeux, records various recognitions held in the period between Henry's coronation as king and 1164. In two cases we have the reports of the justices who held the recognition,*" in others only the royal charter con- firming the results.'^ Thus in 1157 an inquest was held at Caen by " Livre noir, no. 14; Delisle-Berger, no. 33*. "' The charter of Robert de Neufbourg notifying the inquest at Dives (Valin, p. 267; cf. Deville, Analyse, p. 42), and the charter of Rotrou of fivreux and Regi- nald of Saint-Valery relating the recognition at Bayeux {M. A. N., xv. 197; Valin, p. 270). Robert's report on the inquest at Avranches was preserved in the lost cartulary summarized in Deville, Analyse, p. 18. On these justiciars see supra. Chapter V. " Charter of Henry II issued at Caen between 1156 and 1161: Delisle-Berger, no. 153; extracts in Valin, p. 268. There is also a parallel writ of the king, issued doubtless at the same time, in Delisle-Berger, no. 104; M, A. N., xv. 198. The 2l6 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS the seneschal of Normandy, Robert de Neufbourg, to determine the obligation of the abbey's men, with those of others, to carry in the king's hay at Bretteville and Verson.*'' Before his retire- ment in 1 1 59 the same seneschal held a detailed recognition at Dives-sur-Mer, on the oath of ten lawful men, respecting the rights of the abbot at Dives and Cabourg;*' a recognition at Avranches, " by the lawful men of the province," respecting freedom from toll in that city; *^ and a recognition concerning the abbey's rights and possessions at Rouen.** Before 1161 the bishops of fivreux and Bayeux and other justices hold an inquest concerning the abbey's rights over houses in its bourg at Caen,** and between 1161 and 1164 it was determined by recognition before the king's justices, in an assize at Bayeux, that various lands in Cristot and elsewhere were fiefs of Saint-£tienne.*' The subjects of these inquiries do not differ from those held for the bishop of Bayeux and others, nor is the procedure in any instance described specifically. One case, however, challenges our special attention. At Rouen " it was recognized that the monks should hold quit their meadows of Bapeaume, with respect to which William, son of Thetion de Fonte, who claimed the right to them {ius), failed as regards his claim and the decision of right before Robert and the barons of Normandy in the king's curia and as regards the assize which he had demanded with respect thereto." ** The account is brief, all too brief, for we have only argument of the editors that this is anterior to the death of Robert de Neufbourg in 1 159 applies equally to the longer charter. ^ Robert of Torigni, ii. 250, no. 34. ** Valin, p. 267; Deville, Analyse, p. 42. 8* ' Recognitum etiam fuit in plena assisia apud Abrincas per legales homines provincie ': Delisle-Berger, no. 153; Valin, p. 268; Deville, Analyse, p. 18, where it appears that the inquest was held by Robert. 86 Delisle-Berger, no. 153; Valin, p. 268. "' Delisle-Berger, no. 153; Valin, p. 268; Legras, Le hourgage de Cam, p. 75, note I. " M. A. N., rv. 197; Valin, p. 270. The original, with incisions for the seals of the two justiciars, is in the Archives of the Calvados, H. 1883. The date is fixed by the mention of Achard of Avranches (1161-1171) and Rotrou of fivreux, who was translated to Rouen in 1164 or 1165. 8' ' Et recognitum fuit quod predictis monachis remanserunt sua prata de Abapalmis quieta unde WiUelmus filius Thetionis de Fonte, qui in illis clamabat THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 217 the summary of the case in a royal charter of confirmation, and language so condensed cannot be rigorously interpreted. We should naturally interpret ius in the sense of ultimate right or title (maius ius) which it bears in the writs of the period; but it is clearly the claimant, William Fitz TMtion, who demands the assize, and there was no way known to the Anglo-Norman pro- cedure by which the plaintiff could demand an assize on the ques- tion of right.*' If title was the question at issue here, assisia might refer to the jury which the claimant might secure after the tenant had put himself upon the assize, the jury then rendering its verdict in spite of the claimant's default. It seems simpler, however, to hold, with Valin, that ius is here employed in a general rather than a technical sense, and that the question was one of possession. In any case the essential point is that the party which demanded the assize was the lay claimant, not the monas- tery, as in the other recognitions for Saint-fitienne. The assize in this instance, therefore, cannot be a special privilege enjoyed by an ecclesiastical establishment, since it is demanded against the monks, nor could such a claimant have put himself upon the assize imless this was a regular method of trial, such as the term comes to denote in England. This assize may, of course, be quite different from the assisia mea of the Bayeux docimients, for there is nothing to exclude the issuance of more than one ducal ordi- nance on the subject or, if we take assize merely in its procedural sense, the existence of more than one form of trial established by ducal initiative. Whatever the Bayeux assizes may have been, the assize in the case of Saint-Etienne is more significant, since it is clearly open to the ordinary lay claimant, even against a rehgious establishment protected by the duke. So far as it goes, it affords conclusive evidence that by 11 59 the prerogative procedure has been extended to subjects, at least for one class of cases, much as in the Enghsh assize of novel disseisin instituted in 1166. ius, defecit se de iure et de consideratione recti coram Roberto et coram baronibus Normamiie in curia regis et de assisia quam inde requisierat ': Valin, p. 268; Delisle-Berger, no. 153, from Carkdaire de Normandie, f. 2iv. " Glanvill, bk. ii; Tres Ancien Coutumier, c. 85; Brunner, Schwurgerichte, pp. 312-314; Valin, p. 213 f. Professor G. B.Adams has convinced me that Valin is probably correct in interpretmg ius in this passage as meaning possession only. 2l8 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS Another instance of what is apparently the ordinary and regular use of the recognition is found, but without any mention of an assize, in 1 159, when, in the king's court at Gavray, Osmimd, son of Richard Vasce, " on the oath of lawful men, proved his right ta the presentation of Mesnil-Drey and two sheaves of its tithe as his ancestors had always had them." Neither Osmimd nor his op- ponent, Ralph de la Mouche, was a privileged person, and this method of trial seems to have been resorted to in the king's court as a matter of course, and hence of right. The probability of some regulation of such suits in Normandy is rendered stronger by the discovery of traces of legislation by Henry in England, between 1154 and 1158, with reference to advowson and presen- tation.'" If we could accept the evidence of a charter of Henry for Saint-Evroul, apparently given between 11 59 and 1162," the existence of a form of recognition corresponding to the assize utrum would be established for Normandy in this period, at least two years before it appears in England. This document, however, which is suspicious in form,'^ does not correspond to the report of the case by the justiciar Rotrou,'* given between 1164 and 1166, 90 The notice of the suit is in Robert of Torigni, ii. 259; cf. supra, Chapter V, note 88. ' Sacramento legalium hominum ' may conceivably mean party witnesses^ but by this time it has become the usual phrase for the sworn inquest. For Ralph de la Mouche cf. a charter of 1158 in Pigeon, Le diocese d'Avranches, ii. 672. On Henry's early English legislation, see Appendix I. '^ Printed by me, from an incorrect copy from the cartulary of Saint-fivroul, MS. Lat. 1 loss, no. 24, in ^ . H. R., viii. 634. Also in the Registres du Trfisor des Chartes, JJ. 69, no. 194; Round, no. 641; Delisle-Berger, no. 214, where the date of Abbot Robert's accession, 1159, is overlooked in dating the docimient. 92 The charter combines the king's style of the latter half of the reign with a witness who caimot be later than 1162, and contains the suspicious phrase teste me ipso, which appears in two other fabrications of this period from Saint-fivroul (Delisle, nos. 347, 362; see pp. 226, 316 f.) and has not yet been found in an origi- nal charter of this reign (ibid., p. 226, where too much is made of the occurrence of the phrase in charters for different monasteries, since copyists or forgers might easily carry back a formula common in the succeeding reign). The language of the document is also unusual, quite unlike that of Rotrou's charter, which speaks of but five knights and reports the determination of more limited questions of title. As Henry's charter is also found in a vidimus of Matilda, daughter of the monas- tery's adversary in the suit (cartulary of Saint-£vroul, no. 426; Collection Lenoir, at Semilly, Ixxu. 17, Ixxiii. 467), its fabrication or modification cannot be placed more than a generation later. " ' Rotrodus Dei gratia Rothomagensis aichiepiscopus omnibus ad quos presens. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 219 and I believe it to contain a somewhat modernized version of the transaction, prepared in the later years of the twelfth century. Rotrou's charter says nothing of the question of lay fee or ahns, but adjudges to the monks, after sworn inquest, full right to the presentation, tithes, and lands belonging to the church in question. The conclusion that the employment of the recognition was extended and regularized by definite legislative act, rather than by a process of gradual development, is rendered probable, not only by the use of the word assize, but also by evidence of actual legislation in this same period with reference to the sworn inquest in other matters. In 1159 at his Christmas court at Falaise Henry, besides providing that the testimony of the vicinage should be required in support of charges brought by rural deans, commanded his own officers, in the monthly meetings of the local scriptum pervenerit et precipue ballivis domini regis salutem. Sciatis quod ex precepto domini regis quando per eum per totam Nonnaimiam iusticiam secularem exercebamus, miseratione divina time temporis Ebroicensem episcopatum regentes, in plena assisia apud Rothomagum dieJesto Sancte CecUie Garinus de Grandivalle ct Ricardus Faiel et Rogerus de Moenaio et Rogerus Goulaf re et Robertus Chevalier iuraverunt quod ecclesia Sancti Ebrulfi et abbas et monachi eius anno et die quo H. rex Alius Willebm regis fuit vivus et mortuus et postea usque modo presentationem beati Petri de Sap pacifice et quiete habuit in demosLaam cum omnibus decimis et aliis pertinenciis suis et masnagium Willelmi filii Hugonis cum omnibus pertinenciis suis tarn in terris quam in aliis rebus possedit. Ipsi vero milites se fecerunt ignorantes utrum cultura que Ardeneta noncupatur ad ius Sancti Ebrulfi vel ad ius domini de Sap verius pertineret, et tamen quandam acram terre in eadem cvdtura per eccle- siam Sancti Ebrulfi cultam fuisse per sacramentum se vidisse testati sunt. Post obitum veropredicti H. regis residuum predicte culture per abbatem Sancti Ebrulfi cultum fuisse prefati milites necnon et totam illam culturam ad abbatiam Sancti Ebrulfi pocius quam ad dominum de Sappo secundum oppinionem suam pertinere iuraverunt. Nos autem domini regis adimplentes mandatum de consilio baronum ipsius qui presentes erant presentationem predicte ecclesie cum decimis et aliis pertinenciis suis necnon et masnagium iam dictum cum cultura de Ardeneta et aliis omnibus, que sicut dictum est secundum formam regii mandati abbati et monachis eius recognita fuerunt, eisdem de' cetero in pace et quiete habenda et possidenda, licet nunquam amisissent, adiudicavimus. Testibus Amulto Lexoviensi episcopo, H[enrico] abbati Fiscannensi, Victore abbate Sancti Georgii de Bauchervilla, Gale- ranno comite Mellenti, comite Patricio, camerario de TancarviUa, Hugone de Gomaco, Roberto filio Geroii, Nicholao de StoteviUa, Godardo de Vallibus, Roberto filio Hamerid, Roberto de Varvic, Raginaldo de lerponvilla, Ricardo Beverel, Adam de Walnevilla.' MS. Lat. iioss. no- 172- A. H. R., xx. 38, note 93; now also in Delisle-Berger, i. 353. The discovery of this document led me to modify the view regarding an assize utrum which I had expressed in A. H. R., viii. 633 f. (1903). 220 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS courts, to " pronounce no judgments without the evidence of neighbors." '* The exact meaning of this comprehensive language does not appear from the paraphrase in our only source of infor- mation, the Bee annalist; it seems, not only to require such use of the accusing Jury in ecclesiastical courts as is prescribed in the Constitutions of Clarendon, but also to give it wider scope in the ducal courts, very likely by extending it to criminal accusations before the duke's local judges. Indeed from the language used {de causis similiter quorumlihet ventilandis) it is quite possible that the evidence of neighbors was there prescribed in civil cases as well. That the justices of Geoffrey and Henry II had by this time become familiar with this method of procedure appears from vari- ous scattered docmnents of the period. Thus a charter of Geoffrey in favor of Algar, bishop of Coutances, confirms the verdict of six jvirors rendered in accordance with the duke's writ at his assize at Valognes, to the effect that Robert Fitz Neal and his predeces- sors had held of the bishop and his predecessors whatever rights they had enjoyed in the churches of Cherbourg and Tourla- ville and their appurtenances.'* Another example of a recog- '^ ' De causis similiter quonimlibet ventilandis instituit ut, cum iudices singu- larum provinciarum singulis mensibus ad minus simul devenirent, sine testimonio vicinorum nichil iudicarent ' : Robert of Torigni, ii. i8o. Cf . Pollock and Maitland, i. 151. Stubbs says {Benedict of Peterborough, ii, p. lix): " This looks very like an instruction to the county court." On the ecclesiastical procedure, see infra, p. 226 f ., and Appendix I. " ' [G.] dux Normannie et comes Andegavie H. archiepiscopo et omnibus episcopis Normannie, baronibus, iusticiis, et omnibus suis fidelibus, salutem. No- tum sit vobis atque omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod in tempore meo et Algari Const[anciensis] episcopi fuit iuramento comprobatum per meum preceptum in assisia mea apud Valonias quod Robertus (MS. vob') filius Nigelli et omnes prede- cessores sui ab Algaro Constanciensi et ab aliis predecessoribus suis Constan[ciensi- bus] episcopis tenuerant quicquid in ecclesiis de Cesariburgo et de Torlavilla et in omnibus possessionibus ad iUas ecclesias pertinentibus habuerant. Hoc vero iuraverunt Ricardus de WauviUa, Willelmus monachus, Willelmus de Sancto Ger-' mano, Willelmus de Brioquevilla, Ricardus de Martinvast, Rob[ertus] de Valonis. Quare ego concedo quod hoc secimdum illorum iuramentum ratum sit et perpetuo teneatur. Testes vero huius concessionis sunt: R[icardus] cancellarius, Willelmus de Vernon, Engelg[erus] de Bouhon, Alexander de Bouhon, Jordanus Taysson, Robertus de Novo [Burgo], Robertus de Corceio, Joisfredus de Tur[onibus], G[au- fredus] de Cleer, P[ipinus] de Tur[onibus]. Apud Sanctum Laudum.' Cartidary B of the cathedral of Coutances, p. 350, no. 286. Here, as in most of the other docu- ments in this cartulary, the initial is left blank and not indicated, but in this case THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 221 nition in the duke's court, probably under Geoffrey and certainly before 1 153, is found in a ducal charter for the dean and chapter of Rouen declaring that their rights in the forest of AUermont, as in the time of Henry I, had been established before the duke by the oath of lawful knights, three of whom are mentioned by name.'* Between 1151 and 1153 we have a writ of Duke Henry ordering his justiciar, AmuK of Lisieux, and Robert of Montfort to cause the appurtenances of the church of Saint- Ymer to be recognized by lawful men.'' Another indication of the prevalence of this method of proof appears, along with clear evidence of the continued use of trial by battle,'* in the charters of Geoffrey and Henry for the town of Rouen, where, in providing that no citizen shall be held to wage combat against a hired cham- pion, it is prescribed that the fact of the champion's professional- ism shaU be determined on the oath of ten citizens of Rouen selected by the justice." With regard to the abbey of Savigny, it is supplied by a vidinvus of Philip Augustus in the same cartulary (p. 351, no. 288), printed in Delisle, Carkdaire normand, no. 162, which refers to this charter as ' autenticum G. ducis Kormannie, cuius mandato fuit recognitum in assisia apud Valonias.' This, the only surviving cartulary of Coutances, was still in the episcopal archives when I was permitted to examine it in 1902, but it has since been transferred to the departmental archives at Saint-Ld. By following L€chaud€ and overlooking the vidimus Roimd (Calendar, no. 960) was led to ascribe this charter to Henry II; so also Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 367, no. 9. The treatment of this document affords a good illustration of L€- chaudd's carelessness. Not only does he omit the last foiu: witnesses, but he quietly inserts Henry's name in his copies — " Henricus &" " in the ' Cartulaire de la Basse Nonnandie,' i. 129; " Henricus R." in MS. Lat. 10068, f. 88, no. 57. Brunner, p. 269, prints the essential portion of the charter and recognizes Geoffrey as its author; so now Delisle, Henri II, p. 509, no. 17* A; Delisle-Berger, i. 2. The lost cartulary A, of which a partial analysis is preserved in the archives, contained a copy of the vidimus which interpreted G as the initial of a duke William; the text as printed in Dupont, Histoire du Cotenlin, i. 466, is apparently derived from this soiu"ce. »« Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 7, p. 793; Valin, p. 266, where it is as- cribed to Henry 11; Delisle-Berger, no. 39*, where the possibility of Geoffrey's authorship is admitted. For the reasons for attributing this charter to Geoffrey, see supra, p. 134. For the charter of Heniy I, see Appendix F, no. 17. " Cartulaire de S.-Ymer, ed. Brfiard, no. 6; Delisle-Berger, no. 34*. " Examples of the duel in the duke's court will be found in 1155 in Robert of Torigni, ii. 241; and in 1157 in MS. Rouen 1193, f. 47, where we find among the witnesses ' Mauricio pugile.' " Charter of Geoffrey as confirmed by Henry II soon after he obtained the duchy: Delisle-Berger, no. 14*; supra, p, 134, 222 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS trial by lawful men of the villa is prescribed by a writ of the Empress Matilda in the case of offenses committed against the monastery by the foresters or their servants, i"" On behalf of the duke himself we have no examples of the employment of the in- quest under Geoffrey, but numerous instances under Henry II, early in his reign at Bayeux and in the Bessin, later in the syste- matic inquiries held by his justices in 1 163 and 11 71 throughout the whole of Normandy.'"^ That Geoffrey's reign begins a new stage in the development of the jury in Normandy may also be argued from such rare in- stances of the sworn inquest as we find imder his predecessors. The great Bayeux inquest of 1133 is essentially a fiscal inquest, since the see was then in the duke's hands and its revenues were accordingly a matter of interest to him."^ The same holds true of a writ of William Rufus freeing from bernagium a domain of Bee donee ego inquiram quomodo fuii tempore patris mei: ^"^ if, as seems probable, the inquiry was to be made by sworn inquest, it was to determine a fiscal obligation. When we leave these fiscal inquiries, we no longer find clear examples of inquests of the later type. The nearest approach is the case of the abbey of Fontenay tmder William the Conqueror, who ordered the possessions of the monastery recorded on oath by the barons of the honor, four of whom brought testimony of the record to the king's court at i"" ' M. imperatricis (sic) regis H. filia, F. de Tenechebrai salutem. Mando tibi et precor atque precipio quod permittas senioribus de Savigneio habere et tenere suam fabricam et alia omnia que ad eos pertinent de elemosina predecessoris mei regis H. ita libera et quiete sicut ea habuerunt et tenuerunt tempore ipsius regis. Si autem forestarii vel aliquis alius famulorum eos (MS. eorum) in quoquam forte molestaverint et inquietaverint, fac inde tractari causam iuste per homines legales ipsius vUle, ita ne amplius inde clamorem audiam pro recti penuria. Si vero alius aliquis iniuriam eis in aliquo fecerit, manuteneas eos ubique et protegas sicut nos- trum dominicum quod habemus protegere ut nostram elemosinam. Teste Roberto de Curc[eio], apud Falesiam.' Cartulary in the Archives of the Manche, no. 280; in part in Brunner, p. 241; Delisle, Henri II, p. 141, no. 5. "1 Livre noir, nos. 13, 35, 138; Delisle-Berger, nos. 68*, 76*, 38; Robert of Torigni, i. 344, ii. 28; cf. supra, p. 159 f.; infra, Appendix K.. The inquests for F6camp in 1162 (Delisle-Berger, no. 223) and forMortemer {H. F., xiv. 505) also touch the rights of the duke. '" Supra, notes 16-23. Note, however, that Hetuy's Nostell writ in note 153 was issued in Normandy. »<» Supra, p. 82; Valin, p. 200, note 2. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 223 Caen."* In other instances of this period the men who swear are party witnesses, rather than recognitors who render a verdict as representing the knowledge of the community."^ Even under Henry I the only ducal writ which has reached us (1106-1120) defining the mode of procedure in an inquiry upon oath leaves the monks of Saint-Pere de Chartres free to produce their own wit- nesses or to choose the witnesses for the opposing party: H. rex Angl[orum] Wigero de Sancta Maria Ecclesia salutem. Precipio ut teneas rectum monachis Sancti Petri Carnotensis de terra eorum ita: siquis earn clamaverit monachi f adant earn probare per suos probos homines, vel illi qui earn clamaverint probare earn faciant per illos quos monachus elegerit. Teste WUlehno de Pirou apud Cadomimi."" From the time of Geoffrey no writs have come down prescribing such a procedure. It would be interesting to know just what Lucius 11 and Eugene III had in mind when they directed Geoffrey to have the possessions of Bayeux established ' on oath by lawful witnesses,' for the church had its traditions in such matters, as well as the state, and the influence of canonical ideas of proof cannot be wholly ignored as a possibility in tracing the genesis of civil pro- cedure. It is accordingly a matter of some interest to examine the evidence which has reached us respecting the sworn inquest in the ecclesiastical jurisdictions of Normandy in this period.'^"' Taking once more the diocese of Bayeux as our point of departure, we find Bishop Philip intervening in a controversy over the limits of certain lands held in alms, in order to secure the consent of the parties to its submission to the verdict of the countryside. " There was a dispute between the canons of Bayeux and Luke, son of Herv6, priest of Douvres, as to what pertained to the ahns of the church of Douvres and what to the fief of Luke." After much discussion it was agreed to submit the question to ten men, chosen with the consent of the parties from the assembled parish- iM Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 65; cf. Bnmner, p. 270; Valin, p. 201. "' M. A. N., XV. 196, XXX. 681; cf. Valin, p. 198 f. "' Original, formerly sealed sur simple quetie, MS. Lat. 9221, no. 6. William de Pirou perished on the White Ship in 1120: Ordericus, iv. 418. ^°' inquests on the manors of monasteries, held probably by royal warrant, fall in a different category: supra, Chapter V, note 23. 224 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS ioners, " in whose oath the truth of the matter should rest." Standing before the parish church, this jury declared upon oath the lands which belonged to the alms of the church; and when Luke afterward sought to occupy some of the property of the canons, the jurors were called together at Bayeux and again recognized the ahns of the church, which the bishop emunerates in his charter.'"* The proceedings in this case, though not held in accordance with a ducal writ, show all the essential elements of the recognition — the promissory oath, the free decision, the ver- dict rendered by chosen men of the vicinage; and if we remem- ber that the jury, in the narrower sense, as distinguished from the assize, " has its roots in the fertile ground of consent " and " only comes in after both parties have consented to accept its ver- dict," "" the importance of this early example of such a volimtary agreement is at once evident. In other cases the account of the procedure is not so specific, but points to the use of the recogni- tion, or something very like it, in connection with the bishop's jurisdiction. In one of these instances a verdict is mentioned incidentally in documents of the year 1153 relating to a prebend created by the bishop out of various elements, among them the land in Le Val de Port, in the territory of Escures, held by Alex- ander, son of T6old, which Bishop Philip caused to be recognized in his presence by the oaths of lawful men of the said Val as belonging to the demesne of the bishop of Bayeux."" Another "s ' Erat igitur contentio inter canonicos Baiocenses et Lucam, fiUum Hervei sacerdotis de Dovra, quid ad elemosinam ecclesie de Dovra et quid ad feodum ipsius Luce pertineret. Que controversia, cum diu multmnque ventilata agitaretur, nunc demum in presentia nostra et parrochianonun de Dovra ante ipsius ville ecclesiam per nos finem sortita est. . . . Vocatis igitur ipsius ville parrochianis utriusque partis assensu electi sunt decern solum (whose names follow) . . . ia quorum iuramento rei Veritas consisteret. Facto i^tur prius iuramento has terras de elemosina ecclesie esse dixerunt . . .' Livre noir, no. 63. The charter is not dated or witnessed, and more definite dates cannot be assigned than the limits of Philip's episcopate, 1 142-1163. i«9 Pollock and Maitland, i. 149. The following is a good example of this prin- ciple from the year 1182: ' Coram Radulfo episcopo Lexoviensi composita est controversia . . . que erat inter monachos Beccenses et Ricardiim Comubiensem canonicum Lexoviensem arbitris Guillelmo presbytero et duodecim hominibus iuratis super quasdam decimas apud Falciun et Montemfortem, cuique sua parte pro iure suo iuxta equitatem attributa ' (MS. Lat. 12884, f- 238). "" ' Terra quam tenuit Alexander filius Theoldi in Valle Portus in territorio de TEE EARLY NORMAN JURY 225 record, from the time of Philip's predecessor, is in the form of a notice witnessed by the bishop and several others, knights as well as clerks, to the effect that four men of Herils, who are named, have recognized in the presence of the bishop and chapter that the land which Gosselin, succentor of the cathedral, holds at Herils and the church of the village were given to Gosselin in alms and have always been held by him under such tenure."' It might be maintained that these four men of HIrils were party witnesses rather than recognitors, but the language of the document renders it far more likely that they were giving an independent verdict on behalf of the cormnunity. It is also possible that in these cases the men were questioned individually, as in the canonical proced- ure "2 and the later French enquetes, but there is no indication of such an examination, and the use of the words recognoscere and recognitio points rather to a collective verdict."' In a still earlier case, likewise decided before the bishop and chapter, the uncer- tainty is greater, as nothing is said of the residence of the ancient men who are mentioned or of the capacity in which they appear. Still the matters in controversy, the rights and revenues of the chancellor of the cathedral, are "recognized by the attestation of ancient men " as belonging to the chancellor through the act of Bishop Odo and the continuous possession of former inciunbents — just such a question as would naturally be submitted to a Escvires, quam videlicet Philippus, noster episcopus, fecit recognosci esse de domi- nico Baiocensis episCopi per sacramenta legalium hominiun predicte Vallis.' Chartei of the chapter of Bayeux, 8 May 1153, Liwe noir, no. 149; no. 148 is a chartei of the bishop to the same effect. "' ' Notmn sit omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod homines de Heriz, et nominatim isti . . . recognoverunt coram Ricardo, Roberti comitis Gloecestrie filio, Baiocensi episcopo, et coram eiusdem ecclesie capitulo terram quam Goscelinus, Baiocensis ecclesie succentor, tenet apud Heriz cum ecclesia eiusdem ville eidem Goscelino in elemosina datam fuisse et eundem sic semper tenuisse. Huius autem recognitionis testes sunt isti: . . .' Livre noir, no. 102. Richard was bishop from 113s to 1142. '12 For an example of this from the year 1164 see Liwe noir, no. 49. ™ Of course recognoscere has other meanings, being applied to the certification of a charter, the confession of a criminal, or the admission of another's rights on the part of a claimant, but none of these senses seems to fit the passage in question, where the idea of a formal declaration of fact by a body of men seems clearly implied. 226 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS sworn verdict."^ If such was the procedure employed in this case, it has a special interest as belonging to the pontificate of Richard Fitz Samson and thus falling within the reign of Henry I. How such tribunals came to decide cases of this sort and to employ this form of procedure are questions that cannot be answered xmtil some one has given us a careful study of the Norman ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Indeed, the whole subject of the workings of the ecclesiastical courts in Normandy and elsewhere in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is an important field of investigation and ought to prove fruitful for the history of the transmission of the Frankish inquisitio to later times. In one direction particularly could the history of ecclesiastical procedure in Normandy throw important light upon the origins of the jury, namely with respect to the jury of presentment. It has more than once been remarked that when this makes its first appearance under Henry II, it is as part of the procedure of ecclesiastical courts. At Falaise in 1 159 it was ordained that no dean should accuse any one without the testimony of reputable neighbors."^ At Clarendon in 11 64 "* it is declared that laymen shall be accused only by certain and lawful accusers before the "' ' Ceterum, dilecte nobis frater Anulphe, cancellarie ecdesie nostre, cum de hiis que ad ius personatus tui pertinent in capitulo coram Ricardo episcopo et fratribus ageretur, antiquorum virorum et eiusdem episcopi attestatione recognitum est ea que hie subnotata sunt ex institucione Odonis episcopi et tuorum anteces- sorum contrnua possessione ad ius personatus tui iure perpetuo pertinere. . . . Hec autem omnia in capitulo nostro coram Ricardo episcopo, Sansonis fiJio, et nobis recognita simt et postmodum coram successore eius altero Ricardo publica attestatione firmata.' Chevalier, Ordinaire de I'iglise calhedrale de Bayeux (Paris, 1902), p. 419, no. SI. The document is in the shape of a letter from the dean and chapter to the chancellor, and is thus less formal than a charter. The mention of the attestation of the bishop along with that of the ancient men might appear to contradict the view that a sworn inquest was held, but the last sentence makes it plain that the attestation spoken of is that of the subsequent bishop, Richard of Kent, while the facts had been recognized under Richard Fitz Samson. For similar examples imder Hugh, archbishop of Rouen (1130-1164), see the cartulary of Saint-Georges de Bocherville (MS. Rouen 1227), f. 48V; and original charters of Hugh for F6camp in the Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure,/(W(ij Fficamp, series Aizier and Etretat. The ' testimonium vicinorum ' appears in the court of theabbotof Pr€auxiioi-ii3i: LePr6vost,£«re, iii. 301; the recognition byancient men, in Appendix H, no. 2. '" Robert of Torigni, ii. 180. For the immediate antecedents of these measures, see Appendix I. "« Constitutions of Clarendon, c. 6. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 227 bishop, and in the absence of such accusers the bishop shall ask the sheriff to have the truth of the matter declared by twelve sworn men of the vicinage. All this calls to mind the S3modal wit- nesses of the bishop's court, as described by Regino of Priim at the beginning of the tenth century, themselves very likely another offshoot of the Prankish inquisitio per testes.^^'' What we should like to know is whether the testes synodales also survived in the Frankish lands of the west and particularly in Normandy, thus furnishing Henry IE with the suggestion which he applied to deans and archdeacons who used more arbitrary methods. Unfortu- nately no one has sought to answer these questions for France, and the studies of the genesis of the later canonical procedure in Italy take much for granted, after the fashion of too many his- torians of law."* Here, as so often, the Norman eA^dence is too meager and fragmentary to fill the gap in our knowledge. At one point, however, it offers a suggestion. In the curious arrangement made in 106 1 between the bishop of Avranches and the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel,"^ the men of the Mount had complained that they were subject to constant summons to the bishop's court at Avranches, regardless of war or weather, and were op- pressed by the demand for oaths as well as by the fines and for- feitures which they there incurred: Cogebantur enim venire Abrincas ad respondendum de quacunque ac- cusatione contra christianitatem, nee excusare poterat eos mare insurgens nee Britonum insidie quia preveniri ac provider! poterant, et ita sepe in forifacta et emendationes episcopales incidebant et sepe iuramentis fatiga- "' See Brunner, Sckwurgerichte, pp. 458-468; id., Deutsche Recktsgeschichte, ii. 488-494; Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, v. 425 ff.; Pollock and Maitland, i. 142, 152. ^^ See particularly Richard Schmidt, Die Herkunfl des InquisiUonsprozesses, in Freiburger Festschrift zum so. Regierungsjubilwum Grh. Friedrichs I (Leipzig, 1902) ; id., Konigsrecht, Kirchenrecht, und Stadtrecht beim Aufbcm des Inquisitions prozesses, in Festgabe fiir Rudolph Sohm (Munich, 1915); Zechbauer, Das mittelalterliche Strafrecht Siziliens (Berlin, 1908), pp. 168-247; Max Hoffmann, Die Stdlung des Konigs von SiziUen rmch den Assisen von Ariano (Miinster, 19x5), pp. 84-92. Schmidt, and Niese, Die Gesetzgebung der normannischen Dynastie im Regnum SicUiae (SaRe, 1910; seemyreviewsinE.H. if., xxvi. 369-371; A.H.R.,xvu. 177), are much too sweeping in their statements as to the Norman origin of Sicilian law, and neither of them has attempted a study of the documentary evidence for the sworn inquest in Sicily. "' MS. Lat 14832, f. 183V; Migne, cxlvii. 265; cf. supra, Chapter I, note 137. 228 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS bantur. . . . Episcopus vero prefatus, ut erat animo et genere nobilis, petitioni abbatis annuit et archidiaconum suum in Monte eum fecit, ita tamen ut quod bene non faceret vel non posset episcopus corrigeret Abrincis et ecclesiastico iuditio terminaret. De coniugiis autem illicitis, si qui legates testes procederent, apud episcopiun audirentur et per sacramentum ipsorum lege dissolveretiu: quod contra legem presumptum erat. . . . The jurisdiction here is the ordinary bishop's jurisdiction over laymen {contra christianitatem), by the new arrangement handed over to the abbot as archdeacon save in matrimonial cases, where legates testes are specially mentioned. What the iuramenta were is. not specifically stated, but it would seem probable that the oaths required were, at least in part, the presentation of offenders by Jama publica. If this be the correct interpretation, we have a Norman link midway between . Regino and the decrees of Henry II. Examples of the use of the sworn inquest in baronial courts meet us in other parts of Normandy in the latter part of the twelfth century. Thus the abbot of Saint-Wandrille grants a tenement at La CroisiUe to be held " as it has been recognized by our lawful and faithful men," i^" and a house at Caudebec with appurtenant rights as these have been recognized by the oath of neighbors.'^' Lawful men are used for the division of land 1^ or the assignment of an eqtiivalent holding,i^' and in an '*'' ' Sciant omnes presentes et futuri quod ego Waltenis abbas S. Wandregisilis concessi Symoni de Crudola teneuram suam quam in eadem villa de nobis tenet dure hereditario possidendam prout per iuiidicos et fideles homines nostros recognita fuerit. . . .' Copy of cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, iv. 2084. There are two abbots named Walter in this period, one 1137-1150, the other 1178- 1187. ™ ' Notum sit omnibus tarn presentibus quam futuris quod ego Anfredus (1165- II 78) abbas S. Wandregisilis et conventus concedimus Willelmo AngUco quietudi- nem domus sue ab omni consuetudine, salvo tamen censu, et custodiam vivarii nostri de Caldebecco et famulatum eiusdem ville ixae hereditario, que ad domum ipsam sicut per iuramentum vidnonun recognitum est pertinent. . . .' Cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inf^rieure, G. iii. 24, with list of JMors at end. "^ ' Terram de Rosello sicut est previsa et ostensa et per legales homines divisa Sancto Martino Sagii ' : Livre blanc of Saint-Martin de Sfiez, f . 48V. Cf . the division of land before the duke's justices: Round, Calendar, no. 607; MS. Rouen 1227, f. 13 5v; and an undated piece of the twelfth century in the Archives of the Calvados, fonds Saint-D€sir de Lisieiix: ' De hoc autem requirimus dominum regem et iustitias eius quod nobis haberi faciant intuitum curie.' "* ' Tantumdem terre ad valentiam pro ipsa terra axbitiio liberorum virorum ': THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 229 agreement for the mortgage of a house at Rouen it is stipulated that the cost of repairs shall be verified by the view of lawful neighbors.'^* Henry, abbot of Fecamp, and Robert, count of Meulan, make an agreement for a general inquest respecting their several rights, six jurors being chosen by each to declare the truth with respect thereto; ^^^ and a similar inquest by the men of Quillebeuf and Le Marais-Vemier is related by the abbot of Jumieges and Henry de Longchamp.*''' Robert Bertram the yoimger even admits that he caused his men to render a verdict regarding a presentation * not of right but by his own might and force.' 12' Of these baronial cases the most interesting, as regards both date and' procedure, is one to which VaHn has called attention in the cartulary of Preaux.'^' Two knights of £tr6vilIe-en-Roumois, Roger de Lesprevier and Richard, son of Humphrey the priest, claimed in lay fee the dwellings of the parish priests and other appurtenances of the church, whereas the abbot of Preaux claimed them in ahns. A term was set before the archbishop and the count of Meulan, the lay lord, at which both parties " placed themselves on the verdict and oath of lawful men, to the number cartulary of Saint-Andr6-en-Gouffem, in Archives of the Calvados, £E. 6iv, 62, nos. 273 f. (117s). "^ ' Sciant tarn presentes quam posteri quod anno incamationis dominice .M''.C''.LX°.ini°. Ricardus de Herburvilla invadiavit Simoni Anglico domiun suam de atrio Sancti Amandi concessu uxoris sue et heredum suorum pro .Ix. et .x. solidis Andegavensium usque ad octo annos tali conditione quod si Simon aliquid de suo in domo reficienda per visum legalium vicinorum suorum expendiderit, Simon tail- liabit illud in tailUa sua et Ricardus ei solvet. . . .' Original in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, fonds Saint-Amand. ^^ Fecamp cartulary (MS. Rouen 1207), f. 36V; extracts in La Roque, iii. 50; Du Cange, under stalaria. ^' Le Provost, Eure, ii. 375; Vernier, no. 194; original in Archives of the Seine- Inf6rieure, /o»rf.r Jumi&ges (1165-1198). "' ' Licet in prescriptis ecclesiis instinctu diabolico seu personal! odio vel etiam propria malitia ductus diocesiano episcopo personam aUquam aliquando presenta- verim et super earundem ecclesiarum presentationibus in curia mea recognitionem iniustam non de iure sed vi et potestate mea per homines meos fieri fecerim, et per recognitionem tunc temporis factam dictarum ecclesiarum quas prior de Sancta Maria de iure et donatione predecessorum meorum antea habuerat michi tarn iniuste vendicaverim. . . .' Quasi-oiiginal in Archives of the Seine-Inf€rieuTe, Jonds Saint-Ouen. "' Valin, p. 264, no, ix; cf, p, 200 f,; and Le Privost, Eure, ii. 63. 230 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS of eight, who were sworn " "' and proceeded to view the holdings in dispute. Their decision in favor of the abbey was opposed by the knights, and a day was fixed in the count's court at Brionne before William Fitz Robert and Robert de Neufbourg as his judges, when the jurors appeared to defend their verdict and Pr6aux was put in possession of the property as ahns. When Richard threatened the abbot, he was locked up in the tower of Beaumont, and only released at another session of the court at Montfort, where he agreed to do homage and service to the abbot for the holding. Now all of this is anterior to the retirement of Robert of Neufbourg in 1 159 "" and quite possibly to the crusade of 1147, so that it falls at the latest in the early years of Henry 11 and shows, like the contemporary case from Bayeux, that the ' fertile ground of consent ' was already well prepared for his assizes. Some measure of the progress made in Normandy by the mid- dle of the twelfth century in the development of the recognition, in respect to definiteness of form as well as frequency of employ- ment, may be got by examining the use made of the sworn inquest in the neighboring coimty of Anjou imder Geoffrey Plantagenet and his father Fulk."^ . Although the older methods of trial find '^ ' In hoc autem stabilito die ecclesia Pratellensis et predict! milites miserunt se in veredicto et iuramento legalium hominum qui octo fuerunt et onmes iura- verunt.' ^'' Robert of Torigni, i. 322, ii. 174. Valin's argument that Richard's journey to Jerusalem mentioned in the document is the Second Crusade, is not decisive; Reginald of Saint-Valery, for example, went to Palestine in 1158 (ibid., i. 316, ii. 166). The other judge, William Fitz Robert, is found with Galeran of Meuljui as early as 1143 (Round, no. 380). For another instance of Robert de Neufbourg in the court of the count of Meulan, see supra, Chapter V, note 58, where the presence also of the bishop of fivreux indi- cates that they were sitting there as ducal justices. "' On the courts of Anjou see particularly C. J. Beautemps-Beauprfi, Recherches sur les juridictions de V Anjou et du Maine pendant la pSriodefdodale (Paris, 1890 ff.), forming the second part of his Coutumes et institutions de V Anjou el du Maine. This elaborate work deals mainly with the later period. The account of Angevin law during the feudal period which the author planned was left unfinished at his death; cf. d'Espinay, Le droit de I' Anjou avant les coutumes d'apris les notes de M. Beau- tetnps-Beaupri (Angers, 1901). For the judicial institutions of the eleventh century there is a useful study by Halphen in the Revue historiqrte (igoi), Ixxvii. 279-307. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 231 abundant illustration in Angevin charters, one is at once struck with the rare appearance of anything resembling the Norman inquests. The less complete development of the administrative system in Anjou, and the fact that in this period the count gen- erally presided in person in his court, may serve to explain the absence of such writs as are found in Normandy; but any men- tion of inquests is rare, and in such accounts as we have they are hard to distinguish from other forms of procedure, to which they sometimes seem only accessory. The cases, too, ia which anything hke the sworn inquest is applied are fiscal, concerning the count's forests, his rights of justice, or his feudal dues. Thus in a con- troversy between his foresters and the monks of Saint-Aubin Geoffrey calls together his foresters and segrayers of the district and adjures "those who had been brought up from infancy in the aforesaid forest and knew the facts well " to declare faithfully and impartially the ancient custom of the forest, neither relinquishing the count's right to the monks nor assigning the monks' right to him.'^^ In another case where the matter in dispute concerned the count's right oifodrium on a piece of land belonging to the abbey of Saint-Serge, Geoffrey referred the matter to his seneschal, who ordered the local seneschal to take vavassors of the town with him upon the land and render a just judgment; but the question was finally determined by the oath of a witness produced by the monks.i^' Sometimes we find the count selecting men to render a verdict on the matter at issue in a way that suggests a jury of arbitration, as in a case from Fulk's reign touching the count's rights of justice on certain lands. The owner of the land finds seventy-three good men of Angers that know the truth of the None of these writers discusses the sworn inquest. Cf . the sketch of Angevin in- stitutions in Powicke, Loss of Normandy, ch. ii. "2 29 May 1 1 29: Bertrand de Broussillon, Cartulaire de I'abbaye de Saint- AiMn d'Angers, ii. 408, no. 982; B. &. C, xxxvi. 426, no. 28. Cf. Beautemps- Beaupr6, i. 131, note, 143, note. For a similar case at Venddme see Du Cange, Glossarium, under 3. Secretarms (ed. Favre, vii. 387). ^ MS. Lat. 5446, f. 29s, no. 403 (Gaigni&es's copies from the cartulary of Saint-Serge). Cf. Beautemps-Beauprfi, i. 203, note, where the date is fixed between 31 March 1150 and 7 September 1151. For a somewhat later case of declaration of custom, involving the right to levy procuratio, see C. Chevalier, Cartulaire de I'abbaye de Noyers (Tours, 1873), p. 651, no, 615, 232 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS matter, and gives the count their names; when they have all ap- peared in court, Fulk selects twelve, who are ordered to swear that they will not conceal the truth for love or hatred."* In other cases, however, it does not appear that the arbiters were neces- sarily neighbors or had any special knowledge of the facts, so that they would seem to have acted as representing the court rather than the countryside.''^ On the whole, while these scanty in- stances from Anjou show that the verdict of neighbors was occasionally sought in fiscal matters and that a sort of jury of arbitration might sometimes be called by the count, there is nothing to indicate that such modes of procedure were common, clearly defined, or well understood. Compared with such rudi- mentary institutions as these, it is evident that the Norman recognitions of the same period represent an advanced stage in the evolution of the jury, and that no share can be ascribed to Anjou in its development in Normandy."^ The sworn inquest is also fovmd in the Norman kingdom of southern Italy and Sicily, where the judicial organization was in many respects similar to that of Normandy and England,"' and recent writers are prone to assume that the Sicilian jury was a direct importation from Normandy."' While it is true that no examples have been found in the South before the Noiman con- quest, it is also true that the information for this period is extra- ordinarily scanty, while we have also to bear in mind the ^ Beautemps-Beaupr^, i. 117, note G. ^^ For instances of this sort see Marchegay, Archives d' Anjou, i. 409, no. 66; iii. 66, no. 87 (cf. Beautemps-Beauprfi, i. 88, 117, 141); Beautemps-Beaupr^, i. 116, note B, 136, note B; Carhdam de S.-Pierre-de-la-Cour {Archives historiques du Maine, iv), no. 16. On the other hand, in the Carhdaire d'Azi {ibid., iii), no. 20, the bishop of Angers puts hunself on the verdict of three priests (1130-1135). For fiscal inquests in Maine under Henry 11, see Delisle-Berger, nos. 200, 580. "« As has been suggested by Powicke, E. H. R., xxii. 15; and Prentout, La Normandie (Paris, 1910), p. 57. ^'' Seemy discussion of the judicial organization in £.ff.i?.,xxvi. 641-651 (1911); and Miss E. Jamison's criticism in her monopaph on The Norman Administration of Apulia and Capua {Papers 0/ the British School at Rome, vi, 1913), which con- tains a useful list of cases in the royal cotuts. "' E. Mayer, Italieniscfte V^assungsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1909), i. 258; Niese, Die Gesetzgetnmg der normannischen DynasUe, p. iq6; and the papers of Schmidt mentioned above, note ij8. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 233 possibilities of derivation from the fiscal measures of the later em- pire as well as from the procedure of the Prankish missi in Italy. In general the legal procedure of the South, under the influence of Roman law, makes free use of witnesses and written records, so that it is difi&cult in many of the documents to distinguish the individual or party witnesses from the collective jury. The testi- mony of neighbors, especially aged men, was particularly valued in determining boimdaries, which were regularly fixed by their evidence, though not always in a way that clearly denotes a real inquest. Examples of the use of old men of the region in this indefinite fashion are foimd at Mileto in 1091,"' at Squillace in 1098,"" and in various Sicilian cases of the twelfth century, where it is regularly stated that Saracens and Christians served together in this capacity."' In the more specific accoimt of a boimdary dispute between Gnmio and Bitetto in 1136, the boni senes homines of Bitetto were called unus ante alium, although at the end they took a collective oath as to the term of possession.'^ In 1 1 58, near Bari, what looks like a collective verdict has to be confirmed by a party oath of twelve iuratores.^^^ On the other hand an unmistakable inquest appears in 1140 at Atina, where King Roger orders his chamberlain to make diligent inquiry by suitable men concerning boimdaries and royal rights, which were sworn on the Gospels by twelve of the older men of the dty.'** Under William I the phrase isti iurati dixerunt points to a sworn "" Capialbi, Memorie per sennre alia sloria della santa chiesa miliiese (Naples, 183s), p. 136. 1*" Regii Napoletani Archivii Monumenta, v. 245. i*" Cusa, / diplond greet ed arabi di Sicilia, i. 306, 317, 403; Garufi, I documenti inediti dell' epoca normanna in SiciUa {Documenti per la sioria di Sicilia, jcviii), nos. 24, SI, 61, 62, 105; id., in. Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientate, ix. 34g (1912); Caspar, Roger II, Regesten, nos; 9, 81, 145, 232. i« Garufi, / documenti, no. 13; Caspar, p. 308, note 2; Jamison, no. 5. "' Del Giudice, Codice diplomatico del regno di Carlo I, i. app. no. g; Jamison, no. 47. 1" ' Precepit statim Ebulo de Mallano regio camerario ut omnia iura regia necnon et fines tenimentorum civitatis eiusdem diligenter investigaret et per viros idoneos inquireret solicite. Qui iussis regiis obtemperare paratus, iurare fecit ad sancta Dei evangelia duodecim homines de antiquioribus dvitatis ut ea que idem dominus rex preceperat fideliter intimarent, quorum nomina hec sunt. . . .' Tauleri, Memorie istoriche dell' anUca cittd d' Atina (Naples, 1702), p. 92; Caspar, no. 128; Jamison, no. 9. 234 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS inquest in a dispute touching the boimdaries of the dioceses of Patti and Cefalu,'^ and a sworn inquest is held by the master chamberlain of Calabria to determine the losses of the church of Carbone."^ In the same reign we find a clear accotmt of a jury of eight men who are sworn before the king's chamberlain to tell the truth respecting the possessions of San Bartolomeo di Carpi- neto."*' In 1 1 83 the justiciars of WilKam II hold a formal in- quest to recover lost portions of the king's domain in the vicinity of Gravina.'*^ It is particularly imder William 11 that we should expect to find analogies to the Anglo-Norman assizes,"' but nothing of the kind has been brought to light in the occasional writs that have reached us from this king or his ofl&cers,**" and there is no evidence that the recognition in the Norman kingdom of Sicily was anything more than an occasional expedient for the assistance of the fisc or of some favored church. The inquests in criminal cases under Frederick II raise a different set of problems which lie beyond the limits of the present inquiry. If now we turn to England, we find an almost complete parallel to the Norman documents. From the time of the Domesday sur- vey examples are extant of fiscal inquests on a large scale, while specific royal writs prescribe the determination of particular cases by sworn inquest.'" Jurors may be used to render a verdict upon a great variety of questions, even to the marking off of thirty solidate of land,"^ and they also appear in baronial jurisdictions, "^ Gaxufi, I documenti, no. 34 (1159). "6 Minieri Ricdo, Saggio di codice diplomatico di Napoli, i. 283; Jamison, no. 58 (1163). "'. Ughelli, Italia Sacra, a. app. 369; Jamison, no. 50. i<8 Printed by me, from the original in the Archives of La Cava, in E. B. R., xxvi. 654, note 191. Less definite examples from this reign are in Studi e documenti di storia e diriito, xxii. 278 (1178); Tromby, Storia deW ordine cartusiano, iv, p. cbd. "' The first mention of an assize seems to be the phrase ' ante assisam domini regis ' in a doomient of 1155: Codice diplomatico barese, v. 191. The so-called Vatican assizes of King Roger do not meet us with this title vmtil later. *'" See my discussion, E. H. R., xxvi. 444-447 (1911), where certain parallels are pointed out with the Anglo-Norman writs. A mandatum of William II, since published (Quellen und Forschungen des preussischen InstUuts, xvi. 30), should be added to those there cited. 1" See Sir Francis Palgrave, Rise of the English Commonwealth, ii, p. clxxvi ff.; Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica; Pollock and Maitland, i. 143. "* Infra, Appendix F, no. 13. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 235 as when the bishop of Lincohi orders a declaration by the men of Banbury whether a piece of land was once part of his demesne.'^ If we examine more closely the first ten years of Henry II, we find the same practices continuing. The general measures for the recovery of the royal demesne were carried out, it appears, by a sworn inquest throughout the kingdom.*" The prior and monks of Canterbury are to hold land as they proved their right by the oath of the lawful men of Kent;'°^ the nuns of Mailing, as it was recognized by the lawful men of the same county.*^* The rights of the church of Ely in the port of Orf ord are to be sworn by the law- ful men of five and one-half hundreds.**^ Twenty-four men have sworn as to the height of the mills of Canterbury in Heiuy I's time; '^* twenty-four of the older men of Berks are to swear in the county court concerning the market of Abingdon at the same epoch."' Before the sheriff and archdeacon twenty-four men swear as to the advowson of Saint Peter's, Derby."^*" In Lan- cashire land is delimited by the oath of thirty men in accordance with royal writ.*" The burgesses of Guildford are to have their liberties and customs as these have been recognized before the king and his justices in the county court there held.*^^ In a series of records from Rievaiilx we have the writ of Henry ordering his sheriff and ministers of Yorkshire to have the waste below Pickering recognized by the lawful men of the wapentake and forest; the report, with the names of the jurors; and the royal •confirmation of the land to the abbey as sworn to by the wapen- take and recognized before the king's Justices in the county court 163 Eynsham Cartulary, i. 41, no. isa (1123-1148). Cf. the writ of Roger of Salis- bury published by Massingbeid, in Associated Architectural Societies, Reports and Papers, xxvii; and one of Henry I for Nostell priory, given by the bishop of fivreux at fivreux, in W. Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, no. 501. '" Gesta Ahbatum S. Albani, i. 123. 166 Delisle-Berger, no. 192. 166 Calendar of Charter Rolls, v. 59, no. 19; cf. p. s8, no. 15, which may be some- what later. 16' B. &. C, box. sso. no- i3- "' Delisle-Berger, no. 103. ■6' Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ii. 228; Bigelow, Placita, p. 200. Cf. Chronicon, ii. 221; Bigelow, p. 203. i6» E. H. R., xxxii. 47. 161 W. Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 310. i"2 Register of St. Osmund, i. 238. 236 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS at York.'" Before 1168 we find the king ordering an inquest in a baronial court in a writ to the earl and countess of Chester com- manding them to have recognized by their barons of Lincoln- shire whether Amulf Fitz Peter lost the land of Hunnington by judgment of the court of Henry I.'** The fullest set of documents which we have from this period concerns a number of recognitions held to ascertain the rights of the bishop of Lincolti, as regards his justice, warren, burgage, and various local privileges."^ The king's writs are for the most part addressed to the justices and sheriff of Lincolnshire, although the sheriffs of Nottingham and Derby are also mentioned, and in cer- tain of thepi the county court is specifically indicated as the place where the recognition is held. Thus in one instance the bishop is to have his right of ferry at Newton on Trent as recognized in comitatu,^^ in another the church of Chesterfield is to have its liberties, customs, and tenements " as recognized by the lawful men of the hallmoot of the wapentake.""^ The reeves of Lincoln are directed " without delay to have recognized by the oaths of the more ancient and lawful men of the city, in the presence of the sheriff of Lincolnshire and at his stuiunons, the liberties which the bishops of Lincoln had iti their land and burgage at Lincoln in the time of King Henry my grandfather, and what liberties the clerks of the dty had at the same time; and as it shall have been recog- nized, so without delay " they " shall cause Robert, bishop of ^^ Chartulary of Rievaidx (Surtees Sodety), nos. 189, 205, 206; W. Fairer, Early Yorkshire Charters, nos. 401-403. '" ' H. rex Anglorum et dux Normaimorum et Aquitanorum et comes Andega- vorum Hugoni comiti Cestrie et Matilde comitisse salutem. Precipio vobis quod sine dilatione et iuste faciatb recognosci per barones vestros de Lincolne sira si Amulfus filius Petri terram de Hunintona in curia H. regis avi mei iudicio amisit et Lucia comitissa et Ran. comes Cestrie Ulam terram sanctimonialibus de Stikes- walda in elemosinam dederint. Quod si ita recognitum fuerit, faciatis eas bene et in pace et iuste tenere. Et nisi feceritis iustida mea faciat. Teste M. Bis[setl dapifero meo apud Gloec' Printed, from the original in the possession of Lady Waterford, in 11 Historical MSS. Commission's Report, Appendix vii. $9- The letter of Earl William of Roumare which follows fixes the date as anterior to 1168. 1" Delisle-Berger, nos. 142, 217-219, 380; E. B. R., xav. 308, no. 23; Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. no, no. 15, 141-145, nos. 21, 23, 37, where various related docu- ments are also given. "« Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. no, no. 15. '•' Ibid., iv. 141, no. 21. THE EARLY NORMAN JURY 237 Lincoln, and his men of Lincoln and the clerks of the city to have all those liberties, without the exaction of any new customs." ''' Here the parallelism to the Bayeux writs, the chief contem- porary group in Normandy, is close and striking, and it should be noted that three of the writs ordering inquests for Lincoln are issued at Rouen and attested by the duke's Norman justiciar, Rotrou of fivreux,'*' so that we should expect close resemblances iu procedure. Two notable points of difference, however, stand out. Li the first place, the English writs assvune as the normal basis for their execution the sheriff and the county court, while in Normandy no such assembly is mentioned. Already the sworn inquest has entered into that intimate relation to the local courts upon which its future history and its future importance in Eng- land are to depend. Li the second place, the English writs make no mention of a royal assize: secundum assisiam meam is found only in Normandy, where the word assize occurs four times before 1 1 59, while in no English document has it been fotmd in this sense before 1164."" It is of course possible that instances may come to light in England, it may even be argued that the procedure was already so well established there that reference to the royal assize was no longer necessary; but these remain at present mere possi- bilities. The evidence for assizes before the Constitutions of Clarendon is Norman, not English; and, for the present at least, Normandy can claim priority, as regards both the term and the procedure which it denotes. The sworn inquest was introduced into England from Nor- mandy soon after the Conquest. Its history thereafter in the two coimtries is for some time essentially the same, namely as a pre- rogative procedure for the sovereign and for those with whom he shares its benefits in particular instances. Then the exceptional becomes general, first for one class of cases and then for another."' In England the first clear example of this change is found in the i«8 Calendar of Charter Rolls, iv. 142, no. 23. '*' Delisle-Berger, nos. 217-219. "" The assizes cited by Bigelow, History of Procedure, p. 124, from the early Pipe Rolls denote evidently the assisa comitatus. Not until 1166 do these rolls use the word in the sense of royal legislation. 11 Pollock and Maitland, i. 144. 238 NORMAN INSTITUTIONS assize utrum of 1164. In Normandy there is evidence earlier, in the assizes of Geoffrey and Henry to which they refer their officers on behalf of the bishop of Bayeux, and in the assize upon which William Fitz Thition places himself against Saint-fitienne. If we cannot be certain just what these assizes were, we can at least see in them some systematic extension, by ducal act, of the procedure by recognition in cases concerning land. To these we must add the suit brought by Osmimd Vasce in 11 59, based as it clearly was upon some regular method of procedure open to ordi- nary litigants, and the ordinance of Falaise in the same year respecting the accusing jury. Thus Normandy is the home of the jury, not only ia the sense that it is the source of the sworn in- quest so far as England is concerned, but also as the land where we first find it employed as a regular procedure to which suitors can appeal as a matter of right and on which the individual can rely as a protection against arbitrary accusation. Both countries were then to share in its rapid extension to new types of cases by Henry II. England alone was to bring about that combination of the royal inquest with the popular courts which was to give the jury its unique position in the development of individual Ub- erty and representative institutions. Where Normandy sowed, England and all English-speaking lands were to reap. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES OF EARLY NORMAN HISTORY ' The fundamental difficulty which confronts all students of ducal Normandy is the paucity of docimientary evidence. The imposing series of Norman historians — Dudo, William of Jumieges, William of Poitiers, Ordericus Vitalis, Wace, Robert of Torigni — long served to conceal this fact in the pages of the modem writers who, with greater or less skill, paraphrased them into the conventional histories; but the inadequacy of even the best of chroniclers becomes apparent as soon as one attacks any of the fundamental problems of institutions or social conditions. For the tenth century documentary materials never existed,* at least in any such abundance as in the neighboring regions of Anjou, Brittany, or Flanders; for the eleventh and twelfth centuries what once existed has in large measure disappeared. It is indeed prob- able that such sources were always less numerous in Normandy than in England, where the documentary habit had not been broken in the tenth century, and where the Norman Conquest itself produced a monument like the Domesday Survey which was from the nature of the case unique; but we have no reason to suppose that in the twelfth century the records of the central administration were notably different on the two sides of the Chaimel or that the body of charters and writs showed any such disparity as at present. In the absence of an)rthing ' See especially Delisle, &tude sur I'agriculture et la classe agricole en Normandie (fivreux, 1851), pp. xlv-li; the introduction to his Carlulaire normand de Philippe- Auguste, Louis VIII, Saint Louis, et Philippe-le-Hardi, M. A. N., xvi (1852); his Cahdogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste (Paris, 1856), pp. vi-liii, 525-569; and his RecueU des acles de Henri II, introduction, pp. v-xiii. H. Stein, BiiUographie gSnSrale des caftulaires frangais (Paris, 1907), lists most of the Norman cartularies, not always accurately (cf. my review, A. H. R., xiii. 322-324). An excellent survey of the materials in the departmental archives is given in the £m gSniral par fonds des archives dipartemetUales; ancien regime et piriode revohitionnaire (Paris, 1903). Cf. also H. Prentout, La Normandie (Paris, 1910), pp. 21-24. A convenient sum- mary by dioceses and religious establishments is given by Dom Besse, in the Ab- bayes et prieuris de I'andenne France, vii {Archives de la France monastique, xvii, 1914). ' Cf . supra, Chapter I, note 4. S41 242 APPENDIX A corresponding to Domesday, Glanvill, or the Dialogue on the Exchequer, the charters acquire an added importance in Normandy, and it is their loss and destruction which the historian has chiefly to mourn. The loss of Norman records can be laid to no single period or cat- aclysm. The Revolution of course did its share in the work of destruc- tion, neglect, or dispersion, as in the case of Bee; ' but this has often been exaggerated, and the departmental archives and local Ubraries which were then created seem to have taken over the greater part of what remained in existence. There were losses en route to these estab- lishments, and further losses under the archivists of the Restoration, when numerous pieces disappeared from public repositories only to reappear in certain private collections, but in most instances such material has been recovered or at least placed, so that there is small hope of new discoveries of this sort. The great losses seem to have come before the Revolution, for the scholars of the Old Regime, as their work can be traced in siu^ving copies, are seen to have had at their disposal relatively few collections which are not still in existence. The Prot- estants did something in the work of destruction, the Hundred Years' War did more, but much must be ascribed to the frequent fires of the Middle Ages and to the carelessness and neglect of the clergy them- selves. As early as the fourteenth century a scribe of Troam is making extracts from a Vetus Cartarium long since disappeared; * as late as the Revolution the canons of Coutances are said to have spent days in burning charters which they could no longer read.* Of the nature and extent of the ducal archives themselves it is impos- sible to speak with much definiteness. An archive of some sort is assumed in the rotulos et cartas nostras transferred from Caen to London by order of King John in 1204,' but the handful of Exchequer Rolls now preserved in the Public Record Office is but a sorry remnant of what must then have been in the hands of his officers, nor have any rolls of other types survived from earUer reigns.* With him begin the • Le Pr6vost, Eure, i. 233 f., 241. * Sauvage, Troam, pp. xxx-xxxiii; cf. supra, Chapter III, no. 6; infra. Appendix H, no. 1. ' Round, Calendar, p. xxxi, note. ' Rotidi de Liberate, p. 102 f. The barons' returns in 1172 were deposited in the royal treasury at Caen (Robert of Torigni, ii. 297), and a summary of them was later copied into the Red Book of the Exchequer. ' Supra, Chapter V, note 6. A brief extractus memorandi from John's Exchequer has recently been discovered and published by Legras (BMetin des Antiquaires de Normandie, xxix. 21-31); see further the paper of Jenkinson cited supra, p. 195. THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 243 short-lived Rotuli Normanniae and the Norman entries in the patent and other rolls.* After the loss of Normandy the English possessions of Norman reUgious establishments still furnished an occasion for the enrollment of Norman charters, in the Cartae Antiquae and in the nmnerous inspeximus of English sovereigns contained in the charter and patent rolls, and such confirmations were natiu-ally nimierous during the occupation of Normandy by Henry V and Henry VI.' Certain scattered pieces and a couple of cartularies have in recent years been acquired by the British Museum.'" That some public records escaped the process of transfer to England is shown by a fragment of a roll of Stephen cited in 1790 " and a frag- ment of the roll of 1184 discovered by DeUsle in the Archives Na- tionals." Various documents of interest to Norman administration, like the Ust of knights' fees of 1172, were collected by the officers of Philip Augustus and copied into his registers,'' yet the only surviving portion of the inquest of 1 171 has come to us on the fly-leaf of a copy of Hrabanus Maurus." A semi-official compilation of charters made in the thirteenth century, styled by DeUsle the Cartulaire de Normandie, should be noted." Formulations of custom, such as the Consuetudines et iusticie and the lurea regalis,^^ owe their preservation to private col- lections of Norman law, and the decisions of Norman courts in the period anterior to the French conquest have reached us only in charters preserved by the interested parties." There are no plea rolls or feet of fines. Next to the disappearance of the official records of Norman adminis- tration, the most serious loss is probably the archives of the bishoprics and cathedrals, of which none has a full series of records for the • Supra, Chapter V, note 210. ' See the calendais of the Norman rolls of Henry V in appendices to Reports of the Deputy Keeper, xli. 671-810, xlii. 313-452; the extracts in M. A. N., xxiii, part i; and the Actes de la chancetterie d' Henri VI, ed. Lecacheux, Rouen, 1907-1908. " Cartulary of the leprosery of Bolleville, Add. MS. 17307; cartulary of the priory of Loders, Add. MS. 15605; and the series of Additional Charters. " M. A. N., xvi, p. XXX f. ^ Ibid., pp. r09-ir3; Delisle, Henri II, pp. 334-344. " See Delisle's introduction to his Cartulaire nomtand and Catalogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste. " Delisle, Henri II, pp. 34S-347> from MS. Lat. n. a. 1879; infra. Appendix K. " Now MS. Rouen 1235. See Delisle, Cartulaire normand, p. vii. " Appendix D; Chapter V, note 22. " See Delisle, Mltnoire sur les anciennes collections de jugements de I'&hiquier de Normandie (Paris, 1864); and cf. B. P., xxiv. 271*5. 244 APPENDIX A eleventh and twelfth centuries while some have lost practically every- thing for this epoch. Rouen is the most fortunate, with important cartularies and an extensive Jonds of pieces in the departmental archives. This fonds, however, admirably calendared by Charles de Beaurepaire, contains relatively httle anterior to the French conquest, while only two of the cartularies relate to this period,^* one containing earlier documents having evidently been lost, fivreux is represented by no originals but by a valuable set of cartularies in the Archives of the Eure, extending from the destruction of the cathedral under Henry I. There are no early archives for Seez; a cartulary, the Livre rouge, was in the possession of the bishop before the Separation,*' and copies of the sixteenth century are in the library at Alengon (MS. 177). Lisieux likewise has lost everything for this period, all that remains being a late cartulary of the see in the municipal library and a fragment of the chapter cartulary at Paris.^" Bayeux has only cartularies, the invalu- able Livre noir of the chapter and the Liwe noir of the see stUl preserved in the cathedral, and the Livre rougeP- Coutances has much less, only a few documents in the paper cartulary recently transferred from the evfiche to the Archives of the Manche.^'' Avranches has left practically nothing save an occasional piece of the twelfth century in its Livre vertP The monastic archives of the duchy have on the whole fared better. The oldest monasteries of importance, Fecamp, Jimaieges, Saint- Wandrille, Saint-Ouen, and Mont-Saint-Michel, have transmitted valuable early originals as well as considerable cartularies, while the somewhat later foundations of Caen, Lessay, Saint-Amand, and Troarn are also well represented in the departmental archives. From La Trinite du Mont, Saint-Pierre-de-Preaux, Saint-Evroul, Saint- Taurin, and Saint-Martin de Seez we have only cartularies, in each case of much value for the early period. Important cartularies for the twelfth century are those of Foucarmont, Saint-Georges de Bocher- viUe, the hospital of Pontaudemer, Plessis-Grimould, Saint-Andre-en- Gouffern, Montebourg, Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, and Savigny. The " The so-called cartulary of Philip d'AIenfon, Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, G. 7; and the cartulary of the chapter, MS. Rouen 1193 (copy in MS. Lat. n. a. 1363)- " Extracts in MS. Lat. 11058. '"' MS. Lat. 5288, ff. 68-76. ^ MS. Lat. n. a. 1828. See supra, Chapter VI, notes 4, 15. ^ im., note 9S; cf. A. H. R., viii. 631. ^ MS, Avranches 206; see Appendix K. THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 245 list, however, is long of those houses from which little or nothing has reached us directly for the history of these times: Bee, Bernai, Cerisy, Conches, Cormeilles, Croix-Saint-Leufroy, Grestain, Ivry, Lonlai, Montivilliers, Saint-Desir de Lisieux, Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, Saint- Sauveur d'Evreux, Saint-Sever, Saint- Victor-en-Caux. In some cases, as Cerisy, Lire, MontiviUiers, and Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, we have iMimus of the foimdation charters or notices of their begiimings; in others, as Bee, modem copies supply in some measure the loss of the mediaeval pieces. An important group of ducal charters concerns the Norman posses- sions of reUgious houses in other parts of France. Chief among these are Marmoutier, Cluny, Fontevrault, Saint- Julien de Tours, Saint- Florent-les-Saumur, Saint-Benolt-sur-Loire, La Trinite de Vendome, Chartres cathedral, Saint-Pere de Chartres, Tiron, Saint-Denis de Nogent-le-Rotrou, Le Grand-Beaulieu-les-Chartres, Saint-Denis and Saint-Martin-des-Champs at Paris, Saint-MaTtin at Pontoise, Saint- Victor du Mans, Le Mans cathedral, and Saint-Benigne at Dijon. The most important of these, Marmoutier, had its archives ^* dispersed during the Revolution, but its Norman chartriers can in large measure be recovered from pieces preserved in the local priories and especially from the important series of copies in the Bibliotheque Nationale ^* and the library at Tours.^ In nearly all the other instances mentioned the surviving ducal charters are pubUshed in printed cartularies or modem collections of charters.^' The principal local repositories of documentary material relating to early Normandy are the departmental archives of the Calvados, Eiure, Manche, Orne, and Seine-Inferieure, supplemented by the public libraries of Rouen, Caen, Alenjon, and Avranches. Scattered volumes which had remained in the possession of bishops and chapters were claimed by the pubhc archives under the Separation Law, save in the case of the cathedral of Bayeux, which was for the time being consti- tuted a pubhc depository. Only at Rouen do the mimicipal archives contain material for this period; archives of hospitals are rarely of assist- ance; there is some scattered matter in the smaller pubhc Ubraries. The ''* See P. Colmant, Les odes de Vahbaye de Marmoutier, in Positions des theses de I'&cde des Charles, 1907. 26 MSS. Lat. S44I, 12876-12880, MS. Baluze 77. ^e Particularly MS. 1381. " See, besides the indications in Stein's BiUiographie des cartulaires, L.-J. Denis, Les chartes de S.-Julien de Tours, in Archives hisloriques du Maine, xii (1912); J. Depoin, Recueil de chartes de S.-Marlin-des-Champs, in Archives de la France monastique, ziii, xvi. 246 APPENDIX A chief collection of originals in private hands is the important body of eariy Fecamp charters in the Mus6e de la Distillerie de Benedictine at Fdcamp.^* The great collection of copies made by Dom Lenoir in the eighteenth century, now the property of the Marquis de Mathan at Saint-Pierre-de-Semilly, is based chiefly upon the registers of the Chambre des Comptes and comprises few early charters.^' The copies of the abbe de La Rue, concerning especially the history of Caen, are divided among the Collection Mancel at Caen, the libraries of Caen and Cherbourg, and the Bibliotheque Nationale; "• the Repertoire des charies of de Gerville relating to the Cotentin is now in the Collection Mancel; recently Armand Benet bequeathed to the library of Evreux his copies of ducal and other charters. An older collection of much value for the Cotentin, the copies of Pierre Mangon, is in the library at Grenoble.'' Of the departmental archives, those of the Eure and Ome have published inventories of the series most important for the early period, G and H; those of the Calvados and the Manche for a portion of H; those of the Seine-Inferiemre only for the Rouen portion of G, the vich fonds of series H being for the most part still unclassified.'^ The Archives Nationales are useful, so far as ducal Normandy is concerned, chiefly for the royal vidimus contained in the Registres du Tr6sor des Chartes.'' There are also, scattered pieces in the Layettes du Tresor and in other series, notably S, while there is a fine set of originals for the abbey of Savigny,'^ rescued in 1839 from the garret of the sous-prSfecture at Mortain. The Bibliotheque Nationale is exceedingly rich in the manuscript materials for early Norman history.'* Its resources consist in part of a ^ Infra, Appendix B. " The cartularies -used by Dom Lenoir are well known save in the case of a " cartulaire de I'abbaye de Lire trouvfi parmi les mss. de la biblioth^ue du college des jfisuites de Paris. L'6criture est du 13' siicle " (xxiii. 453; cf. bcxii, 329 ff.). This seems to be the cartulary used by the editors of the Monasticon, vii. 1092-1095. '" MSS. Fr. n. a. 202i8-2022r. " Described by Delisle, in Annuaire de la Manche, 1891, pp. 11-42. "^ For the Seine-Inf6rieure see P. Chevreux and J. Vernier, Les archives de Nor- mandie el de la Seine-Inflrieure (Rouen, igii), which contains a collection of fac- similes. " See in general the introduction to Delisle, Cartidaire normani, pp. i-iv, who notes the vidimus as far as 1314. I have searched the series of registers to 1380. " L. 966-978, recently renumbered. Other originals are in MS. Rouen 3122. On the history of the archives of Savigny see Delisle's introduction to his edition of the Rouleau mortuaire du B. Vital (Paris, 1909). '" See in general Delisle, Le Cabinet des MSS. de la Bibliothigue Nationale (Paris, 1868-1881), and the lists of acquisitions published biennially by Omont in B. £. C. THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 247 great number of cartularies and original pieces which have been accu- mulated since the days of Colbert and which now comprise a very considerable portion of the materials which sUpped out of Norman archives and libraries before, during, and after the Revolution; in part, of the copies of modern scholars which preserve matter now lost. The older portion of these copies include the collections of Baluze, Du Cange, Duchesne, Brequigny, and others; ^ the transcripts accumu- lated in the eighteenth century for the series of Chartes el dipldmes and now chronologically arranged in the Collection Moreau; '' the numer- ous Norman volumes among the copies of the exact and indefatigable Gaignieres;^ ecclesiastical compilations like the Monasticon Benedic- tinum ^' (MSS. Lat. 12658-12704) and Miscellanea MonasHca (MSS. Lat. 12777-12780), the Nemtria Christiana of Du Monstier (MSS. Lat. 10048-10050), the Hierarchia Normanniae of Coenalis (MS. Lat. 5201), the materials concerning the diocese of Coutances brought together by Toustain de Billy (MS. Fr. 4900),*° and the historical collections relat- ing to Bee (MSS. Lat. 12884, i390S)> Marmoutier {supra, note 25), and Mont-Saint-Michel (MS. Lat. 5430A, MS. Fr. 18947 £f.). To these have been added the papers of most of the principal Norman scholars of the nineteenth century: AchUle DeviQe for Upper Nor- mandy (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1 243-1 246); L6chaude d'Anisy for Lower Normandy (MSS. Lat. 10063-10084) ; Auguste Le Prevost for the department of the Eure (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1837-1838); C. Hippeau for Saint-Etienne de Caen (MSS. Lat. n. a. 1406-1407) ; and finally the Certain Norman cartularies are comprised in the considerable group acquired from the Hbrary of Sir Thomas Phillipps in igo8 (catalogue by Omont, 1909). For MSS. of Norman origin in the BibliothSque Sainte-GeneviSve see E. DeviUe in the Revue catholique de Normandie, 1903 ff . " R. Poupardin, Catalogue des MSS.des collections Duchesne et Brequigny (Paris, 190s); Catalogue de la Collection Baluze by Auvray and Poupardin (Paris, 191s). Norman cartularies also contributed to the extracts concerning Meulan made by de Blois ca. 1650 and now preserved in the Collection du Vexin, iv. " Omont, Inventaire des MSS. de la Collection Moreau (Paris, 1891). The Nor- man copies are chiefly in the hand of Dom Lenoir; volume 341 is devoted to F&. " Chiefly in the volumes classified by monasteries; see also the collections con- cerning Norman bishops (MSS. Lat. 17022 ff.). The extracts published by Delisle from the collected papers (MSS. Fr. 20899-20917), in Annuaire de la Manche, 1893 and 1898, deal with the later period. " Analyzed by Delisle, Revue des bibliotheques, vii. 241-267. *" Cf. the similar matter in MSS. Fr. 4899-4902, n. a. 154-157. The history of the diocese of Coutances published by the Socifitd de I'histoire de Normandie in 1874 lacks the preuves, as do also the histories of Savigny, JumiSges, and Mont-Saint- Michel in the same series. 248 APPENDIX A lifelong accumulations of Leopold Delisle (MSS. Fr. n. a. 21806- 2i873).« The exploration and publication of these sources have proceeded in an incomplete and unsystematic fashion. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Norman archives were laid under contribution for the Neustria Fia of Arthur Du Monstier, the eleventh volume of the Gallia Christiana, La Roque's Histoire de la maison d'Harcourt, the Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae of Bessin, and the pubUcations of Pommeraye relating to Rouen, as well as for the more general ecclesias- tical collections of MabiUon, Martene and Durand, and d'Achery. In the nineteenth century leadership passed to the Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie and the Societe de I'histoire de Normandie, supple- mented by the Norman academies and various local ■ societies and reviews, of which the Revue catkoliqtie de Normandie in recent years deserves special mention. Among individual scholars Leopold Delisle stands in a place by himself for his thorough acquaintance with Norman history, narrative and literary as well as documentary. De Gerville, who did much to stimulate interest in Norman history at the beginning of the century, was a collector of documents rather than an editor; his younger contemporary Le Prevost, besides his share in the great edi- tion of Ordericus, left behind him a collection of Memoires et notes pour servir d I'histoire du dgpartement de I'Eure (fivreux, 186 2-1 869) which has not always been sufficiently utilized by his successors. Amid the multiplicity of scattered publications relatively few Norman cartularies have been edited, among those of the first importance only the Cartulaire de la Sainte-Trinite-du-Mont (ed. A. Deville, 1840) and the Livre noir of Bayeux (Antiquus Cartularitis, ed. V. Bourrienne, 1902-1903).^^ The most extensive publications of this sort (e. g., T. Bonnin, Cartulaire de Louviers, Paris, 1870-1883) concern chiefly other periods. Editions by trained scholars are now announced of two important cartularies of the twelfth century, that of La Trinite de Caen by R. N. Sauvage, and that of Mont-Saint-Michel by P. Le- cacheux. For the present the most convenient guide to the contents of Norman documents is the Calendar of Documents Preserved in France of J. Horace Round (London, 1899). This is unfortunately based upon a set of loose copies in the PubUc Record Office,*' and while the editor supplemented these by personal investigation in France and verified a " Also many cartularies copied by him or under his direction. *" C£. A. H. R., viii. 615; supra, Chapter VI, note 15. " Cf. i4. H. R., viii. 614, note. THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 249 certain number from the originals, much material was left untouched and in too many instances the originals were not collated. The anal- yses of documents and the identification of persons, however, were made with the care and competence which were to be expected from this distinguished master of Anglo-Norman history. At present the study of the docxmientary sources needs to be pushed in two directions, the history of monasteries and the ducal charters. In the field of monastic history there is need both of comprehensive studies Uke the recent monograph of R. N. Sauvage on L'ahhaye de Saint-Martin de Troam^* (Caen, 1911), and of critical editions of early charters, such as Ferdinand Lot has given in his Etudes critiques sur I'abhaye de Saint-Wandrille (Paris, 1913).^ Such studies furnish the necessary basis for a collection of ducal charters which shall perforin for the earher dukes the labor so admirably done by DeUsle and Berger for Henry II. From 1066 on such work must be carried on with the closest attention to the material in England, for which H. W. C. Davis has begvm his Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum (i, Oxford, 1913). " Where, pp. xlv-xlix, other monastic histories are emuuerated. One of the best is Por€e, Histoire de I'abbaye du Bee (fivreux, 1901). *' J.-J. Vernier, Les ckartes de I'abbaye de JumUges (Sod^tfi de rhistoire de Nor- mandie, 1916), reached me only after this volume was in type. APPENDIX B THE EARLY DUCAL CHARTERS FOR FfiCAMP The abbey of Fecamp, " the Saint-Denis of the Norman dukes," * was from its foundation in the closest relations with the ducal house, from which it received important grants and privileges; yet its early charters have received singularly little attention from historians. The series in the departmental archives at Rouen, though rich for the later period, contains comparatively few early documents; the earliest orig- inals passed into private hands and were finally acquired by the Musee de la Distillerie de Benedictine de Fecamp, to the generosity of whose proprietors I am indebted for photographs and opportunities of study on the spot. The cartularies in the Archives of the Seine- Inferieure (no. i6) and in the Public Library at Rouen (MS. 1207) con- tain little on the early period, but the careful copies of Dom Lenoir at Semilly (volume 76) and in the Collection Moreau at the BibUo- theque Nationale (especially volume 341) are based upon a lost cartu- lary of the twelfth century as well as upon originals then in possession of the abbey. An adequate study of this material can be undertaken only as part of a history of the monastery, but the student of Norman institutions caimot avoid an examination of the earUest ducal charters, which offer an exceptionally full series, with several unpublished originals (see the facsimiles in the present volume), and are of much importance for the grants of immunity, the ducal curia, and ducal finance. The following fist is confined to the charters of Richard I, Richard IT, and Robert I, and to certain forgeries based upon them and ascribed to WiUiam the Conqueror.* In general the early charters of Fecamp show small trace of the forger's hand, as compared, for example, with the documents of the same period for Saint- Wandrille and Saint-Ouen. At two points, how- ever, F& was tempted to sustain its claims by fabrication, with respect namely to the exemption of Fecamp and certain other parishes from the authority of the archbishop of Rouen, and to the immuni ty of the monastery from secular jurisdiction. The documentary basis for ' Prentout, Shide critique sur Dudon de S.-Quentin, p. 326. ' For three unpublished originals of Robert Curthose, see infra. Appendix E, no. 4. EARLY CHARTERS FOR FMCAMF 2$ I the exemption is not entirely dear,' and an interpolation to this effect was attempted in the earliest charter of the monastery, that of Duke Richard I {infra, no. i). No immunity is found in this document, but the first charter of Richard II, issued 30 May 1006 (no. 2), has the following clause: Tam honmi quam eorum qug a patre meo tradita sxmt omnis ordinatio exterius et interius in abbatis sibique subiectorum consistat arbitrio, undeque eonun dispositioni resistat persona nuUa parva vel magna cuiuscumque officii dignitatisve. Et non soltim in rerum ordinatione iustici sad in resti- tuendi abbatis electione ... a nobis iuste collata utantur libertate.* A specific grant of immtmity appears for the first time in no. 5, Rich- ard II's charter Propitia of 1025 (1027), in exactly the same terms as in the contemporary charters for Jumieges and Bemai and in the charters of Robert I for Saint-Amand and La Trinite du Mont: * Haec omnia . . . concedo . . . ut habeant, teneant, et possideant abs- que ulla inquietudine cuiuslibet sgcularis vel iudiciarig potestatis sicuti res ad fiscum dominicum pertinentes. This is clearly the genuine and standard form of the Fecamp inmnmity. The general confirmation of Robert I in its expanded text (no. loB) gives a different statement: Ista igitur bona et omnia alia qu§ Fischannensi monasterio olim donata sunt sub solius abbatis potestate et iusticia constituimus ut nuUius digni- tatis homo aliquando manum intromittere presiunat. The fabrication based upon nos. 5 and 10 and ascribed to William the Conqueror (no. 11) elaborates the exemption with particular reference to Saint-Gervais: ' Documents are lacking to confinn the account in the De revelatione (Neustria Pia, p. 214; Bessin, Concilia, ii. 21) according to which the freedom ' ab omni episcoporum iugo et consuetudine * was granted by Richard II, King Robert, Archbishop Robert, and Benedict VIII; but such an exemption is presupposed in the freedom ' ab omni episcopali consuetudine . . . sicut tenet Fiscarmensiecclesia' which was granted to Montivilliers in 1035 {Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 326; infra, Appendix C, no. 17). For the controversies over exemption at the close of the eleventh century see the Ordinationes facte in monasterio Fiscanni, in Mabillon, Annates, iv, 668; and the treatises in MS. 415 of Corpus Christi College, Cam- bridge (Bohmer, Kirche und Staat, pp. 180, 183). * King Robert's charter of even date has: ' Sicut nulli ordini, dignitati, potestati, hereditarieque successioni, nostre quinimmo maiestati super idem ius relinquere decrevimus dominationis.' E. F., x. 588. ' Supra, p. 26. For the later history of the immunity of F6camp, see Valin, p. 224; Delisle-Berger, no. 57. 252 APPENDIX B Et ab omni servido archiepiscopali sit libera sicut Fiscanni abbacia, ut nullus meus heres aut archiepiscopus seu alicuius potestatis persona audeat infringere vel violare banc meam donacionem. The second of the forgeries attributed to the Conqueror (no. 12), with the related extract concerning Steyning, was prepared primarily for use in England; for the Norman lands it merely repeats the clause of Richard II with the insertion of vd diminutione, whereas for the English possessions it repeats the clause in this form and adds Et quod abbas et monachi ecclesie Fiscannensis vel eonun ministri regiam habeant libertatem et consuetudinem et iusticiam siiam de omnibus rebus et negotiis que in terra sua evenient vel poterunt evenire, nee aliquis nisi per eos se inde intromittat, quia hoc totum regale beneficiiun est et omni servi- tute quietiun. Such ' royal liberty and justice ' was confirmed to the abbey by Henry n.« 1 989-990 (?) Charter of Richard I, with the concurrence of Archbishop Robert and aU the bishops of Normandy, granting to Ficamp MondevUle, Argences, (Calvados), Saint-Valery, ' Bretennoles,' and IngouviUe (Seine-In- firieure) (together with the exemption of the abbey church and twelve others from all episcopal jurisdiction). A, original lost; B, copy in lost cartulary of 12th century; C, copy of 12th century in the Public Library of Rouen, MS. 427, f. 151V. La Roque, Histoire de la maison d'Harcourt, iii. 165 (cf. 164), ' ex- traict des archives de I'abbaye '; Neustria Pia, p. 208, from C, omit- ting several witnesses; Poimneraye, Sanctae Rotomagensis Ecclesiae Concilia, p. 60; extract in factimi of 1688 (Bibliothfeque Nationale, factum 12070, 2), where it is attributed to Richard II. Cf. Mabillon, Annales, iv. 57 (62); Bessin, Concilia, ii. 21; Gallia Christiana, xi. 203, where the text is corrected from B. The charter is undated but was apparently given at the time of the dedication, the date of which is not given by Dudo, William of Ju- mifeges, or the F& annals (Labbe, Nova Bibliotheca, i. 325), but appears as 989 or 990 in the later annalists (Duchesne, Historiae Nor- mannorum Scriptores, p. 1017; H. F., x. 317; Gallia Christiana, xi. 203). The document cannot in any case be earlier than 989, the year • Delisle-Berger, no. 57. EARLY CHARTERS FOR FSCAMP 253 of the accession of Robert to the archbishopric of Rouen (Annals of Junneges, in the Vatican, MS. Regina 553, part 2, f. 6; Ordericus, ii. 365, V. 156; cf . Vacandard in Revue catholiqtte de Normandie, xiii. 196) ; it is fundamental for the dates of the Norman bishops, who are all mentioned by name. The exemption of the thirteen parishes from the archbishop's juris- diction, which is found in all the printed texts, is an obvious interpola- tion, as was pointed out by the editors of the Gallia, who note that it does not occur in B. There is no apparent reason for doubting the remainder of the document: a charter of Richard I is specifically cited by Richard II {infra, no, 2), and the places here granted are recited in the general confirmation of Richard II (no. 5). The enumeration in this confirmation of other grants of Richard I — fitigues, etc. — may imply other charters of his now lost. 30 May 1006, doubtless at Fecamp Charter of Richard II granting to Ficamp freedom of election according to the custom of Cluny, and adding to the gifts of his father possessions in the following places: Ficamp, ' Giruinivilla' (= Vittefleur?), Arques, Scretteville, Harfleur, Rouen, Pissy, Barentin (Seine-Infirieure), Aizier (Eure), Hennequemlle (Calvados), and five churches in VaudreuU. A, original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. i; B, copy in Collection Moreau, cccxli. 2, from which the portions in brackets have been restored. Unpublished; see the facsimile, plate i. These privileges are con- firmed by a charter of King Robert, issued at Fecamp on the same day: collated copies in Musee, nos. 2, 3; printed in Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 8; Mabillon, Annates, iv. 170 (185); H. F., x. 587, no. xvi; Pfister, Robert le Pieux, catalogue, no. 30.* m NOMINE SANCTAE ET INDIVroUAE TEINITATIS DIVINA FAVENTE GEATIA [siCAiinus] COMES ET PATRiTius.|| Hactenus locum istum vulgaris fama Fiscamnum vocare consuevit, cuius ethimologia perspecta doctores novelli quidam fixum scamnum quidam fixum campum volimt appeUari. ReUicto ergo inter contentiosos iudido huius nominis, causa divim servidi quae ibi ' The original of Robert's other charter for Fecamp (B. F., x. 387, no. xv; Pfister, no. 33) isintheMusfie,no. i; copy in Collection Moreau, cccxli. 12. For other early giants to Fecamp, see La Roque, iii. 167; Depoin, CarUdaire de S.-Martin de Pontoise, p. 342. 254 APPENDIX B agitur quando vel quomodo cepta sit cognoscatur. Sicut in universis terrae partibus sancta mater aecclesia multiplicato gaudet filiorum numero, ita in ipsisexultare cupit openim bononun incremento. Quorum multis per alianun exequutiones virtutimi occupatis, dum quidam ex transitoriis bonis ou-as genmt pauperum, alii sanctorum locis edificandis invigilant, quasi decollatis beneficiis Christo vidssitudinem reddimt,ut cum illo felicius vivant. Quorum exemplo notmn sit presentibus et futuris in hoc loco patrem metim comitem Richardimi fundamento construxisse aecclesiam in honore sanctae et indi- viduae trinitatis consubstantialispatris et filii et spiritus sancti,eo intentionis voto ut coUectus monachonun ordo sub regula Sancti Benedicti viveret et Dei laudibus inserviret. Cuius desiderium ubi mors abstulit imperfecttun, ego Richardus comes eius equivocus filius suscepi peragendum, nee multo post divina providentia inventum domnum Wilelmum abbatem et precibus et caput huius crescendg religionis preesse institui. Sub quo iam multipU- catis monachis et multiplicandis temporalibus bonis quae a patre meo huic loco concessa sunt et pwr cartam firmata, h§c ex hereditario iure concessa super addo: In comitatu scilicet Calciacensi in ipsa villa Fiscamno tertiam partem hospitum quos colonos vocant cum terra arabili quae ad ipsam ter- tiam partem pertinet, unam partem silvae a publica strata usque ad mare terminatam, et dimidium vectigal; in Giruinivilla cum duobus molendinis quicquid habere visus sum; apud villam Archas tertiam partem piscariae et duas salinas et aliqviid terrae arabilis cum prato; aecclesiam Scrotivillae et aliquid terrae arabilis; apud Harofloz .i. mansum cum Ix. pensis salis cum .iiii. hacreis prati; in civitate Rotomagensi mansum umun ami ca[p]ella et XXX hacreis terrg arabilis cum vii hacreis prati; et in comitatu eiusdem civitatis gcclesiam Piscei et aliquid terrae arabilis cum gcclesia Barentini villae; in vallae Rologiville aecclesiam Sanctae Mariae, aecclesiam Sancti Stephani, gcclesiam Sanctae Ceciliae, aecclesiam Sancti Satumini, aecclesiam Sancti Quintini cum capeUis subiectis eis et quicquid terrae arabilis et prati ad eas pertinet; super ripam Sequang Aschei villam et quicquid ibi Trostin- cus tenuit; Heldechimvillam super mare. Hgc predicto loco perpetualiter habenda concgdo, igitur tarn [h]orum quam eormn qug a patre meo tradita simt omnis ordinatio exterius et interius in abbatis sibique subiectonun consistat arbitrio, undeque eorum dispositioni resistat persona nuUa parva vel magna cuiuscinnque officii dignitatisve. Et non solum in rerum ordina- tione iusticia sed in restituendi abbatis electione, ubi morte subtractus fuerit, a nobis iuste collata utantiir hbertate, ita dimitaxat ut in ipsa elec- tione vel ordinatione abbatis ilia per omnia servetur consuetudo quae hactenusin Cluniaco cgnobiorum servata est ilIu[s]trissimo, imde fonssanctae monasticg religionis per multa iam longe lateque dirivatus loca ad hunc usque Deo profluit propicio. Cuius sanctae religionis observatio ut magis ac magis ad profectum tam meg quam genitoris ac genitricis omniumque fideUum proficiat animarum hoc in Fixiscamnensi monasterio, sicut nuUi ordini dignitati potestati heredetarigque successioni relinquere super idem ius decrevimus dominationis, ita si a iam cepta, quod absit, deviaverit rectitudine, nulH illud in pristinum reformanti mercedem denegamus recu- perationis, sed et nostrorum super his decretorum invasores violatores sive destructores nisi emendaverint non evadere se sciant maledictionem Dei sed EARLY CHARTERS FOR FECAMP 255 cum diabolo et luda proditore pgnas quibunt in inferno sustinere impiorum [ubi v]errais non morietur et ignis non extinguetur in gternum. 4-Ego autem kichakdus Norhtmannonim dux, ut hinc mihi merces cumuletur aeterna huiusque cartule testamentum per Widonem notarium meo rogatu conscriptum stipulatione firmetur, subnixa propria signans manu firmavi bisque roborari [rogans t]estibus tradidi. SS Rodulf[i] SS Wilelm[i] SS [ego wmo] NOTAMUS lussu [domni kichardi illustrissimi ducis, qui MISERICORDIAE OPEMBUS VALDE QUIA STUDET] ELEMOSINAKIUS VOCATUX, HOC [testamentum] SCEIPSI anno DOMINICg INCAIINATIONIS [m. VI. INDIC- TIONE nn. DDE TERTIO ANTE KAL. lUNH V. FEEIA DOMINIC^ ASCENSIONIS GAUDIO] CELEBEREIMA, FELICITER. IOI7-IO25 (?) Charter of Richard II granting for the enrichment of Fecamp lands and churches in F Scamp, Sassetot{ ?), Limpiville, Trimauville, Ganzeville, Manneville (?), Dun, Barentin, Campeaux, La Carboniere, arid Villers- Chambellan ' {Sdne-Inflrieure). A, original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. 2 Ms; B, copy by Dom Lenoir from A in Collection Moreau, cccxli. 6, from which blurred words in the original have been supplied; C, another copy from A at Semilly, Ixxvi. 165; D, copy by A. Deville, MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, f. no. UnpubUshed; see the facsimile, plate 2. Subsequent to 1017, when the predecessor of Maingisus attests as bishop of Avranches; anterior to no. 5. According to Dom Lenoir, " on pense a Fecamp que cette charte est de 1' an 1023." +QUONIAM VEEmiCA DIVINARUM SCRIPTURARUM ASSERTIONS || prisCOrUm- que patrum monimentis expresse edocti id certa ratione comperimus quod quicunque omnipotentis Dei premisso timore speque animatus perhennis vitg aliquod quantulumcumque munusculum sanctg matri aecclesig ex propriis iureque adquisitis rebus contulerit, absque dubio in futuro ei re- compensabitur superni bravii sterna; unde ego Richardus huiusce cespitis monarchus, ut credo summi Dei crebrerrimis cordetenus agitatiis huiusmodi inspirationis spiculis, quendam locum qui dicitur Fiscamus dicatum in honore summi redemptoris sacris ordinibus monachonmi ex more mancipavi quo perpetualiter inibi laudetur nomen Domini. Ut autem devotionis nostrg inconvulsa permaneat ratio, decrevi locum iUum ditari et augere. Ad augendam igitur vitam inibi Domino militantium concedo in ipso loco Fiscanio .xii. bofi ' terrg .xii.que domes; gcclesiam Beati Stephani cum bon ' According to Dom Lenoii the last three are hamlets in the neighborhood of Barentin. Instead of Sassetot one would expect £l6tot, as in no. 5. ' Delisle, ^ude sur I'agriadture, p. 537, found no instance of this measure of land, the bonaria or bonata, in Normandy. 256 APPENDIX B .vi.; gcclesiam Beati Benedict! cum terra qug est inter duos fluvios at mol- endinouno; inSaestetothecclesiamcumxii. bonterrg; Leopini villam totam cum ecclesia et quicquid ad earn pertinet; in Tormodi villa ecclesiam cum terra unius carrucg; in GansanviUa ecclesiam cum terra ad earn pertinente; ad Manonis villam fcclesiam cum xii. boil et acri terre; in viUa qug dicitur Dunus .iii. gcclesias cum .xl.iiii. boii terrg; gcclesiam villg que dicitur Barentinus cum duobus hospitibus et aream molendini unam aquamque villg a gordo de PaiJiaco usque ad fagum comitissg; villam quoque qug dicitur Campelli cum silva qug est a valle Carbonaria usque ad vaUem Villaris. Eo pacto ut hgc qug prefata sunt inviolabiUter teneant inibi Deo miUtantes absque ullius molestia et contradictione sub manu nostrg firmitatis fidelimnque nostro- rumque astipulatione. +Signum Richardi comitis+Signum Ricardi filii eius+Signum Rotberti filii eius +Sigmmi Rotberti archiepiscopi H-Signum Hugonis Baiocensis episcopi+Signimi Hugonis Ebroicensis episcopi+Signum Mangisi Abrincen- sis episcopi +Signum Nigelli vicecomitis +Signum Torstingi vicecomitis. 15 June 1023, at Rouen Grant to Ficatnp by Gaieran I ofMeulan, in the presence of Richard II, of the toll and piage of Meulan. A, quasi-original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. 28; B, copy there- from by Dom Lenoir at Semilly, Ixxvi. 167. Unpublished. ' Actum Rothomago (sic) .xvii. kal. lulii indictione .vi. regnante Rotberto serenissimo rege Francorum ante presentiam gloriosi Richardi Normannorum ducis et fratris eius Roberti ipsius urbis archiepiscopi et domini Willelmi iam dicti monasterii abbatis.' Attestations ' Waleranni, Herberti comitis Cenomannic§ civitatis, loffredi comitis Bellimontis castri, Hilduini vicecomitis Mellensis supradicti castri.' August 1025 (?), at Fecamp Great charter of Richard II enumerating and confirming the gifts of his father, himself, and his followers to Ficamp, including the tithe of his mint and his camera, to hold on the same conditions as his own demesne. {Inc. ' Propitia divin§ gratiae dementia. . . .') A, original in Mus6e de la B€n6dictine, no. 2 ter; see the facsimile, plate 3. There is now no trace of a seal, but according to F (see Delisle, in MS. Fr. n. a. 21819, ff. 8-12) it still had a great seal in 1503. Dom Lenoir says: " II y avoit un sceau applique dont la figure etoit ronde. EARLY CHARTERS FOR FSCAMP 257 H ne subsiste plus, mais on voit encore les incisions faites au bas de la charte pour introduire la cire siu: laquelle ce sceau etoit imprime." B, copy from A by Dom Lenoir, Collection Moreau, cccxli. 8; C, collated copy of 1320 in Musee, no. 4; D, vidimus of Philip III formerly in archives of the abbey (cf . Collection Moreau, cccxli. 8) ; E, copy of D in cartulary, MS. Rouen 1 207, f . i ; F, modern copies in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure. Neustria Pia, p. 215, with innimierable errors; T. Bonnin, Cartidaire de Louviers, i. 3, from E; cf. DeUsle, Cartidaire normand, no. 833. The date in the original runs as follows, substantially as in Neustria Pia: DATA MENSE AUGUSTO CONSmENTIBUS NOBIS FISCANNI PALATIO ANNO AB mCARNATIONE DOMINI .1. XXVII. INDICTIONE VIII. EEGNANTE ROTBERTO EEGE ANNO XXXVI. The same date appears, save for the year of King Robert which is given as the thirty-eighth, in two other charters of Richard II which also show close resemblance in the final clauses: one a pancarta for Jumieges preserved in vidimus of 1499 and 1533 and in cartulary copies in the Archives of the Seine-Inferieure (Vernier, no. 12, who does not discuss the date); the other the foundation charter of Bemai, preserved only in copies from which it has been edited by Le Prevost, Eure, i. 284 (less correctly in Neustria Pia, p. 398; extract in La Roque, iii. 165). The impossibility of recon- ciling the various elements in this date has been evident since the time of Du Monstier and MabiUon (Annales, iv. 286), who ascribed the difficulty to an error in copying 1027 instead of 1026 or 1025. We now know that the original has, not only 1027, but a regnal year, the thirty-sixth, which corresponds to no known style of Robert (Pfister, £tudes sur Robert le Pieux, pp. xlii-xliv) ; yet according to the narra- tive sources Richard II died 23 August 1026 (ibid., p. 216, note 6; cf. Lot, S.-Wandrille, p. 50, note i). Norman scholars have generally agreed to follow the indiction, which together with the regnal year (38) of the charters for Jumieges and Bemai, gives August 1025 as the date of the three charters and thus brings them into agreement with the chronology of the period so far as it has yet been established. See Le Provost, Eure, i. 283 (cf. however his edition of Ordericus, i. 175, note 2, ii. 10, note 2); Sauvage, Traarn, p. 11, note 2. 258 APPENDIX B I025-1026 Grata to FScamp by Raindd, vicomte ofArques, attested by Richard II, of all his possessions at Argues and in the comity of Argues and at San- tigny(?), and the churches of Saint-Aubin and Tourville {Seine-In~ fSrieure). A, original lost; B, figured copy of ca. iioo in the Archives of the Seine-Inferieure; C, copy of B by A. Deville, MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, f. III. Published with facsimile by Chevreux and Vernier, Les archives de Normandie et de la Seine-Infirieure, plate 9, from B, which is called an original of ca. iioo, the relation to Richard II being overlooked. The charter belongs to the very end of Richard II's reign, as its grants are not included in those confirmed in no. 5, while they are specifically enumerated by Robert I in no. 10. This charter and its confirmation by Robert I are cited in a charter of William, count of Arques, 18 July 1047: original in Musee de la Benedictine, no. 5 bis; printed in Martene and Diu-and, Thesaurus Anecdotorum, i. 166; Brussel, Usage des fiefs (1750), i. 84. zz April 1028 (or Z034), at Fecamp Charter of Robert I authorizing an exchange between Bishop Hugh of Bayeux and the monks of FScamp with reference to Argences, and provid- ing that disputes respecting the agreement should be brought before his court. A, original lost; B, copy in lost cartulary of 12th century; C, copy from B by Dom Lenour in Collection Moreau, xxi. 9. Unpublished; cf. E. E. R., xxxi. 264, no. 8; infra, Appendix C, p. 272, no. 8. The omission of any reference to the abbot makes it probable that this charter belongs to 1028, between the resignation of William of Dijon and the consecration of John. If the leuva of Argences included in no. 10 had ahready been granted to the abbey, it would probably be mentioned specifically in this charter. The prolonged difficulties be- tween the duke and Bishop Hugh are another reason for placing the charter early in Robert's reign (William of Jumieges, bk. vi, c. 5). Rotbertus nutu Dei Northmannorum dux omnibus fidelibus nostris cuiuscumque ordinis, indominicatis scilicet et vavassoribus seu ubicumque EARLY CHARTERS FOR FMCAMP 259 in Christum credentibus, notitiam et commutuationem quam salva fide in memoriam tam presentibus quam futuris litteris tradere disponimus. No- tum sit igituT vobis quod Hugo Baiocacensis §cdesig episcopus venit ad meam mercedem castro Fiscanni die Cgng Dominicg qug habita est eo anno .iii. idus Aprilis, in quo castro in honore summg et individug Trinitatis bong memorig avus mens et pater monasteriiun construxerunt ac villis et orna- mentis honorifice decoraverunt et, quod meKus est, monachis pro animabus nostris Deo cotidie servientibus deputavenmt. Deprecatus est autem mer- cedem meam ut apud ipsius monasterii monachos impetrarem ut terram qug didtur Argentias quam prgnotatus avus meus R. nobilis dux altario eiusdem sanctg et individug Trinitatis in dotem tradidit ei commutuarent. Quod post multas eorum excusationes tandem obtinui. Fecerunt itaque per tales tamen convenientias; Episcopus debet dare monachis centum hospites ad presens qui totas diptas reddant et liberos ab omni meo servido vel costumis per meam auctoritatem et per memn donum in alodiun et hereditatem per- petuam, et tres gcdesias et xx" francos homines in locis qui appellantur BoiavQla, Brunvilla, Penloi, Lexartum cum portu piscatorio, cmn silvis, pascuis, et omnibus pertinentiis suis, et villam qug didtur Vetus Redum cum molendino et omnibus appendiciis eius; et debet redpere ab ipsis monachis predictam terram, id est Argentias, per tale conventmn ut usque dum vixerit teneat et post obitum eius monachi eam statim redpiant, id est ipsam viUam Argentias, per meam licentiam sine contradictione alicuius potestatis cuius- libet ordinis seu magng parvgque persong, sic ex integro ciun terris, vineis, molendinis, silvis, pratis, aquis, et mercato forensi seu omnibus appendiciis eius absque tilla calumnia, sicut unquam meUus tenuerunt; et ip>sos centum hospites quos episcopxis donat, sicut prgdictmn est, in prenominatis lods cum omnibus suis appendiciis similiter ami ipsa post obitum episcopi teneant et possideant ivae hereditario in alodum ex mea parte concessmn sicut pre- dictum est. Notum quoque esse volo quia iUa terra quam dat episcopus quorundam hominiun calumniis refutata est a monachis postquam has. convenientias incgpimus antequam perficeremus, et postea a me et ab ipso episcopo tali convenientia est data et ab eis recepta ut si per iUam calumniam damnmn aliquod ipsi monachi habuerint, duas redamationes in mea corte vel curia fadant, et si time ego et episcopus non acquitaverimus eam, mo- nachi per meam licentiam sine contradictione vel malivolentia episcopi vel alicuius hominis reveniant ad villam suam Argentias et redpiant eam et teneant et possideant absque ullo deinceps cambio. Si quis vero contra hanc nostrg auctoritatis commutuationem aUquando temerario ausu inferre calumniam presumpserit, primitus ab ipso Deo patre omnipotente et a filio eius unigenito domino nostro et a spiritu sancto sit maledictus et excom- municatus et a beata Dei genitrice Maria et electo archangelo Michaele, Gabriele, Raphaele, et ab omnibtis cglestium virtutum spiritibus et omnibus patriarchis prophetis apostolis martyribus confessoribus virginibus viduis et omnibus electis Dd, et sit in gtema damnatione cum Dathan et Abiron quos vivos terra absorbuit et cum luda traditore qui Dominum predo tradidit necnon et cum his qui dixerunt Deo, Recede a nobis, scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus, nisi digna satisfactione emendaverit. Amen. 26o APPENDIX B 8 1028-103S Charier of Robert I restoring to Ficamp Argences and other domains. A, original lost; B, official copy of 1688 in Archives of the Seine- Inferieure, according to DeUsle; these archives and the fonds of the barony of Argences in the Archives of the Calvados have been searched without success. Extracts in Delisle, S.-Sauveur-le-Vicomte, pieces, no. 10; cf. infra, Appendix C, no. 9. This charter is evidently posterior to no. 7. Argences is not one of the places claimed by Hugh of Bayeux after Robert's death {Livre noir, no. 21.) 9 Ca. 1034-1035 Charter of Robert I granting Saint-Taurin of &iireux in exchange for Montivilliers as a dependency of Ficamp. A, original lost. Printed in Martene and Durand, Thesaurus Anec- dotorum, i. 154. Cf. Appendix C, no. 10. Evidently not long anterior to the foundation of MontiviUiers 13 January 1035 (pallia Christiana, xi. instr. 326; infra, Appendix C, no. 17). 10 I032-I035 Charter of Robert I enumerating his grants of lands and knights to Ficamp, including the gifts of Rainald of Argues (no. 6).* Supposed originals, unsealed, in Musee de la Benedictine, with iden- tical witnesses but differences in content: A (no. 3 bis), on long, some- what irregular, unruled piece of parchment, with frequent use of the form ae and with crosses in different hands before ten of the witnesses; B (no. 4 bis), on broad, ruled parchment, written in a closer hand, with * The places mentioned, which lie chiefly in the Pays de Caux, are Petitville, ficretteviUe, Bemai (Eure?), fil6tot, Arques, Tourville-sur-F6camp, Argences (Calvados), Ourville, Oissel-sur-Seine, SorquainviUe, Bennetot, BiviUe-Ia-Martel, Ypreville, Riville, Ermenouville(?), Nfiville, Anglesqueville, and Caen. Santinia- cus villa (cf . no. 6) and Corhvilma I have not identified, unless the latter be the 'insula Oscelli que et Turhulmus dicitur' (lie de B€danne) of the cartulary of La Trinit£-du-Mont, no. 82 ; cf. Toussaint Duplessis, Description de la Haute Normandie,ii. i2t, 274. EARLY CHARTERS FOR FMCAMP 26 1 crosses, apparently in the same hand, before all the witnesses; C, copies by Dom Lenoir in Collection Moreau, cccxli. 12, 15; D, ditto at SemiUy, Ixx. 525. UnpubUshed; see the facsimiles, plates 4 and 5. Extracts in La Roque, iii. 19, iv. 1323; cf. E. H. R., xxsd. 264, nos. 6, 7; infra, Appen- dix C, nos. 6, 7. Subsequent to the accession of Gradulf as abbot of Saint-Wandrille, whose predecessor died 29 November 103 1. Junguene, archbishop of Dol, whose latest attestation in charters is of 1032, seems to have been active in the service of Coxmt Alan III for a year or two longer; his successor cannot be traced before 1040. See Gallia Christiana, xiv. 104s; La Borderie, in Revue de Bretagne, 1891, i. 264-267; id., Histoire de Bretagne, iii. 10 f . The signature of Edward the Confessor as king renders it rather likely that neither A nor B is an original, although it is not impossible that he used this title in Canute's lifetime, as in a questionable charter for Mont-Saint-Michel (see Appendix C, p. 273). Further doubt is thrown upon B by the broad grant of authority to the abbot in the last sentence. The contents of A seem to me genuine, and the royal tit'e of Edward would be a natural addition in an early copy. A and B In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.' Ego Rotbertus filius secxmdi Richardi nutu Dei Northmannorum ducis et ipse per gratiam Dei princeps et dx (sic) Northmannorum notum fieri volo tam presentibus quam futuris ea quae respectu gratiae Dei contuli universorum domino sanctae scilicet et individug tieinitati in loco qui dicitur Fiscannus post decessum patris. mei pro salute amm§ meg et predecessorum meorum fratrum quoque et sororum. Quae omnia nominanter subter ' asscribere volui ne memorig laberentur sub- sequent! posteritate haec sunt: Pitit villa cum omnibus sibi pertinentiis; quidam^ homines mei scih'cet nulites cum omnibus sibi pvertinentibus; Mi sunt Hundul filius Gosmanni et nepotes eius filii Bloc, Walterius quoque filius Girvilfi, filti Gonfredi omnes de GerviniviUa, Torqnitil filius Adlec, lustaldus clericus et Rodulfus laicus fratresque eorum filii Hugonis de Barda villa. Dedi autem terram quae Scrot viUa dicitur cum omnibus sms appen- diciis. Reddidi etiam totam medietatem Bemai villg cum omnibus que ad ipsam medietatem pertinent ex integro. Dedi etiam viUam quae dicitiu: Eslettot. Reddidi quoque omnem terram quam Rainaldus vicecomes apud Areas et in Turvilla et Santiniaco villa tenere videbatur cum aeclesiis et molendinis et bosco qui dicitur Appasilva, cum salinis, piscariis, pratis, hos- pitibus, et onmibus appenditiis suis et omnibus hominibus qui sibi subiecti * ' -|-rN NOMINE PATEIS EI FUJI ET SPIRITUS SANCT[i a]mEN,' B. ' Om. B. * B om. guidam . . . quae (before Scrot villa). 262 APPENDIX B fuenint. [Dedi ' quoque silvam quae Bocolimda • dicitur iuxta Fiscannum ex toto. Commutuavi autem eis silvam quam inter duas aquas dicunt ex utra- que parte et omnia que ad earn pertinent. Dedi quoque terram qug Hurvilla dicitur quam mea avia pro salute parentum nostrorum et sua Fiscanni loco destinavit, cellarium insuper et vineam. Contuli ' etiam alios milites, scilicet] Osbertum filium Gosmanni cum suo alodo et Ursonem et Willelmum eius fratrem filios videlicet Anslecci. Donavi apud Argentias leuvam iuxta morem patriae nostrae propter mercatum ipsius villae. Haec omnia pro salute animg meae et parentum meorum soli Deo trine ' et uno vivo et vero contuli. Siquis autem, quod fieri non credo, contra banc nostrg preceptionis cartulam contraire aut calmnpniam inferre temptaverit, cum luda traditore partem habeat si non emendaverit. Ut vero firma et stabilita haec descriptio permaneat, manu propria subter affirmo et fidelibus meis firmare precipio. Reddidi etiam decimam de feriis de Cadumo. Dedi quoque piscariam quod vulgo gordum dicitur apud OsceUmn villam. Dedi decimas de pratis in villa que dicitur Corhulma. Donavi nihUominus Ansfredum de Soastichin villa cum omni terra sua ubicunque tenere videbatur. B Sed et terram Hugonis de Sortichin villa et de Barda villa ubicunque tenere videbantiur de me in Calz et terram Walter filii Girulfi de Hastingi- villa et omnem terram filiorum Bloc et terram Hundul filii Gosmanni quam de me tenere videbantur in Calz, id est Bernetot et Buie villam ciun aliis sibi pertinentiis et terram Osberti filii Gosmanni omne eius alodimi, id est Ypram villam et Rivillam, et terram filiorum Anslec, id est Ermendi villam cum omnibus qug ad ipsam pertinent et omne alodum eorum (?)videbatur in Calz. Dedi quoque Nevillam et omne alodum filiorum Audoeni ubicumque tenere videbantur de me. Dedi terram filiorum Turfredi, id est Anglis- cavillam et omne alodum eorum in Calz, et terram filiorum Gonberti de Gervini villa et terram Gazel quam de me tenebat in Fischanno, id est cam- partum de Fischanno et aliquos hospites, et terram Murieldis de AmbHda et in Cadomo unum burgarium ad pontum et terram Rotberti de Habvilla. Ista igitur bona et omnia alia qug Fischannensi monasterio olim donata sunt sub solius abbatis potestate et iusticia constituimus ut nullius dignitatis homo aliquando manum intromittere presumat. AandB +Signum Rotberti Normannorum ducis. +Signum Willelmi filii eius. +Signum domni Rotberti archiepiscopi. +Signum Rotberti episcopi. Signum Gingoloi archiepiscopi. Signum domni lohannis abbatis. +Sigmmi Willelmi abbatis. Signum Gradulfi abbatis. Signum Rainerii abbatis. +Signum Durandi abbatis. +Signum Isemberti abbatis. +Signum Edwardi regis. Signum Balduini comitis. Signum Ingelranni comitis. ' In A the three lines printed in brackets are written more closely over an erasure. ' Buculunda, B. ' B cm. contuli . . . Anslecci. • A. caps. EARLY CHARTERS FOR FECAMP 263 Signum Gisleberti comitis. Signum Negelli. Signum Osberti senscali( ?) +Siginim Unfredi vetuU. Signum Richard! vicecomitis. Signum Gozilini vicecomitis. Signiun Turstini vicecomitis. Signum Aymonis vicecomitis. Signum Toroldi constabilarii. 11 Forged charter of William the Conqueror confirming Fecamp in posses- sion of Saint-Gervais of Rouen, free from all subjection to the archbishop, as granted by Richard II. A, pretended original in a late hand, apparently of the fourteenth century, in Musee de la Benedictine, unnumbered; see the facsimile, plate 6. B, vidimus of Pope Benedict XIII, 28 June 1404, copied in Fecamp cartulary (C) and in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure (D). Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 43, from CD; Round, Calendar, no. 113, from D. Cf. A. H. R., xiv. 459, note 41. Delisle declared this charter a forgery because of the combination of William's royal style with witnesses dead long before 1066. Roimd, p. xxvi, explained the anachronism as an " interpolation by a long sub- sequent scribe," and assigned the document to " the critical years 1035-1037," with which he found the list of witnesses " wholly con- sistent "; while F. M. Stenton, William the Conqueror, p. 75 f., elabo- rates from it the entourage of the young duke. The charter is a rank fabrication of a later age. The royal style of 1066 ff . is in the pretended original; the handwriting is painfully imitated; John, who is repre- sented as receiving the original gift from Richard, became abbot under Robert I. The obvious purpose was to strengthen the priory against the archbishop, who is not mentioned in Richard II's original grant (no. s). The penal clause is copied from Richard's charter. The witnesses are taken bodily from Robert's charter, no. 10; Durand of Cerisy was probably no longer abbot by 1035. 12 Forged charter of William the Conqueror confirming to Ficamp its lands in England with royal liberty and jurisdiction, free from all secular service, and its possessions in Normandy as granted in the charter of his predecessor Count Richard. A, pretended original in Mus& de la Benedictine, no. 7; B, early copy in Public Record Office, Cartae Antiquae, S. i ; C, cartulary, MS. Rouen 1207, f. 3. 264 APPENDIX B Monasticon, vii. 1082, from B. Cf. Report of the Deputy Keeper, xxix. app., p. 42 ; Davis, Regesta, no. 112. The charter in Neustria Pia, p. 223, is apparently a truncated copy of this; there is also an extract in La Roque, iv* 2219. The style of the charter and the extraordinary privileges which it purports to grant are sufficient to condemn it, quite apart from the appearance of the pretended original. A connection with a forged grant concerning the abbot's rights in Ste)aiing, which is abstracted in the charter rolls {Calendar, i. 322; Davis, no. 253), has been pointed out by Round, E. H. R., xxix. 348; this may be merely an extract from the fuller charter. As indicated above, the inflation of no. 12 is rather on the English than on the Norman side, where it repeats the language of Richard's charter Propitia (no. 5). APPENDIX C THE MATERIALS FOR THE REIGN OF ROBERT I' Robert I, commonly called Robert the Magnificent or, for no good reason, Robert the Devil, is one of the less known figures in the series of Norman dukes. His reign was brief and left few records, and it was naturally overshadowed by that of his more famous son, yet we shall never imderstand the Normandy of the Conqueror's time without some acquaintance with the period immediately preceding. The modern sketches are scanty and unsatisfactory, and while the extant evidence does not permit of a full or adequate narrative, they can be replaced only when the available material has been more fully utilized and more carefully sifted. In this direction the publication of a critical edition of William of Jumieges has at last provided the necessary point of departure.^ The fimdamental account is, of course, the sixth book of the Ju- mieges chronicler, who expressly declares himself a contemporary of the events therein recounted.' For many episodes this is our only con- temporary authority, so that it is especially important to fix its value by checking it at the points where we have other evidence, as well as to supplement its meager outline by information found elsewhere. On the narrative side the contemporary material is fragmentary and scattered, consisting of the bare mention of Robert's accession and death in the annals, and of discoimected references in the hagiographical literature. The dates of Robert's accession (6 August 1027) ^ and death (1-3 July ■ Revised from£. E. R., xxxi. 257-268 (1916). On Robert's reign see, besides the older histories of Normandy, Sir Francis Palgrave, History of Normandy and Eng- land, iii. 141-190; E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest (1877), ii. 179-igi; F. M. Stenton, William the Conqueror, pp. 63-72. ^ Guillaume de Jumieges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. Marx (Rouen, 1914). See my review, E. H. R., xxxi. 150-153- ° ' Quorum actus partim intuitu partim veracium relatu comperimus ' : bk. vi, C. L. * C. Pfister (Glides sur la vie et le regne de Robert le Pieux, p. 216, note), who does not, however, meet all the difficulties of chronology connected with the date of Richard Ill's death, particularly the irreconcilable elements in the dates of the ducal charters of this period. Cf. Le Provost, Eure, i. 283. Unfortunately the two dated charters of Robert, neither of which is an original, are not decisive as to his acces- sion, that for Cerisy (see list below, no. 3) placing November 1032 in his fifth year, 26s 266 APPENDIX C 103s) ' are fixed by the aid of the local necrologies; the pilgrimage is mentioned by contemporaries like Ralph Glaber ° and the Translatio S. VulganiV The Vita Herluini speaks of his relations with Gilbert of Brionne; * the Translatio BeaPi Nicasii places him and his followers at Rouen on 12 December 1032;* Hugh of Flavigny'" describes his reliance upon the counsel of Richard of Saint-Vannes. The most inter- esting of these writers is the author of the Miracttla S. Wtdframni, a monk of Saint-Wandrille who wrote shortly after 1053 and who characterizes Robert as follows: " Hie autem Rotbertus acer animo at prudens priores sues virtute quidem et potentia exequavit; sed pravorum consultui, utpote in primevo iuventutis flora constitutus, equo amplius attandans ragnum quod florans suscaparat in multis debilitavit. Varum non multo post, celesti respactus gratia et bona que inarat illi natura et consilii iutus, resipuit et eos quorum pravitate a racto deviaverat a suo consilio atqua familiaritate sequestravit suequa iugo potantia versa vice fortiter opprassit ac se in libertatem que se decebat vindicavit atque ita propter pretaritorum ignorantiam profectus Hierosoli- mam profimda panituit. Sad in redeundo malignorum perpassus insidias, qui eius equum (quod iam axparti erant) verabantiu- imparium, vanaficio, ut didicimus, apud urbam Niceam occubuit ibique intra sanctam civitatis illius basilicam (quod nulli alii mortalium concessum est) honorifica donaxi sepul- tura promaruit. Varum vir tantus non pravorum tantum malignitate quam divino, ut credi fas est, iudicio decessit, qui iam unus aorum effectus erat quibus, ut apostolus conqueritur, dignus non erat mundus. Here the characterization is fuUer than in WilUam of Jumieges,*^ but the fundamental agreement is striking and shows the view of Robert's character which prevailed among ecclesiastical writers. The very phrase ' pravorum consultui ' recurs in William " and, substan- and that for Montivilliers (no. 17) placing January 1035 in his eighth. Cf. the ques- tion of the date of the charters of Richard II, dated 1027: Appendix B, no. s- ' H. P., xxiii. 420, 487, S79; P. de Farcy, Abbayes du diocise de Bayeux, i. 72. Ordericus, i. 179, gives i July. ' Ed. Prou, p. 108. Robert is not mentioned in Ralph's life of St. William of Dijon, who died at F6camp in 1031: Migne, Pairologia, cxlii. 720. ' Andecta BoUandiana, xxiii. 269. « Migne, cl. 697, 699; J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, pp. 87, 90. Cf. Robert's relations with Serlo of Hauteville: Geoffrey Malaterra, Historia Sictda, bk. i, c. 38 f. ' Migne, cbdi. 1165 f. '» M. G. H., Scriptores, viii. 401; cf. infra, note 17. " D'Achery, SpicUegium (Paris, 1723), ii. 288; Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti (Venice, 1734), iii. 353- " Bk. vi, cc. 2, 3, 12. " Bk. vi, c. 3: 'pravorum consultu sponte sibi delegit.' THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 267 tially, in a charter of Abbot Gradulf of Saint- Wandrille, shortly after 103s, who saw no occasion for redressing the balance by a glorification at the end: " Quam filius eius et ab illo tercius in regno Robertus, in etate iuvenili perversonim consiUo depravatus, supradicto sancto abstulerat confessori. Quo defuncto et a presentibus sublato, filioque illius succedente in regni honore patemo, ego abbas Gradulf us, diu dampnum tarn grave perpessus,etc. Such phrases, taken in conjunction with the troubles with Archbishop Robert and Bishop Hugh of Bayeux described by William of Jumieges,** show plainly that there was a strong reaction against the church at the beginning of Robert's reign, a reaction afterwards ascribed to evil counselors and covered up by the all-sufl5cing merit of the duke's pilgrimage and death.'® The facts were evidently too flagrant to be ignored by WiUiam of Jumieges, favorable as is his narrative to the ducal house; not imtil the time of Wace could they be entirely passed over. The story that Richard III was poisoned by Robert may be in same way connected with the misdeeds of this period. To these years should probably be referred the troubles between the duke and his barons described by Hugh of Flavigny " in his curious account of the diabolical machinations of Ermenaldus the Breton, whom Richard of Saint- Vannes carried off to Verdim after reestablishing peace in Nor- mandy, but who returned and by means of the wager of battle secured the condemnation of several Norman leaders at the duke's hands. The next set of authorities consists of the interpolators of William of Jumieges. The first group of interpolations, assigned by Marx to a monk of Saint-Etienne of Caen writing under Robert Curthose, com- prises two episodes (c, 8 bis) illustrating Robert's generosity, that of the smith of Beauvais and that of the poor knight, and (c. 11) the story of Robert's magnificence at Constantinople, as exemplified by the mule shod with gold and the fire fed with nuts. No source is cited '* Lot, S.-Wandritte, p. '61. Cf. Vernier, no. 13: 'perversonim consSiis illectus.' " Bk. vi, cc. 3, 5. Cf. Fulbert of Chartres, in Migne, cxli. 225; and the losses of Hugh of Sayeux indicated in the Livre noir, no. 21. " On Robert's end cf. Translaiio S. Vidganii, in Analecta Bollandiana, xxui. 269. *' M. G. H., Scriptores, viii. 401: ' Inflanunatur princeps adversus optimates, fiunt discidia, excitantur iurgia, et uno intestino hello tota debachatur Normannia.' Besides the infonuation accessible to him in the east of France, Hugh had oppor- tunity to become acquainted lyith Norman traditions during his visit to Normandy in 1096 (ibid., 369, 393 f., 399, 407, 473, 482); his presence in Normandy is proved by an exchange between Saint-B€nigne and Saint-£tienne of Caen which he attests and by a charter of 24 May 1096 which he drafted: supra, p. 75 f. 268 APPENDIX C for the last of these, which was probably, as we shall see, the common property of the period; but the earlier episodes are recounted on the express authority of Isembert, chaplain of the duke and later abbot of Holy Trinity at Rouen,i* so that they have contemporary value. The additions of Ordericus, made before 1109, are confined to a fuller ac- count of the family of Belleme, for which he could draw on the local traditions of the region." In his Historia Ecclesiastica he adds certain further details respecting the reign: the foimding of Cerisy (ed. Le Prevost, ii. 11); the reconciliation by the duke of Gilbert of Brionne and the house of G€t€ (ii. 25); the banishment of Osmimd Drengot (ii. 53); the death of Dreux, count of the Vexin, on the pilgrimage (ii. 102, iii. 224 f.) ; and a fuller accoimt of the relations of the duke to King Henry I, including the grant of the Vexin (iii. 223 f.). If, as Stubbs thought probable,™ Orderic's contemporary William of Mahnesbury made use of WiUiam of Jumieges, he has no confirmatory value where the two accounts agree, as in the mention of the duke's aid to King Henry I or his tears and gifts at the Holy Sepulchre.*' The Mahnesbury chronicler adds the rumor that the pilgrimage was under- taken in atonement for the poisoning of Richard III; the name of the follower guilty of Robert's death, ' Radulfus cognomen to Mowinus '; the guardianship by the king of France; and, in very brief form, the story of Arlette so fully developed by Wace, including her dream and the omen attending the Conqueror's birth.^ Of subsequent writers much the most important is Wace, who gives a full narrative of the reign which is repeated by Benolt de Sainte- More and the later vernacular chroniclers and has been used without discrimination by modern writers. The question of Wace's sources, fast seriously attacked by Gustav Korting in 1867,^ requires a more thorough treatment upon the basis of the more abundant material and the more critical editions now available. His dose dependence on " ' Hoc referre solitus erat de duce Rodberto Isembertus, primum quidem eius capellanus, postmodum vero Sancti Audoeni monachus, et ad extremum abbas Sancte Trinitatis.' " He also gives the name of the commander of the fleet, Rabel, in c. 11. See infra, p. 275 and note 41. 2» Gesta Regum, p. xxi, citing the text, p. 161 f. Further investigation is desirable on this point. *' Ibid., pp. 211, 227. a Ibid., pp. 211, 285. " Veber die QueUen des Roman de Rou (Leipzig, 1867). It appears from the account of the four sons of William of Belleme (line 2461 ft.) that Wace used the interpolations of Ordericus. THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 269 William of Jumieges was clearly demonstrated by Korting, so that he must not be used as an independent authority in the portions on which they agree. At several points, however, in the reign of Robert, Wace offers material not to be found in William, partly by way of amplifica- tion, as in the account of the visit of Henry I and the campaigns by land and sea against the Bretons, partly in the form of new episodes. These are: ^ the foundation of Cerisy (ed. Andresen, lines 2305-2312) ; the poor knight (2313-2338); the clerk who died of joy at the duke's gift (2339-2388); the smith of Beauvais (2389-2430); the stories of Arlette and of the Conqueror's infancy (2833-2930) ; the investiture of William by the king of France and the guardianship of Alan of Brittany (2979-2994); and the fuU narrative of the pilgrimage (2995-3252). Something of the substance of the history of the reign, as well as much of its color, depends upon the acceptance or rejection of these elements in Wace's poem. A professional rh)miester writing more than a centiuy and a quarter after Robert's death does not inspire confidence as an historical au- thority unless the sources of his information can be definitely traced, a task which was long considered unnecessary and unfruitful. " C'est," wrote fidelestand Du Meril in 1862,^^ "ime question d'un trfes-mince interet, dont la veritable reponse satisferait bien mal la curiosite: c'etait un pen tout le monde." Such vague conclusions are not, how- ever, in accord with the trend of more recent investigation, especially since the publication of Bedier's studies of the mediaeval epic, and the comfortable ' tout le monde ' of earlier belief has in many instances been replaced by particular individuals or monasteries. Can anything of this sort be accomphshed in the case of Wace ? The answer is easy if we accept an emendation of Gaston Paris*' in line 3239, where, speaking of the duke's chamberlain Tosteins who brought back to Cerisy the relics procured at Jerusalem, he says, De par sa mere fu sis aiues. This does not make sense, nor does the reading of MS. B, which has ' mis aues.' K, however, we accept B and emend the first pronoun, we have De par ma mere fu mis aiues, " Cf. Korting's analysis, pp. 51-53. "^ La vie et les ouvrages de Wace, in &tudes sur qudques points d'archiohgie el d'histoire litUraire (Paris, 1862), p. 269. " Romania, ix. 526 ff. dSSo). 270 APPENDIX C which is perfectly intelligible and makes Tosteins the grandfather of Wace. If this be admitted, the whole narrative of the pilgrimage, as well as some of the personal episodes, would come from one of the duke's companions on the journey, not directly, for Wace could not have known a grandfather grown to manhood by 1035, but through the poet's mother. In some instances the source can be further identified. Thus for the two stories of Robert's generosity we now have the authority of the Abbot Isembert." That of the poor knight Wace reproduces closely, that of the smith of Beauvais he abbreviates; but the inference that he knew them in this form is strengthened by their probable connection with Caen, where he was a clerc lisant. On the other hand, the account of Robert's magnificence at the Byzantine court cannot be derived whoUy ^* from the interpolation in William of Jumieges, which sa3rs nothing of the cloaks used by the Normans as seats and left in the emperor's presence. In this respect the Latin text agrees better with the saga of Sigurd Jerusalem-farer, one of the many forms in which Gaston Paris has traced the story through mediaeval literature.^ At this point Wace touches the broader stream of popular tradition. In another portion of his narrative we find a definite and verifiable local source of information. It is noteworthy that in this part of his work Wace gives prominence to Robert's special foundation, the abbey of Saint- Vigor at Cerisy. Whereas Ordericus and Robert of Torigni barely mention its revival at this time,'" Wace describes the privileges granted to the estabUshment by Robert, the sending of the relics thither by the chamberlain Tosteins, and the gifts made early in the Conqueror's reign by Alfred the Giant upon entering the monas- tery. Here we can test his statements by extant documents." The abbey's jurisdiction is described as follows: 2309 E tel franchise lur dunat, Cume 11 dues en sa terra ad: II unt le murdre e le larun, Le rap, le homicide, le arsun. " Supra, note 18. " As Marx assumes, Guillaume de Jumiiges, p. xsdi. " Sur un ipisode d'Aimeri de Narbonne, in Romania, ix. 315-546 (1880). Cf. Paul Idant, Les Scandinaves en Terre Sainte, p. 196 ff. '» Ordericus, ii. 11; Robert of Torigni, ed. Delisle, ii. 195; William of Jumigges, ed. Marx, pp. 252, 255. Cf. Wace, Chronique ascendante, line 213. " Mcnasticon, vii. 1073 f.; incomplete in Neuslria Pia, p. 431; cf. Delisle- Berger, no. 406. For the abbey's possessions, see the Inventaire sommaire des archives de la Manche, series H; the index to Longnon, PouiUis de la province de THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 2/1 These are not specified in the ducal charter, but there is abundant evidence that such were the crimes regularly included in the grant of ducal consueUtdines which is there made.'* Concerning the gifts of Alfred the Giant Wace is more definite: 3593 Una vile, Luvres out nun, Qvii art da sa garantisun, Od tuz las apartenamenz, £ I'eglise da Saint Lorenz, Ovec I'eglisa da Taisia Fist cunfermer a Carasia. Alfred's charter enumerates likewise ' totam terram meam de Lepori- bus . . . etiam totam terram quam Walterus presbiter de me tenebat in villa que dicitur Taissei '; and we know that these places, the barony of Lievres and the churches of Tessy-sur-Vire and Saint- Laurent-sur-Mer, were part of the abbey's domain. Specific detail of this sort could be obtained only from the monks of Cerisy, through whom also would come the history of the relics brought by Tosteins, in case we hesitate to identify him as an ancestor of the poet. Wace had of course ample opportunity to converse with monks from Cerisy at Bayeux and at the court of Henry II, from whom they secured charters; but there can be little doubt that he visited the abbey itself, which he locates exactly (lines 3247 f.) between Coutances and Bayeux, three leagues from Saint-L6, particularly as it was on the natural route between Caen and his native Jersey.^ As the special foimdation of Robert I this monastery would be the natural repository of tradition with respect to him, as Fecamp was for his father and grandfather,'* and Cerisy may well be the source of other elements in Wace's narra- tive which cannot be distinguished in the absence of any remains of the local historiography. Our confidence in the general credibility of Wace's account is further strengthened by the confirmation in other chronicles of partic- Rouen; and Farcy, Abbayes et prieures de I'eviche de Bayeux, Cerisy (Laval, 1887), pp. 78 ff., 259-263. ^ Supra, p. 27; infra, Appendix D. " For a later example of the confirmation of Wace by local documentary evi- dence, compare the account of Grimoud du Flessis (lines 4219-4242) with the char- ter in the Bayeux Liwe noir, no. 3, and the inquest in H. F., xxiii, 699 f. " See J. B^dier, Richard de Normandie dans les chansons de geste, in Romanic Review, i. 113-124 (1910), and in Les Ugendes ifiques, iv. 1-18, 389, 406. For Wace's own sojourn at Fficamp and use of its local traditions, see lines 2246, 2994, 6781- 6918, and lines 1356-1359 in Andresen, i. 87; and of. Gaston Paris, in Romania, ix. 597, 610. 272 APPENDIX C ular statements of his which are not found in William of Jmnieges. Thus the death of Robert by poison is mentioned by the monk of Saint- Wandrille,'* as well as by William of Malmesbury,'* and that of Count Drogo by Ordericus. Ordericus also relates the visit of Henry I at Easter, the grant of the Vexin, and the guardianship of Alan of Brittany." There remains the question how far the chroniclers are confirmed and supplemented by documentary evidence. Any study of such material must be provisional, until the early Norman charters shall have been collected and critically tested monastery by monastery. Meanwhile a rough hst of such charters of Robert I as have come to my notice may serve a useful purpose. In the absence of chronological data the list is arranged by reUgious estabUshments; grants of his reign attested or confirmed by Robert are included, but not charters of Richard II in which he appears as a witness. 1. AvKANCHES cathedral. Grants enumerated in notice of Bishop John. E. A. Pigeon, Le diocise d'Awanches, ii. 667, from modem copy. 2. Bec. Consents to grant by Abbot Herluin, 1034-1035. Mabillon, ^»- nales Ordinis S. Benedicii (Lucca, 1739), iv. 361; Le Prevost, Eure, i. 234. 3. Cerisy-la-For£t. Foundation charter of the monastery of Saint- Vigor, 12 November 1032. Viditmis of 1269-1313, in Archives Nationales, JJ. 62, no. 96; of 1351, ibid., JJ. 80, f. 340V; Cartidaire de Normandie (MS. Rouen, 1235), ff-sSv, 84. Netistria Pia, p. 431; Monasticon, vii. 1073, from Norman roUs of Henry V; DeUsle, CarUdaire normand, no. 768; Farcy, Abbayes du diockse de Bayeux, i. 78. 4. Dijon, Saint-ifitienne. Confirms grants of his predecessors in Nor- mandy. Subsequent to the death of St. William in 1031. DeviUe, Analyse, P- 33; cf. supra. Chapter I, note 170; Analecta Divionensia, ix. 175. 5. EvREUX, Saint-Taiuin. Gift mentioned in no. 10. 6. Fecamp. Comprehensive enumeration of his gifts to the abbey, 1032-1035. Supra, Appendix B, no. loA. 7. FfcAMP. Fuller and more suspicious form of no. 6, with identical witnesses. Appendix B, no loB. 8. Fecamp. Charter notifying agreement between the abbey and Hugh, bishop of Bayeux, with reference to Argences. Appendix B, no. 7. 9. FicAMP. Charter concerning the restoration of Argences to the abbey. Appendix B, no. 8. 10. FicAMP. Charter exchanging Saint-Taurin of fivreux for Montivil- liers as a dependency of F6camp. Appendix B, no. 9. 11. JuMi^GES. Adds Virville to his father's charter of August 1025 ( ?). Vidimus of 1499 and 1533, and Cartulary 22, in Archives of the Seine- Inffirieure, f. 7 flf.; Vernier, no. 12. » Mabillon, Acta, iii. 353. »« Gesta Regum, p. 211. " ii. 102; iii. 223-225. Whether Wace and Ordericus are entirely independent is a matter which needs investigation. THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 273 1 2. JuMizGES. Subscribes charter of Dreux, count of Amiens, 1031-1035. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 10; Neustria Pia, p. 318; F. Soehn6e, Caialogm des actes de Henri I", no. 37; Vernier, no. 14. 13. JumiGES. Attests diarter of Roger of Montgomery. Original in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure; copies, MS. Lat. 5424, f. 184V, MS. Lat- n. a. 1245, f. 175. Vernier, no. 13; J. Loth, Histoire de I'abbaye de Saint- Pierre de Jumikges, i. 158. 14. Mont-Saint-Michel. General privilege. Original in Archives of the Manche, H. 14990 (early copy H. 14991). MSmoires de la SociSU d' Agriculture de Bayeux, viii. 252 (1879); Round, Calendar, no. 704. 15. Mont-Saint-Michel. Grant of one-half of Guernsey and other specified lands. Original in Archives of the Manche, H. 14992; vidimtis in Archives Nationales, JJ. 66, no. 1496; cartulary (MS. Avranches, 210), f. 26/ M.A. N., xii. in; Round, no. 705; Delisle, S.Sauveur, pieces, no. 9; G. Dupont, Le Cotentin (Caen, 1870), i. 463 f.; V. Himger, Histoire de Verson (Caen, 1908), no. s (facsimile). 16. Mont-Saint-Michel. Attests, together with Archbishop Robert (t 1037) and others, charter of Edward the Confessor as king granting to the abbey St. Michael's Mount, Cornwall. Cartulary, f. 32V; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 18; Round, Calendar, no. 708. Robert's name does not appear in the text printed in the Monasticon, vii. 989, ' ex ipso autographo ', and reproduced by Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, iv. 251. Edward's title has generally been considered to render this charter questionable (cf. Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 527 f.); see, however, Round, no. 706, and infra, p. 275. 17. MoNTiviLLiERS. Foundation charter of the nunnery, with detailed enumeration of possessions. Given at Fecamp 13 January 1035. Copies in Bibhotheque Nationale, MS. Lat. n. a. 1245, ff. 112, 252; Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, G. 2068. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 326, from vidimus. 18. Pkeaux. Consents to foundation of abbey. Gallia Christiana, xj. instr. 199. 19. Pkeaitx. Attests confused notice of donation by the hermit Peter. Le Prevost, Eure, iii. 169, from cartulary in Archives of the Eure (H. 711). 20. PiUEAUx. Notice of his gift of ToutainviUe to the abbey ' iUo aimo quo perrexit Robertus comes Jerusalem '. Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 200; H. F., xi. 387; MabiUon, Annales, iv. 361 (393) ; Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 12; Le Privost, Eure, iii. 300 (from cartulary). 21. Rouen cathedral. Charter of restoration issued conjointly with Archbishop Robert. Cartulary (MS. Rouen 1193), f. 32 f.; vidimus in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, G. 2087, 3680. Le Provost, Eure, ii. 520; cf . [Pommeraye] Histoire de I'Sglise catMdrale de Rouen (Rouen, 1686), p. 568, where another form of this charter is also mentioned. 22. Rouen. La Trinit6. Confirms the foundation of the abbey and emmierates its possessions, 1030. Cartulaire de I'abbaye de la Sainte-TrinitS, ed. Deville, no. i; Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 9; Neustria Pia, p. 412; Pommeraye, Histoire de I'abbaye de Sainte-Catherine, p. 73. 23-26. Rouen, La Trinit6. Attests foxir grants to the monastery. Carlur laire, nos. 3, 5, 9, 24. 27. Rouen, Saiot-Amand. Confirms foundation. Vidimus of Philip the Fair, in 1313, in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, and in Archives Nationales, 274 APPENDIX C JJ. 49, no. 47 ; cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure, f . s f . Pom- meraye, Histoire de Samt-Amand, p. 76; La Roque, iv. 2224 (extract); Monasticon, vii. iioo, from Norman rolls of Henry V. The relation of this charter to no. 22, which it closely resembles, and to the confusion respecting the beginnings of Saint-Amand, requires investigation. 28. RotTEN, Saint-Ouen. Adds his confirmation to that of his father in charter of ' Enna Christi famula ': ' Et hoc signum + predictus comes Rotbertus cimi suis episcopis atque miUtibus, scilicet Nigello, Osbemo dapifero, atque aliis nobilibus manu sua ' (breaks off). Pretended original, with a duplicate omitting Robert's confirmation, in Archives of the Seine- Inf6rieure; copy in the BibUotheque Nationale, MS. Lat. 5423, f. 124V. 28 a. Rouen. Saint-Ouen. Charter cited by William the Conqueror. MS. Lat. n. a. 1243, no. 19; cf. Neustria Pia, p. 23. 29. Saint- Wandrille. Grant of the chiu-ch of Arques and its depen- dencies, 1031-1032. Round, Calendar, no. 1422; Lot, S.-Wandrille, no. 13 (from cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inf6rieure). 30. Saint- Wandrille. General confirmation, 1032-1035. Lot, no. 14, where the various copies and editions are given. 31. Sells Le Homme to his sister Adeliz. Mentioned in charter of Adeliz for La Trinitfi de Caen. Cartulary in BibUotheque Nationale (MS. Lat. 5650), f. 17V. Delisle, S.-Sauveur, pieces, no. 34; Round, Calendar, no. 42i.»» Not more than three of these documents are originals of charters issued by Robert himself, so that no diplomatic study is possible. It is clear that there was no ducal chancery: not only do we find no signature of chancellor or chaplain, but the varieties of style '* and substance " The grant of Saiht-James to Saint-Beno!t-sur-Loire mentioned in the Con- queror's charter of 1067 (Prou and Vidier, Les chartes de Saint-Benoit, i. 203), which was ascribed to Duke Robert by Stapleton (i, p. xci), should probably be assigned to his uncle. Archbishop Robert. The charter for Lisieux cited in the Chronigue de S.-Barbe (ed. Sauvage, p. 26) is probably a charter of Richard II which Robert wit- nessed: M. A. N., xiii. 9. " Thus the duke calls himself ' Ego Robertus Normannorum comes ' (no. 3); • ego Robertus gratia Dei dux et princeps Normannorum ' (no. 4); • ego Rotbertus filius secundi Richardi nutu Dei Northmannorum ducis et ipse per gratiam Dei princeps et dux Northmannorum ' (no. 6); ' Robertus nutu Dei Northmannorum dux ' (no. 8) ; ' ego Robertus gratia Dei dux Normannorum ' (no. 9) ; ' ego Robertus comes filius magni Richardi gratia Dei dux et princeps Normannorum ' (no. 15; cf. no. 14); ' Robertus divina auctoritate Normannorum dux et rector ' (no. 17); 'Robertus divina favente clemencia Normanorum dux' (no. 21); 'Robertus divina ordinante providentia Normannorum dux et rector' (nos. 22, 27); 'ego Rodbertus gratia Dei consul et dux Normannorum' (no. 29); 'ego Robertus disposicione divina Normannorum princeps ' (no. 30). In the attestation he appears as 'ego Robertus princeps Norhmannorum gracia Dei dux' (no. 15); 'signum Rot- berti marchisi ' (no. 22); • signum Rotberti Normannorum ducis' (nos. 6, 12); "sig- num Roberti comitis et ducis Normannorum ' (no. 30). Cf. Nouveau traits de diplomatique, v, 760 1, THE REIGN OF ROBERT I 275 point plainly to local authorship. As only the charters for Cerisy and MontiviUiers are exactly dated, it is impossible to draw up an itinerary or even to follow in the most general way the duke's progress throughout Normandy. The Usts of witnesses, however, are sufficiently full, to give us some notion of his entourage, in which four elements can be distinguished. First come the higher clergy, including regularly the duke's uncle. Archbishop Robert, cominonly three or four bishops, and less frequently certain abbots; prelates from beyond Normandy appear occasionally, such as the archbishop of Dol (no. 6) and Odilo of Cluny (no. 29). The great lords of Normandy and the adjacent lands come next: Enguerran, count of Ponthieu, Baldwin of Flanders, Gilbert of Brionne, William of Arques, Mauger of Corbeil, Humphrey ' de Vetulis,' Galeran,*" Rabel, doubtless the commander of the fleet,** and on two occasions (nos. 6, 30), in spite of his tender years, the duke's son William. In this group it is possible also to trace the princes who took refuge at the Norman court: King Henry I, ' qui time tem- poribus profugus habebatiur in supradicta terra ' (no. 29; cf. no. 12); and the ethelings Edward and Alfred, who appear in no. 29 with ' signum Hetuuardi ' and ' signum Alureth fratris E.', and in no. 9 with ' signum Hetwardi, signum Helwredi,' while Edward alone is found as king in nos. 6 and 16 — a style which can be explained only by rejecting these charters, at least in their present form, or by admitting that he assumed the royal title during the lifetime of Canute. As com- pared with their importance in the succeeding reign *^ the group of household officers is small and ill-defined, comprising the seneschal Osbem,*' who generally appears well up in the Ust but not always with this title, the constable Turold, who is foimd at the very end of two apparent originals (nos. 6, 15), and Robert 'pincema' (no. 15; cf. Round, no. 709) ; the chamberlains ** and chaplains *^ mentioned else- *" Probably Galeran of Meulan, no. 27. On his di£EicuIties with Robert, see Neustria Pia, p. 320; Vernier, no. 16. " Nos. 13, 30. See the interpolation of Ordericus in William of Jumi^ges, ed. Marx, p. iss. Wace (lines 2795, 2805) calls him Tavel. « Supra, p. so f . *" ' Procurator principalis domus,' he is called by Ordericus: William of Ju- mi^ges, ed. Marx, p. 156. Anfredus likewise appears as dapifer in no. 29. ' Gisle- bertus senescallus ' in CarUdaire de la TriniU, no. 5, may not be a ducal officer. Cf . L. W. Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward, p. 7. " William of Jumi^ges, p. 107; Wace, line 3237. ' Radulfus camerarius filius Geroldi ' is mentioned in no. 20. *> Isembert, in William of JumiSges, p. 108; Emaldus, in Chapter I, note 246 (full text in Archaeologia, xxvii. 26). 276 APPENDIX C where do not appear among the witnesses. Probably some of those who sign without title are also members of the household. At the end come the vicomtes, ordinarily without designation of districts, and attaining in one case (no. 15) the niunber of seven. In some instances, as in that of the well known Neal of Saint-Sauveur, vicomte of the Cotentin,^ it is plain that they too may attest without title. Whether Robert's reign was marked by any acts of legislation, either secular or ecclesiastical, it is impossible to say. The first Nor- man provincial council of which we have mention is not earher than 1042,*'' and the earUest formulation of ducal custom comes to us from the sons of the Conqueror.^' Nevertheless, certain canons of the coun- cil of Lillebonne (1080) refer to the practice of Robert's time as the basis of customary right,*' and respecting cemeteries the reference is so specific as to incline Tardif to the opinion that some actual document of the period is presupposed.'" In this, as in other matters, it is likely that the conditions of Robert's reign often furnished the norm for that of his son. *• On whom see Delisle, S.Sauveur, pp. 2-4, pi^es, nos. 1-16. *' Bessin, Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae, i. 39. On the date of this council and on all questions concerning early Norman legislation, see E.-J. Tardif, &ude sur les sources, i. 2g f . ** Infra, Appendix D. *' Cc. II, 13, 48, in Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, i. 2$ ; Ordericus, ii. 3i6ff. '» Op. cil., i. 40. APPENDIX D THE NORMAN CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE OF WILLIAM THE CONQUERORS The sources for the history of Norman law before the conquest of the duchy by Philip Augustus are, as is well known, exceedingly meager. The earliest law-book, the first part of the Tr&s Ancien Couiumier, belongs to the very end of the twelfth century, and the traces of custom and legislation preserved in charters and chronicles are of the most fragmentary and scattered sort.^ It is, accordingly, all the more im- perative, especially in view of the great importance of Norman law in European legal development, to treasure carefully such material as we have; and I venture to think that a text of the year logi, containing a brief statement of the customs of the duchy under WiUiam the Con- queror, has not received suflScient attention from students of Norman, and Anglo-Norman, history and institutions. The text in question was first printed, in an incomplete and sometimes unintelligible form, by Dom Martene ^ under the title ' Normannorum antiquae consue- tudines et iustitiae in concUio apud Lillebonnam anno m.lxxx. cele- brato confirmatae,' and was reproduced by Mansi as part of the canons of the council.^ But while in all the manuscripts of the Constietudines they follow immediately the canons of Lillebonne, they do not occur in Ordericus or in the official version of the acts of the council, as sealed by Henry I,' and there is nothing in the contents of the two documents which indicates the sUghtest connection between them. It is plain from the opening sentence that the Constieiudines are not an enact- ment of the Conqueror's reign but the result of an inquest made by ' Revised from E. H. R., xxiii. 502-508 (igo8). ' H. Brunner, Entstehung der Schnmtrgerichte, p. 130 ff.; Pollock and Maitland, i. 64 ff.; E.-J. Tardif, &tiide sur les sources de V ancien droit normand, i (Rouen, 191 1). On the date of the Tris Ancien Coutumier, see Tardif 's edition, pp. Ixv- Ixxii; Viollet, in Histoire litteraire, xxxiii. 47-49. ' Velerum Scriptorum Collectio Nova (Paris, 1700), i. 226; reprinted in Mart6ne and Durand, Thesaurtis Novus Anecdotorum (Paris, 1717), iv. 117; from a manu- script of Mont-Saint-Michel, now MS. 149 of the library of Avranches. Reprinted in Migne, Patrdogia, cxlix. 1329. * Concilia, xx. 575. " Ordericus, ii. 316; Teulet, Layettes du Trlsor des Charles, i, 25, no. 22. 278 APPENDIX D Robert and William Rufus after his death.' As this inquest was held on 18 July at Caen, it must be assigned to 1091 as the only year in the July of which these princes were in Normandy and in friendly rela- tions.' The division of territory which they had recently made fur- nished a natural occasion for ascertaining the ducal rights, or at least for a declaration of such of them {quia magis necessaria sunt) as had been most persistently violated during the preceding anarchy.* Over against the adulterine castles of recent origin the inquest de- clares the law of the Conqueror's time, which not only forbade the building of castles and strongholds, but placed careful restrictions on the making of fosses and pahsades (§ 4). With this went the right, so freely used by the Conqueror, of placing garrisons in the castles of his barons and the right of demanding hostages for their loyalty (§ 5). Private war had not been entirely prohibited, but it had been closely limited (§§ 6, 8, 14), just as in 1075 William I had limited the blood- feud without abolishing it.' Ducal and baronial jurisdiction are carefully distinguished, although the line which divides them is not clearly drawn. The list of matters reserved for the duke's jurisdiction is shorter than the enumeration of pleas of the sword which appears a century later in the Trh Ancien CouUimier,^" but it must be remembered that the inquest of 1091 expressly disclaims completeness. Assault in the duke's court or on the way to and from it," offenses committed in the host or within a week • Cf. Delisle, B. &. C, x. 198; Viollet, in Histoire lUUraire, xxxiii. 41 f. ' For the events of 1091 see Freeman, William Rufus, i. 273-293; supra, pp. 64 {., 78. H. Bohmer, Kirche und Staat, p. 34, note 2, dates the inquest 17 June 1096, mis- taking the month and overlooking the fact that in 1096 William Rufus did not cross to Normandy until September (Ordericus, iv. 16). Liebermann, Gesetze, i. 597, note, has 1091. ' On conditions in Normandy under Robert see supra. Chapter II. ° ' Instituit legem sanctam, scilicet ne aliquis homo aliquem hominem assalliret pro morte alicuius sui parentis, nisi patrem aut filium interfecisset': Duchesne, Historiae Normannorum Scriptores, p. 1018; Ordericus, v. 138; Robert of Torigni, i. 60. The MS. of the Annals of Saint-Ctienne in the Vatican (MS. Regina 703A, i- S3v) has, apparently, in place of ' interfecisset,' ' interfectoref,' while one MS. of Robert of Torigni has ' interfectorem '; the original may have read ' nisi patris aut filii interfector esset.' On the question of the Conqueror's earlier legislation against disorder see Tardif , &tude sur les sources, p. 31 f.; on the interpretation of § 4, C. Enlart, Manuel d' archiologie franfaise, ii. 418; Haskins, The Normans in European History, p. 152 1. " Ed. Tardif, cc. 15, 16, 3s, S3, S9. 6?, 69. 7°; Pollock and Maitland, ii. 455. " So in the canons of Lillebonne ' assultus in ecclesie itinere ' is punished equally with ' violatio ecclesie et atrii.' CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE 279 of its setting forth or its rettirn, offenses against pilgrims, and viola- tions of the coinage (§§ i, 2, 12, 13) — these place the offender at the duke's mercy. Probably the same protection extended over mer- chants*^ (§ 11) and over the duke's forests'' (§ 7). All such cases belong to the duke, but franchise courts may possess jurisdiction over attacks on houses (hainfara), arson, rape, and unwarranted seizure of sureties (§§ 9, 10) — just as imder Edward the Confessor hainfara was one of the pleas which were ordinarily reserved to the crown, but might be held by a great immunist like the abbot of Westminster or the bishop of Winchester." Arson, rape, and hainfara are mentioned among the constietudines vicecomitatus '* in Vascoeuil which the Con- queror granted in the year of his marriage to the abbey of Preaux: " Eodem anno quo in coniugiiun sortitus est Normannorum marchio Willel- mus nomine Balduini comitis fJiam deditSancto Petro Pratelli consuetudines quas habebat in quadam terra que Wascolium vulgo vocatur, scilicet hain- faram, ullac, rat, incendium, bernagium, helium. Pro quibus abbas eiusdem loci Ansfridus nomine ei dignam dedit pecuniam, id est .x. libras denariorum, et orationes loci Pratelli. Equally interesting is the system of penalties for those in miseri- cordia ducis. The authors of the History of English Law have made " Merchantshadalsotheprotectionof the Truce of God in Normandy: M.G.H., ConstittUiones et Acta Publica, ed. WeUand, i. 601, c. 7. " Even priests were comprehended in the forest jurisdiction, as we learn from the coimcil of Lillebonne. " Pollock and Maitland, ii. 454 f.; Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 87 f.; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, pp. 111-114; Steen- strup, Normannerne, iv. 348 ff.; Liebermann, Geseize, ii. 504-506. " So styled in the notice of their regrant by the abbot to Thibaud, son of Nor- man, shortly afterwards: ' consuetudines vicecomitatus quas a comite ut supra- scriptum est emerat ' (cartulary of Pr6aux, no. 439). Compare what Wace (ed. Andresen, ii, lines 2309-2312) says of Robert I's grant to Cerisy, the text of which {Monasticon, vii. 1073; cf. App|endix C) merely gives freedom from every con- suetude: ' £ tel franchise lur dunat, Cume Ii dues en sa terre ad: II unt le murdre e le larun, Le rap, le homicide, le arsun.' " Cartulary of Preaux, no. 437; now in Valin, pieces, no. 2. In 1106 Robert of Meulan ' condonavit abbatie sue banleviam et ullac et hainfariam et incendium ' (ibid., no. 347). Ullac is a word which I have found only in the Prfiaux cartulary: in no. 55 the form is utlach and uthlach; in Delisle-Berger, no. 675, it is uthlac. It would seem to be connected with the Old Norse utlagi, an outlaw, which appears as vlage or hulague in Wace, and it might then mean the harboring of an outlaw 28o APPENDIX D clear how, in the course of the twelfth century, the old system of b6t and wite is replaced by a new criminal law which puts the ofiender or his property at the king's mercy." As roughly stated by the Dialogus,^^ the new system grades offenses into three classes, according as the penalty is forfeiture of movables, of lands and rents, or of life and limb. Now §§ 1-3 and 13 of the Consuetudines exhibit precisely the same system, violations of the duke's peace entaihng, according to their gravity, the forfeiture of pecunia, terra, or corpus, or of some com- bination of them; and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the classification of the Dialogus goes back to a Norman original. Against the view of a Norman origin it is not enough to urge the existence of " the preappointed b6t in Normandy when we can no longer find it in England," ^' for the principle of amercement may well have existed in Normandy side by side with survivals of the definite penalties which were once found among all Germanic peoples — indeed it is not clear that the provision of the Consuetudines in the case of the imforeseen milee (§ 3), secundum mensuram forisfacti emendavit, does not imply the preappointed b6t. § 13 contains the earliest evidence of the ducal monopoly of coinage and the jurisdiction growing out of it.^" The Bayeux mint is not other- wise known; ^' the Rouen mint is mentioned in a charter of Richard II,''^ and is proved by coins to have existed in the time of WiUiam Long- sword.^ The standard of fineness prescribed in § 13 is confirmed by " ii. 458 f . Cf. the discussion of misericordia in Liebennann, Gesetze, ii. 583 f. " ' Quisquis enim in regiam maiestatem deliquisse deprehenditur, uno trium modorum iuxta qualitatem delicti sui regi condempnatur, aut enim in universo mobili suo reus iudicatur pro minoribus culpis, aut in omnibus immobilibus, fundis scilicet et redditibus, ut eis exheredetur, quod fit pro maioribus culpis, aut pro maximis quibuscunque vel enormibus delictis, in vitam suam vel membra ' (bk. ii, c. 16, ed. Hughes, Crump, and Johnson, p. 149). 19 Pollock and Maitland, ii. 459. 2" There are traces of the msticia monete under Henry I. See the charter for Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, GaUia Christiana, xi. instr. 157; Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 122; and cf. Trls Ancien Coukimier, c. 70. ^ B. A C, xiii. 104, note s; BuUeHn des Antigmires de Normandie, xiv. 211, 219. 22 ' Concedo ftiam decimas monetg nostrae ex integro.' Charter of 1025 (?) for FIcamp, original in the Mus^e, no. 2ter, printed in Neustria Pia, p. 217; supra, Appendix B, no. 5. ^ A. Engel and R. Serrure, Traiti de numismatique du moym-dge, ii. 380. ' Rannulf us monetarius ' witnesses an early Rouen charter of William the Conqueror (Pommeraye, S.-Amand, p. 78) ; his son Galeran held land in Caen (GaUiaChrisiiana, xi. instr. 60). Radulfus appears with this title in a charter of 1061 (Archives of the Manche, H. 14994; Round, no. 711), and this name is found on coins (Engel and CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE 28 1 analysis of extant coins of the eleventh century.^* Helmarc is prob- ably to be interpreted as half a mark,^^ which gives a mark of sixteen shillings. This word points to the Scandinavian origin of the mark, which has not been found in France before 1082.^ The text of the Consuetudines which follows is based upon (A) a manuscript of the twelfth century preserved at the Vatican among the manuscripts of the Queen of Sweden, no. 596, ff. 4-5.^' The variant readings are taken from (B) the Vatican MS. Ottoboni 2964, ff. 133V-134V; 2* (C) MS. Lat. 1597 B of the BibUotheque Nationale, ff. 140-141V, a miscellaneous collection of the fifteenth century; and (D) MS. 149, f. 3, of the Ubrary of Avranches, which was used by Martene for his edition.^' The division into paragraphs is that of C, the only manuscript which makes any such division. Eee ^ sunt consuetudines et iusticie qttas habet dux Normannie in eadem provincia, et Cheillelmus rex qui regnum Anglic adquisivit maximc et mriHter eas suo tempore teneri fecit, et sicut hie scripte sunt ^ filii eius Robertus et Guillelmus per episcopos et barones sues Cadomi ^ recordari fecerunt. Hec esf iusticia quam rex Guillelmus ^ qui regnum Anglie adqxusivit habuit in Normannia, et hie inscripta '' est sicut Robertus ^ comes Normannie'' et GuiUelmus rex Anglie filii eius et heredes predicti regis fecerunt recordari^ €t" scribi*" per episcopos et barones suos Cadomi*' xv. kal. Augusti. I . Et hec est ** iusticia " domini Normannie quod in ciuia sua vel eundo ad Serrure, ii. 381). ' Odo monetarius ' appears in a Rouen charter (Carttdaire de la Trinite, no. 60). " Sambon finds 44.-7 per cent silver in a Rouen denarius of the eleventh century found near Naples {Gazette numismatique franiaise, iii. 138, note). 2' Cf. Du Cange, s. v.; B. &. C, x. 198. 26 Guilhiermoz, Note sur les poids du moyen Age, ibid., Ixvii. 210-213. See however Gallia Christiana, xi. instr. 74, which may be slightly earlier. " On this manuscript see Pertz's Archiv, xii. 296; Auvray in B. &. C, xlix. 637, note 3; Liebermann, Ueber die Leges Edwardi Confessoris, p. 59, note i. 2' Described by Auvray, /. c; Tardif, Coutumiers de Normandie, ii, pp. lii-liv. ^' This manuscript is of the thirteenth century. Cf . Catalogtie des manuscrits des dipartements, x. 68. MS. SSI (A. 373) of the library of Rouen formerly contained ' Consuetudines quas habet dux Normannie in eadem Normannia,' but this portion has been missing since the time of Montfaucon (ibid.,i. 130). MS. Rouen 2192, f. 51, contains a modem copy by Le Brasseur, the source of which is not given. '" Hec, CD ; Hee . . . fecerunt, om. B. If not official, the title is at least in con- temporary language: cf. ' iusticiis et consuetudinibus ' in canon 45 of the council of Xillebonne. w scripte hie, C. ^ R., B. « Om. C. '2 eadem, D. " Om. B. « eadem, D. 83 cum, D. " Om. B. reccedari, D. « Om. AC. " Willdmus rex, B. " Om. BC. « Om. B. ^' scripta, D. 282 APPENDIX D curiam vel redeundo de curia nullus homo habuit" gardam *' de inimico suo. Et *« si aliquis inimico suo in via curie vel in curia forisfecit,*' ita quod ipse sciret " quod ille cui malum fecit ad curiam iret vel inde rediret, si probatus inde fuit" dominus Normannie habuit" pecuniam suam" et corpus eius ad suam iusticiam faciendam et terram suam perdidit ^ ita quod nee ipse nee aliquis de parentibus suis eam clamare potuit." Et" si defendere potuit quod scienter hoe non fecisset, per pecuniam fuit '' in misericordia domini Normannie sine perditione terre. 2. Et " in via exercitus et in exercitu et in " .viii." diebus " ante motum determinati exercitus »° et .viii. diebus post exercitum si aliquis forisfeeerit," habuit •" inde dominus Normannie eandem iusticiam quam de forisfaeto sue curie." Nee infra preseriptos terminos exercitus alicui licuit " nammimi '^ capere, et si fecit " per pecuniam emendavit " in misericordia domini Normannie. 3. Et si in exercitu vel in ciuia vel in via curie vel exercitus mislata " evenit que pro precedente " ira facta non fuerit,™ et in ea vulneratus vel occisus fuerit '° aliquis, ille cuius culpa hoe factvun est secundum mensuram forisfacti emendavit." 4. Nulli licuit " in Normannia fossatum faeere in planam terram " nisL tale quod de fundo" potuisset" terram iaetare superius sine scabeUo, et ibi non ™ licuit " faeere palicium ™ nisi in una regula et illud sine propugnaculis et alatoriis. Et in rupe " vel '" in insula nuUi *' licuit ^ faeere fortitudinem, et ^ nulli licuit ** in Normannia castellum faeere," et nulli licuit ** in Nor- mannia ^ fortitudinem eastelli sui vetare domino Normannie ^ si ipse eam " in manu sua " voluit *• habere. 5. Et si dominus Normannie filium vel fratrem vel nepotem baronis sui qui non esset miles voluit habere obsidem " de portanc^ fide, nullus sibi contradicere potuit. " Om. C. " gaurdam, A; gardiam, C; gardam habebai, B; gardam habuit, D. " S . . . suo, om. B. " suam pecuniam, D. « etiam, B. '^ perdel, C. » poterit, C. ^ Et . . . terre, om. B. " erit, C. *' forisfeeerit, B. *' sciret quod ille, om. B " fuerit, D. »» habebU, C. "' Here C has octo diebus et post exercitum octo diebus. « -fecit, C. ™ fuit, B. «* habebit, C. ° in .viii. diebus, om. C;. in, om. D. " et octo, B. " diebus . . . viii., om. B. " emendabit, ACD. " Uceat, C. " plena terra, B. " profunda, B. "■ popotuisset, A. " nulli, CD; nullum, B " licebit, C. " palatium, B. " ruppe, B. " in manu sua, om. B; manum suam, D. '» vdlet, C; voluit in mam. ««a, B. » ob fidem de portata fide, B, " curie sue, BCD. " licebit, C. " namnum, C; nam- mium, B. " cepU, BD; ceperit, C. " emendabit, BCD. «» Om. B; vis iUaia, C. " precedenti, BCD. »» el,B. *» et nuUi, B. " liceat, C. " et . . . faeere, om. BD. " liceat, C. " Here D inserts § 6. " in Normannia, om.B, " D inserts et. «» Om. B. CONSUETUDINES ET lUSTICIE 283 6. Nulli " licuit " in Normannia pro calumnia terre'* domum vel mo- lendinum ardere vel aliquam vastacionem facere vel predam'^ capere. 7 . Nulli licuit " in Normannia in f orestis ipsius domini hominem assailire '° vel insidias ponere. 8. Nulli licuit " inimicum ^ querendo vel nanunum " capiendo vexil- lum "" vel loricam portare vel cornu sonare neque cembeDum mittere post quod insidie remanerent neque de membris suis hominem '"^ dampnare sine iudicio, nisi in taU actu vel forisfacto inventus est ™ pro quo membnun per- dere debuisset et ibidem perdidisset, at nisi per indicium curie domini i"" Normannie de hoc quod ad eum pertinet vel iudicio ciuie baronimi de hoc quod ad barones pertinet. 9. NuUi Ucuit '•" in Normannia hanfare facere '"' vel incendium vel raptum mulieris vel nammum '"^ capere quin fieret inde clamor apud eum qui clamorem inde habere debuit."" 10. Et si hec facta fuerunt,'"* dominus Normannie '"' habuit "" inde quod habere debuit "' in ^^ iUis locis in quibus habere debuit et barones inde habuerunt "' quod ad eos pertinuit in iUis locis in quibus habere debuerunt. II."* NuUi licuit "' in Normaimia mercatorem disturbare nisi pro suo debito et m'si fideiussor fuisset. 12. Nulh licuit "* peregrinum "* disturbare pro aliquo anteriori foris- facto."' Et si aUquis "' fecit,™ de corpore suo fuit ™ in misericordia domini Normannie. 13. Nulli licuit "' in Normannia monetam facere extra domos mone- tarias ^ Rothomagi et Baiocarum et illam mediam argenti et ad iustum pensum, scilicet ^ .viii.'*' solidos in helmarc.'''* Et si aUquis alibi fecit ^^^ monetam vel ibi fecif ' monetam falsam, de corpore suo fuit '" in miseri- cordia domini Normannie. Et si aliquis extra predictas domos [fecit] facere "' monetam vel in predictis domibus fecit ^ facere "' falsam,'*' terram suam et pecuniam forisfecit.^'' ^ Nulli . . . capere, in- '' predictam, B. " in Normannia, B. serted in § 4, D. °° assaillire,C; assailire, " nammvum, B. " liceat, C. D; assallaire, B. ""• vexillam, C. " Om. C. " liceat, C; licuerit, B. '" hominem de membris suis, BC; hominem dampnare de membris suis, D. "« fuerit, C; esset, B. ™ Om. B. "» Normanannie, A. ™ domini . . . curie, 1* namnum, C. "" hahebit, C. om. B. 'w debebit, C. >" debebit, C. i« liceat, C. i»8 fuerint, C. '^ in... debuit,om.BC. "' habuerunt . . . debuerunt, om. BC; In illis locis in guilms pertinuit habuerunt quod ad eos habere debuerunt, B; Habebunt quod inde habere debebunt in illis locis in quibus debere habebunt et quod ad quemlibet pertinebit, C. ^* Nulli ... fuisset, ™ facto,^. '^' quis, C. ^ monetarias domos, CD. om. D. "9 fecent, C. »» i, B. "s liceat, C. ^o sit, C. ^* octo, C. "' mercatorem, D. "^ liceat, C. "^^ marca, B; hdinare,C. ™ fecerit, C. From this point to the middle of the following paragraph (iustidis) the ends of the lines are wanting in B. ^ erit,C. ^^ fecerit, C. ^^ fieri, C. "<> monetam falsam, C. ^ forisfaciet,C. 284 APPENDIX D Hec autem que superius dicta sunt scripta sunt "^ quia ^'^ magis neces- saria sunt. Remanet autem multum extra hoc scriptiun de iusticia mo- nete et reliquis iusticits Normannie, sad propter hoc quod non scribitur nichil '*• perdunt "' comes Robertus "° et rex Guillelmus ^'^ de iusticia quam pater eonmi habuit neque barones de hoc quod habuerunt tempore regis GuiUeImi.138 14. Nulli licuit ™ pro guerra ''"' hominem capere vel redimere nee de bello vel conflictu pecuniam portare vel arma vel equum ducere.'^ '^ scripta sunt, cm. C. ™ Om. B. "» Uceat, C. "^ que, B. ^ W, B. i« uuerra, B. ^ nil, B. "« WiUdmi, B. •« El sic finis, add. C. "' perdent, C. APPENDIX E UNPUBLISHED CHARTERS OF ROBERT CURTHOSE^ 1 Shortly after September 1087 Robert confirms to Saint-Mienne of Caen the manor. of Vains as granted by his father in his last illness, reserving the toll from those outside the manor. A, original lost; B, brief cartulary of Vains, MS. Caen 104, f. 150; C, MS. Lat. n. a. 1406, f. 58, from B. Supra, Chapter II, no. 13. Cf. Deville, Analyse, p. 31; and, for the toll, the inquest of 1171 in DeUsle, Henri II, p. 345. In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Ego Robertus dux Normannorum et princeps Cenomannonun concedo ecclesie Dei quam W. rex Anglorum pater meus pro salute anime sue et mee, matris mee, fratrum meorum, antecessorum et parentum nostrorum in honore Beati Stephani prothomartyris construxit, donum de manerio de Vain ' quod idem pater meus in infirmitate qua defunctus est eidem ecclesie fecit, ita integre solide Ubere et quiete sicut ipse ia ea die qua defunctus est idem manerium tenebat. Retineo tamen in manu mea ad censum mei vicecomitatus eiusdem manerii theloneum alivmn, hoc est Ulud theloneum de hominibus qui de foris scilicet venientes in ipso manerio aliquid emunt vel vendunt, theloneum vero residens, hoc est de hominibus in ipso manerio manentibus ceteraque tocius ville de Vasono, quietum et liberum relinquo et concedo predicte ecclesie. Ad hanc autem donationem confirmandam consilio meorum fidelium scriptum hoc fieri precipio et manu mea firmavi firmandamque fratri meo Henrico predictisque meis fidelibus tradidi. Huius etpam] donationis con {sic) fieret a patre meo simt testes Robertus comes Moretonii, Robertus comes de MeuUent, Henricus comes frater eius, Yvo Taillebosc, et alii plures. 1096 Robert attests an agreement between Gilbert, abbot of Saint~£,tienne of Caen, and Gerento, abbot of Saint-B&nigne of Dijon, exchanging Saint- ' See the full list of Robert's charters, supra, pp. 66-70, to which the references by number are made in the text. For convenience the alphabetical order of the beneficiaries has been retained here. Vernier's edition of nos. 6 and 7 arrived after they were in type. ' Vains, Manche, canton of Avranches. 28s 286 APPENDIX E Eippolyte of ' Curtbertalt ' for Saint- Aubert-sur-Orne and Saint- Martin de Longchamps. A, original, never sealed, in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1847. Supra, Chapter II, no. 17. Cf. Deville, Analyse, pp. 26, 31; Le- chaude, M. A. N., vii. 270, no. 8; Hippeau, M. A. N., xxi. 29, 523; Le Prevost, Eure, ii. 323. The date is fixed by the presence of Abbot Gerento in Normandy in 1096: supra, p. 75. The grant of Longchamps to Saint-Benigne under Richard II is mentioned in the chronicle of the abbey (Analecta Divionensia, ix. 175), which says nothing of this exchange and gives no means of identifying Curtbertalt among the abbey's possessions. Notum sit omnibus futuris et presentibus quod domnus Gislebertus abbas Cadomensis et domnus lerento Divionensis fecerunt inter se conunuta- tiones quasdam de rebus ad utrasque §cclesias pertinentibus. Cadomensis enim gcclesia sita in. Normannia habebat in BiKgundia §cclesiam Sancti Ypoliti de Curtbertalt cum appenditiis datis et adquisitis, quam contulit Sancto Stephano Cadomensi Roclenus episcopus CabUonensis. Similiter Divionensis sita in Burgundia habebat in Normannia gcclesiam Sancti Alberti cum sibi pertinentibus et gcclesiam de Longo Campo ^ iuxta silvam qug dicitur Leons cum terris et decimis. Quia ergo res utraque in longinquo posita erat et longinquitas itineris non sinebat tantumdem commodi prove- nire quantum f aceret si esset in vicinio gcclesig, communi decreverunt consilio ut gcclesia Cadomensis acciperet gcclesiam Sancti Alberti cum appenditiis et gcclesiam de Longo Campo cum terris et dedmis, quod erat ixoris gcclesig Divionensis, et gcclesia Divionensis haberet gcclesiam Sancti Ypoliti cum omnibus Ulis qug monachi Sancti Stephani inibi habitantes videbantur pos- sidere. Hgc itaque mutationis conventio facta est communi consilio conununi decreto et ut in postermn servaretur stabiUtmn est cartanim antiquarum commutatione et huius nova conscriptione et abbatum utrorumque et frat- rum utriusque gcclesig subscriptione. Sigmun Gisleberti abbatis Cadomensis + Signmn Rodulfi+ Signmn lerentonis abbatis Divionensis + Signum Humberti monachi +Sig- num Hugonis capellani4- Signum Roberti monachi + +Signum Roberti comitis Normannorum filii Willelmi regis Anglorum. 3 1101-1105 Robert grants to Saint-£iienne of Caen a Sunday market and an annual fair at Cheux. A, original, 42 x 19 centimeters with projecting tag of 14 centimeters, in Archives of the Calvados, H. 1832. L6chaude, copied by Round, ' Saint-Aubert-sur-Ome, Orne, canton of Putanges; Saint-Martin de Long- champs, Eure, canton of £tr6pagny. CHARTERS OF ROBERT CURTHOSE 287 says, "Le sceau de cette charte, scellee en queue, est brise"; but nothing now remains of it. Supra, Chapter II, no. 18; Lechaude, M.A.N., vii. 271, no. 9; Round, no. 451; cf. Deville, Analyse, p. 16, where the text gives the names of the bishops of Bayeux and Coutances, Thorold and Ralph; Hippeau, M. A. N., xxi. 495, who says the charter was given at Saint- Pierre-sur-Dive (!). IN NOMINE sanctg at individug trinitatis patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Ego Robertus dux Normannorum concede gcclesig Dei quam Willelmus rex Anglorum pater meus pro salute animg sug et meg, matris meg, fratrum meorum, antecessorum et parentiun nostrorum in honore Beati Stephani Cadomi construxit, habere mercatum ad diem dominicam in manerio de Ceus' hereditario et perpetuo iiu:e possidendimi et unam feriam in anno ad iUum terminum quem abbas et monachi eiusdem gcclesig elegeiint. Quod siquis banc donationem, scilicet hoc mercatum et banc feriam qug ego pro salute animg meg et pro salute animg patris mei et matris meg, fratrum meorum, antecessorum et parentum nostrorum gcclesig Sancti Stephani de Cadomo donavi, eidem gcclesig auferre aliquo modo temptaverit, concede ego cerde et ere mee et manu mea cenfirmo ut ex auctoritate Dei patris omni- potentis et filii et spiritus sancti sit excemmimicatus et a regno Dei in per- petuum exclusus. Signum Roberti cemitis Nermannig+ Signum Eustachii de Bretulie + Signum WiUekni Rethomagensis archiepiscopi+ Signum Rannulfi episcopi Duhelmensis + Signum WiUelmi camerarii + Signum episcopi Baiocensis + Signum WiUelmi cemitis de WarennaH- Signum Roberti de Monteforti+ Signum Gisleberti de Aquila + Signum Rainaldi de Aurea vaUe + Signum WUlelmi de Ferreriis+ Signum Rodulfi Taissen+ Signum episcopi Constantiensis+ Signvun Roberti Marmion+ Signum Roberti de Gren- tonis maisiulio+ Signum Roberti DoisneH- 1088-1091 (o) 7 Jidy 1088, Robert, when about to cross to England, restores to Fecamp and frees from all secular dues the land of William of Bee, of Hunspath, and of Hunloph, possessions at IgnauiMle, Bures, and Bouteilles, and land at Ficamp which his father had taken from the abbey. (b) Thereafter Robert grants to the abbey a fair at Fecamp each year as long as the catch of herrings lasts, as well as a meadow for the monks' dairy. ' Cheux, Calvados, canton of Tilly-sur-SeuIles. 288 APPENDIX E (c) Jo8g-iogi, Robert, having defeated Robert of Mortain, son of William of Bee, and given his land to Gohier, again restores it to FScamp and invests the abbot per lignum. A, originals, tied together and retaining portion of attached seal, in Musee de la Benedictine, no. 6 (fragment of b separately preserved as no. 58). As they existed in 1764 they are described by Dom Lenoir as follows: " Cette charte est en quelque fajon composee de trois parties. ... La premiere et la seconde sont sur une feuille de parchemin de 12 pouces de haut et 13 de large, et la 3^ est sur une autre feuille de par- chemin qui a 13 pouces de haut et sept et demi de large, ce qui forme comme deux chartes couchees Time sur 1' autre et jointes ensemble par une laniere d'un cuir blanc fort epais et d'un pouce de large a la- quelle est attache par derriere la grande charte im sceau de deux pouces et demi de diametre. Ce sceau est d'une espece de pate en mastic d'tui gris blanc qui s'emie tres facilement. H est si fort endom- mage qu'il est impossible d'y rien distinguer." B, copy from A, by Lenoir, Collection Moreau, cccxli, f. 21; C, copies of a and c in the cartulary, MS. Rouen 1207, f. 14, no. 40, with several of the wit- nesses omitted; D, copy of C, MS. Lat. n. a. 2412, no. 40. Supra, Chapter II, nos. 20-22. a and c are analyzed from C by Round, no. 117, and Davis, no. 297; cf. DuCange, rnider gravaria. Extract from b in S. B. de la M. Noel, Histoire des piches (Paris, 1815), p. 379, from Chronicon ArchimonasterU Fiscampnensis, p. 356. b and c are anterior to the grant of Fecamp to Wilham Rufus in 1091 ; c is posterior to the accession of Abbot Ralph of Seez in 1089. (0) [In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis. Anno ab incarnatione Domini miUesimo] LXXXVIII mense lulio septima die mensis feria vi. [ego Robertus] Dei gratia [dux et princeps Normannonmi pro salute] animg meg et patris mei W. regis Anglorum matrisque meg Mathildis reging [et aliorum predecessorum meorum reddo et] concede ecclesig Sancte Trinitatis Fis- canni et abbati Willelmo Dei providentia [eiusdem ecclesig preordinato pas- tori terras illas qug] antea de casamento prefatg gcclesig subtractg fuerant: scilicet totam terram [Willelmi de Becco quam tenebat de me, simili]ter terram Hunspathi et terram Hunloph de Mamolins et totam terram de HisnelvUla' [et quicquid ad earn pertinet decimamque molen]dinorum de Biuris et duos burgenses cum duabus salinis in villa qug dicitur [ButeUias ter- ramque burgensium Fiscanni quam] pater meus ira commotus ante obitus sui diem subtraxerat ab eadem gcclesia. Has autem [terras reddo et concedo quietas de gravaria] et ab omni laicali consuetudine consilio et nutu Heinrici fratris mei aliorumque [obtimatum meorum quorum subscriptione] presens carta roboratur. ' Ignauville, canton of F6camp; Bures, canton of LondiniSies; Bouteilles, canton of Offranville, all in Seine-Inf6rieure. CHARTERS OF ROBERT CURTHOSE 289 [Si+gnum Rotberti comitis Signum+ Gisleberti episcopi Ebroicensis] Si+gnum Henrici comitis +Signum [Willelmi monachi de Archis]. (6) [Ego qui supra Rotbertus Dei gratia dux et princ]eps Normannorum [concedo] Sanctg Trinitati et gcclesig Fiscannensi in ipso loco Fiscanni [apud gcclesiam Sancti Stepharii nundinam unam qug vulgo] feria dicitur omni anno quandiu captura haringorum duraverit. Et ut Pigc mea concessio firma maneat signi mei auctoritajte firmavi et fidelium meonun quorum inferius nomina annotata sunt [attestatione roboravi. Hi sunt] Helias de Sancto Sydonio, Bemardus de Brus, Willelmus +fi]ius Girardi, et Willelmus Grenet. Ex parte Sanctg [Trinitatis: Willelmus abbas, lohannes cellerarius], Willelmus Malus conductus, et Ingelrannus. Concedo etiam quoddam pratum quod Grandis campus vocatur ad vacariam unam faciendam ad opus monachorum. (c) Post hgc omnia consurrexit adversum me et adversum abbatem Fiscanni Rotbertus de Moritania filius Willelmi de Becco et in ipsa terra quam de Sancta Trinitate et Fiscannensi abbate tenebat castrum firmavit et servitia qug terradebebatc'ontratenuit. At egoDeo auxiliante pariter et fide- libus meis annitentibus non solxmi eum conquisivi varum et castrum ipsiun destruxi simul et incendi et terram Ulam Gohero dedi. Quod abbas de cuius feodo terra erat audiens me rnde requisivit, dicens quod terra ilia de dominio sancti antiquitus fuerit et quod ego eam quando in Angliam transire debui cum aliis terris ecclesig reddiderim. Hoc ego verum esse cognoscens simul et volens ut suum sancto maneret, Fiscannum veni et terram aiam cum aliis terris ac rebus qug in alia carta annotatg sunt Sanctg Trinitati reddidi et dedi et inde donationem hoc lignum in manus abbatis misi et utramque cartam sigillo meo auctorizavi, et hoc ideo feci nequis de cetero existat qui dicere possit quod terra ista de dominio sancti non fuerit et quod ego eam gcclesig non reddiderim et donaverim. Signum Rotberti +comitis Signum Radulfl + abbatis Sagii. Ad hoc barones mei testes fuerunt Goherus, Rotbertus de Donestanvilla, Radulfus de Grainvilla, Gislebertus filius Raineri, Willelmus filius Girardi, WiUehnus Grenet, Rotbertus filius Turstini, et Gislebertus Belet. Ex parte Sanctg Trinitatis: Willelmus abbas, Willelmus filius Teoderici, Rogerius de Scilletot, Ricardus Harela, lohannis cellerarius, Willelmus Malus conductus, Hugo de Ichelunt, Ancherus de Nevilla, Ansfredus Bordet, Ingelrannus et Hugo Gohun. 5 1087-1091 Robert grants to the abbey of Ficamp the land of Hugh Mursard at Ficamp. A, original lost; B, copy in cartulary, MS. Rouen 1207, no. 35, omitting the witnesses; C, MS. Lat. n. a. 2412, no. 35, from B. Supra, Chapter II, no. 23. Probably anterior to the grant of F6camp to William Rufus in 1091. 290 APPENDIX E Ego Robertus comes Normannie pro salute anime mee et parentum meorum do atque concedo Sancte Trinitati et domno Willelmo abbati tercio et monachis in Fiscanno Deo servientibus terrain Hugonis Mursardi que est in eodem Fiscanno cum domibus et edificiis que in ea sunt, ita liberam et quietam et sine aliqua consuetudine sicut idem Hugo ipsam terram tenuit, ut eam in etemum iure hereditario possideat. 6 30 March 1088 Robert attests a charter of Ralph Fitz AnserS ^ granting to JumUges the allod of Beaunay with its appurtenances and the tithe of 'Anslevilla.' A, original in Archives of the Seine-Inf erieure, /o« Pinter '( ?), Gaufridus de Curvilla, in thalamo regis apud Rothomagum. 1117-1119, at Rouen Writ confirming the nuns of Saint-Amand in their livery at Vaudreuil (Eure).^ A, original lost; B, copy in hand of the twelfth century, at the end of quasi-original of foundation charter in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure;, C, vidimus of Philip IV in 1313, ibid., and Archives Nationales, JJ. 49, f. 26v. ' H. rex Anglorum vicecomiti de vaUe Rodolii salutem. Precipio quod moniales de Sancto Amando ita bene et plenarie habeant liberationem de elemosina mea Rodolii sicut unquam aliquis antecessor iUarum eam melius habuit. Et hoc habeant a die ilia qua lohannes Rubi presbiter antecessor earum fuit mortuus in antea. Testibus Radulfo archiepiscopo Cantuariensi et Rannulfo canceUario, apud Rothomagum. ' MS. Piqc followed by a blank. " Pimpeme, Blandford (co. Dorset), Hungerford (co. Berks). ' MS. Pit'. ' Cf. Stapleton, i. in. 296 APPENDIX F 1106-1120, at Rouen Order to Hugh de Montfort to restore to the abbot of Bee certain lands of Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle and the church of Saint-Ouen[-de-Flancourt] (Eure)} A, original lost; B, modern copy in MS. Lat. 13905, f. 83, with omissions. H. rex Anglorum Hugoni de Monteforti salutem. Precipio tibi ut facias resaisiri abbatem de Becco de viginti acris terre que pertinent ecclesie Sancti Philiberti et de ecclesia Sancti Audoeni quas Galefridus dapifer tuus saisivit. Et ecclesiam et decimam fac eum tenere in pace et quiete. . . . Nolo enim ut quis eum placitet de aliqua re unde fuit saisitus die qUa dedi tibi honorem de Monfort nisi coram me. Apud Rothomagum. 6 1 124, at Evreuz Confirmation to Savigny of the gift of Robert de TStes in Escures (Calvados). A, original sealed sur simple queue, in Archives of the Manche, a considerable portion of the seal, in brown wax, still remaining; B, cartulary of Savigny, ibid., i. 51, no. 197, where it is preceded (no. 196) by the charter of Robert, witnessed by Richard, bishop of Bayeux, and dated 11 24. Cf. Auvry, Eistoire de la congregation de Savigny, i. 404. H. rex AngI[orum] episcopo Baioc[ensi] et omnibus baronibus et fidelibus suis de Beisin salutem. Sciatis me concessisse ecclesig Sanctg Trinitatis de Savinneio et monachis ibi Deo servientibus donationem terrg quam Rotbertus de Testis habebat in viUa de Scuris et quam Rotbertus Gaufr[ido] abbati et ipsis monachis dedit et concessit in elemosinam concessu Ricardi episcopi Baioc[ensis] de cuius feodo terra ipsa est. Et volo et firmiter pre- cipio ut bene et in pace et honorifice teneant sicut predictus Rotbertus earn eis dedit et concessit in possessionem perpetuam. T[estibus] Turstino Eboracensi archiepiscopo et fratre eius Oino Ebroi- censi episcopo et lohanne Baioc[ensi], apud Ebroicas. ' Saint-Ouen-de-Flancourt, granted to Bee and Saint-Philbert in 1097 (Porfe, Bee, i. 407), seems more probable than Saint-Ouen-du-Bois-Toustain, which also belonged to Bee (now La Noe-Poulain: Le Prfivost, Eure, ii, 4.72). CHARTERS OF HENRY I 297 1118-1126, at Rouen Confirmation to the abbot and monks of Lire of the mills and forge of La Neuve-Lire (Eure). A, original lost; B, copy in lost cartulary of the thirteenth century formerly " parmi les mss. de la bibliotheque du college des jesuites de Paris "; C, copy from B by Dom Lenoir at Semilly, xxiii. 453, kxii. 329; D, extracts from B in Collection Moreau, xlvii. 65. Robert became earl of Leicester on the death of his father, Robert of Meulan, in 1118; and Ralph of Toeny was dead by 1126 (Ordericus, ii. 404). Henricus rex Anglie G[aufrido] archiepiscopo Rothomagensi et omnibus episcopis et iusticiariis et abbatibus et baronibus et fideUbus suis totius Nor- mannie salutem. Sciatis me concessisse Deo et ecclesie Sancte Marie de Lyra et abbati et monachis ibi Deo servientibus per petitionem comitis Roberti de Leicestria et Guheri de MoreviUa et concessionem eonmi molendina de nova Lira et forgiam in eadem viUa in elemosinam sicut Radulfus de Witot ea eis reddidit et concessit in elemosinam. Et vole et firmiter precipio ut abbas ea ita bene et in pace et honorifice et quiete in elemosinam ipse et monachi sui teneant sicut ecclesia iUa melius et honorificentius tenet aliam elemosinam suam et sicut predictus Radulfus ea eis concessit et reddidit. Testibus Oino episcopo Ebroicensi et lohanne episcopo Luxoviensi et Radulfo de Todeneio et Radulfo pincerna et Roberto de Novo Burgo et Emaldo de Bosco, apud Rothomagum. 8 1 127 (?), after 26 August Confirmation of the gifts of Jordan de Sai and his wife in founding the abbey of Aunay. A, original lost; B, vidimus of Philip VI in 1335, Archives Nation- ales, JJ. 69, no. 100. Cf. vidimus of 1347 in Archives of the Calvados; Ms. Lat. n. a. 1245, f. 28. If the date is correctly given in the vidimus, it should replace the date of 1 13 1 usually given for the foundation of Aunay: Gallia Christiana, xi. 443; G. Le Hardy, Rtude sur Aunay-sur-Odon, in Bulletin des Antiquaires de Normandie, xix (1897). Otherwise we must emend Mcxxxn. 298 APPENDIX F In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis. Ego Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglorum et dux Normannonun anno M°.C°.XXVIP. ab incamatione Domini, pro salute anime mee ac patris et matris mee uxorumque mearum et prolis mee, donacionem quam fecit Jordains de Saieio et Lucia uxor eius et filii sui, videlicet Engerannus, Gilebertus, Petrus, concessu Stephani comitis Moretoniensis et auctoritate Richardi Baiocensis episcopi, pro animabus suis et antecessonmi suorum, ecclesie Sancte Trinitatis de Akieio et domno Viviano abbati et monachis concedo et regali auctoritate confirmo: videlicet ad Alneium partem foreste que est inter iuferiorem viam et torrentem, ubi et ecclesiam predictis monachis construxerunt, et ex altera parte eiusdem tor- rentis de propinquiori terra decem acras et decimam molendinorum suo- rum et peccorum; et ecclesiam de Herovilla*; et in Rin villa quod habet in ecclesia et in decima; et ecclesias de Cenilleio sicut Gislebertus filius Gun- duini possedit, a quo predictus Jordains habuit concessione Richardi Con- stanciensis episcopi; insuper et terram elemosinariam que pertinet eisdem ecclesiis, et decimam molendinonmi de RoumiUeio, et ad Haneiras terram duos modios frumenti reddentem, et in Anglia de redditu sexaginta solidos sterlingorum. Hec autem supradicta precipio ut quiete et libere possideant monachi, et hoc propria manu signo sancte crucis corroboro. 1123-1129, at Vaudreuil Notification to the bishop of Worcester and the sherif and men of Wor- cestershire that Henry has confirmed to Walter de Beatichamp the land granted him by Adeliza, wife of Urse of Abbetot. Subsequent to 1123, being witnessed by Geoffrey as chancellor, and anterior to 1130, when Roger 'gener Alberti' was dead (Pipe Roll, p. 39). Eyton (British Museum, Add. MSS. 31941, f. 58, and 31943, f. 79) dates it ca. October 1128. A, original lost; B, copy by Dugdale in his MSS. in the Bodleian Library, L. 18, f. 41, copied for me by the kindness of Professor H. L. Gray. H. rex Anglorum episcopo Wigomie et vicecomiti et omnibus baronibus et fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis de Wirecestresira salutem. Sciatis me con- cessisse Waltero de Bellocampo terram que fuit Adeliz uxoris Ursonis de Abbetot, sicut ipsa Adeliz eam ei concessit. Et volo et firmiter precipio ut teneat ita bene et m pace et honorifice et quiete de omnibus consuetudinibus, sicut Urso antecessor suus unquam melius et honorificentius et quietius tenuit in vita sua, cum socha et sacha et tol et theam et infangeneteof et cum omni- bus aliis consuetudinibus suis cum quibus Urso imquam melius tenuit, in bosco et piano, in aqua et terra et omnibus aliis lods. ' The places mentioned are Hgrouville, Ranville, and AsniSres in Calvados, and Cenilly and Rfmilly in La Manche. CHARTERS OF HENRY I 299 Testibus Gaufrido cancellario et Roberto de sigillo et Willelmo Pevrello Dovre et Willelmo filio Odonis et Willelmo de Pontearcarum et Pevrello de Bellocampo et Pagano de Bellocampo et Roberto filio Willelmi de Stochis et Willelmo Malotraverso et Roberto de Monteviron et Gaufrido de Abbetot et Roberto filio Radulphi de Hastingis et Roberto de Guernai et Roberto filio Fulcheri et Rogero genero Alberti et lohanne hostiario et Henrico del Broc. Apud Rodoliimi. 10 February rrai, at Rouen Grant to Siez cathedral of the fief of William Goth at Laleu {Ortie). A, original lost; B, copy in Livre rouge of Seez, f. 77, formerly in possession of the bishop; C, copy from B in MS. Lat. 11058, f. 3. Henricus Dei gracia rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum archiepiscopo Rothomagensi et episcopis et abbatibus, baronibus et omnibus fideUbus et filiis sancte ecclesie per Normanniam constitutis ^ salutem. Sciatis quod ego Henricus per graciam Dei rex Anglormn et diix Normannonmi dedi in ele- mosinam et concessi pro salute animarmn patris et matris mee et parentum meorum et pro remissione peccatorum meorum et pro statu et incolumitate regni nostri et ducatus Normanie Deo et ecclesie sanctorum martirum Gervasii et Prothasii de Sagio in dominium ecclesie et proprium usum epis- copi totum feodum Alodii quern tenuit GuiUehnus Goth: hoc est quicquid ipse Guillelmus Goth habuit inter Sartam et Tancham tarn in terris quam in pratis et aquis et molendinis et silvestribus ^ nemoribus et hominibus et the- loneis et consuetudinibus et omnibus omnino rebus, sicut idem Guillelmus introduction to Ralph of Diceto, i, p. xxvi f.; L. B. Radford, Thomas of London (Cambridge, 1894), p. 163 f. • Cf. John of Salisbury, Ep. 166. " Id., Ep. 49; Stubbs, Lectures, p. 347 f. " John of Salisbury, Epp. 27, 34, 69, 80, 89, 93, 107, 118, 166. " Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, v. 75; Mansi, xxi. 1194. EARLY LEGISLATION OF HENRY n 33 1 were in the habit of extorting 30 d. from every man or woman who went to the ordeal of fire or water.** Just when these abuses first attracted the attention of Henry II is not clear, but it was quite early in his reign. At the outset he was hardly favorably disposed by the fact that he had inherited from Stephen a controversy respecting the punishment of Archdeacon Osbert of York, accused of poisoning his archbishop;" and he soon took up the case of a citizen of London despoiled by a dean et longe aliter iniuriatus quam civem Londoniensem oporteret}^ By the beginning of 1 1 58 he had legislated on the subject, as we learn from Fitz Stephen.*' The narrative teUs how a burgess of Scarborough complained to the king at York that the local dean had, without any supporting accuser, accused his wife of adultery and taken twenty-two shillings from him, twenty of which the dean subsequently declared had gone to the arch- deacon. Such accusations had already been forbidden by the king, -who had the dean brought before him and demanded judgment from his prelates and barons, declaring that the archdeacons and deans of the kingdom got in this way more money in a year than the king himself received: Quidam decanus abstulerat ei viginti et duos solidos, uxorem ipsius in capitulis plurimis vexans et deferens sine alio accusatore ream adulterii, ■contra quam consuetudinem rex legem prohibitionis ediderat. John, treasurer of York, gave it as his opinion that the money should be returned to the burgess and the dean should be at the archbishop's mercy with respect to his office, whereupon Richard de Lucy asked, -Quid ergo domino regi iudicdbitis, in cuius iste incidii constitutionem ?; and upon the answer that the king had no claim from a clerk, he left the court. The king appealed to the archbishop but did not follow up the matter, being called over seas in July by the death of his brother Geoffrey. Here we have two distinct references to previous legislation, the men- tion of the king's law in the narrative and the reference of Richard de " C. 3, X. 5, 37; Jaff^Lowenfeld, no. 14315 (1174-1181); cf. Maitland, Domes- ■day Book and Beyond, p. 282. That some payment was due the archdeacon at such times is assumed by Henry of Huntingdon, himself an archdeacon: Liber Eliensis, p. 170. For otiier forms of archidiaconal exactions see Cartulary of St. Frideswide's, i. 33, no. 31; Ramsey Cartulary, ii. 152. " John of Salisbury, Ep. 122; cf. Epp. 108, no, in. " Id., Ep. 80. " Materials, iii, 44 f.; cf. Radford, Thomas of London, pp. 193-195. For the presence of the king and Richard de Lucy at York see Farrers, Early Yorkshire ■Charters, no. 419. 332 APPENDIX I • Lucy to the constiMio regis. The first is specific enough to show that this ordinance dealt with the same problem as that of 1159 and the Constitutions of Clarendon, unsupported accusations against laymen in ecclesiastical courts. That the king intended to pursue the question is further shown by the fact that in all probability he repaid the burgess of Scarborough and thus took over his interest in the case, for in the Pipe Roll of 1 1 58 we find a payment to a merchant of Scarborough in camera curie of 225., the exact amount in question." The problem was postponed by Henry's long absence on the Continent from 1158 to 1163, but it was not forgotten. At Falaise the provision of the earlier constitMtio is repeated and the requirement of the testimonium vicinorum is extended to his own local officers; and soon after his return, he makes the conduct of the archdeacons the first of his grievances against the church at the conference at Westminster." Another of the ' customs and dignities of the realm ' which Henry asserted in 1164 was the trial of all questions of advowson and pre- sentation in the king's court.** Some Norman precedents for this claim have been cited above,'" but the English evidence still awaits investigation. That Henry II had busied himself with this question in England before 1158 appears from a letter of John of Salisbury^ to Pope Adrian IV with reference to a dispute concerning the church of Henton between Arnold of Devizes on the one hand and Earl Roger and his clerk Osbert on the other. The archbishop had secured Arnold's restoration to the church, pending a decision of his court: Cum ergo partibus super hoc dies esset prefixa, ea die iam dictus O. et procuratores comitis adversus prenominatum E. petitorium instituenmt, dicentes ipsum iniuste occupare ecclesiam, quam sine assensu comitis et advocatorum eiusdem ecdesie, quam contra consuetudinem totius ecdesie et regni Anglorum, contra constitutionem regis et antiquam omnium procerum dignitatem ingressus erat manu et violentia predonis, qui prefato comiti totimi fundimi in quo sepe dicta ecclesia sita est diu abstulerat. Piofeiebatur insuper mandatum regis quo precipiebamur comiti super advocatione ec- desie sue iustitiam exhibere aut O. pretaxatam ecdesiam restituere, qua post decessum regis contra ipsius edictum fuerat destitutus. Whereupon Arnold, fearing the influence of his opponents and the king, appealed to the Pope, and Osbert gave up the fight. Evidently the proceedings had begun under Stephen, but the edictum was of Henry U " Pipe Roll 2-4 Henry II, p. 146. " Summa cause, in Materials, iv. 201; cf. Anonymus II, ibid., iv. 95. » C. I. »» Supra, Chapter V, p. 171 f. a Ef. 6. EARLY LEGISLATION OF HENRY II 333 and so also, apparently, was the constUuHo. We cannot press too closely the terms of the writer's classical Latinity, yet while the edictum may relate only to the particular case, like the mandatum, the consUtuHo is evidently a decree of general scope respecting advowson. K we may turn the classical iustitiam exhibere back into the legal rectum tenere, the writ to the archbishop (mandatum) is also interesting for the early history of the writ of right. The procedure in such cases in these years is illustrated by the recently pubUshed report of an inquest respecting the church of St. Peter, Derby (1156-1159). Twenty-four men, including burgesses, knights, and priests, were summoned by royal writ before the sheriff and the archdeacon; their declaration awarded the advowson to the successors of the lord in whose patrimony the church had been founded.^ " F. M. Stenton, An Early Inquest relating to St. Peter's Derby, in E. B. R., xxm. 47 f- (1917)- APPENDIX J NORMAN ASSIZES, 1176-1193 » Assizes of the early part of Henry II's reign are noted in Chapter V (supra, pp. 165-168). The following Ust includes such assizes * as I have noted in the latter part of this reign and the early years of Rich- ard; when he appears in them William Fitz Ralph regularly has the title of seneschal. The list is based almost entirely upon charters, for the roll of 11 80, imlike the contemporary Pipe Rolls, throws no light upon the judges' circuits, save for the mention of William Fitz Ralph on page 57 and of Geoffrey le Moine on page 52 (cf. p. 78 and Round, no. 517); such indications are more abundant in the roU of iigS- 1. 1 1 77, January; Caen. Richard, bishop of Winchester, Simon de Tomebu, Robert Marmion, William de Glanville as justices. Livre noir, no. 9S; Delisle, p. 347; Round, no. 1446. 2. 1176-1178; MoNTPORT. Justices: William de Mara, j/icowfe of Sainte- Mdre-£glise, William Malet, Hugh de Cressi, Seher de Quinci, Alvered de Saint-Martin, constables respectively of Pontaudemer, Rouen, Nonancomt, and Neufchatel (Drincourt). Supra, Appendix H, no. 10. 3. No date; Montfort. ' Ista autem donatio facta est apud Montem- fortem et recitata in plena asisia coram iusticiis domini regis, scilicet Seherio de Quenceio, Alveredo de Sancto Martino, etc' Fragment of Bee cartulary in Archives of the Eure, H. 91, f. 88v, no. 4. 4. 1178-1179; Neutchatel. William Fitz Ralph holds coiut. Staple- ton, i. S7- 5. 1 180; Argentan. Agreement 'in plena assissa . . . coram iusticiis domini regis.' Witnessed by William Fitz Ralph, ' qui preerat assisse loco domini regis,' WiUiam de Mara, Richard Giffart, John, coimt [of Ponthieu], Fidk d'Aunou, Ralph Tessun, and others. MS. Lat. 5424, p. 91; Collection Moreau, kxxiv. 76; Vernier, no. 128. 5a. Ca. 1180; Caen. Fine ' in curia mea coram iusticiis meis.' Roimd, no. 303; Delisle-Berger, no. 564. 6. Before 1182; Rouen. Judgment ' in assisa apud Rothomagum in curia mea.' Valin, p. 271; Roimd, no. 26; Delisle-Berger, no. 586. 7. 1 183, January 20; Caen. ' In curia domini regis ... in plenaria assissa ' before William Fitz Ralph and many others. Valin, p. 274; Roimd, no. 432; Delisle-Berger, no. 638. ' Revised from A.H.R., xx. 289-291 (1915). ' General mentions of an assize without indication of date, place, or judges (e. g., Sauvage, Troarn, p. 141, note 6) are not included. The list of cases before the Exchequer (Chapter V, note 12s) should be compared with this list of assizes. 334 NORMAN ASSIZES 335 8. 1183; Caen ( ?). William Fitz Ralph and many others, none styled justices, but including WiUiam de Mara, Hamo Pincema, Geoffrey Du- redent, Jordan de Landa, Richard Fitz Henry, William de Calux, and Roger d'Arri. Delisle, p. 349; Valin, p. 276; Round, no. 437. p. 1 1 78-1 183; LoNGTTEViLLE. William Fitz Ralph and many other jus- tices. Valin, p. 273. 10. 1184; Saint-Wandrille. Grant ' in plenaria assisia coram Willelmo filio Radulfi senescallo et iustitia Normannie et multis aliis iusticiis, scilicet Willelmo de Mara, Seherio de Quinceio, GosceUno Rusd.' Collection Moreau, kxxvii. 157 (cf. f. 159), from lost cartulary of Lire; Le Prevost, Eure, ii. iii. 11. 1 1 84; Caen. 'Hec finalis concordia facta fuit apud Cadomum in assisia coram WiUelmo filio Radulfi senescaUo Normannie et pluribus aliis qui time ibi aderant inter Robertum abbatem Sancte Marie de Monteborc et Henricum de TiUeio de ecclesia Sancte Marie de TeviUa, unde placitum erat inter eos in curia domini regis. . . . Testibus W. de Mara, Hamone Pincema, W. de Romara, Radulfo de Haia, Rogero de Arreio, magistro Paridi, Radulfo de Wallamint, lordano de Landa, Roberto de Curie, W. de Sauceio, lohanne de Caretot, Willelmo Quarrel et pluribus aliis.' Cartulary of Montebourg (MS. Lat. 10087), no. 474. 12. 1185; Caen. William Fitz Ralph and other justices hold assize; the final decision is given at the Exchequer before an important series of wit- nesses. Valin, p. 277; Round, no. 438; Delisle-Berger, no. 647. isa. 1185; LoNGTJEViLLE. Recognition concerning presentment 'in assisia domini regis.' Delisle-Berger, no. 651. 13. 1186, 30 January; Bayeux. Henry, bishop of Bayeux, William de Mara, Archdeacon John d'firaines, and other justices whose names are not given. Liwe noir, no. 240. 14. 1 1 86; Rouen. Agreement before William Fitz Ralph and Robert d'Harcourt (without title). Collection Moreau, lix. ro6, from the original; cartulary of Fecamp (MS. Rouen 1207), f. 8iv; Round, no. 140. Z5. 1186; Caen. Grant in presence of WiUiam Fitz Ralph, William de Mara, WiUiam Calviz, Richard Fitz Henry, Geoffrey de Rapendun ' tunc baiUivus regis,' and others. MS. Lat. n. a. 1428, f. 18, from original at Carleton Castle. 16. 1187; Seez. Grant in assize ' coram iusticiariis domini Henrid regis, scilicet coram lohanne archidiacono de Arenis et WiUelmo de Mara et aliis pluribus.' Livre hlanc of Saint-Martin of Seez, f. ii8v. i6a. 1188-1190; probablyatRoTJEN. Grant of WiUiam, abbot of Morte- mer, ' testibus hiis: lohanne de Constantiis decano Rothomagensi, WiUelmo fili n Radulphi senescaUo Normannie, Roberto de Harecort, Ricardo de Montigneio, WiUelmo de Martigneio, Ricardo Ospinel, WiUelmo Tolemer, ..." Original in Archives of the Seine-Inferieure, fonds Saint-Ouen. 17. 1189-1190; Bernai. Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de la Trappe (ed. Charencey), p. 199; d. Valin, p. 116, note. 18. 1 190, August 10; Argentan. Question of presentation 'in curia domini regis. . . . Testibus lohanne archidiacono Arenensi, Richardo de Argentiis, Willelmo de ObviUa constabulario Falasie, qui prefatam assisiam 336 APPENDIX J tenuerant die festi Sancti Laurentii anno primo peregrinationis Philippi regis Francie et Ricardi regis Anglorum.' Cartulary of Saint-Evroul (MS. Lat. iioss), no. 250. ig. 1 190, August; S£ez. Agreement in assize ' coram iusticiariis domini regis lohanne Oximensi archidiacono, Ricardo de Hummez comestabulario, W. de Ovilla, Ricardo de Argentiis.' lAvre blanc of Saint-Martin of Seez, f. 134. 20. 1190; Bernai. * Coram Robert de Harecourt et Willelmo de Mara tunc iusticiis, Willelmo Tolomeo clerico, Richardo Sylvano, comite de Alengon, Richard Deri, et pluribus aliis.' An assize at Montfort under Henry II is mentioned. Archives of the Calvados, H. suppl. 486, f. 9; cf. supra, Chapter V, note 95. 21. 1190; Caen. Ardiivesof the Calvados, H. 1872; Jf. il. iV., xv. 199; Roimd, no. 461. 22. 1191, October; Caen. William Fitz Ralph, Richard SUvain, Richard d'Argences, Hamo Pincema, Richard Fitz Henry, Robert, abbot of Fon- tenay, Roger d'Arri, Eudo de Vaac, Turstin of Ducey, Geoffrey the chamber- lain, ' Lucas pincema, et alii multi ' witness transaction in assize. Archives of the Calvados, H. 1868 (no. 46-18). 23. 1 191; RoDEN. Valin, p. 279. 24. 1 191; Caen. Agreement 'in curia domini regis apud Cadommn coram Willelmo filio Radulfi tunc temporis senescallo Normannie et Willelmo de Humetis constabulario domini regis et Roberto Wigomiensi episcopo et Ricardo Selvain et Ricardo de Argentiis, Willelmo Caluz, Ricardo filio Henrici, et pluribus aliis.' Roger d'Arri is among the witnesses. Archives of the Calvados, H. 7077. 25. 1 192; Rouen. Agreement in presence of WiUiam Fitz Ralph, William de Martigny, Richard d'Argences, Durand du Pin, and other justices. Chevreux and Vernier, Les archives de Normandie et de la Seine-InfSrieure, no. 3S; Vernier, no. 164. 2(5. 1187-1193; Caudebec. Agreement ' in plena assisia.' Lot, SaitU- WandrUle, p. 179, no. 114. 27. Undated; Caen. Grant of Richard Avenel in curia before William Fitz Ralph and the king's justices and barons, witnessed by William du Horn- met constable, WiUiam de Mara, Hamo Pincema, Jordan de Landa, Richard Silvain, Richard d'Argences, and others. Archives of the Manche, H. 212.' 28. No date; Bayeux. Grant ' coram iustitiariis scilicet Willelmo Tolemeir et Ricardo de Argentiis dictam assisiam tenentibus.' Archives of the Manche, H. 309. 2p. No date; Bayedx. Grant in assize before William Pesnel, arch- deacon of Avranches, WiUiam Tolomert, Hamo Pincema, justices. Reper- toire of de GerviUe (Collection Mancel at Caen, MS. 296), p. 275, no. 21. • Cf. Richard d'Argences, Hamo Potelier, and William de Caluz as witnesses in a document of this period: Farcy, Abbayes de I'ivichi de Bayeux, Fontenay, p. 96. APPENDIX K DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN The destruction of the records of the bishop and chapter of Av- ranches, scarcely less complete than the destruction of the cathedral itself, has left us no original documents of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The only surviving cartulary, the Lkre vert (MS. Avranches 206), has Uttle that is early; the Livre blanc is known only through scattered extracts; the modern copies are few and unsatisfactory.^ Were it not for the monasteries of Mont-Saint-Michel and Savigny> the whole diocese would have little to tell us of this epoch in its history. Curiously, however, certain documents which have reached us from this region are of unusual significance. The earliest extant notice con- cerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction is the agreement drawn up between Bishop John and the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1061.^ One of the clearest pieces of evidence regarding early knight service is found in a document of the same bishop in 1066.' A few years later Mont-Saint- Michel gives us an important convention respecting feudal tenure and jurisdiction,* and for the inquest of miUtary tenures in 1 172 the only detailed statement is that of its abbot.* The only surviving portion of the returns from the great royal inquest of 11 71 is that relating to the Avranchin. ' See Archives de la France monastique, xvii. 91-95; the extracts from documents in E. Le Hericher, Awanchin monumental el hislorique (Avranches, 1845-1865); and the additional pieces in E. A. Pigeon, Le diocise d' Avranches (Coutances, 1888), who has utilized the copies of Gu^rin in his possession. P. Chesnel, Le CotenUn et I' Avranchin sous hs dues de Normandie (Caen, 19 12) adds nothing new. A few late copies are in MS. Regina 870 of the Vatican. No ducal charters for Avranches are known save one of Henry II (Pigeon, ii. 661). What once existed may be inferred from later enumerations of the grants of Robert the Magnificent (Pigeon, ii. 667; supra. Appendix C, no. r) and the mention by Lucius III of grants of Henry I: 'Ex done Henrici primi regis Anglie dimidiam partem nundinarum Sancti Lamberti, decimam nundinarum Sancti Andree, decimam nundinarum de Ponte; in Campo Cervorum duas garbas decime de terra Igerii de Lohf et Ranulfi de Burganoles; decimam molendini de Cantarana; duas . . . (where a gap follows in the MS., Livre vert, i. 2v). Cf. Stapleton, ii, p. vi. 2 Migne, cxlvii. 265; Pigeon, ii. 658; see supra. Chapter I, note 137. » Le Prfivost, Eure, iii. 183; supra, Chapter I, note 58. * Supra, p. 21. ' Robert of Torigni, ii. 296-303, 337 338 APPENDIX K This fragment, copied on the fly-leaf of a text of Hrabanus Maurus from the abbey of La Luzerne, was first published by Delisle in 1909.* Headed by a list of twenty-six milites iuratores and nine burgenses iuratores de Abrincis, it is clearly the return of an inquest. It contains a clear and orderly statement of the royal rights in the vicomte of Avranches, including the farm, the proceeds of tolls and the fair of St. Andrew, the parcels of demesne in city and country, and the hold- ings of the tenants in capite in the Avranchin. The pleas of the crown appear as a part of the demesne under a special custodian, who gives us our only glimpse of a Norman coroner.^ As regards the date of the dociunent, Delisle * placed it imder Heiuy II but after the death of Hugh, earl of Chester, in 1181, apparently on the theory, for which the text itself gives no support, that the mcomtS was in the king's hands at the time of the inquest. Powicke at first ' assigned it to the reign of Richard because of the phreise tempore regis B.; but under Henry H this is constantly used to designate Henry I and can be actually con- nected with him in the inquest itself, which refers to the grant of the vineyard at Avranches to Savigny by a rex Henricus who is in this instance known to have been Henry I.'" Not only does the inquest belong to the reign of Henry II, but it can be specifically dated therein. It is subsequent to 3 March 11 70, for the fief of Gilbert d'Avranches, who was then drowned," has passed to his heir, likewise so retmned on the roU of military tenants in 1172; "^ yet this heir, his brother-in-law Fulk Painel, has not yet got possession of the rights over the king's demesne which he enjoys in 1180." Similarly William de Ducey, mentioned in the text as lord of Ducey, died before 1180, when his suc- cessor, WiUiam de Hueceon, owes a relief for this honor." Certain of • Henri 77, pp. 345-347. The bishop's fiefs are of course not mentioned; theyare enumerated when in the king's hands in 1 198: Stapleton, ii. 361. v ' Powicke, The Pleas of the Crown in the Avranchin, E. H. R., xxv. 710 f. « Henri II, pp. 333, 387, 420, 423, 448. ' E. H. R., xxv. 710. Later he accepted the date here proposed: ibid., xxvi. 326; Loss of Normandy, p. 68. "> Cartulary of Savigny, in Archives of the Manche, no. 6. Cf . M. A . N., xx. 256; Delisle, &ludes sw la dasse agricole, pp. 443, 445; Delisle-Berger, no. 80. " Robert of Torigni, ii. 17; Benedict of Peterborough, i. 4. ^ Red Book of the Exchequer, ii. 640. The abbot's record, however, has been brought up to date: Robert of Torigni, ii. 297. " Stapleton, i, pp. Ixviii, 11. " Ibid., i, pp. kv, II. Evidence that William de Ducey was dead by 1182, if not by 1 1 79, is also contained in charters of Richard, bishop of Avranches (d. 1182), reciting gifts made in William's last illness to Savigny (cartulary, no. 127; Auvry, DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN 339 the items recovered by the mquest evidently served as the basis for the corresponding entries in the Exchequer Roll of ii8o.>^ There can be no question that the inquiry was held between 11 70 and 1180, and these limits can be drawn much closer if we identify the ' Robertus fihus Regis ' of the inquest with the Robert Fitz Roy who married Matilda of Avranches and is said by the chronicle of Ford Abbey to have died 31 May 1172.^* In any case, between 11 70 and 11 80 there is every reason for ascribing it to 1171, when, according to Robert of Torigni," Rex Henricus senior fecit investigari per Normanniam terras de quibus rex Henricus avus eius fuerat sasitus die qua obiit. Fecit etiam inquiri quas terras et quas silvas et que alia dominica barones at alii homines occupa- verant post mortem regis Henrici avi sui; et hoc mode fere dupUcavit redditus ducatus Normamue. No other records of this investigation are available for comparison, but the Avranchin document is in exact accord with the accoimt of the chronicler, himself writing at Mont-Saint-Michel, and there can be no reasonable doubt that we have here a contemporary, or nearly contem- porary, copy of the original retmrns of the inquest of 11 71 in the Avranchin. The following notice relates to the ecclesiastical rather than to the political institutions of the diocese of Avranches, but it is here printed because it appears to have escaped the attention of local historians. It is found in a manuscript of co. 1200 in the Vatican,'* MS. Regiiia 946, Histoire de la congregation de Savigny, iii. i88; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. SQi) also anterior to 1182) and to Montmorel (Cariulaire, ed. Dubosc, no. 113). Both are attested by Ralph, prior of Montmorel, who according to the Gallia Christiana (xi. 537) became prior before 1171 and ruled eight years. For other references to William's donations see Carttdaire de Montmorel, nos. 8, 10, 12, 109, 110-115, p. 305; Round, no. 72r; Pigeon, Le diocese d' Avranches, ii. 671 f.; Le H^richer, L' Avranchin, »■ 371. 376 f., 387, 423 i; ii- 26, 587. " Stapleton, i. 11; cf. Powicke, E.H.R., xxv. 710. " Monasticon, v. 378. Matilda, between 1162 and 1171, grants as ' uxor Robert! filii regis ' to the bishop of Avranches: Pigeon, Le diocese d' Avranches, ii. 339; cf. Delisle-Berger, no. 214. Too much weight must not, however, be attached to the Ford chronicle, which is not earlier than the fourteenth century. The entries which follow in the Avranchin inquest would lead us to expect a possessive in place of the nominative: ' Reinaldus de Cortenai feodum Roberta filii R. in Valle Segie.' This emendation is the more probable since Reginald de Cortenay married the daughter or stepdaughter of Robert {Monasticon, v. 378; Stapleton, ii, p. cxlv f.),'and Robert may well have died before 1171. " ii. 28. " On the MS. see Pertz's Archiv, xii. 311; Liebermann, Gesetze,i, p. xMi. This 340 APPENDIX K S. 72V-74V ; certain additions in a different and slightly later hand are printed in itaUcs. The date can be fixed only in general by the age of the codex and by the reference to William de Saint- Jean, who is mentioned in Norman documents from 1133 to 1203.^' Anterior to the death of William, the text is subsequent to his endowment of La Luzerne in 1162 *" and to the erection of Montmorel into an abbey not long after ii^i.^ The monasteries mentioned are well known, so that special annotation is unnecessary. (F. 72v). Prior et conventus monachorum Sancte Mari§ de Moretonio ab antiquis temporibus, quia in eius iurisdictione sunt, debent episcopo Abrin- censi sollennem processionem et annuam procurationem et tarn episcopo quam gcclesig Abrincensi obedientiam. Similiter sanctimoniales de More- tonio debent sollennem processionem episcopo et tam episcopo quam gcclesig Abrincensi obedientiam. Priorissa autem et conventus sanctimonialiiun de Moutons subditi sunt episcopo et gcclesig Abrincensibus. Abbatia de Liicema subdita est episcopo et gcclesig Abrincensibus duplici de iure, quia fundata est et sita in episcopatu Abrincensi et quia sita est in feodo Beati Andrgg et episcopi Abrincensis, quem feodum tenet et habet Guillelmus de Sancto lohanne ab episcopo et inde facit ei ut domino suo hominagium. Abbas vero predicti cenobii debet interesse duabus sinodis et festo hiemali Beati Andrgg, vel si interesse non potest duos mittere de canonicis ecdesie sue. Similiter debet facere et tenetur abbas de Monte Morelli. Abbatia vero Montis Morelli subdita est episcopo et gcclesig Abrincen- sibus duplici ratione, quia sita est in episcopatu Abrincensi et constituta et funddta in feodo Beati Andrgg et episcopi. Isti duo abbates debent et pro- mittunt obedientiam ecdesie et episcopo Abrincensibus cum ipsi sunt bene- dicendi. (f. 73r). Notiun sit indubitanter tam presentibus quam futuris quod abbatia Sancti Michaelis de periculo maris tam episcopo quam ecdesie Abrincensi multum est obnoxia, quia de bonis et prediis Beati Andree sibi coUatis a Beato Auberto Abrincensi episcopo fundamentmn et institutionem accepit et in episcopatu Abrincensi sita est. Unde de antiqua consuetudine ratione obnoxietatis abbas et conventus predicti cenobii singulis annis in hiemali festo Beati Andree debite reddunt ecdesie Abrincensi ut matri gcdesig novem pondera cere secundum pondus predicti cenobii, que equiva- lent et equiponderant quatuor magnis ponderibus communibus et dimidio pon- is doubtless one of the two MSS. relating to Avranches whidi ate mentioned by Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Mamiscriptorum, i. 80. " Tardif, Tfis Ancien Coutumier, p. iii f.; Delisle, Eenri II, p. 500 f. '" Cartulairede La Luzerne, eA.'Du\>os,c,'D.a^. 6, T, NeustriaPia,p.jgii.; Pigeon, Le diocise d'Awanches, ii. 374-376. " GaUia Christiana, xi. 536 f.; cf. Cartulaire de Montmorel, ed. Dubosc. DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN 34I deri. Sumnja harum librarum est triginta et sex libre cgre.' Reddiint etiam predictus abbas et monachi debite ecclesie Abrincensi in predicto festo tres libras incensi et episcopo tres libras piperis.' Reddit insuper predicta abbatia singulis annis ecclesie Abrincensi in purificatione Beate Marie tres cereos formatos continentes ad minus quatuor libras cere. Reddit preterea decano Abrincensi singulis annis in Pascha Domini .vi. libras Andegavensium monete pro pellitia grisia. Tenetur etiam abbas predicte abbatie interesse hiemali festo Beat! Andree nisi legitimam habuerit excusationem, quam si habuerit mittet pro se duos de dignioribus ecclesie sue. Predictus vero abbas quando benedicitur professionem facit et canonicam obedientiam promittit et propria manu firmat et earn obedientiam promittit episcopo et successori- bus eius et ecclesie Abrincensi. Monachi autem predicti monasterii singulis annis ecclesiam Abrincensem de antiquo usu, ut matrem ecclesiam cui honorem debent, in die martis post octavas Pentecostes cum soUenni pro- cessione tenentur adire et missam in honore Beati Andree sollenniter celebrare. Confirmatio autem electionis abbatis predicti monasterii ad epis- copum Abrincensem pertinet. Tenetur etiam predicta abbatia electum Abrincensem in episcopum consecratum cum soUenni processione recipere. Confirmatio vero populi et consecrationes ecclesiarum predicti Montis et ordinationes monachorum et dericorum ad soliun episcopum Abrincensem pertinent. Clerici autem predicti Montis bis in anno tenentur interesse sinodo ecclesie Abrincensis. Similiter et abbas Montis Sancti Michaelis eisdem sinodis debet interesse. Preterea abbas et conventus predicti monasterii debent et tenentur singulis annis reddere episcopo Abrincensi in octavis Pen- thecostes apud Abrincas per nuncios suos sine requisitione .vii. libras Ande- gavensium monete. (f. 73 v). Consuettido autem est antiqua ut episcopus Abrincensis si vo- luerit singulis annis ad predictam accedat et veniat abbatiam in ultimo festo Beati Michaelis ad celebrandum ut episcopus ibi divina. In vigilia vero Beati Michaelis habet ex debito antiquo et procurationem et mansionem cum comitatu suo episcopus. In die autem festivitatis post sollennitatem et cele- brationem misse habet episcopus cum comitatu suo procurationem et inde post quo voluerit debet recedere. Consuevit preterea episcopus de antiquo usu predicttmi monasterium adire si voluerit in quarta feria ante Pascha Domini annuatim causa absolvendi monachos et clervun et populum a sarcina peccatorum, et tunc habet ibi episcopus procurationem suam cum suo comitatu. Salva est autem episcopo Abrincensi in predicta abbatia in omni- bus canonica iusticia.' Prioratus autem predicte abbatie in episcopatu Abrincensi constituti debent de consuetudine episcopo Abrincensi annuam procurationem et priores eorum debent ei obedientiam. Abbas Sancti Stephani de Cadomo de consuetudine debet interesse hiemali festo Beati Andree in propria persona vel debet mittere unum monachorum suorum cum litteris suis ad probandam rationabilem excusationem sue absentie. Hac vero de causa debet interesse abbas predicto festo ut episcopus ' Cf. Longnon, Pouillis de la province de Rouen, p. 162 (1412). ' Cf. the abbot's render to the king: Delisle, Henri II, p. 346. ' For the bishop's justice over the men of the Mount, see Chapter I, note 137 342 APPENDIX K Abrincensis prioratum suum Sancti Leonard! et priorem et monachos ibi manentes et possessiones eorum manuteneant et contra eis iniviriantes ecclesiastica censura eos def endat et tueatur. Similiter abbas Sancti Severi debet interesse hiemali festo Beati Andr§§ de consuetudine vel mittere debet cum litteris suis sufficientem et idoneimi excusatorem cum assignatione rationis sue absentig. Hac veto de causa debet interesse abbas Sancti Severi predicto festo quia habet in episcopatu Abrincensi capellam quandam et prioratum cum quibusdam decimis prope Haiam Paganelli, que omnia pertinent ad iurisditionem et defensionem episcopi et ecclesie Abrincensium.* Et in eodem episcopatu habet ecclesiam de Lucerna. (f . 74r) .' Sciant proculdubio omnes tam presentes quam f uturi quod inter episcopales ecclesias et sedes provintie Rotomagensis prima et dignior est ecclesia Baiocensis, secunda sedes et dignior post Baiocensem est ecclesia Abrincensis, ut legitur scriptum in quodam libro qui nocte et die est super altare Beate Marie Rotomagensis. Baiocensis vero episcopus est decanus Rotomagensis provintie, subdecanus autem eiusdem provintie est episcopus Abrincensis. Vacante autem sede Baiocensi vel eius episcopo in remotis partibus existente, superstes episcopus Abrincensis sanctum crisma et oleum et sacros ordines et cetera spiritualia ecclesie Baiocensi et eius clericis admi- nistrat nee ecclesia Baiocensis aliunde debet ea accipere, et econverso. In supradicto vero libro qui vocatur Tabule ° sic scriptum legitur in ecclesia Rothomagensi: Rodomus vel Rothomagus metropolis est. Continet enim sub se sex episcopales civitates, primam scilicet Baiocatarum, secundam scilicet civitatem Abrincatarum, tercia civitatem Evatinorum que dicitur Ebroicas, quartam civitatem Solarium que dicitur Sagium, quintam civitatem Lexovi- arum, sextam civitatem Consianciarum. (f, 74v). Cum omnes ecclesie in quolibet episcopatu constitute in potes- tate sint diocesanorum episcoporum et subdite sint matri §cclesi§, indubi- tanter sciatur ab omnibus ecclesiam Sancti Guillelmi Firmati de Moretonio in episcopatu Abrincensi constitutam esse subditam episcopo et gcclesi§ Abrincensibus. Debent autem et tenentur canonici predicte gcclesig episco- pum Abrincensem consecratum de antiqua consuetudine cum sollenni pro- cessione recipere et ei debent annuam procurationem; cessare vero tenentur a divino servitio et officio ad eius mandatum, quia ei debent obedientiam exhibere ut subditi prelato. Mittunt preterea de inveterata consuetudine duos de canonicis suis ad duas sinodos gcclesig Abrincensis. Consecratio autem gcclesig sue et aliarum ecclesiarum suarum et altariiun suorum et ordinationes canonicorum et clericorum predicte gcclesig ad solum episcopum Abrincensem pertinent. Abbatia Savigneii in episcopatu Abrincensi sita debet episcopo Abrincensi soUennem processionem et annuam procurationem et tam episcopo quam * Cf . Le H6richer, ii. 40. ' Evidently this folio or its contents has been reversed, as the two final para- graphs belong here. ' Probably the Liber ebumeus, now MS. Rouen 1405, in which this paragraph is found (p, 26), DOCUMENTS FROM THE AVRANCHIN 343 §cclesi§ Abrincensi canonicam obedientiam, quam abbas cum benedicendus est in ecclesia Abrincensi publice profitetur. Dedicatio autem ecclesie Savig- neii et consecratio altarium eius et ordinationes monachorum ad solum episcopum Abrincensem pertinent. Abbas vero Savigneii et abbas Sancti Michaelis de Monte et alii abbates diocesis Abrincensis et omnes principales persone conventualium ecclesiarum episcopatus Abrincensis debent interesse processioni Abrincensis ecclesie ad recipiendum cum honore episcopum Abrincensem redeuntem a sua consecratione, vel debent mittere duos de dignioribus ecclesiarum suarum pro se si non possunt interesse. INDEX INDEX Mediaeval names of persons aie arranged alphabetically under the English form of the Christian name. When names of places have been identified, the modem form is given; otherwise the form occurring in the document is used. Abacus, 17s, 176. Abbot, see Monasteries. Abingdon (co. Berks), 235. Achard, bishop of Avranches, 216. Adam, 7. de Beaunai, 127. de Martainville, 326. de Sottevast, 138. de Wanneville, 166, 168, 219, 326. Adams, G. B., 6, 56-58, 97, 179, 217. Adela, wife of Richard III, 59. Adelard of Bath, 131. Adelehn, 7. Adeliza of Abbetot, 298. countess of Aumale, 29. daughter of Richard II, 274. Adelolf, chamberlain of Bayeux, 63. bishop of Carlisle, in, 120, 124, 308. Adrian IV, Pope, 332. Advowson, 171-174, 218, 332, 333. Agy (Calvados), 109. Aids, feudal, 19, 21, 22, 187. Aimo, see Haimo. Aiulf du March6, 96. Aizier (Eure), 93, 226, 253, 254. Alan, 20. Ill, count of Brittany, 261, 269; 272. Alberic, bishop of Ostia and legate, 154. Aldwin, ' forbator,' 118. Alenfon (Ome), 124, 311-313, 319; MSS. at, 42, 60, 70, 106, 244, 245, 300, 302, 307; see Ome, archives of. Alexander de Bohun, 138, 139, 142, 145, 162, 220. bishop of Lincoln, 124, 303. II, Pope, 30. Alexander III, Pope, 181, 330. son of Theold, 224. Alfred, etheling, 275. the Giant, 270, 271. brother of Godebold, 92. de Ludreio, 63. Malbedenc, 22. de Saint-Martin, constable of Neufch^tel, 327, 334. Alg', 102. Algar, bishop of Coutances, 130, 146, 220. de Sainte-Mfere-figlise, 100. Alice Trubaud, 173. Ahermont (Seine-Inf.), 140, 148, 149, 151, 221, 305. Allod, 6, 290. Almeneches (Ome), abbey, 132, 133, 328. Alvered, see Alfred. Amfreville-la-Mi-Voie (Seine-Inf.), 70. Ancher de Neville, 289. Andrew of Baudemont, 108. abbot of Troam, 98, 321. Andrew, W. J., 122, 309. Angers (Maine-et-Loire), 129; bishop of, 35, 232- Saint-Aubin, abbey, 231. Saint-Serge, abbey, 231. Anglesqueville-sur-Saane (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 61, 78, 128, 310- 317- Angoht, 7. Angreville (Seine-Inf.), 305. Anjou, 4, 35, 44, 46, 47, 56, 123, 124, 136, 137, 142, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 162, 230-232, 241, 312. Counts: Fulk, Geoffrey Plantagenet. 348 INDEX Anneville-sur-Seine (Seine-Inf.), 69, 290. Anquetil d'Arri, 180, 328. de Hotot, 96. priest, 7. Ansaud de Beauvoir, 108. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, 86, 93. 310. de Dives, 321. vicomte, 306. Ansfred Bordet, 289. abbot of Prfiaux, 279. abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 228. seneschal, 5°, 275. de Sorquainville, 262. Anslec, sons of, 262. Anslevilla, 290. Appasilva, 261. Aragon, 195. Archdeacons, hereditary, 7; jurisdiction of, 31, 34, 35, 88, 171, 227, 228, 23s, 329-332. Archives, 221, 241-246; see Paris, and the several departments. Ardeneta, 219. Ardevon (Manche), 69, 185. Arganchy (Calvados), 94, 95, 294, 313, 319- Argences (Calvados), 4, 39, 49, 252, 259- 261, 272, 328. Argentan (Ome), 42, 70, loi, 105-107, 119, 121, 124, I2S, 128, 132, 134, 136, 139, 141-143, 151, 152, i6s, 176, 183, 184, 300-302, 304, 306, 307, 310, 319, 334, 335- Arlette, 268, 269. Arnold of Devizes, 332. Amulf, 305. chancellor of Bayeux, 226. of Choques, chaplain of Robert II, 74- bishop of Lisieux, 125, 130, 153, IS4, 158, 163, 165-168, 1 71-173, 188, 203, 219, 221, 324, 326. of Montgomery, 70. fitz Peter, 236. Arques (Seine-Inf.), 42, 100, 129, 131, 140, 143, 149, iSi, 152, 253, 254, 258, 360, 261, 274, 318, Arras (Pas-de-Calais), abbey of Saint- Vaast, 59- Arriire-ban, 8, 23, 24, 187. Ars (Manche), 21. Asnifires (Calvados), 298. Asselin, chaplain, 91. Assize, 105, 149, 150, 159, 165-169, 172- 174, 179, 180, 184, 187-189, 198-201, 209-219, 234, 238, 325-327, 334-336; of Arms, 23, 159, 192, 193; of Claren- don, 188. Athelney (co. Somerset), 315. Atina (province of Caserta), 233. Atto, 40. Atzelin, 7. Auberville (Calvados), 63. Aubrey de Vere, chamberlain, 121. Auchy (Seine-Inf.), 67. Audoin, bishop of £vreux, 111, 170, 296, 297, 299, 302. Audrieu (Calvados), 70. Auffai (Seine-Inf.), 49. Auge, 108, 181. Aumale (Seine-Inf.), 29, 78, 312, 317. Count: Stephen. Countess: Adeliza. Aunay-sur-Odon (Calvados), abbey, 13s, 163, 297, 316, 326, 327. Abbot: Vivian. Auvers (Seine-et-Oise), 45. Auvray, L., 247, 281. Avelina, niece of William Goth, 299, 301. Avoui, 36. Avranches (Manche), 34, 35, 43, 129, 165, 166, 180, 311; archives, 244; bishop of, 8, 18, 19, 34, 35, 37, 76, 87, 167, 227, 228; his rights over monasteries, 340-343; chapter, 43, 180, 272; fair, 191, 337, 338; MSS. at, 33, 41, 59, 69, 128, 142, 244, 245, 273, 277, 281, 337; vineyard, 338. Bishops: Achard, Herbert, John, Maingisus, Michael, Richard. Avranchin, 8, 9, 128, 129, 160, 185, 188, 191, 337-343- Bacqueville (Seine-Inf.), 20. BaW, bailliage, baUlivi, 105, 147, 151, 152, 163, 168, 177, 182-186, 2og. INDEX 349 Baldwin of Beaumont, 68. son of Clare, 91, 92. bishop of fivreux, 51. count of Flanders, 262, 275. Bampton (co. Oxford), 300, 301, 303. Banbury (co. Oxford), 235. Banlieue, 8, 29, 49, 117, 152, 153, 206, 262, 279. Bapeaume (Seine-Inf.), 216. Barcelona, county, S- Barentin (Seine-Inf.), 253-255. Barfleur (Manche), 43, 119, 314. Bari (province of Bari), 233. Barons, of curia and Exchequer, 89, 95, 179, 180, 185. Barony, 9-24. Bastebourg (Calvados), 128. Bateson, Mary, 48, 49, 114. Bath priory (co. Somerset), 66. Battle abbey (co. Sussex), 49. Baudri, 20. de Bocquencfi, 7, 11, 12. son of Nicholas, 11, 12. Serjeant, 118. Bavent (Calvados), 63. Bayeux (Calvados), 7, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 34, 39, 42, 43, 71, 75, 85, 86, 118, 124, 128, 129, 143, 159-161, 163, 166, 167, 183, 202, 205, 207, 213, 215, 216, 222, 270, 280, 324, 335, 336; archdeacon, 32, 34; bishop of, 6, 14-18, 22, 37, 76, 87, 91, 98, 103, 104, 133, 135-137, 149, ISO, 152, IS4. 161, 171, 199, 201-215, 244, 319, 342; chapter of, 66, 73, 99, 100, 137, 180, 222-224; chaplains of, 51, 52, 181; Livre noir, 133, 149, 197- 215, 224-226, 244, 248; other MSS. at, 67, 244. Bishops: Henry, Hugh, Odo, Philip, Richard of Kent, Richard fitz Samson, Thorold. Saint-Vigor, 66, 67, 73, 75, 76. Beaubec (Seine-Inf.), 94, 126. Beaumont-le-Roger (Eure), 68, 230, 318. Beaunay (Seine-Inf.), 69, 290, 291. Beaurepaire, C. de, 45, 151, 160, 244. Beautemps-Beaupr£, C.-J., 123, 136, 146, 230-232. Beauvais (Oise), 267, 269, 271. Beauvais, Saint-Lucien, 67. Bec-Hellouin (Eure), Le, abbey, 10, 29, 34, 49, 68, 71, 74, 80, 82, 87, 89, 104, 126, 127, 131-133, 136-138, 143, 159, 166, 220, 224, 242, 245, 247, 272, 293, 29s, 296, 306, 310-313, 31S. 317, 319, 329, 334. Abbots: Herluin, Roger, William. Becco, ' mara de,' 327. B£danne (Seine-Inf.), He de, 260. Bfidier, J., 269, 271. Beeding (co. Sussex), 83. Bell^me (Ome), 268, 311. Bellencombre (Seine-Inf.), 319. Bellou (Ome), 33. Below, G. von, 25. Benedict VIII, Pope, 251. of Peterborough, 193. archdeacon of Rouen, 68, 291, 293. Benet, A., 246. Bennetot (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262. Benoit de Sainte-More, 268. Berger, E., 130, 132, 133, 138, 158, 162, 201, 249. Berkshire, in, 121, 235. Berlin, MS. at, 76. Bemagium, 39, 63, 70, 77, 80, 82, 222. Bemai (Eure), 8, 9, 26, 27, 59, 60, 184, 24s, 251, 257, 260, 261, 335, 336. Abbot: Osbert. Bernard de Beaunay, 291. de Brus, 289. de Clairvaux, 154. bishop of St. David's, 94. de Saint-Valery, 187. the scribe, 88. Bemer, 82. Bemeval-sur-Mer (Seine-Inf.), 9, 10, 25, 26. Bemouville (Seine-Inf.), 291. Besse, Dom J.-M., 241. Bessin, 9, 43, 47, 129, 159-161, 167, 168, 213, 214, 222, 296. Beuville (Calvados), 63. B6ziers, M., 206. Bigelow, M. M., 196, 197, 221, 234, 237, Binbrook (co. Lincoln), 81. Birch, W. de G., 309. 3SO INDEX Bishops, appointment and control of, 36, 37, 153, 154; in curia and admin- istration, 37, S4-S8, 60, 77, I4S, 146, 149, IS4, 181, 27s; military service of, 8, 9, 14-19; rights over monasteries, 340-343. See Church, Courts, eccle- siastical. Bitetto (province of Bari), 233. Biville-la-Martcl (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262. Blandford (co. Dorset), 295. Bloc, sons of, 261. Blood feud, 32, 38, 60, 278. Bocherville, Saint-Georges de (Seine- Inf.), abbey, 106, 183, 226, 244, 312, 318. Abbots: Louis, Victor. Bocolunda, 261. Bocquencfi (Ome), 11-14. Bodevilla, 302. Bohmer, H., 9, 30, 35, 36, 66, 86, 130, 153. 154, 251, 278. Boiavilla, 259. BoUeville (Manche), 243. Bologna, 330. Bonaria, bonata, 255. Boniface, 122. Bonneville-sur-Touques (Calvados), 70, 77, 93, 186, 311, 314. Bonnin, T., 248. Borrelli de Serres, 182. Bosc-Lehard (Seine-Inf.), 81. Bosham (co. Sussex), 303. Bdt, 280. Bougy (Calvados), 16, 17. Boulogne (Pas-de-Calais), 126. Counts: Eustace, Stephen. Bourges (Cher), 45. Bourgtheroude (Eure), 315. Bourrienne, V., 66, 67, 146, 197, 200, 201, 206. Bouteilles (Seine-Inf.), 287, 288. Brfimule (Eure), 313. Bresslau, H., 52. Breteuolles, 252. Breteuil (Eure), 313; laws of, 49. Bretteville-sur-Odon (Calvados), 216. Brian fitz Count, constable, 120, 300. Brighthampton (co. Oxford), 300-303. Brionne (Eure), 49, 166, 168, 230, 315. Briouze (Ome), 77. Briquessart (Calvados), 129. Brittany, Bretons, 35, 128, 227, 241, 269. Counts or dukes: Alan III, Geoffrey, Odo. Brix (Manche), 102. Brucourt (Calvados), 325. Brunner, H., 3, 7, 25, 26, 56, 150, 157, 189, 196-200, 204, 207, 209, 211, 214, 217, 221, 223, 227, 277. Brunville (Seine-Inf.), 259. Brussel, N., 27, 36. Bures (Seine-Inf.), 138, 287, 288. Burgage, 186. Burgus, 48, 49. Bur-le-Roi (Calvados), 183. Butler, SI, 77, 81, 89, 113, 180, 275. Cabourg (Calvados), 216. Caen (Calvados), 39, 41-43, 48, S8, 71, 78, 81, 86, 94-98, 104, 107, 118-120, I2S, 128, 129, I4S, 151, 159, 165-168, 174, 176-178, 179. 182-184, 199, 213- 216, 223, 242, 260, 262, 270, 271, 278, 280, 307, 313-31S, 323, 324, 328, 333- 336; council of, 37, 276; MSS. at, 69, 91, 126, 24s, 246, 28s, 336; see also Calvados, archives of. La Trinity, abbey, 33, 43, 62-64, 69, 74, 161, 188, 244, 248, 274, 310. Abbess: Cecily. Saint-fitierme, abbey, 9, 14, 19, 33, 34, 40, 43, 57, 69, 74, 78, 80, 81, 94-96, 98, 103, 127, 166, 169, 173, 179, 215-217, 238, 244, 267, 278, 285-287, 294, 312, 313, 318, 341, 342. Abbots: Gilbert, Odo, William. Cailly (Seine-Inf.), 153. Calabria, 234. Calixtus II, Pope, 313. Calloenses, 92. Calvados, archives of the, 13, 34, 40, 57, 69, 9°, 91, 93, 96, 108, 109, 133, 142, 164, 172, 179, 2i6, 228, 229, 245, 246, 260, 286, 287, 297, 306-308, 316, 321, 322, 336. INDEX 351 Cambremer (Calvados), 49, 206, 207, 211-213. Camera, ducal, 40, 41, 44, 58, 108, 113, 180, 194, 257. Campeauz (Seine-Inf.), 255. Cannon, H. L., 190. Cantaiana, 337. Canterbury (co. Kent), 161, 183, 235. Archbishops: Anselm, Lanfranc, Ralph, Theobald, Thomas Becket, William. Canute, king of England, 261, 275. Capdlaria, 52. Carbone (province of Potenza), 234. Carcagny (Calvados), 207. Carentan (Manche), 165. Cartellieri, A., 193. Castles, 38, 60, 64, 6s, 86, 107, 118, 119, 14s, 176, 191, 194, 278; castle guard, 8, 19-21. Catalogus baronum, 23, 24. Caudebec (Seine-Inf.), 228, 336. Caux, 168, 181, 254, 260, 262. Ceaux (Manche), 41, 81. Cecily, daughter of WiUiam I and abbess of Caen, 75. Cefalu (province of Palermo), 234. Celestine II, Pope, 203. Celibacy, sacerdotal, 35, 66. Celier, L., 148, 330. Ceneau (Coenalis), R., 247. Cenilly (Manche), 163, 298. Census, 41. Centena, centenarius, 25, 46. Cerisy-la-Foret (Manche), abbey of Saint-Vigor, 9, 10, 43, 48, 245, 265, 269-272, 27s, 279, 314. Abbots: Durand, Hugh. Cesny-aux-Vignes (Calvados), 63. Chamberlain, 41, 50, 51, 77, 8g, 90, 112, 113, 116, 119-121, 162, 183, 275. Chambray (Eure), 326. Champart, 103, 326, 327. Champcervon (Manche), 337. Chancery, Angevin, 136, 140, 142; Anglo-Saxon, 53; Prankish, 51; in Normandy, 51-54. 59. 74-76, 82, 112, IIS, 13S-143, iSS, IS7, 162, 191, 274. Chandai (Ome), 172. Channel Islands, 129, 189; jee Guernsey, Jersey. Chanteloup (Manche), 21. Chapel, chaplains, ducal, 51-54, 74-76, 88, 89, no, 112, 118, 136, 137, 181, 275. Charentonne, the, 11. Charts aux Normands, 190. Charters, see Chancery, Diplomatics, and the several dukes. Chartres (Eure-et-Loir), 317; chapter of, 33, S9, 80, 108, 162, 245. Bishops: Fulbert, Ives. lepros^ry, 106, 107, 125, 126, 151, 24s, 319- Saint-Pere, abbey, 7, 33, 43, 59, 100, 171, 223, 245, 304. Chslteau-du-Loir (Sarthe), 27. Ch4teau-rHermitage (Sarthe), 129. Chefifreville (Calvados), 207, 211, 212. Cherbourg (Manche), 43, 78, r46, 152, 167, 180,. 183, 186, 220; canons of, 43, 53; MSS. at, 246. abbey De Voto, 116, 136, 186. Chesnel, P., 21, 47, 337. Chester, 121; earl of, 161, 236. Earls: Hugh, Ranulf, Richard. Countesses: Lucia, Matilda. Chesterfield (co. Derby), 236. Cheux (Calvados), 68, 286, 287. Chevreux, P., 246, 258. Chisenbury (co. Wilts), 311. Church, Norman, 6, 7, 30-38, 60, 65, 66, 80, 86, 125, 126, 129, 130, 146, 153, 154; see Bishops, Councils, Courts, Jurisdiction, Monasteries. Circada, 170. Clare of Rouen, 91, 92. Clarendon, Assize of, 188; Constitutions of, 169, 171-174, 198, 220, 226, 237, 329, 330, 332- Clerks, jurisdiction over, 31, 32, 171. Clermont (Puy-de-D6me), council of, 65, 66. Cluny (Sa6ne-et-Loire), 106, 133, 245, 253, 254, 318. Abbots: Odilo, Peter. Coinage, 28, 29, 38, 39, 60, 65, 86, 113, 171, 182, H87, 280, 281. 3S2 INDEX Colchester (co. Essex), 313, 314. Colmant, P., 245. Colombelles (Calvados), 63. Comes palaiii, 51. Conches (Eure), abbey, 49, 79, 245, 304, 326. Abbot: Gilbert. Cond6-sur-Ifs (Calvados), 302. Cond6-sur-Noireau (Calvados), 49. Conon, bishop of Palestrina and legate, 314- Conquest, Norman, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, 61. Constable, 50, 31, 89, 95, 121, 152, 162, 180, 182, 184, 186, 187, 27s, 317- Constantine, knight, 291. Constantinople, 267, 270. Constilutio domus regis, 108, 1 13-120. Consuetudines, ducal, 27-29, 33-39, 46, 271, 279; episcopal, 33-3S, 251. Consuetudines et iusticie, 4, 28, 29, 38, 48, 64, 65, 78, 243, 276-284. Corbuzzo, chamberlain, 50. Corhulma, 260, 262. Cormeilles (Eure), 49; abbey, 10, 187, 245. Abbot: William. Coronation, 190. Coroner, 188, 338. C6te-d'0r, archives of the, 66, 67. Cotentin, 9, 43, 47, 63, 64, 71, 87, 100- 102, 124, 127, 129, 136, 141, 149, 246, 276. Councils, ecclesiastical, 4, 6, 30-38, 65, 66, 170, 276, 294, 309, 310, 312, 313, 316, 33°- Count, as title of Norman dukes, 26, 73, 274. Counterfeiting, 86, 171, 187. Courb€pine (Eure), 8. Courcy-sur-Dive (Calvados), 143. Courts, baronial, 22, 24-30, 89, 97, 103, 150, 166, 172, 184, 187, 228-230, 278, 279; ducal, see Assize, Curia, Exche- quer; ecclesiastical, 30-37, 169-174, 179, i8s, 188, 220, 223-228, 321-3231 327, 329-332; forest, 48, 103; suit of court, 22, 24. See Jurisdiction. Coutances (Manche), 43; bishop of, 6, 8, 30, 36, 39. 43. 76, 133. 137. 141, 149, 171, 220,319,342; ecclesiastical archives, 220, 221, 242, 244, 247. Bishops: Algar, Geoffrey, Ralph, Richard, Robert, Roger. Coutumier des forSls, 160; de Normandie, see Tres Ancien Coutumier. Coventry (co. Warwick), 330. Coville, A., 5S, 190. Cramesnil (Calvados), 210, 212. Creech (co. Somerset), 81. Cristot (Calvados), 70, 216. Croix-Saint-Leufroy (Eure), 24s. Croleium, 302. Crusades, 65, 71. 74. 7S. 79. iS9, 205, 230. Cullei (Ome), 11-14. Curia, Capetian, 49; of Norman dukes, 32, 33, 47. 49-60, 70, 76, 77. 83, 87- 100, 104, 114, I2S, 147-149, ns, 163- 165, 171-174. 178-189, 194, 27s, 323- 326, 334-336. See Assize, Court, Household. Curtbertalt, 286. Customs, see Consuetudines. Danegeld, 40, 116, 166, 177. Daniel, Master, 328. Danvou (Calvados), 16. Dapifer, see Seneschal. Darrein presentment, 172. David, C. W., 62, 76. Davis, H. W. C, s, 31, Si, SSSS, 81, 82, 8S. 87, I2S, 249, 309. Deans, rural, 37, 171, 226, 329-332. Delisle, L., 4, 36, 39, S7, loi, 117, 130, 132-134. 137. IS7. 158, 162, 166, 174, 178, 190, 191, 197, 199-201, 209, 218, 221, 241, 243, 246-249, 2SS-2S7. 263, 276, 278, 325-327, 338. 340. Derby, 23s, 333- Deslandes, E., 197. DeviUe, A., 5, 144, 193, 247, 248, 25s, 2S8. E., 97, 248. Dialogue on the Exchequer, 40, 43, 113, 114, 158, 174-178, 191. 242, 280. Dieppe (Seine-Inf.), 42, 118, 119, 130, 131, 14s, 149, 131, 152. 178, 300, 304, 318. INDEX 353 Dijon (CAte-d'Or), 75; see C6te-d'0r. Saint-B6mgne, abbey, 40, 60, 66, 67, 69, 7S, 76, 24s, 267, 28s, 286. Abbots: Gerento, William I of Fecamp. Saint-£tienne, abbey, 272. Diplomatics, Norman, 53, 72-76, 82, 83, 13S-143. 274, 27s. Dipte, 259. Dispenser, 77, 116. Dives (Calvados), 95, 173, 215, 216, 321. Diwan, 112. Dol (Dle-et-Vilaine), archbishops: Jun- guen€, Roland. Domain, ducal, 39, 86, 151, 159, 160. Domesday, 3, 4, 22, 29, 40, S7, 121, 207, 234, 241, 242. Domfront (Ome), 64, 124, 163, 165, 183, 186, 323. Dopsch, A., 26. Douvrend (Seine-Inf.), 6. Douvres (Calvados), 223, 224. Dover (co. Kent), 78. Dreux, Drogo, coimt of Amiens, 273. count of the Vexin, 268, 272. Dublin; 183. Ducy (Calvados), 147, 211. Dudo of Saint-Quentin, 4, s, 38, 52, 241, 252. Duel, judicial, 28, 56, 97, 98, 104, 221. Dufayard, C, 190. Dugdale, W., 298. Duke of Normandy, ecclesiastical su- premacy of, 36-38, 66, 80, IS3, 154; income of, 39-45; jurisdiction of, 24- 29, 39, 187, 188, 278-280; limitations on, 190; maintenance of order by, 38; military service due, 8-23. See As- size, Chancery, Coinage, Curia, Do- main, Household, Jurisdiction. Du M€ril, E., 269. Du Monstier, A., 248, 257. Dun (Seine-Inf.), 255. Duplessis, Dom Toussaint, no, 260. Durand, 7. cellarer, 291. abbot of Cerisy, 262, 263. du Pin, 336. Durham, 66, 78, 81, 119. Bishops: Ranulf Flambard, William of Saint- Calais. Eadmer, 36, 75, 79, 114, 115, 314. Easter, curia, 55, 60; style of dating, 125, 138, 3"- Eaui, forest of (Seine-Inf.), 140, 151. Ebulus de Mallano, 233. £crammeville (Calvados), 63. ficretteville (Seine-Inf.), 253, 254, 260, 261. Edward the Confessor, king of England, 48, 261, 262, 273, 27s, 279. of Salisbury, 294. fiWtot (Seine-Inf.), 255, 260, 261. Elias of Saint-Saens, 289. Eling (co. Hants), 316. Elisabeth, 20. Ely (co. Cambridge), 23s, 316. Bishop: Neal. fimalleville, (Seine-Inf.), 8. fimendreville, 68, 81 (?), 82 (?), 293. Emma, abbess of Saint-Amand, 93. Emptiones Eudonis, 94-97, 318. Engel, A., 280. England, 4, 19, 29, 33, 36, 37, 40; in re- lation to Norman institutions, 3, 5, 6, 30, 34, 36, 40. 46-49, S2-S4, 57, 58, 82, 83, 85, 86, 94, 100, 103, 107, 108, 1x2-122, 142, 143, 186, 188-193, 196, 226, 227, 234-238, 241-243, 263, 264, 277-280. Kings: Edward, Ethelred II, Henry I, II, HI, V, VI, John, Richard, WiUiam I, II. Englesqueville (Calvados, canton Isigny) 63. Enguerran, 63, 289. chaplain, 29 x. son of Enguerran, canon of S£ez, 307- son of Ilbert, 76, 289, 291, 292. Oison, 307. count of Ponthieu, 262, 275. de Vascoeuil, 92, 127, 145, 148. Enjuger de Bohun, 138, 145, 148, 149, 207, 209, 210, 220. Enlart, C, 278. 354 INDEX Enna, ' Christ! famula,' 274. Envenneu (Seine-Inf.), 68, 100. £paignes (Eure), 324. £paney (Calvados), 173. £pemon (Eure-et-Loir), 316. Episcopal laws, 30-32. Ennenaldus the Breton, 267. Ermendi villa (Seine-Inf.?), 262. Ermenouville (Seine-Inf.), 260. Emald du Bois, 297. chaplain, 52, 275. Ertald, 69. Escures (Calvados), 147, 148, 224, 296. Esmein, A., 24. Esnecca, 121, 122. Essex, 301. Estr£es-la-Campagne (Calvados), 302. £tables (Seine-Inf.), 69, 291. £tampes (Seine-et-Oise), 45. £tard Poulain, 167, 168, 173, 323, 324. Ethelred II, king of England, 48. £tienne, see Stephen. £tigues (Seine-Inf.), 133, 253. £tretat (Seine-Inf.), 226. £tr£ville-en-Roumois (Eure), 229. Eu, 29, 66, 78, 79, 81, 82. Counts: , Henry, Robert. Eudo, see Odo. Eugene III, Pope, 154, 203-205, 211, 223. Eure, archives of the, 7, 29, 30, 42, 5°, 68, 70, 82, 109, III, 126, 134, 140, 166, 170, 172, 244-246, 273, 279, 306, 318, 323, 324, 326, 334- Eure-et-Loir, archives of the, 106, 125. Eustace, count of Boulogne, 68, 87, 293. of Breteuil, 287. fitz John, 303. fivrecy (Calvados), 17. fivreux (Eure), 86, 105, 106, 124, 296, 3^3> 315; archdeacon of, 87, 109; archives and MSS. at, 244, 246, see Eure; bishop of, 8, 37, 57, 76, 87, 121, 133, 140, iSi> 181, 244, 320, 342; chapter, iii, 318; counts of, 29, 42, 54, 167. Bishops: Audoin, Baldwin, Gilbert, Hugh, Rotrou. Counts: Richard, WilUam. Saint-Sauveur, abbey, 245. £vreux, Saint-Taurin, abbey, 10, 26, 29, 42, 87, 104, 244, 260, 272. Exchequer, English, 40, 106, 111-113, 174-178, 181, 191; Norman, 39-4S. 64, 84, 88, 89, 94, 9S, 97-99. lOS-iii, 119, 120, 151, IS7, 158, 167, 174-182, 191, 192, 194, 242, 328, 334, 335- Exeter (co. Devon), 103. Bishop: William. Exmes (Ome), 42, 105, io6, 124, 151, 300-302. Eyton, C, 298, 309, 317. F. de Tinchebrai, 222. Falaise (Calvados), 39, 86, 91, 105-107, 113, 119, 121, 125, 129, 151, 159, 176, 183, 186, 206, 219, 222, 226, 238, 300, 301, 308-310, 313, 316, 320, 329, 330, 332. Falcheran, monk, 328. Farm, of viconUS and prSvdte, 43-47, 105- 107, 126, 151, 176-178, 186, 191. Fauguemon (Calvados), 143. Fealty, liege, 22. Fficamp (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 7-10, 25, 29, 33> 41-43, SO, 52, 5S, S9, 60, 64, 69, 71, 72, 78, 80, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 93, 103, 104, 129-131, 133, 140, 147, 160, 163, 179, 181, 185, 188, 222, 226, 229, 244, 246, 247, 250-264, 266, 271-273, 280, 287-290, 318, 335; Mus6e, 246, 250- 263, 287-289. Abbots: Henry, John, Roger, WiUiam. Felony, 188. Feudalism, Norman, 5-30, 60. Finance, see Exchequer, Farm. Fish, rights over, 39, 94, 161. Flach, J., 5, 27. Flanders, 4, 5, 36, 37, 44, 53, 56, S7, i93, 241. Count: Baldwin. Fleurfi (Ome), 301. FUche, A., 49, 64, 79, 80. Florence of Worcester, 78. Fodrium, 231. Fontenay abbey (Calvados), 222. Ab- bot: Robert. Fontenay-le-Pesnel (Calvados), 69. Fontenay-Saint-P6re (Seine-et-Oise), 33. INDEX 3SS Fonteviault (Maine-et-Loire), abbey, io6, 126, IS4, 24s, 317. Ford abbey (co. Devon), 339. Forests, 32, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 102, 103, 117, 118, 140, 152, 160, 181, 182, i8s, 207, 213, 214, 222, 279. Formeville, H. de, 36, no. Foucannont (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 83, 166, 244. Foucarville (Manche), loi. Foulbec (Calvados), 63. France; its government compared with Normandy, 44, 45; Norman influence on, 3, 178, 193; Norman relations with, s, iS> 20, 130. 243. Kings: Henry I, Louis VI, VII, X, Philip I, II, Robert. Franchises, 24-30. Franks, Lastitutions of the, 25, 46, 48, 52, 54, 196, 197, 227, 233. Frederick 11, emperor, 234. Freeman, E. A., 30, 31, 57, 58, 62, 75, 78-80, 265, 273, 278. Fresnay-sur-Sarthe (Sarthe), 69. Fr^ville, E. de, 48. R. de, 9r, 96, 178, 184. Froger, bishop of S£ez, 181, 326. Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, 33, 267. archdeacon of Rouen, 68, 291-293. Fulk, 19. archdeacon, 7. of Jerusalem, count of Anjou, 123, 136, 141, 230-232, 311. the Red, count of Anjou, 123. d'AsniSres, 63. d'Aunou, 149, 334. dean of fivreux, 7. son of Fulk, 97, 98. dean of Lisieux, 173, 322. merchant, 291. Painel, 338. abbot of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive, 68. Fumess abbey (co. Lancaster), 316. Fyrd, 23. Gac6 (Calvados), 63. GaigniSres, R. de, 247. GaiUon (Eure), 186. Galeran I, count of Meulan, 256, 275. II, 92, 94, 961 121, 127, 129, 145, 148, 152, 153, 162, 166, 167, 173, 187, 205, 208, 211, 219, 228, 229, 29s, 300, 313, 315, 321. Galley, royal, 121, 122. Ganzeville (Seine-Inf.), 255. Garin de Grandval, 219. Gaucher Escorchechine, 328. Gautier, see Walter. Gavray (Manche), 43, 172, 218. Gazel, 262. Genest (Manche), 185. G^nestal, R., 22, 48. Geoffrey d'Abbetot, 299. Plantagenet , count of Anjou and duke of Normandy, 316; char- ters of, IS, 8s, 93, 129, 131-14S, I47-IS3, 197, 199-201, 204-212, 220, 221; and the jury, 199-238; Normandy under, 53, 123-155, 162, 192, 193. count of Beaumont, 256. duke of Brittany, 183, 331. de Brucourt, 325. de Bru6re, 147, 148. chamberlain, 336. chaplain and chancellor of Henry I, 294, 299, 303. de Clairvaux, 147. de Clefs (Cleers) (Maine-et-Loire), 14s, 146, 153, 220. de Clinton, chamberlain, 89, 113, 294, 300. de Courtonne, Master, clerk, 328. de CourviUe, 295. de Montbray, bishop of Cou- tances, 34, 36. 54, 57, 68. Duredent, 335. de Fontenay, 95. brother of Henry II, 319. son of Mabel, 323. Malaterra, 266. de Mandeville, 107, 295. le Moine, 334. de Neufbourg, 324. son of Payne, 107, 120, 303, 306, 307. 3S6 INDEX Geoffrey, priest, 104. de Repton (Rapendun), 335. archbishop of Rouen, 92, 109, 294, 297. dean of Rouen, 13, 138, 325. • de Sablfi (Subles), justice, 95, 99. de Sai, 22. abbot of Savigny, 296. son of Thierry, 322. de Tours, 220. priest of Vesli, 32. Gerald 'ad barbam,' 92. de Barri (Giraldus Cambrensis), 131. 1S3- butler, SO- abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 68. seneschal, 50, si, 56, S8. Gerard de Goumay, 68. archdeacon of Rouen, 68. bishop of S6ez, 153 G€r6, 268. Gerento, abbot of Saint-B€nigne, 75, 79, 28s, 286. Gervase of Canterbury, 130, 132. de Fresnay, 164. Gerville, C. de, 246, 248, 336. Gilbert, 7, 20. archdeacon, 139. of Avranches, 338. Belet, 289. son of Bernard, 68, 109. count of Brionne, 263, 266, 268, 27S- de Brucourt, 32s. abbot of Conches, 326. cook, 291. Crispin, 68. d'fivreux, treasurer, 108, log. bishop of fivreux, 68, 289, 292. — — de Fourches, 322. — — son of Gunduin, 298. de Hotot, 324. de La Hogue, 185. de Laigle, 92, 287. bishop of Lisieux, si, 292. Foliot, bishop of London, 330. the Universal, bishop of London, 303- Gilbert de la Mare, 92. 'nummarius ' (?), 140. Pipart, 180. son of Rainier, 289. chanter of Rouen, 109. abbot of Saint-£tienne, 68, 69, 75, 286. ' scolasticus,' 68. seneschal, 275. de Vascoeuil, 325. Warren, 291. d'Yainville, 327. Giraldus, see Gerald. Girberga, wife of Ralph fitz Anser6, 292. Giruinivilla, 253, 254, 261, 262. Giry, A., 144. Gisors (Eure), 64, 311, 313, 31s. Gisulf, scribe, 113. Glanvill, 97, 158, 186, 189, 191, 198, 217, 242. Glastonbury (co. Somerset), 161. Gloucester, 236. Gloz (Eure), 313. Godard de Vaux, 167, 168, 219, 323-326. Godebald de Saint- Victor, 92. Gohier, 288, 289. de Morville, 297. Goldsmith, duke's, 1S2. Goleium, 302. Gonbert de Gervinivilla, 262. Gonfred de Gervinivilla, 261. Gonnor, wife of Richard I, 59. Gosselin, see Joslin. Goumay (Seme-Inf.), 78, 153. Gradulf, abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 261, 262, 267. Grandcamp (Calvados), 63. Gravaria, gravarms, 40, 47, 63, 131, 177, 182, 288. Graverend d'fivrecy, 167. Gravina (province of Bari), 234. Gray, H. L., 298. Graye (Calvados), 63. Grenoble (Is6re), MSS. at, 72, 82, 100- 103, 246. Grestain (Eure), abbey, 24s. Grimald du Plessis, 16, 17, 271. Gross, C, 188. INDEX 357 Grumo (province of Bari), 233. Gu6rin, C, 337. Guernsey, 7, 33, 43, 69, 185, 273. Guildford (co. Surrey), 235. Guilhieimoz, P., 19-23, 193, 281. Guntard, abbot of JumiSges, 292. Guy Caicois, 291. notary, 32, 255. count of Ponthieu, 18. de Sable, 134, 140, 142, 145, 147- 149, 210. Haimo, butler, 180, 335. d'Evrecy, 17. de Falaise, 304. vicomte, 263. Hainfara, 28-30, 279. Hainovilla, 63. Hall, Hubert, 53, 108, 114, 115. Halphen, L., 44, 46, 47, 56, 123, 136, 137, 230, 316. Hamelin de l'£cluse, 294. loricarius, 306, 307. de la Mayenne, 294. Hamfred, 127. Harcourt, L. W. Vernon, 49, 51, S8, 97, 99, 162, 16s, 27s. Hardwicke (co. Oxford), 301. Harfleur (Seine-Inf.), 29, 253, 254. Hastings (co. Sussex), 79, 121. Haur€au, B., 131. Haute justice, 28, 89. Hauville (Eure), 7, 162. H^auville (Manche), 71, 100, 102, 134, 13s, 140, 141. 162- Hector of Chartres, 160. Helleville (Manche), 102. Eehnarc, 281, 283. Helto, constable, 202. Hemmeon, M. de W., 49. Hennequeville (Calvados), 253, 254. Henry, 171. d'Aigneaux, 167. bishop of Bayeux, 160, 172, 213, 335- del Broc, 299. son of Corbin, 167. Henry I, king of England and duke of Normandy, 29, 3r, 37, 63-65, 71, 78, 79, 83, 127, 134, 137, 139- 142, 146-148, 150-153, iSSf 170, 17s, 176, 192, 194, 202-210, 214, 226, 23s, 236, 244, 28s, 291; charters of, 11-14, 42, 64, 65, 68, 69, 77, 81, 85-87, 89, 90, 93-96, 98-107, III, 118, 135, 140, 142, 144, 190, 197, 221, 223, 277, 280, 293-320, 337, 338; Norman itin- erary of, 309-320; Normandy tmder, 85-122, 126, 166. n, king of England, duke of Nor- mandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, 8, 22, 23, 28, 31, 40, 48, 74. 93. 94. "3. "4, "i. 130- 132, 146, 147, 150, 151, 155, 323, 327; charters of, 12, 13, 15, 59, 81, 94, 96, 107, 109, 116-118, 120, 130-135. 140. 144. 148, 154, 158, 161-169, 173, 182, 186-191, 197- 202, 205, 207, 208, 213-217, 221, 23S-237, 249. 252. 270, 304, 337; early legislation of, 329-333; jury under, 196-238; Normandy un- der, 156-195, 334. 335. 337, 338. HI, king of England, 189. V, 243. VI, 243. count of Eu, 293. abbot of Fecamp, 129, 134, 219, 229, 326. de Ferri6res, 303. I, king of France, 45, 49, 268, 269, 272, 275. of Huntingdon, 331. de Longchamp, 229. the marshal, 134, 152. de Moult, 328. of Pisa, cardinal priest of SS. Nereo ed Achilleo, legate, 173. de la Pommeraye, 88, 89. privSt, 108. de Kichebourg, 108. the Lion, duke of Saxony, 183. de Tilly, 335. earl of Warwick, 285, 324. 358 INDEX Henry, bishop of Winchester, 124, 303. the Young King, 183. Henton (co. Oxford), 332. Herbert, 96. bishop of Avranches, 127. count of Maine, 256. ' Maloei,' 291. Poisson, 197. Herfast, chancellor of William I, 51-53. H6rils (Calvados), 224. Herluin, founder of Bee, 7, 10, 38, 266, 272. priest of Dives, 321. Hermann ' AngUcus,' 328. H6rouviIle (Calvados), 298. Hertfordshire, 301. Hervey, archdeacon of Lisieux, 321. son of Richard, 291. Hiesmois, 42, go, 186. Hildebert, bishop of Le Mans and arch- bishop of Tours, 131, 294. abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, 59. Hilduin, vicomte of Meulan, 256. Hinschius, P., 227. Hippeau, C, 96, 212, 247, 287. Hoel, 291. Hoffmann, M., 227. Honor, 17-19. Honorius H, Pope, 300. Hospital, Knights of the, 133. Hospites (hdtes), 254, 256, 259, 262, 327. Hostiarius, 51, 77, 163. Household, Capetian, 49; imperial, 50; of the Norman dukes, 49-58, 77, 114- 121, 192, 275. Hubert de Port, 22. de Ryes, 22. Hugh, 291. d'Allemagne, 97. archdeacon, 7. de Bardeville, 261. Bardulf, 186. bishop of Bayeux, 17, 256, 259, 260, 267, 272. de Bee, 121. Bigod, seneschal, 8, 13, 120, 300, 303- de Bricqueville, 21. Hugh, abbot of Cerisy, 68. chancellor of Richard 11, 52. earl of Chester, 236, 338. de Clefs (Cleers), 146-148. de Conteville, 328. de Cressy, constable of Rouen, 327, 334. bishop of fivreux, 256. of Flavigny, monk of Dijon and chronicler, 67, 74-76, 79, 266, 267, 286. Gohun, 289. de Goumay, 92, 166, 177, 185, 219, 311, 325, 326. de Guilleio, 294. d'Ichelunt, 289. d'lvry, butler, 50, 51. bishop of Lisieux, 321. de Longchamp, 185. I de Montfort, constable, 51. II de Montfort, 95, 96, 296, 315. Mursard, 69, 289, 290. Painel, 69. Payen, 63. de Revers, 63. of Amiens, archbishop of Rouen, 109, 120, 121, 125, 129, 130, 138, 146-148, 153, 172, 220, 226, 229, 299, 302, 317. de Sorquainville, 262. dean of Saint-Martin, 147. Teillard, 321. archbishop of Tours, 133. vicomte, 91. son of William, 328. Humbert, monk, 286. Humphrey de Adevilla, 102. d'Aubigny, 102, 294. de BeuzeviUe, 139. de Bohun, seneschal, 22, 112, 121, 162, 302, 303. fitz Odo, 162. ' vetulus,' 263, 275. Hundul, son of Gosman, 261, 262. Hungerford (co. Berks), 295. Hunloph of MesmouUns, 287, 288. Hunnington (co. Lincoln), 236. Hunspath, 287, 288. INDEX 359 Iger de Lohf, 337. Ignauville (Seine-Inf.), 287, 288. nbert, marshal, 51. Imams, legate, 154. Imbart de la Tour, 36. Immunity, 25-27, 89, 140, 250-252. Ingouville (Calvados), 328. Ingouville (Seine-Inf.), 252. Innocent II, Pope, 91, 106, 203, 317, 318. Inquest, sworn, 47, 56, 58, 83, 105, 149, ISO, iSS. 169. iQij 329-333; inquest of 109 1, see Consueitidines el iusticie; Sayeux inquest of 1133, 15, 16, 20, 23, 85, 109, 202, 212, 222; Bayeux in- quests imder Geoffrey and Henry II, 204-215; Inquest of Sheriffs, 160, 330; other inquests under Henry II, 8, 9, 24, 44, 159-161, 188, 191, 215-222, 243, 285, 337-339; under Philip Au- gustus, 173. See Jury. Investiture, 73. Ireland, 49. Isembert, bemer, 82. chaplain, and abbot of La Trinity, SI, 262, 268, 270, 275. Isigny (Calvados), 213. Italy, Normans in, 23, 61; sworn inquest in, 227, 232-234; Italian (?) ship- master of Henry I, 122. See Sicily. lurea regalis, 160, 243. lustaldus, derk, 261. Ives, or Ivo, bishop of Chartres, 79. TaiUebois, 70, 285. Ivry (Eure), 245. Jamison, Evelyn, 23, 232. Jenkinson, H., 195, 242. Jersey, 271. Jerusalem, 266, 268, 269, 273. John, count of Alenjon, 336. See John, count of Ponthieu. bishop of Avranches and arch- bishop of Rouen, 18, 272, 337. of Beaiunont, 92. de Cartot, 335. cellarer, 289. of Coutances, archdeacon of Rouen, 33S. John Cumin, 167. king of England, 187, 189, 190, 193- 19s, 198, 242, 243. d'£raines, archdeacon of the Hies- mois, 184, 335, 336. abbot of Fficamp, 29, 57, 258, 262, 263. de Gavray, 323. Grossus, 291. knight, 291. archdeacon of Lisieux, 173. bishop of Lisieux and justiciar of Henry I, 87-90, 92, 94-100, 107, no, 129, 130, 146, 163, 294, 297, 299, 302, 30s, 3°7, 321. de Lunda, 92. of Marmoutier, 128, 132, 155, 193. marshal, 307. son of Odo of Bayeux, 294, 296. peril, 172. count of Ponthieu, 91, 328, 334. Rubi, 295. of Salisbury, 330-332. bishop of Sfiez, 13, 96, 299, 300, 306, 314, 316. usher, 299. treasurer of York, 331. Jordan de I'fipesse, 172. de la Lande, 180, 335, 336. de Sai, 297, 298. de Sully, 321. Taisson, 167, 172, 220, 323. Joslin of Bailleul, 307. succentor of Bayeux, 225. Rosel or Rusel, 326, 335. of Tours, 138, 145, 146. vicomte, 263. Joui (Aisne), 45. Jouvelin-Thibault, J., 68. Judith, wife of Richard II, 59. Juhel, 92. Jumi6ges (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 7, 8, 17, 25, 27. 28, 37, 42, 49, 50, 53, 59, 69, 71, 87, 91, 92, 109, 173, 229, 244, 247, 251, 253, 257, 265, 272, 273, 290-292. Abbots: Guntaid, Urse, WiUiam. Junguen€, archbishop of Dol, 261, 262, 27s. 36o INDEX Jurisdiction, baronial, 22, 24-30, 89, 97, 103. ISO. 166, 172, 184, 187, 228-230, 278, 279; ducal, 27-30, 89, 97, 170- 174, 186-189, 278, 279; ecclesiastical, 30-37, 104, 170-174, 18s, 321-323, 327, 337, 341- See CourU, Curia, Inquest. Jury, 149, ISO, 169, 188, 189, 195-238, 329-332. Justices, S7. 83, 87-105, 148-150, 163- 169, 173, 179-188, 194, 199, 205-219, 221, 228, 323-328, 334-336- Justiciar, chief, 57, 58, 87-99, "4, 127, 146, iSS, 163-166, 189, 323-326. Kent, 235. Knight, equipment of, 20; knight's fee, 8-19, 24, 186, 192; knight service, 7-24. Korting, G., 268, 269. Kroell, M., 26. La Borderie, A. de, 261. La Carboni&ie (Seine-Inf.), 255. La Cava &)rovince of Salerno), 234. La Croisille (Eure), 228. La Croix (Manche), 7. La Fert6-en-Brai (Seine-Inf.), 153, 312. La Fert6-Fresnel (Ome), 313. Lagouelle, H., 7. La Haie-Pesnel (Manche), 342. La Hougue (Manche), 124. Laigle (Ome), 312, 313. La Lande (Manche), 21. Laleu (Ome), 299, 301. La Luzerne (Manche), abbey, 338, 340, 342- Lancashire, 235. La Neuve-Lire (Eure), 297. Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, 30, 32, S7- Laon (Aisne), 87, 175. Lappenberg, J. M., 26. Larderer, 116, 182. Larson, L. M., 55. La Rue, G. de, 246. Latouche, R., 48, 80. Lavidande (Manche), 21. Law, Norman, 4, 182, 189, 194, 243, 277. See Assize, Consueludines et msiicie. Courts, Jury, Legislation, Tris Ancien Coutumier. Lawrence, archdeacon, 324. Le Bosguet (Eure), 70. Le Brasseur, P., 281. Lecacheux, P., 243, 248. L€chaud£ d'Anisy, 197, 202, 221, 247, 286. Le Faulq (Calvados), 224. Legates, papal, 154; see Albericus, Conon, Henry of Pisa, Imams. Legislation of Norman dukes, 4, 6, 85, 86, 114, 120, 150, 158, 159, 169-171, 198- 201, 211, 212, 218-220, 238, 276, 277, 327, 329-333- Legras, H., 39, 48, 161, 242. Le Hardy, G., 62, 297. Le Hfiricher, E., 337, 339, 342. Le Homme (Calvados), 63. Le Homme (Manche, now L'lle-Marie), 46, 274. Le Houlme (Ome), 34. Le Mans (Sarthe), 48, 146, 147, 205, 209, 210, 316; chapter of, 81, 245. Bish- ops: Hildebert, William. La Couture, abbey, 304. Saint-Victor, priory, 245. Saint- Vincent, abbey, 69. Le Marais-Vemier (Eure), 229. Lenoir, Dom J., 218, 246, 247, 250, 255- 258, 288, 297. Le P16, near Rouen (Seine-Inf.), 118, 144. Le Provost, A., 12, 15, 46, 140, 242, 247, 248, 257, 265, 296. Leregant, 133. Les Andelys (Eure), 182. Le Sap (Ome), 172, 173, 219. Lessay (Manche), abbey of, 33, 132, 13s, 138, 244, 315. Le Val de Port (Calvados), 224. Lexartum, 259. Liebermann, F., 3, 30, 37, 48, $$, IS, "4, 17s, 176, 278-281, 339. Lieurey (Calvados), 302, Lieuvin, 108, 181, 186. Li^vres (Manche), 271. INDEX 361 320. "S. Lillebonne (Seine-Inf.), 81, 116; council of, 30-3S. 37, 46, 48, SS, 104. 170, 276-279, 281, 310. Limoges (Haute-Vienne), 214. Limpiville (Seine-Inf.), 255. Lincoln, 81, 125, 126, 235-237, Bishops: Alexander, Robert. Lions-la-Foi£t (Eure), 119, 121, 286, 320. Lire (Eure), abbey, 10, 72, 245, 246, 297, 313, 33S- Lisiard, bishop of S€ez, 172. Lisieux (Calvados), 69, 124, 129, 134, 136, 141, 143, 163, 168, 206, 291, 292, 309> 313. 321-323; bishop of, 8, 14, 36, S7, 66, 76, no, IS3, 181, 187, 211, 274, 321, 322, 342; chapter of, S9, i73; councils at, 32, 36, 38, 86, 309, 310; treasurer of, 130. Bishops: Amulf, Gilbert, Hugh, John, Ralph, William de Fad. leproseiy, 172. Saint-D£sir, abbey, 27, 133, 228, 245- Littleton, Sir Thomas, 211. Liveries, court, 114-119. Loders (co. Dorset), 82, loi, 243. London, 48, 242, 317, 330, 331. Bishops: Gilbert Foliot, Gilbert the Universal. British Museunl, MSS. 79, 82, loi- 104, 122, 174, 179, 243, 298, 309. Public Record Office, 90, 94, 197, 203, 221, 242, 243, 248, 263, 303. St. Paul's, MSS. of, 89, 116, 161. Longchamps (Eure), 286. Longueville, 184,' 335. Longueville (Manche), 21. Longueville, Sainte-Foi de (Seine-Inf.), priory, 81,310. Longueville (Autils), Saint-Pierre de (Eure), priory of, Sg. Lonlai (Ome), abbey, 70, 77, 245. Loricarii, 119, 306, 307. Lorraine, 175, 176. Lot, F., 4, s, 36, 249, 2S7, 314- Louis the Pious, king and emperor, 25. Louis VI, king of France, 310, 311. VII, I2S, 130, 143. iS4> 205. Louis X, 190. abbot of Saint-Georges de Bocher- ville, 92. LouviSres (Calvados), 147, 211. Luchaire, A., 27, 48, 49, 311, 313, 314, 316. Luchon (Calvados), 207. Lucia, countess of Chester, 236. wife of Jordan de Sai, 297. Lucius II, Pope, 15, 130, 202-205, 223. ni. Pope, 337. Liiders, W., 52. Luke, butler, 92, 336. son of Hervfi, 223, 224. Mabel, wife of Ralph de Mortemer, 291. Mabille, E., 136. Mabillon, Dom J., 257. Maeelina, abbess of Saint-Amand, 93. Magister mUiium, 51. Magna Carta, 185, 190. Maine, 80; institutions of, 27, 48, 82, 146, 232, 330. Counts: Herbert, Robert Curthose. Maingisus, bishop of Avranches, 255, 256. Maitland, F. W., 3, 5-7, 22-24, 29, 37, SS. S6, 158, 165, 173, 185, 187, 194, 196, 198, 220, 224, 227, 234, 238, 277- 280, 329, 331. Malassis, near Gasny (Eure), 312. Mailing (co. Kent), abbey, 235. Manasses Bisset, seneschal, 162, 236. Manche, archives of the, 21, 59, 82, 93, 100-104, 127, 128, 134, 138, 142, 147, 148, 168, 172, 186, 187, 221, 222, 244- 246, 270, 273, 280, 294, 296, 311, 315, 319, 323, 324, 327, 3361 338. Mangon, Pierre, 100, 246. Manneville (Seine-Inf.), 255. Manonisvilla, 255. Mansi, Cardinal, 277. Mantes (Seine-et-Oise), 46. Manteyer, G. de, 143. Mantois, 316. Mark, 281. Markets and fairs, 39, 42, 49, 69, 70, 72, 80, 93, loi, i8i, 182, 188, 191, 259, 262, 286, 287, 289, 324, 337, 338. 362 INDEX Marlborough (co. Wilts), 126. Marmoutier (Indre-et-Loire), abbey, 18, 32, 59, 69, 72, 134, 141, 24s, 247, 314, 316. Marolles (Calvados), 172. Maromme (Seine-Inf.), 325. Marshal, 51, 89, 118, 119, 121, 152, 162, 182, 192. MartSne, Dom E., 277, 281. Martin, scribe, 88. Marx, J., 265, 267, 270. Mathan (Calvados), 88; Marquis de, 246. Matilda d'Avranches, lady of Le Sap, 218, 219, 339. countess of Chester, 236. empress, 124, 130, 132, 136, 144, 147, 151, 152, 222, 306, 316. queen, wife of Henry I of England, 310. queen, wife of Stephen of Blois, 124. queen, wife of William the Con- queror, 20, so, Sh S4> 68, 106, 279. Matthew de Gerardivilla, 325. marshal, 328. du Moutier, 326. Mauduit chamberlainship, 113. Mauger de Beuzeval, 95. of Corbeil, 275. Maurice, 108. ■ pugil,' 221. ' de sigillo,' 162. Maurilius, archbishop of Rouen, 19. Mayer, E., 46, 232. Mayet (Sarthe), 129. Meister, A., 25. Merlet, R., 108. Merton priory (co. Surrey), 88. Mesnil-Don (Calvados), 63. Mesnil-Brey (Manche), 171, 218. Mesnil-Eudes (Calvados), 8, 130. Mesnil-Josselin (Eure), 312. Mesnil-Mauger (Calvados), 322. Metearius, 19. Meulan (Seine-et-Oise), 29, 93, 150, 247, 256, Counts: Galeran, Robert. Meulan, Saint-Nicaise, priory, 295. Michael, bishop of Avranches, 22. abbot of Prfiaux, 166, 323, 324. Miles of Gloucester, 303, 305, 317. Mileto (province of Catanzaro), 233. Mills, ducal, 39, 43, 117. Ministri, ico, loi, 152. Mint, ducal, 106, 113, 256, 281. Mirebeau (Vieime), 133. Moeller, C, 75. Monasteries, control by duke, 36, 125; as holders of immunities and consuetu- dines, 25-30; military service of, 8-14; rights of bishops over, 337-343. MondeviUe (Calvados), 252. Moneyer, duke's, 152, 280, 281. Montbouin (Calvados), 63. Montebourg (Manche), abbey, 9, 80, 81, 93, 100-103, I2S, 134, 13s, 139. 244- Abbot: Robert. Montfarville (Manche), loi. Montfaucon, B. de, 281, 340. Montfort (Eure), 72, 174, 224, 230, 315, 327, 334. 336. Montgaroult (Ome), 151. Montivilliers (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 9, 10, 29,43. 60, 24s, 251, 260, 266, 272, 273, 27S- Montmartin (Calvados), 209. Montmorel (Manche), abbey, 339, 340. Prior: Ralph. Montpin£on (Calvados), 16. Montreuil-Bellay (Maine-et-Loire), 131, 137. 147- Montreuil-sur-Mer (Pas-de-Calais), 45. Mont-Saint-Michel (Manche), abbey, 7, 9, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 32-35, 59, 69. 71. 74. 78, 128, 153, 161, 191, 227, 228, 244, 247, 248, 261, 273, 277, 337- 341, 343- Abbots: Hildebert, Robert of Torigni. Moiin, Dom G., 66. Morin Planchun, 327. Morris, W. A., 46. Morsalines (Manche), 102. Mortain (Manche), 124, 129, 168, 294, 314; count of, 29, 48, 54, 57, 127, 187. Counts; Robert, Stephen, William, INDEX 363 Mortain, Dames Blanches, abbey, 127, 34°- Notre-Dame, priory, 126, 340. Samt-£vroul, collegiate church, 126, 342. Mortemer (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 134, 182, 205, 222, 319. Abbot: Wilham. Moulins (Ome), 43. Moult (Calvados), 328. Moutons (Manche), convent, 127, 340. Muriel d'Amblie, 262.' N' (?), bishop of Meaux, 171. Neal, or Nigel, 41. d'Aubigny, 12, 90, 294, 295, 311. monk, 294. seneschal of Mortain, 168, 185. d'Oilly, 63. nephew of Roger, bishop of Salis- bury, and bishop of Ely, 108, 114, 120, 229. vicomtes of Saint-Sauveur, 7, 46, S7, 103, 256, 263, 274, 276. Wireker, 181. Neaufles-Saint-Martin (Eure), 32, 46, 70, 310. Neubourg (Eure), 312. Neufchatel (Seine-Inf.), 184, 334. NeuiUy (Calvados), 213. Neville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262. Newton-on-Trent (co. Lincoln), 236. Nicaea, 266. Nicholas d'Estouteville, 219, 325. abbot of Saint-Ouen, 68, 70. des Veys, 167, 323. Niese, H., 227, 232. Nigel, see Neal. Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure-et-Loir), 245. Nonancourt (Eure), 140, 144, 149, 151, 152. Norgate, Kate, 128, 130, 174, 316. Norman, archdeacon of Lisieux, 173, 321, 322. Peignard, 291. Jformandy, feudalism in, 5-30; Prank- ish institutions in, s, 25, 48, 54, 196, 197, 227; local government in, 45-48; municipal institutions of, 48, 49; in the Plantagenet empire, 156; rela- tions with England, see England; with France, see France; Scandinavian influence on, 5, 28, 65, 279, 281. See especially Church, Courts, Duke, Exchequer, Law. Dukes: Geoffrey, Henry I, II, John, Richard I, II, III, IV (Coeur de Lion), Robert I, II, Stephen, WilUam Longsword, William the Conqueror, William Rufus. Nostell (co. York), 314. Notre-Dame-du-D6sert (Eure), priory, 317- Notre-Dame-du-Parc (Seine-Inf.), 70. Odard, seneschal of Meulan, 295. Odilo, abbot of Cluny, 275. Odo of Bayeux, 99. bishop of Bayeux, is~i8, 22, 34, 66-68, 7S, 76, ISO, 201, 204, 208, 212, 225, 226, 292. count of Brittany, 57. chancellor, 52 j constable, 50. of Falaise, 163. hostiarius, 163. moneyer, 281. sheriff of Pembroke, 305. abbot of Saint-£tienne, 34, 94-96, 294. seneschal, 83. son of Thurstin du Cotentin, 68. de Vaac, 336. vicomte, 63. Odoin de Malpalu, Serjeant, 117. OffranviUe (Seine-Inf.), 291. Oise, archives of the, 67, 317. Oissel-sur-Seine (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262. Oliver d'Aubigny, 139. Omont, H., 201, 246, 247. Orbec (Calvados), 46. Ordeal, 31, 34, 35, 56, 58, 88, 267. Ordericus VitaUs, 18, 62, 64, 65, 78-80, 86-88, 113, 128, 132, 241, 268, 270, 272. Orford (co. Suffolk), 235. Ome, archives of the, 12, 19, 24, 46, 173. 179, 187, 228, 244-246, 315, 328, 33S. 336. 364 INDEX Osbern, Osbert, archdeacon of Bayeux, 34- abbot of Bemai, 292. de Cailly, 92, 145. clerk, 332. Giffard, 77. son of Gosman, 262. de la Heuse, constable of Cher- bourg, 152, 167, 180. de-Pont-de I'Arche, 108, 114. priest, 70. seneschal, 50, $1, 263, 274, 275. archdeacon of York, 331. Osmund d'Arri, 180. chancellor of William the Con- queror, S3, 54- Drengot, 268. Vasce, 171, 218, 238. Ouen, sons of, 262. Postel, 92. Ouistreham (Calvados), 69. Ourville (Seine-Inf.), 260. Outlaws, 188, 279, 324. Oxford, Bodleian Library, 298. Pagus, 46. Palestine tax, 159. Palgrave, Sir Francis, 234, 265. Pantler, pantry, ducal, at Rouen, 117, 182. Parage, 22, 159. Paris, G., 269-271. Master, 335. Paris, 330; Archives Nationales, 19, 31, S8, 59, 89, 93, 94, 101-103, 134, 147, 152, 170, 218, 243, 246, 272, 273, 29s, 297i 312. 325- Biblioth^ue Mazarine, MSS. at, 68, 318. Bibliothdque Nationale, MSS. at, S-7, 12. IS. 19, 27, 29, 30, 32, 3S, 37. 42, 46, S2, S3, 58. 60, 63, 68- 70, 72, 80-82, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98, 100-103, IDS, 106, 108- iio, 117, 126, 127, 130-134, 139, 141, 143, 144, 148, IS2, 161, 162, 165, 172, 173, 179, 182, 188, 193, 197, 201, 202, 218, 219, 223, 227, 243-248, 250, 2S3, 255-258, 273, 274, 281, 285, 288-292, 295-300, 302, 304, 305, 307, 310, 312, 318, 319, 321, 324-327, 334-336, 338. Paris, Bibliothdque Sainte-GeneviSve,4i'. 98, 109, 247. Jesuits' Library, 246, 297. Saint-Magloire, abbey, 45. Saint-Martin-des-Champs, 245. Paschal II, Pope, 66. Patrick, earl of Salisbury, 219. Patti (province of Messina), 234. Pavilly (Seine-Inf.), 256. Payne Beauchamp, 299. de Clairvaux, 139, 145, 209, 210. de Granville, 322. fitz John, 303. de Mfidavy, 91. Peasants, revolt of, in 996, 182. Penli (Seine-Inf.), 259. Perche, 45. Count: Rotrou. PerriSres (Calvados), priory, 173. Perrot, E., 89, 161, 187. Peter, 108. of Bassonville, 291. of Blois, 182. Brown, iii. abbot of Cluny, 154. hermit, 273. squire, 291. Petit-Dutaillis, C, 48. Petitville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 261. Petra, G. de, 23. Pevrel de Beauchamp, 299. Pfister, C, 44, 257, 265. PhiUp I, king of France, 29, 44, 45, 49, 52, 64, 72, 79- II (Augustus), 12, 178, r8o, 185, 193. 195. 243, 336. d'Harcourt, bishop of Bayeux, 66, 109, 129, 137, 146, 147, 149. IS3. 167, 203-216, 222-225. d'Alenfon, archbishop of Rouen, 244. brother of Vitalis, 167. Philippa Rosel, 174. Pickering (co. York), 235. Pierreval (Seine-Inf.), 70. INDEX 36s Pigeon, E. A., 19, 337, 339, 340. Filatenses, 92. Pilgrims, 28, 35. Pimpeme (co. Dorset), 295. Pincerna, see Butler. Pipe Rolls, 40, 107, 114, IIS, 121, 158, 177, 184, 188, 191, 237. Pippin of Tours, 138, 145, 220. Piienne, H., 44, 53- Pissy (Seine-Inf.), 253, 25^, Placita treuge, 37. Pleas, of the crown or sword, 28, 29, 89, 104, 153, 186-188, 191, 278, 279; various, 182. Plessis-Grimoult (Calvados), 16, 17, 129, 244. Plow, peace of the, 28, 6s, 187. Poissy (Seine-et-Oise), 45. Pollard, A. F., i8s. Pollock, Sir Frederick, see Maitland, F.W. Pontarlier (Doubs), 73. Pontaudemer (Eure), 127, 168, 244, 315. Pont-de-l'Arche (Eure), 81, 82. Ponthieu, 90, 91, 97, 98, 124. Counts: Enguerran, Guy, John, William. Pontoise (Seine-et-Oise), 24s. Pont-Saint-Pierre (Eure), 313. Poole, R. L., 40, 106, III, 114-116, 131, 171, 174-177. Porchester (co. Hants), 113. Por€e, E., 249. Port, C, 20s. Portsmouth (co. Hants), 12s, 312, 315, 317- Possession, protection of, 89, 104, 189. ' Poupardin, R., 136, 137, 247, 316. Powicke, F. M., 22, 28, 37, 46, 89, los, 119, 123, 146, isi, IS7. 160, 161, 176- 178, 187, 191, 193, 231, 232, 338, 339. Prfiaux (Eure), abbey, 7, la, 17, 29, 30, SO, 70-72, 134, 148, 166, 172, 226, 228, 229, 244, 273, 279, 324, 32s. Abbots: Ansfred, Michael. Pi^aux (Seine-Inf.), 153. Freisia, 186. Prentout, H., 4, s, 26, 39, 232, 241, 2S0. Presentation, 171-174, 179, 218, 332, 333. Prfivost, M., 160. Prevdt, prSvSte, 41-44, 47, los, 106, 151, 177, 182. Procurator, 51, 168. Prou, M., 44, 48, 49, 52, 72, 136. Pseudo-Isidore, 30. Quatre-Puits (Calvados), 63. Quettehou (Manche), 63. Quillebeuf (Eure), 229. R., son of Richard, 94. Rabasse, M., 6. Rabel, 268, 27s. son of Joslin, 92. of Tancarville, 94, 109, 300, 302. Radford, L. B., 330, 331. Radulfus, see Ralph. Raginaldus, Rainald, see Reginald. Rainier, abbot, 262. Ralph fitz Anserfi, 69, 90-92. son of Ansfred, 95. d'Arri, chancellor of Robert Curt- hose, 67, 74. de Beaumont, 92. de Bee, 70. du Bosc-Lehard, 92. butler, 297. Calcaterra, 92. archbishop of Canterbury, 294, 29s, 3i3>3iS; fee oistf Ralph, abbot of S^ez. de Conches, 68. de Courlandon, 63. bishop of Coutances, 287. de Diceto, 176, 193. de Duclair, 291. priest of £paignes, 324. de Fleury, canon of Lisieux, 322. de Fougfires, 311. son of Fulbert, 97. Glaber, 266. de Grainville, 289. de la Haie, 33s. of Hastings, iii. son of Herluin, 20. de Hotot, 96. 366 INDEX Ralph d'lvry, i8. de Juvigny, 96. de Lisieux, clerk, 328. Maisnier, 328. du Marchfi, 108. de Marchia, cook, 116. marshal, 291. Martel, 328. moneyer, 280. prior of Montmorel, 339. de Mortemer, 291, 292. de la Mouche, 171, 218. Mowinus, 268. Pinter (?), 295. Piquet (?), 29s. son of Raimbold, 92. son of Robert, 92. le Robeur (Forbeur ?), 118. nephew of Roger, 96. de Rupierre, 328. abbot of S6ez, 288, 289; see also Ralph, archbishop of Canter- bury. son of Serlo, 322. Taisson, 24, 96, 287, 334. of Tancarville, chamberlain, 41, 50, SI, 27S- de Thaon, sons of, 323. de Toeni, 292, 297. de Tomeio, 173. son of Urselin, 326. de Valmont, 129. de Varaville, 321. de VameviUe (Wanneville), chan- cellor of Henty II and bishop of Lisieux, 180, 181, 224. ' vastans granum,' 291. de Vitot, 297. de Wallamint, 335. Ramsay, Sir James, 125, 128, 177, 309. Ramsey abbey (co. Huntingdon), 161, 310, 317, 320. RanuU, 322. de Bourguenolles, 337. cellarer, 321. chancellor of Henry I, 294, 29s, 310. earl of Chester, 22, 236. Ranulf de Ducy, 294. Flambard, bishop of Durham, 66, 76, 81, 87, 287. de Grandval, 180. brother of Iger, 63. moneyer, 280. des Pieux (de Fodiis), 71. Rufell, 323. scribe. III. de Tessel and sons, 96. vicomte, 63. Ranville (Calvados), 63, 298. Raoul, see Ralph. Reading (co. Berks), 315, 316. Recognition, 149, 188, 196-238. Regarders of forests, 102, 103, 117, 118. Reginald of Arganchy, 95. vicomte of Arques, 258, 260, 261. son of Asa, 95. chaplain, 52. earl of Cornwall, 132, 306, 307. de Cortenay, 329. son of the count, 307. de Gerponville, 167, 219. Landun, 63. d'Orval, 287, 315. de Saint-Philbert, 326. de Saint- Valery, 130, 133, 140, 145- 148, iS3> 162, 166, 167, 206, 211- 21S, 23O1 326. ' Vulpis,' 92. Regino of Priim, 227. Relief, 19, 21, 22. Rfimilly (Manche), 298. Renouard, Ch&teau de (Calvados), 313. Rfiville (Manche), 94. Rheims (Mame), 132; council, 313. Riant, P., 270. Richard d'Angerville, 102, 103. d'Argences, 194, 328, 335, 336. Avenel, 336. I (de Beaufage), bishop of Avran- ches, 120, 126, 127, 129. Ill, bishop of Avranches, 338. mcomte of Avranches, 58. de Babainvilla, 323. Basset, 303, INDEX 367 Richard II (fitz Samson), bishop of Ba- yeux, IS, 90, 96, 137, 201, 226, 294, 296, 297, 299. in (of Kent, son of Robert, earl of Gloucester), bishop of Bayeux, 34, 120, 203, 225. de Beaufou, 7. Beverel, 219. de Bohun, chancellor of Geoffrey Plantagenet and Henry II, 131, 136-138, 162, 220; see Richard n, bishop of Coutances. de Boiavilla, 20. Bustel, 291. chaplain, 294. earl of Chester, 294. of Cornwall, 224. de Courcy, 63. I, bishop of Coutances, 94, 96, loi, 102, 298. n, bishop of Coutances, 326, 327; see Richard de Bohun. de CuUei, 11. Deri, 336. de Dives, 321. I (Coeur deLion), king of England, 177, 179. 183, 189, 190. 193, i94> 334, 336, 338. d'fivreux, 109. count of fivreux, 29. Faiel, 219. Giffard, 180, 184, 334. de la Haie, 139, 145-148, 162, 207, 209, 210. Haitie, 328. Harela, 289. son of Henry, 335, 336. de Herbouville, 229. son of Herluin, 63. du Hommet, constable, 162, 166, 324, 336. — ■- — son of Humphrey, 229. de Lucy, 127, 299, 310, 331. de Montigny, 335. Musel, 328. fitz Neal, 176; see Dialogue on the Exchequer. Richard I (the Fearless), duke of Nor- mandy, 2S, 42. 49, S5, 250-254. II (the Good), 5, 7, 9, 25-27, 32, 35, 40-45, 48-53, 55, 56, S9, "6, 177,261,286; chartersof, 52, 59, 60, 92, 250-258, 263, 264, 266, 272, 274, 280. Ill, 256, 265, 267, 268. IV, see Richard I of England. Ospinel, 335. proconsid, 22. de Revers, 87, 103. son of Richer of Laigle, 291. son of Robert earl of Gloucester, 107, 167, 323. archdeacon of Rouen, 292, 293. de Saint- Vannes, abbot of Verdun, 266, 267. abbot of Savigni, 323. brother of Serlo, 88. ' sigiUi custos,' 311. Silvain, 180, 336. Talbot, 326. de Vauville, 139, 220. de Vaux, vidame of Bayeux, 167. vicomte, 263. son of William, 68. of Ilchester, bishop of Winchester, 174-176, 180, 192, 195, 328, 334. Richer de Laigle, 172. Richer', 186. Richmond, countess of, 181. Rievaulx abbey (co. York), 235. Riville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262. Robert, son of Alward, 68. son of Anquetil, 292. des Authieux, archdeacon of Lisi- eux, 322. Belfit, 328. of Belleme, 19, 24, 46, 87, 88, 105, 293, 311- fitz Bernard, 96, 167, 323. Bertram, 229. Blund, 34. de Bonebos, 63. Boquerel, constable of Mortain, 168. Bordel, 139. 368 INDEX Robert de Bothes, 20. de Brucourt, 179. butler, 275. Carbonel, 96. chamberlain, so- de Chanteloup, 21. chaplain, 51. de Chemelles, 323. Chevalier, 219. Clarel, 328. de Courcy, seneschal, 88-90, 94, 95. 99. 107, 120, 139, 14S-149, 162, 206, 207, 210, 220, 222, 307. bishop of Coutances, 6, 262. de Curie, 335. de Denestanville, 289. son of Dodo, 291. Doisnel, 82, 287. son of Dut, 291. fitz Emeis, 210. count of Eu, 66, 87. d'fivreux, 88, 89, 108-110, 126. archdeacon of fivreux, 109. archdeacon of Exeter, 120. Filleul, 92. abbot of Fontenay, 323, 336. II, king of France, 29, 44, 45, 251, 2S3. 256, 257. Frella, 95. de Freschenes, 326. son of Fulcher, 299. de Genz, 63. son of G€r6, 219. earl of Gloucester, 17, 96, loi, 102, 106, 120, 121, 129, 132, 197, 201, 202, 294, 299, 301, 303, 308. de Grainville, 95, 96. Grentemesnil, 287. de Guemai, 299. de Guz, 63. de la Haie, seneschal and justiciar, 88-90, 94-96, 99, loi, 102, 108, 121, 146, 294, 300, 302. fitz Haimeri, 166, 219, 324. d'Harcourt, 335, 336. Harenc, 326. de Havilla, 162, 262. de Hgtot, 95. Robert, brother of Hugh, 91. Ivi Maisnerii, 291. de Juvigny, 324, 325. earl of Leicester, in, 120, 121, 127, 29s. 297, 300. de Leuga, 328. bishop of Lincoln, 79, 237. chaplain of Lisieux, 88. dean of Lisieux, 322. loricarius, 306, 307. Marin, 210. Marmion, 287, 333. de Martinvast, 220. son of Matilda, 325. Mauduit, chamberlain, 113. coimt of Meulan, 29, 68, 70, 76, 83, 87, 90-92, 229, 279, 28s, 292, 293. 297, 3". 321- ■ money-changer, 152. monk, 286. de Montbrai, 63. abbot of Montebouig, 335. de Montfort, 68, 76, 138, 173, 221, 287. of Mortain, son of William of Bee, 288, 290. count of Mortain, 57, 285. fitz Neal, 220. de Neufbourg, seneschal and justi- ciar, 92, loi, 107, 134, 138, 142, 145-149. 162, 165-167, 206, 207, 214-217, 220, 230, 297, 321, 323, 324- de NeuviUe, 149. Neveu, 327. I (the Magnificent), duke of Nor- mandy, 10, 29, 32, 33, 38, 43, so- 55. 59. 71, 87, 103, 116, 250, 236; charters of, 4, 7, 26, 29, 33, 41, 42, 251, 2s8r-263, 26s, 266, 272- 275. 337; sources for his reign, 263-276. II (Curthose), duke of Normandy, 22, 37. 43. 46, 78-80, 8s, 86, 92, 267, 278; charters of, 66-78, 80, 82, 250, 285-292; date of ac- cession, 67; Normandy under, 62-78. INDEX 369 Robert d'Oilly, S4, 3°3- Pantolf, 63. Peche, bishop of Litchfield, 115, 294. de Pessi, 325. Pigache, 167. pincema, i86. Poisson, 324. porter, 9S. priest, 291. Pychart, 328. fitz Kalph, 162, 299. archbishopof Rouen, 27,33,63,190, 251-253, 256, 262, 267, 273-275. chaplain at Rouen, 118. dean of Rouen, 325. fitz Roy, son of Henry I, 339. abbot of Saint-Andi^-en-Gouffem, 328. abbot of Saint-£vroul, 218. de Sainte-Honorine, 323. scribe, S3. bishop of S^ez, 22; of. 96. canon of S&z, 307. seneschal, 50. 'de sigillo,' 96, 106, 107, 119, 120, 299> 303, 306, 307. of Stokes, 299. de Thaon, 323, 324. son of Thurstin, 289. of Torigni, abbot of Mont-Saint- Michel, 78, 79, 128, 132, 158, 176, 203, 241, 270, 278, 339. de Totes, 296. de Turpo, 94. d'Ussy, 90. d'Uz, 63. de Vains, 179. de Valognes, 139, 220. de Vera, constable, 93, 103, 107, 121, 308. vicomte, 305. de Warwick, 219. de Wesneval, 92. bishop of Worcester, 336. Roca, ' pons de ', 19. Roclenus, bishop of Chalon-sur-Sadne, 286. Rocquancourt (Calvados), 210, 212. Rodulfus, 255, 261, 286; see Ralph. Rohricht, R., 141. Rossler, O., 125, 132. Roger, earl, 332. son of Ainus, 173. 'generAlberti,' and his family, 120, 121, 298, 299. son of Amisus, canon of Lisieux, 322. d'Arri, clerk, 167, 180, 335, 336. d'Avesnes, 63. de Beaumont, 22, 28, 57, 68, 70, 321. abbot of Bee, 166. de Bocquenc€, 12. Brito, 307. Brun, III. : of ' Bumes,' 121. cellarer, 328. chamberlain, 95, 128. de Clairvaux, 153. de Clera, 19. bishop of Coutances, 294. dispenser, 63. de Dotvilla, dean, 322. d'fipinay, 321. de Fecamp, chaplain, 107, 110, iii. abbot of Fgcamp, 90. Filleul, 328. brother of Gilbert, abbot of Caen, 68. Goulafre, 9, 219. de Gratte Panche, 91. earl of Hereford, 4. hostiarius, 51. de Hotot, dean, 322. d'lviy, butler, 50, 77. larderer of Henry I, iij. de Lassi, 77. de Lesprevier, 229. Mahiel, 326. de Mandeville, 98, 100. Marmion, 95, 96, 294. MauCouronne, dispenser, 77. de Monnay, 219. de Montgomery, 22, S4, 94, 273- de Montieuil, 321. 37P INDEX Roger de Montviron, 299. de Pavilly, 92. Peilevilain, 97. son of Peter of Fontenay, 9s. prior, 291. de Rufo Campo, 104. de Saint-Laurent, 291. abbot of Saint-Ouen, 166. de Saint-Wandrille, 321. abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 166. bishop of Salisbury, 125, 136, 235, 303- de Scilletot, 289. ' de scuteUa,' 63. secrelarius, 68. II, king of Sicily, 23, iii, 112, 144, 233. 234- Suhart, 103, 104. Terricus, 188. treasurer, 106, 120. vicomte, 96. vicomte of Saint-Sauveur, 91, 127. Roland, archbishop of Dol, 292. d'Oissel, 118. Rollo, 7. duke of Normandy, 10. Rolls, Norman, 138, 159, 193, 194, 242, 243;, Exchequer, passim. Rome, and the Norman church, 30, 36, 125, 154; see Legates, and the indi- vidual Popes. Rosay (Seine-Inf.), 81, 82. Roscelin, son of Clarembaud, 326. Rosel (Calvados), 228. Rotrou, bishop of fivreux, archbishop of Rouen, ajid justiciar of Henry II, 166, 167, 172, 21S, 216, 218, 219, 230, 237, 322, 325-327. count of Perche, 121, 294. Rotselinus, chamberlain, 50. Rouen (Seine-Inf.), 16, 39, 5$, 69, 75, 80, 8i, 87, 90-92, 101-103, 107, 108, I2S, 126, 128-130, 133, 134, 136, 140-144, 148, 150, IS9, 162, 163, 165-168, 171, 176, 184, 186, 205, 208, 216, 219, 237, 2S3f 2S4, 256, 266, 280, 281, 293, 295- 297. 300, 3°4-3°6, 309-320, 325, 326, 334-336; archbishop, 6-8, 32, 33, 57, 87, III, 173, 179, 181, 250-252, 263, 342; archdeacons, 68, 87; chapter, 41, ^ 70, 82, 107, 109, no, 134, 147-149. 180, 221, 273, 305; cordwainers of, 126, 134, 144, 318; councils at, 6, 28, 33. 37, 6S, 66, 170, 294, 316; MSS. at, 21, 30. 37, SS, 70, 81, 90, 109, no, 118, 133, 134, 144, 166, 168, 172, 179, 180, 188, 190, 221, 228, 229, 243-246, 250, 257, 272, 273, 281, 288, 289, 294, 318, 33S, 342 {see also Seine-Inffirieure); mint, 280; modiatio, 43, 45; modius, 115,120; Palmers, 134; park of duke, 68, 105; town of, 48, 86, 134, 135, 144, 148, 150-153, 187, 221; treasurer at, 180. Archbishops: Geoffrey, Hugh, John, Maurilius, Philip, Robert, Ro- trou, William. Archdeacons: Bene- dict, Fulbert, Gerard, John, Richard, Urse. Rouen, La Trinit6-du-Mont, abbey, 9, 26, 70, 87, 244, 248, 251, 273. Ab- bot: Walter. Mont-aux-Malades, priory, 142, 151, 326. Notre-Dame-du-Pr€, priory, 104, 105, 133, 138, 303. Saint-Amand, abbey, 7, 10, 20, 26, 43. 45. Si, 93. 134, 140, 151, 229, 244, 251, 273, 295, 314. Ab- besses: Emma, Maeelina. Saint-Cande-le-Vieux, chapelry, no. Saint-Gervais, church, 251, 263, 326. Saint-Jacques, hospital, 325. Saint-Ouen, abbey, 7, 9, 19, 26, 27, SO, 52, 58, 59. 70, 81,87, 131. 134. 229, 244, 250, 274, 335. Abbots: Nicholas, Roger. Roumare (Seine-Inf.), 93, 105, 160. Earl (of Lincoln) : WiUiam. Roumois, 181. Round, J. H., 3, 8, 18, 19, 22, 40, 49, 51, 57, 81, 82, 88, 95, loo, 106, 107, m, 113, 114, n6, 117, 120, 131-133, 160, 177, 188, 200, 221, 242, 248, 263, 264, 286, 294, 306, 309, 3n, 314-317, 329. 134. 68, INDEX 371 Rouvres (Calvados), 63. Ruallon de Sai, 138, 323. Sackur, E., 10. St. Albans abbey (co. Herts), 314. Saint-Andi€-en-Gouffem (Calvados), ab- bey, 130, 134, 142, 151, 229, 244, 306, 319. Abbot: Robert. St. Aubert, 340. Saint-Aubert-sur-Ome (Ome), 280. Saint-Aubin (Seine-Inf.), 258. Sainte-Barbe (Calvados), priory, 94, 108- 110, 183, 316, 322. Prior: William. Saint-Benolt-sur-Loire, abbey, 29, 24s, 274. Saint-Clair-sur-Epte(Seiiie-et-Oise),3i2. Saint-CjT-de-Saleme (Eure), 70. Saint-Denis (Seine), abbey, 9, 10, 25, 58, 24S- Saint-fitienne-l'Allier (Eure), 68. Saint-fivroul (Ome), abbey, 9-14, 24, 55, 70, 71, 81, 134, 141, 171-173, 17s. 218, 219, 244, 311, 316, 336. Abbots: Robert, Theodoric. Saint-Fulgent-des-Ormes (Ome), 302. Saint-Hippolyte, 286. Saint-James (Manche), 43, 274. Saint-Jean-de-la-Foret (Ome), 301. St. Lambert, fair of, 337. Saint-Laurent-sur-Mer (Calvados), 271. Saint-Lfionard (Manche), 179. Saint-L6 (Manche), 133, 143, 220; see Manche, archives of. Saint-Marcouf (Manche), 100, loi. Saint-Martin-de-Bon-Foss6 (Manche), 326, 327. Saint-Mesmin de Micy (Loiret), abbey, 29. 59- St. Michael's Mount (co. Cornwall), priory, 273. St. Nicaise, Translatio, 266. Saint-Opportune (Manche), 138. St. Ouen, 92. Saint-Ouen-de-Flancourt (Eure), 296. Saint-Ouen-du-Bois-Toustain(Eure),296. Saint-Pair (Manche), 21, 59. Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle (Eure), 8, 18, 19, 68, 296. Saint-Pierre-de-Saleme (Eure), 29, 30. Saint-Pierre-de-Semilly (Manche), 246, 250, 297. Saint-Pierre-sur-Dive (Calvados), 287, 316; abbey, 29, 93, 164, 245, 280, 310. Abbot: Fulk. Saint-Quentin (Aisne), 60. Saint-Quentin-le-Petit (Ome), 301. Saint-Riquier (Somme), abbey, 60. Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (Manche), ab- bey, 103, 244; vicomtes, 35. See Neal, Roger. Saint-Sever (Manche), abbey, 245, 342. Saint-Sever (Seine-Inf.), 68, 81, 82, 293. Saint-Vaast d'fiquiqueville (Seine-Inf.), 305- Saint-Valery-en-Caux (Seine-Inf.), 252. Sainte-Vaubourg (Seine-Inf.), 118, 310, 314. 313- Saint- Victor-en-Caux (Seine-Inf.), ab- bey, 24s. Saint-Victor-l'Abbaye (Seine-Inf.), 291. St. Vulganius, Translatio, 266, 267. Saint-Wandrille (Seine-Inf.), abbey, 7, 9, a, 42, 60, 131, 134, 151, 166, 167, 184, 244, 250, 266, 267, 272, 274, 314, 318, 33S. Abbots: Ansfred, Gerald, Gra- dulf, Roger, Walter. St. Wulfram, Miracula, 266. Saint- Ymer-en-Auge (Calvados), priory, 7, 133, 221. Saladin tithe, 159, 192. Salisbury (co. Wilts), 318. Bishop: Roger. Sallen (Calvados), 63. Sambon, A., 281. Samson de Montfarville, loi. chaplain, later bishop of Worcester, 52. San Bartolomeo di Carpineto (province of Teramo), abbey, 234. Santigny (?), Santiniacus villa, 258, 260, 261. Saracens, 233. Sarthe, the, 299, 301. Sassetot (Seine-Inf.), 255. Saumur (Maine-et-Loire), 131, 134, 138. Saint-Florent, abbey, 70, 77, 80, 83, IS4, 245. 372 INDEX Sauvage, R. N., 7, 36, 77, 109, 161, 242, 248, 249, 2S7. Savigny (Manche), abbey, 127, 130, 134, 13s, 142, 147, 148, i6s, 187, 221, 222, 244, 246, 247, 294, 296, 311-313, 315. 323. 324, 337, 338, 342, 343- Abbots: Geoffrey, Richard, Vitalis. Scabini, 24. Scarborough (co. York), 330-332. Schmidt, R., 227, 232. Schubert, P., 50. Seal, ducal, S3, 72, 73, io4, 124, i43, 256, 257, 287, 288, 309. Secqueville-en-Bessin (Calvados), 96. Sfie (Manche), Val de, 339. Seeliger, G., 26. S6ez (Ome), 124, 307, 314, 316, 319, 320, 33S, 336; archdeacon of, 88; archives of, 244; bishop of, 6, 8, 13, 35, 76, 77, 130, 173, 299-303, 342; chapter of, 42, 43, 60, los, 106, 299-303, 307, 317, 318, 320. Bishops: Froger, Gerard, Jolin, Lisiard, Radbod, Robert. Saint-Martin, abbey, 19, 70, 71, 13s, 141, 187, 228, 244, 30s, 335, 336. Abbot: Ralph. Seher de Quincy, constable of Nonan- court, 327, 334, 335. Seine-Infdiieure, archives of the, 7, 17, 20, 27, 4S, so, SI, S8, S9, 68, 70, 81, 91- 93, 94, lOS, 109, 118, 126, 130, 133, i34> 138, I4S, 152, 160, 166, 167, 173, 221, 226, 228, 229, 244-246, 250, 257, 258, 260, 272-274, 290-292, 29s, 304, 30S, 312, 327, 335. Seneschal, 50, 51, S8; 77, 89, gi, 99, "2- 114, 120, 121, 146-148, iss, 162, i6s, 183, 184, 232, 275. Senn, F., 36. Serjeanties, 115-119, 152, 153, 182, 194. Serlo, canon of Bayeux, 66, 86. Buffei, 328. chaplain, 91. the Deaf, 88. de Hauteville, 266. bishop of S£ez, 68, 70, 292. Serrure, R., 280. Service, forty days', 20, Seniientes, 152, 206. Servitium debitum, 9, 18. Sheriff, 46. Sicily, Norman institutions in, 3, 23, 61, III, 112, 19s, 232-234. Sigurd Jerusalem-farer, 270. Sigy (Seine-Inf.), priory, 50. Silly (Ome), abbey, 132. Simon Anglicus, 229. dispenser, 112. d'Escures, 167. de La Croisille, 228. money-changer, 182. de Moulins, 294. de Moult, 328. seneschal, 68, 77. I, earl of Northampton, 310. de Tomebu, 334. Simony, 66. Soehnfie, F., 44. Solomon de Charecelvilla, 291. SorquainviUe (Seine-Inf.), 262. Southampton (co. Hants), 121, 122. Squillace (province of Catanzaro), 233. Stapleton, T., no, 115, 147, 151, 158, 177, 197, 209, 274, 337-339. Stein, H., 241, 245. Steenstrup, J., 279. Stengel, E., 26. Stenton, F. M., 263, 265, 333. Stephen fitz Airard, 121. count of Aumale, 67, 312. de Beauchamp, 162. of Blois, count of Boulogne and Mortain, king of England, and duke of Normandy, 91, 92, no, n4, 120, 124-127, 129, 130, 146, IS3, 154, 213, 243, 294, 297, 316, 331, 332; charters of, 94, 106- 109, 13s, 144, 316; Normandy under, 124-129. chaplain at Bayeux, 52; at Mont- Saint-Michel, SI. vicomte of Mortain, 127. son of Ralph, 92. of Rouen (£tienne de Rouen), 148. 'stirman,' 121. Stevenson, W. H,, 53. INDEX 373 Steyning (co. Sussex), 83, 252, 264. Stixwould priory (co. Lincoln), 236. Stow abbey (co. Lincoln), 81. Stubbs, W., 46, so, 57, 58, 100, 164, 188, 190, 196, 211, 220, 268, 268, 329, 330. Subinfeudation, 6, 16. Suffolk, III. Surcy (Eure), 80, 82. Taillebois, 9. Tait, J., 185. Tallies, 103, 117, 175, 177, 229. Tanche, the, 299, 301. Tardif, E.-J., 4, 31, 37, 38, 54, 86, 158, IS9. 161, 17O1 182, 189, 193, 276-278, 281, 340. Tassilly (Calvados), 63. Tavel, 275. Tavemier, W., 293. Tessy-sur-Vire (Manche), 271. Thaon (Calvados), 233. Thayer, J. B., 196. Thelonearius, 47, 291. Theobald of Blois, 124, 312, 318. archbishoi) of Canterbury, 330. chaplain, 51. son of Norman, 279. Theodoric, abbot of Saint-£vioul, 11. hostiarms, 51. Th6ville (Manche), 335. Thi^ville (Calvados), 63. Thimme, H., 48. Thomas Becket, chancellor of Henry II and archbishop of Canterbury, 121, iS3> 170, 214- Brown, Master, in, 112, 195. chaplain, later archbishop of York, 52- d'fivreux. Master, 109. de Loches, chaplain of Geoffrey Flantagenet, 136-141. de Pont-r£v6que, 102. de Saint- Jean, 294. son of Stephen, 121. Thomey abbey (co. Cambridge), 81. Thoiold, bishop of Bayeux, 66, 201, 287, 293. chamberlain, 50- Thorold, constable, go, 263, 275. hostiarms, $1, 77. Thurstin, chamberlain, grandfather (?) of Wace, 269, 271, 275. de Ducy, 336. son of H^loise, 291. vicomte, 256, 263. archbishop of York, 296, 303, 314, 315- Tinchebrai (Ome), 86, 309. Tiron (Eure-et-Loir), abbey, 106, 245, 312, 314- Tison, forest, 153. Tolls, 39-43, 285. Torquetil, son of Adlec, 261. Touffreville (Eure), 127, 306. Touffrfiville (Calvados), 98. Touquettes, Les (Ome), 11. Tourlaville (Manche), 149, 220. Tours (Indre-et-Loire), council of, 330; MSS. at, 46, 245. Archbishops: Hil- debert, Hugh. Saint-Julien, 7, 33, 80, 245. Tourville (Seine-Inf.), 258, 260, 261. Toustain de BiUy, 247. Toustin, Tosteins, see Thurstin. Toutainville (Eure), 273. Treasurers, treasury, Norman, 89, 107- iio, 113, 118, 176, 180, 181. Tr^mauville (Seine-Inf.), 255. Tres Ancien Coutumier, 4, 28, 38, 158- 160, 173, 182-189, 193, 198, 217, 277, 278, 280, 319. TreviSres (Calvados), 128. Troam (Calvados), abbey of Saint- Martin, 10, 19, 39, 81, 87, 90, 91, 94, 97. 98, 167, 173. 242, 244, 304, 321. Abbot: Andrew. Truce of God, 31, 35, 37, 38, 46, 65, 85, 104, 120, 140, IS4, 279, 319. Tunbridge (co. Kent), 49. Turfred, sons of, 262. de Cesny, 328. Turgis, 322. bishop of Avianches, 74, 96, 293, 294. 311- de Tracy, 22. Turold, see Thorold. 374 INDEX Turstin, see Thurstin. Turulf, 322. UIger, bishop of Angers, 130. Vllac, 30, 279. Unbeina, 7. Urse d'Abbetot, 298. abbot of Jumidges, 91, 92. archdeacon of Rouen, 291, 293. Urselin de Wanteria, 92. Vtrum, assize, 173, 189, 198, 219, 238. Vacandard, E., 33, 2^3. Vadum Fuhnerii, see Vieux-Fumfi. Vains (Manche), 43, 44, 68, 98, 179, 285, 342- Val des Dunes (Calvados), 16. Valin, L., 4, 27, 36, 49, 55, 56, 83, 88, 89, 97, 102, IS7, i6s, 174, 178, 184, 186, 187, 190, 196, 201, 217, 223, 228, 230, 251, 327- Valognes (Manche), 100, 116, 149, 153, 165, 220. Varengeville (Seine-Inf.), 326. Vaneville (Manche), 100, 101, 311. Vascoeuil (Eure), 279. Vassalage, 6. Vatican, MSS. at, 35, 233, 278, 281, 339, 340. Vaudreuil (Eure), 119, 181, 253, 234, 2S4, 29s, 298, 299, 318. Vauquelin de Courseulles, 210. Vavassor, 9, 11, 19, 103, 324. Velterer, 82, 116. Vendfime (Loir-et-Cher), abbey of La Trinite, 70, 140, 231, 245. Vercio, 314. Verdun (Meuse), 267. Abbot: Richard of Saint- Vannes. Vemai (Calvados), 181. Verneuil (Eure), 104, 119, 140, 144, 145, 149, 151, 152- Vernier, J.-J., 246, 249, 257, 258. Vernon (Eure), 63, 66, 314, 318. Verson (Calvados), 59, 216. Vesli (Eure), 32. Vetus Redum, 259. Vexin, 46, 80, 268, 272, 315. Count: Breux. V6zelay (Yonne), 205. Viaria, vicaria, mcarius, 25, 46, 47. Vicomte, vicomti, 36, 37, 41-47, 5°, S4, S6> S7, 59. 60, 77, los, 106, 108, 116, 126, 150-152, 163, 175, 177, 181-186, 191. 27s, 338. Victor, abbot of Bocherville, 219. VierviUe (Calvados), 209. Vieux-Fum6 (Calvados), 27. Vieux-Rouen (Seine-Inf.), 313. Vignats, see Saint-Andrfi-en-Gouffern. Villers, ancient suburb of Caen, 179. Villers-Bocage (Calvados), 129. Villers-Canivet (Calvados), abbey, 308, 320. Villers-Chambellan (Seine-Inf.), 255. Vinogradoff, Sir Paul, 3, 23, 29, 40, 196, 279. VioUet, P., 158, 188, 193, 277, 278. Vire (Calvados), 119, 129, 304. Virville (Seine-Inf.), 272. Vitalis de Saint-Germain, 323. abbot of Savigny, 294. Vittefleur (Seine-Inf.), 253. Vivian, abbot of Aunay, 298. Vorges (Aisne), 45. Vouilly (Calvados), 207. Voyer, 46, 47. Wace, 16, 18, 23, 41, 42, 86, 117, 177, 182, 241, 268-272, 275, 279. Waitz, G., 7, 48. Walchelin, chamberlain, 89. Waldtic, chancellor of Henry I, 87. Wallop (co. Hants), 122. Walter, 292. de Beauchamp, 122, 298. Broc, 292. de Canteleu, 92. son of Constantine, 307. de Coutances, Master, 180. . de Cully, 294. Giffard, 120, 134, 167. son of Girulf, 261. of Gloucester, 305, 317. son of Goubert d'Auffai, 70. INDEX 375 Walter de Hainou, 104. abbot of La Trinit6-du-Mont, 70. Map, IIS, IS7, 183. money-changer, 152. de Quercu, 292. de Saint- Valery, 187. abbot of Saint-Wandrille, 228. de Wesneval, 291. d'Yainville, 92. Waltham (co. Essex), 302, 303, 311. Walton (co. Sussex), 303. War, private, restrictions on, 38, 65, 278. Warin Cepel, 95. de Dives, 95, 96. fitz Gerald, chamberlain, 162. idonearius, 291. Warner, Sir George F., 72, 160, 309, 310. Warwick, 121. Wesman, 39. Westboume (co. Sussex), 312. Westminster, 279, 303, 312, 332. 'White Ship,' 13, 112, 121, 223, 314. Wido, see Guy. Wigan, marshal, 88, 89, 307. Wiger de Saint-Mere-£glise, 223. Wigo de Marra, 80. Wilda, G., 28. Wilfrid, bishop of Worcester, 305. William, 255. d'Angerville, 324. AngUcus, 228. fitz Ansger, 98. fitz Amulf, 303. of Arques, 76, 258, 275, 289. d'Aubigny, 16, 17, 87, 89, 96, loi, 102, 294, 310, 313. Avenel, 139, 187. Baivel, 63. de Bee, 287, 288. abbot of Bee, 293, 315. Becheth, 21. de Belleme, 268, 302. Bersic, 210. Bertran, 63, 68, 76. Bigod, 13. de Botevilla, 147. de Breteuil, 68, 76, 292. William de Bricqueville, 220. de Briouze, 187. de Brix, 102, 103. Brown, clerk, in, 112. Burgamissa, 322. Cade, 181. Calix, 180, 335, 336. archbishop of Canterbury, 303. de Capella, 92, 321. Cave, 327. chamberlain, $0, 63, 66, 287, 291; see William of Tancarville. chancellor of Henry II, 162. chaplain, 113. Clarel, 92. of Conches, 131. cook, 95. abbot of Cormeilles, 68. de Courcelles, 91. de Courcy, 174. Crassus, 167. Crispin, 46, 68. de Daraio, 19. de Ducey, 338, 339. (of Saint-Calais), bishop of Dur- ham, 68, 69, 76. of Ely, III. king of England, see William, duke of Normandy. son of Enguerran Oison, 307. count of'fivreux, 63, 68, 76, 94, 291. bishop of Exeter, 294. I, abbot of Fecamp, 254, 256, 258, 266, 272. II, abbot of F6camp, 288-290. de Ferrieres, 192, 287. de la Fert6-Mac6, 33, 71. Fort, 167. de Fraxineto, 108. son of Gerard, 289. Gfir6, II. Gemon, 63, 167. Giffard, chancellor of William Rufus, 82, 83. de Glanville, 334. of Glastonbury, 88-go, 99, loi, 121. Goth, 299-301. 376 INDEX William Grenet, 289. son of Henry 1, 312-314. du Hommet, 161, 167, 180, 336. of Houghton, chamberlain, 121. de Houguemare, 162. de Huechon, 186, 338. son of Hugh, 219. fitz John, 120, 160, 161, 167, 168, 199, 213, 214, 323, 324. — — Judas, 63. of Jumifiges, chronicler, 4, 241, 252, 265-270. abbot of JumiSges, 92, 262. fitz Leiard, 328. bishop of Le Mans, 147, 148. earl of Lincoln, see William of Roumare. Lovel, 140, 149. Malet, constable of Pontaudemer, 237, 312, 334- of Malmesbury, 114, 115, 128, 268, 272. de Malpalu, 326. Maltravers, 299. de la Mare, 180, 184, 327, 334-336- marshal, 162. de Martigny, 33s, 336. Mauduit, chamberlain, 113, 289, 302. de Moiun, 210. monk, 220. count of Mortain, 294. abbot of Mortemer, 335. de Morville, 168. de Moult, 328. of Newburgh, 128. Longsword, duke of Normandy, 280. the Conqueror, duke of Normandy and king of England, 156, 262, 269, 275, 285, 287; charters of, 6, 7i 12. 19. 27. 29. 40, 43-4S. 48-56, 68, 72, 80, 81, 94, IIS, 126, 144, 251, 252, 263, 264, 274, 279, 280, 321; his Constietudines et iusticie, 277-284; Normandy under, 3-61, 83, 84, 86, 103, 121, ISO, i7S> 178, 192, 265, 276. William Rufus,king of England and ruler of Normandy, 40, 64, 75, 278, 288, 289; charters of, 66, 69, 77-83, 93, 134, 222; Normandy under, 78-84. fitz Odo, constable, 88, 89, 1 11 , 1 20, 299, 302. son of Ogier, canon of Rouen, 70, 83. d'Orval, 138. fitz Osbem, seneschal, 50, 51, 54, S8. d'OuviUe, constable of Falaise, 335. 336. de Pad, 66. Painel, 9, 21, 22, 24. Painel, archdeacon of Avianches, 336. Patric, 96, 160, 165, 294. Peverel, 95, 127, 306. Peverel de Aira, 294. Peverel of Dover, 299. Pichard, 186. du Pin, 92. de Pirou, seneschal, 113, 233. of Poitiers, 4, 32, 61, 241. de Pont-de-1'Arche, 113, 115, 119, 299, 303- count of Ponthieu, 91, 97, 98, 124, 130, 142, 145, 328. priest, 224. Quarrel, 335. Rabod, 95. fitz Ralph, seneschal, 159, 179, 180, 183, 184, 192, 328, 334-336- son of Richard, 322. son of Robert, 230, 295. archbishop of Rouen, 32, 34, 68, 76, 93, 287, 291-293. of Roumare, earl of Lincoln, 91-93, 107, 127, 128, 14s, 162, 236, 335. de Rupierre, 63. de Sai, 13, 138. abbot of Saint-£tienne, 57, 179. de Saint-Germain, 102, 220. de Saint- Jean, 340. de Saucey, 335. de la Seule, 326, 327. INDEX 377 William I, king of Sicily, 233. II, king of Sicily, 234. fitz Stephen, 331. de Tancarville, chamberlain, 77, 92. 94, 95. "2. 183, 219, 2g4, 29s, 317; see also William the chamberlain. Tanetin, justice, 97, 100. fitz Thfition, 216, 217, 238. de ThiberviUe, 322. son of Thierry, 289. Tolemer, 335, 336- de Tomebu, 68, 80. — - the Treasurer, founder of Sainte- Barbe, 109, no, 322. Trossebot, 162. de Varaville, 167. de Vatteville, 68. de la Ventona, 108. deVemon,i38,i39,i4S,i48,i49,22o. de Vieuxpont, 63. de Villers, 323. earl Warren, 92, 120, 121, 287, 300, 319. William Werelwast, chaplain, 83. — — son of William fitz Osbem, 72. of Ypres, 127. Winchester, 79, 87, 106, in, 113, 279. Bishops: Henry, Richard. Hyde abbey, 316. Windsor (co. Berks), 81, 310. Winus d'Allemagne, monk, 294. Wissant (Pas-de-Calais), 126. Wite, 280. Witnesses, synodal, 35, 227. Worcestershire, 23, 298. Wreck, rights over, 39, loi, 161. Writ, S4, 77, 82, 83, 104, I2S, 13s, 136, 140, 163, 164, 186, 189, 191, 234; of right, 97, 186, 223, 333. York, 236, 310, 331. Archbishops: Thomas, Thurstin. Yorkshire, 235. Ypreville (Seine-Inf.), 260, 262. Zechbauer, F., 227. FEINTED AT THE HARVAKD UNIVEKSITY FSESS, CAUBKIDGE, MASS., U. S. A. InH^L „- Ti. .■-\ 1 iJ f r^i ' s '■* o ^ooUlno.Mtuy^Oll^conmU 'DicwiTxuatncmpaTUrinimcftaortmiTaitw nmJ^TXCpnomSajtuu aym^unXuTCi[upni\,]nfzryTzi:[b^c^'Tr.aitud\TrMitwpriHmM Llniq-ofinnx iJt'ftitt nikxocflc(cnt^pc]-miii«T;irjiwpT'Tr"-Si««iT^-i)^V™o*^chouSnicLSfip,A|-C' ' pycctpio ■TvfJtuclidiiifi JAuiu. Jcfrpii o«culan)4 ' ■f.Ifqirod-.piSctTl.v iTiit'duuUnj mjun'i Jf '^DlJIa^rlmJ^^rtlp^TIS.(^ulU ^ Tu^fl,. S,<; Oft.'- -| J Plate 4. Charter of Robert I for Fecamp (p. 260, no. ioa). o P^ < O o H P4 W cq O Pi u o M H O w H < i-l o < o o « o P O" o O w o u a o o ^f ,^j^ ^ '^ -*'2- i ? P H O H P^ - ^ u h w O fC| ^ < o « g O P^ r >H O ^ u O P a <