William Ru myth and reality;

Emma Mason

Tht common!y accej?ted stew of the rep of Wll-

ham [I t 1087-I 100) is a political myth, Pnrnart(~~

the work of Eadmer, who depcted the kmg as the

villain against whom St Anselm strove to impose

the re~~olutlonary Gregorian rtlform programme ln

England. Henry I, moreover, denigrated his

brother 5 regime as a couer/ar,furthenng Wtlltam r

harsh hut conctructtve poltcie! . Eadmr !s writings 74 1~ 7-e quarned by srlbsegupnt twelfrh-centur?,

writers in the matnstretzm oJ.he English monastzc

hl\torlml tradition, who ad&d their own literary

embelh~hments Mneteenth-rt)ntury hzstonant un-

rnttmlly accepted theie accorrnts and Henr;l SF

glotr on the retCgn. They ther rontrzbutt~d moral

pcdgement F of their own, whrch passer wrthortt

qualifirntlon into modern secondary workh.

Thit paper re-evaluate< I illiam II{ political

and governmental achievements, and hzs eccle-

siastical policy. His character is considered iz

the 11,ght of recent work on twelJh-century inteller-

tunl and ,i)t_,( hological attttude$, and the account 5

of more favourable chroniclers. It I$ concluded that

the krng developed hlr father? strong policrei 111

e lers direction with constderable tucce\F, maklq

-ml\ I\ I I('\ IWI \

Con tri utors to this issue

IEVV.~A VASON, who gradr_tated at Bedford Grllixe+ Univc~4t-v of London, held a WV ~15 h fellowship at the Institute of His-

Rr~~earch in 1966-8. Since 1969 she lecturer in medieval history at

kbeck College, Universit) of London. er publications on English lbociety between

d-eleventh and the late thirteenth cen- t ur ic.5 include articles in the Bulletzn of the Iractttute /Jf Hrstorical Research; tile Journal of

arkal hrstoq., and Midland histoy, while ctlirion of the Beauchamp cartulary is

ming in the Pipe Roll Societys new wries. She is now continuing the work of the late D. J. Murphy on the early charters of

inster Abbey, as a volume for the n Record Societv.

BCF!Q/ a4dress: Dr Emma Mason, Birkbeck Valet Street, London WCJE 7HX,

.

LELLE.~ 3 EVASS took her first degree at Ox- a4 her Ph.D. at the University of

et-e she is a Research Assistant in

the Department of HistorJl. An article of hers entitled The

articles on St Anselm include those published in the

Journal of tkological studies and Studia nwuzstica. Her book, Learning in medieval times, was published in 1974.

PO ttal address: Dr Gillian IR. Evans, Department of History, University of Bead- in;:, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 2AA, Eng- land.

JANE K. LAURENT graduated at the University of Georgia; followed up her B.A. with an M.A. at the same Universlay, and then researched for her Ph.D. uniter Professor Brvce Lyon and Anthony Molho at Brown rJniversity. She is now a Teaching Assistant at the University of FIorida. The paper pub- lished in this issue of the Journal is her first publication.

Pottal address: Dr Jane K. Laurent, History Department, University of Florida, Gaines- ville, Florida 326 11, U.S.A.

RICHARD ,[I. WALSH read 1istor-y at Quee& College, Oxford, gradu;,t& n-t 197 1, and then unc:ertook research for a Ph.D. at the University of Hull on th(b relations of Duke Charles the Bold or Burg mdy with Iidly. An article of his entitled The comtng of humanism to the Low Counirtes: some Italian infiruencer ,?t the court of Charles the Be/d appears in the 19 76 volume of Human1 _ ttca fovaniensa. Since July 1974 he has been editor of the Intenratzonal medieval bibliogra@_y l he also teaches me- dieval history at the University of Leeds.

Poqtal addrew Mr R. J, Walsh, School of History, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, England.

1973 : 173), and the recent civil war in the Empire provided #In example of the fate

states in which one faction 1r11 t Irll cd il\ intcrcyty while ostcncibly cham- pioni ng the papal power.

The chroniclcr~ dcqignation of ;I good king was governed bv three criteria (Gal- bAth 194.5 : 12-U. First, he must be generous in hiq treatment of the clerical hierarchy, [I hi& William certainlv wac not - nowadav5, \I( might think, with good reason, for the illc r(btl qing power and wca It h of clerical pas- www~ brought no pastoral benefit to those \VhO ul t ima tch provided t heil incom r UVLIWI~ 1976 : 2 1 L The king5 own rcaqoning wa\ \t rict Iv practical. Clc~ ical baronie+, a\ mwh as thoie of laymen, were qubixt to IhiT o\~erlordchip, dnci &ice thev gained bv the stabilim ofSthe realm, thev mu$t take their share of the cost. This brings us to the second criterion, that the king ThouId be ~~ncce~~ful in war, which William was, even in the eve5 of his ~trongc~t critics, but the chroniclers constantlv l)cn;oaned the fimd -rsib ing which waq eyyential if armies were to be put in the field. EWII in the heyday of feudalivn, king5 depc~tcd to a con~iderablr extent on mer- (enarv filrceq, and William could afford the be$t, thanks to the financial -levelopmentq of his reign. but thr best cod I demand some- thing over the going rate (Prestwich l9Fi4 26-71, and the exactions required to finance them c-au5ed much S:esent&ent. The kings subjects were willing enough to share the benefit? of his territorL.1 gains, but le5s willing to help pay for the cnmpaigns which made them possible. This d#Juble-think over the raiqing of war finance was not peculiar to William5 biographers. Throughout the medieval period and beyo!!d, it was almost the biggest single cause of political crises,

and unlike the majority of hi5 successors, William waq not forced into a showdown o~ei it.

The third critet ion of the chroniclerr derived from their envisaging royal govern- ment as even more personal thanit was. The king5 doing5 were largely recorded as a , series of encounters with his magnates or Church and state, and there waq as yet vir- , tuallv no attempt to discern the underlying policies which led to particular clashes. Since each reign FL.> depirted in the$e terms, the king5 personal morality was tAken into

nlreadv hoqtilc for ot bet reapon (Zalbruth 194.5 : 122, 1 SW Received opinion on the chm acter of Fuch Sad kinp tGl\ originated in casual emotional jL,dgvnients on the part of one or hs.0 writ rs who were ~ubscqucntlv copied, u Iihour acknowledg- ment, bv chronicler\ u ho were themselves accepted in turn as authoritative (Galbraith 1945: 125-6). When textbook invective aIr;ainqt Will iam I :F fo1lBwed up in the foot- note+, it iq qeen that the charges brq.$r rlgainCt the king in perqon depend p,jrtly XI Arnd~ns insistence that 6 hurch reform on his own terms was eFsentia1 to improve the moral tone of the nation (Chibnall 1973 : 179, and partlv on the criticisms of the qcf,*ond generation of chroniclers that the younger courtiers in his time were no longer the austere warriors of the Conquest era, but instead wore long hAr and trendv $hoeq (StuLbs 1889:370; Chibnall 1973: 186-90). Thic is somewhat tenuous evidence for Freemans allegations against the king him- self (1882b :49?). There is no positive evi- dence that the king was a homosexual (Brooke 1963 : 162). His being unmarried at his death is not circumstantial proof of this,

3

since a$ &at period men of royal and baronial houses often postponed marriage until rhey were middle-aged. Marriage was tlot a matter of personal inclination, out of dynastic significance, and could most profit-

negotiated when a man had reached eak of his political strength. The same

consideration influenced both the kings erc. Chronicleu-s who were hostile to ing considered innuendo a legi timate

wcap~n &Mhern I966 :304). In contra9 , chronicle, the Brut y Tyzqycogzo7;1,

took a dispassronate view of life at the Is,-Norman COUPI, related that the king rm heir because h(n u$ed concubine5

I 860 : 64-6 I.

roniclers w ho designated a king as ~cjotI or bad were normally I rlinor obedien- rirs, often the librarians of their com-

rn tidbs*+ rat her t ha n senior office- holders ot or prior, whose work at leasr m up against the realities of

tc~% al government . Their distorted repre- tar ion of the facts was not checked by

tCro,re who copied them. It was at mo(;t tlv adapted in the course of time and

t;- accidents of manurkcript transmission, ais dar feeling vet7; gradually changed. lx prejudices, however, were retained

for the most pt. as history slowly turned nto rornanc-e. Chroniclers were not fond or mt eauw, ad z_I~+-v verdicts survive

onlv bv accident Kaibrdtth 1945 : 126). c- intellectual developments of the time a profound effect on the chroniclers

on King William. The conservatism onartic institutions, and hence of their iclerc. was in part due to their being rcuduct of a much earlier and more

age. Primitive societies are genc=allv conformist, m the sense that they

are not aware of alternative patterns of con- duct (Morris 1972: 121), and whilegreat up- heavals. both intellectual and social, were taking place from the mid-eleventh centurv onwards, the monasteries remained out of the mainstream of these developments. William II, on the other fland, was in some important respects a product of the new age, certainly to a much greater extent than were hi% biographers. In the changing climate of opinion, men increasingly found that there was no ethical certainty. Realizing that valuer 50 often conflicted, they were forced

1

to make their own deckions and to question cqtablrqhed codes of conduct (Morris 1972: 122, 160, 166). We can discern such forces at work even in Eadmers biased ac- count or the ronfrontation between king and archbishop. The new uncertainty was increclsinglv expressed in 5atircl (Morris 1972 : 1221, which again we can glimpse in the king5 convet-5ations as Eadmer reports them. Eadmer himself may not -have rccogniyed when the king was speaking it-on- icaliv, but it was no part of his purpose to understand, let alone to represent, the kings viewpoint. William was ahead of his time in haGng lost, or abandoned, all but the n:oqt flrndamental of a received set of vaicles (Southern 1966: 1456), a spiritual pheno- menon rlore common in the mid-twelfth century, but his cir,-u nstances largely account for this. Although the rival ectlesiactical hierarchv was not vet the exces- kclv bureaucratic c&poratioi attacked 3) the Goliard poet+ (Morris 1972: 130), ii wai well on the Mav to becoming so, and there waq alrcadv an increasing divergence bct- wc~n the pretensions and the practices of the wwrdr~twn. William, well aware of the needs of the rqn~tm, which itself was very much a

product of his own times, saw no reason to pav lip service to the increasinglv strident claimc of the rival power. with his own graq:) of the realities of political life, hp rccoignized thnt the simpler codes of tllr past wet-e inadequate, and, like others, develcqecl hi5 own abilities to evaluate, to criticize, an,l to take the initiative. Like others caught up in the whirlwind of c!langing and incom- patible values, 5e expressed his inner con- flict in blasphemv (Morris 1972: 160, 1621. The chroniclers deplored the Fymptom, but in their limited experience, were ignorant of the cau~c. WC can see ref?ected in the king not onlv the spiritual developments {If his own times, but also thL> revolution and I adicalism which marks out the leader in anv age, and the pessimistic determination of the isolated individual which was a legacy com- mon to the Germanic peoples (Alexander 1966 : 70-7).

Individualism was not welcomed by the ecclcsiaqtical establishment, which Taw it as a threat to itq own spiritual and intellectual monopoly, and this in turn is an adcJed ex- planation of the chroniclers reaction to William I I. The king was certain11 1x-J lone radical voice in his realm. People Lo not develop ideas in a complete intelyctual vacuum. As an instance, and one need not postulate anv I,iirect contact, the Anonvmous of York wa, at least a precocious stui-lent during Williams reign. The king5 public image might have 1 ten vet-v different if the ho~vmol~~ had 111 rblished his rcvolution- alt cupoqition of trt\e regnum'$ claims rather earlier than he

As we know all too well today, an in- clividualc, public image depends entirely on its rcfkc.tion, or d stortion, in the news

ia, ~.~~hcre the mopt unlikelv people ac- uire haloes, or horns anti tail. S&h -distor--

more lilkely in the case of his- res, since there is less chance of a

image being presented, for we are v dependent on a diminishing num-

of first-hand sources the further back in son lived, !Vhen reading modern iography, we are amused at the

611~ c~rnpkak which two or three men g;w to the same trivmal episode - let alone

e&ion:: a Much more the bitts of medieval

r hronir-fers. No writers who played a major part in the English historical rradSsion were ~rirt ccrntcmpotarics of Eadmer. We have no ;~~ruunf o1 William Ilr reign which ik

Purina_ so that the problem of evaluating the F achievements ir all the greater. His

w far as ow can see, had much in with that of his contemporary, I

cd of Taranto. Unforl: una tely fou reputation, he had no Anna Com-

rk out her love-hate fascination rose 6ewter 1969: 141, and ncc to revamp a Gesta Willelmi as

Bohemond with the GeJ,di FWW~~WII Hill 1962:x, xxxvii-viii). Both

heir enterprise and irony, resem- eir Viking ancestors of six Or seven

erarions earlier, but we see them through riot onlv of difterent civilizations.

writ&s with very diff&rent pre- nna at her most vehement still had

t respect {or Bohemonds political To Eadma, the very concept was thc~~~ f966:302r.

The members of the society in which Wil- liam matured saw themselves, in the words of Bernard cf Chartres, as dwar% standing on the Thouldcrs of giants - .&le to see further than, but owing most of their achievement to, those who IifteJ them up (Brooke 1955 :xli). The kings policies were in essence those of his father, but in several respects, particularly in the expansion of his frontiers, his own abilities and ambitions drove him on, while in others, notably in hi< dealings with the sacerdotium, he was driven to extremes by the intransigence of hi: 0l:ponents.

William I and William II had a rcadv- made base for their programme of strong government in the achievements of their terlth- and eleventh-century English pie- decessors, who bequeathed them a unified kingdom and a legal and financial apparatus which, although rudimentary, had great potential icampbell 19X:39-54). William II governed the rountry more thoroughly than previous rulers had found poF&le, and paved the way for ehe more publicized ef- fort5 of his broth

lia n ~~WI-VC~ the credit for establishing the bodcr with Scotland virtuallv a~ it runs IOC!,~V, 15 well a5 f-or reinforcing earlier tcn- r,\tivct t Iaims to overlordship (If the Scot&h kmgdom ( Duncan 197.5 : 1 Xl- 1 ; Barrow lG6 25). His stabilization of the West blnrch (Duncan 1975 : 120; Barrow 1966: 28) b) planting colonists in IMP rteighbourhood of hi5 new castle of CarlisLe was later copied bj Henry I in Pembrokeshire (Darlington 1968 : uxxi), but it is usual y Henry, not Wil- liam, \I ho iq cornmender for hi5 imaginati\*e frontict- plicv. Judicic 1; help for Edgar Act Ming md hi5 rr)xl nephews gave politi

:t Mil5 put to him by the papal legarc liaskin5 1918:78-g; Le Patovt-cl 197 1:5). Hi\ rule was consolidated by go*cerntnent fat \up

_.

c L f

.I 5. /

. .

?1

+ 2.

L.

f - d

C

a. n

5

s 3,

Z * S CI

, a

=

A 2: ,

?I!

f

3

z -4 ;r . . L I?

0 - .

z pl ? - n *

5

_.

=

o-,

=:

, * ,: 2

<

0

=

a

G:

3, 57

0

-P -

I ,

P.

; P.

=i

I

anticipating the better-known eVres of Hen7

1~ time 6oidlel G 1933: 105). Dppe their Mimi t,ltion\ l Rccdv 1966 :4 92). their long- tel in significance wcjs cons, lerable. Elfkctivc i 0~11 jmfw~ t hi wghmt t ht Iand was essen- 1111 if rtlclo alit\ to bcb a llnificd kingdolrl ThtA oi IgIll\ of thrb jidic ial pi ~)ww\ 01 w I( ot i ight. ~~Y~-~~I~~ and wwd d~n~~w2, can bc II dc cd in Willidins writs, and ir now bcc;irnc 1 cgilldr practice to iinpo~e a stagger ing fine on I hc ivh divegdrded ( Irclcrs coin eyed

b\ writ (?vuthern !SiO: 189). The legal and

lintincicil dC~dOplll~?liS 0t Williams reign

lmpw1 the \zx for the wet k of the Euchc- (pi- in t ho hvellth tenturx, and perhaps Eden initl,ltcd It (Southern 1933 11 1). Royal ( mti 01 over the resource\ of the realm wa$

~~kt(~11~1cd hv ttlc iritroduc~io,rl ;,f the ill)clCll\

into the tie6\\ur\. This hxl gi eat lx>tential

tar ar~c4ng shire revenues, as a cnntem-

porai7 treatise demonstrated (&skins

1924: 328-35), and its impact on the ex-

ploitation of the national rfxcnues sv;19 the

r~luivnlent cd the adoption of romputsrr in

modern times. An increasing proportion oi

the nti~iOnril weaEth came from townri (Brooke and Kcir 1975.3 I), hi 11 torn ww to prospci th:-ough n-de,

then England needed the rcyitation of a t t)llilll i in which foreign merchants could do business without hindrance, an attitude

in\tanccd by his extension ofr(d JusIIcc 011

pI1c101tc term5 to Scandinavian traders

(~~Jli~)llilll 1973 128 1). The furtherance of royal power was large-

1: entrusted to a picked group of clerks and l;,~ officer-s of comparatively obscure origin, wll() were administrators, but not policy

11

advisors on a par with rhe great tenants in chief. The team Included Robert Bloett, Urse dAbetot and, pre-eminently, Ranu,lf Flambarcl (West 1966 : l- villain in mythology

William II is commonly refe..- red to bv a nickname which was rendcrc:d derogatory only by the pen of E. A. (Grinnell-Milne 1(,)68 :39), so Ranulf the kings clerk, the exactor or executor o\ the kings will, is usually known by a p\cudonym which ;)eau-s no relationship to the real status or personality of the man who, from 1099 o:Iwards, was the mightv pala t inc bishop I)f Durham (Southern 1933:98, 100, !25; Scammell 1966:4X-4). The massive solidity of its Norman cathedral reflects the status of its occupant. Tenure of the bishopric in the twelfth century was synonymous with command of the Scottish March (Scammell 1966:453). Ranulf, with his great organizing ability and cool head, even when his OWVR life was at stake !Southern 1970: 187), was just the man for this role. What is perhaps more surprising, in view of his pi?pular reputation, is that the Durham monks commemorated his acts performed as their bishop (Southern 1970: 20 n A\ L-l,.

The cognomc 9 Flarnbard, thu darting flame, was coirit \. I& Ranulf by Robert Dispenser, a fellol . mritzlis and bro&er of Ranulf t colleagut s Jose dAbetot, in token that he was hclrc R hcnre and everywhere Khibnall I973:I S , whether on judicial visitations, financial lilquests or executing routine business. The chroniclers were f&+ cinated by his IrbTcluitv, ;:nd by the novelty of his po+orb 1 naiional life. Extended royal g&rnment naturally made increasing demand5 on mens Ipockets, hence the

chroniclers representa, ion of Ranulf and hi5 colleagues as nothl r more than a pack of licensed robbers. In reality, they wcrc ex- tending the kings power so that he was now no longer merely head of the feudal pvramid, but ruler of alI increasingly ccntrali7ed state (Southern 1370: 186-g), fkr more disciplined than Nonrnandy was - if onlv in popular memory. once William gained control of the duchv. The activitic\ of the team of administl-ators, rather than those of Ranulf as an individual, anticipated in some important respect5 the scope dclc- gated to the justiciar in the twelfth centu? (West 1966: 1 1).

These men naturally expected to !>e rewarded for services r-et dered. Much has been made of Henry 13 exploitation of patronage as a means of encouraging his subordinates to strcngther, his own position (Southern 1970:206-33), bitt in t;rct this wan no i! InovatL,n in hi5 time - a difrcrencc in rlq$cc, per haps, as the team wan cnlargcd, but not a diffixrcncc in kind. The concept of

$uppoFed inspiration is simply due to tht fact that his reign is much better documen- ted than those of hi?* predecessors. In Wil- liam IIs reign, as in earlier t irnc5, fpki /m po grants :cft little or no trace, fbr the recipients usually failcad to preserve I hc rare confirmatory charters which t hry 1 cx-civcd, whcrca~ that much-misinterprererc docu- me1 fit, the 1 130 Pipe Roll, ma kcr it appear that Hcnrv I was the tint king to plan cfl&- tivclt on his seivants greed and ambition to turl: hci- his own cnd5. Williain~ iiwn would have been astounded at the suggestion that

thev were in the kings service for any other

rea Fan than g00d old-fashioned self- interest. Robert Bloett ended his days as bishop of Lincoln, Ranulf Flambard as pala- tine bishop of Durham, while Urse dAbetot was granted lands and delegated royal powers in the west Midlands which formed the basis of his Beauchamp descendants virtual state-within-a-state? William5 highly motivated team of administrators waq 50 efTicient that it was taken over PU KM by Henry 1. Ranulf Flambard, of course, had to bc made a scapegoat for propaganda purpo~c5, but he soon reappeared at court, now no longer an energetic royal clerk on , the make, but a rear tenant i-n chief and weighty political advisor CSouthern 1933: 117. 124-5).

In his judicious patronage of the great tenants in chief, too, William II cr.xnpares filvourablv with the supposedlv mot f Ttates- manlike Hcnrv I. Valuable wppc t in a (*t-i& wan gcncrouslv rewarded - at ilo coqt to th(a king him41 i bv the creation of the (m-hhn of Warwick for Hem-v II Ncw- burgh (Stcvcn~on 1 WX:2 1, 137 ; DoJ)lcdav 1904 277-B. 3 10-25, 332-5; Hall I 6 :325). The Montgomery brothers were L. 4rlering u(;cfi~l qcarvice in extending the king% fron- tiers, but would turn dangerous if their

c_ven before the conflict with Anselm, he had already realized he must eventually recognize (Sout hex-n 1966: 154-5). During

Williams reign, Anselm could not make headway on the scale he achieved in Henry Is time (Vaughn 1975 : 293). Williams bishops did not in general accept Anselms cause as their own. At most we discern one hesitant Gregorian in Herbert Losinga, for William of St Calaiss cynical rejection of secular jurisdiction can be discounted, as Lanfranc himself pointed out. At the council of Rockingham, the bishops stood firmly by the king (Arnold 1882: 1.79-SO), as might be expected of royal servams at the peak of-the career-ladder (Soother; 1 1966: 146). With their training, they appreciated as weal as the king and his lay barons that Anselms claims on behalf of the sacerdotium encroached on the roval sovereignty, and they were equally ijldignant (Vaughn 1975286, 289, 29% Besides, they were also determined to pre- erve their own authority, for the stronger he popes jurisdiction became, the weaker

their own position. Throughout William5 reign, the bishops ar-thority was largely safeguarded by his own attitude towards the I papacy, but their stat us percept ibl) diminished over the next fifty years as the jurisdiaion of lthe papal court widened (Brooke 1955 :xxxi, nos. 168 74,83,91). For Anselm, there were different h-onsiderations. He had secured I ;is election by adroitly building up a r:ettvoyk of influence, and once installed, made it his business to subdue the other British bishops to his obedience (Vaughn 1975285, ZFS), while the kings 5ucceqsful resistance to the activitic,s of the papal legates mealIt th;lt Anselm himself drd not become a Ini re co_; in a wheel. In the upshot, William maintained his right to take

the homage of his ecclesiastical tenants in chief, and his right to invest them with Ftaff and ring. It was accident, not principle. which resulted in Angelms not receiving in- vestiture at the kings hands. William has of- ten been charged with a tactical mistake in appointing him to CAnterbury in the first place, but the choice Nas e3 Fentiallv that of influential barons p lthered at what was believed to be th:* kings death bed (Southern 1966: 152 3). In the confusion, they imposed aheir own candidate and gained spiritual meI it for the king. tin neither count could they hcsitatc for ttiar of future consequences.

The kings cnfor( cmtlnt of rq$m I ighr. his enjovment of the revenues of a vat ant benefice, agitated the chroniclers a9 much as did hiq quarrel with Ansehn. The king ccr- tainly did not invent this right, ds imulal chroniclers implied, but he did dcvclop tcn- tatile preccoehts into a highlv pl&tablc qourcc of revenue (Howe11 1962: 1 O- 13

gro:lnd by taking a feudal relied from ten- ants of the vacant see of Worcester. Rather, at a time when his militarv and diplomatic

he was cxtcndmg all feudal rights - over ccclcsia(;tical as well a$ lay property (Howell 1962 : 1% Episcopal and monastic establish- rncnts WI c' highlv pi ivileged corporations. Thcv gained fix~rr; the kink+ achievcmentq, and cordd reasonabl-; be expectcad to help linawc them. The Canterbury monk5 grum- bled at their treatment, bait Canterbury was a special case. Othei, inore co-operative, houses which undcrv\~ent vacancle5 were tl (xtcd with considerxion (Howell 1962: 16, 19 . Henry I, in hi5 coronation charter, astutely plaved on tllfl re!.entment aroused

14

bv Williams a ;,lrtion of rcgaIial. right (Stubby 1966: 1 1 I-19). He won clerical sup- pot t bv promising to abolish It. and then pi o~eeded to e+oit the right far 11lo1 c than hiq brother had ever done (Howell 1962:FN. What the chrotdm do not qav, is that Wil- ham5 approach towards clerical juri) +tion

,md yropertv was fi,llowed bv his FucceSTorc, ,mcl th,tt (oritelllf)ol-;tt.v ContimBntal pr,lcti( c

coherent (rtcite, then tenants of theqc qub- rtantial baronie\ muqt acknowlcclgc~ that the king was the lord of their lord. In this re- c;pect, the assertion of regalian right was a filll(iilIllCIlt2~ component ofWllliani(; polic\ olwelding his rc,~\in together.

Willi,nn 114 policies itpp(bared $0 qhocking to (.I~iit(iii~~o1;iI.ies beca1u9e i+ev were new (SoutIlerrl 1970: 1 IYG-8). Late1 generations l;)\rilcI 1.01 ,il g0vernment f ii\ more demand- irIg. but 1)~ th( n peq+ had come to fyec t tllitt it would be. He was not appre-iated because he stood at the dawn of a nefu: era, whit h cnviqed cohesion in place ofct ntri- t\lg;tlis~l!l. This threatened too nI;Inv bested interest\, did it is mgwhlc that the act*Vities 01 hi\ at1 d the g1 (I\\1 h Of fil( rion5 ii~llO~lgw ttlCIl1, in- CldWl IWIlV crwd iI Vlll( Icw 01 ~Y\p~~(tet~ fOl ill1 iIltCr*llilti\*V OC(U~~illlt (II It It 1tlOIlC (So~dlcv 11 1933: 1 17). II 90, thev would Iave (I( )II( \~eil to t>it(.k the (hivah-out, l)ut y)litic,tllv inept Duke Robe1 t. In the c sent, HemTP 1 reaped the benefit of WilI t ms

policies. He lightlv disguised them under a veneer of bureaucracv and custom, while

implving that his brothers methods were a thing of the past. The conventional re- qponse to this, that Henrys government waq acceptable and laudable because it was backed by legality and urbanity (themselves prmhrcts of the twelfth century), would have been I black joke to those whb sufrered un- der hi5 reign of calculated terror. By the , titw the true nature of Hcbnrvs government 1 \\ ii4 (*lChill* - ;111d that was not long in cornin . - t hc ml th of the tvrant Rufils was too fit-ml\ e\t,J)li4led to eradicate.

7 he nxth was enhancecf bv the deliberate \pt eclding of 1 umour\ concerning prc- nroni t ions of Williams death, as though good men were forewarned that a bad king wars about to meet his deserts (Grinnell- Milne 1968:,5.5-7). Naturallv all accounts of these yremo!+ions were written after the king h,~d in f,p( t died. Most of thecc TtorieT uhimatelv derive from Eadmcr, and the one i ndependen t source for the rumours is Ghx~r*c\ter Abbey (Southern 1962: 123n). 11% ,hht tried to speak to the king about a pro- phetic dream, but he txu$hed it aside as mei e qxr\tition. The ,Ibbot way possibl) tiTii\g to hint that there way a plot ayxinst the kings life, but did not dare to be too ex- plicit in public, qince vet-v important people were involved, some of whom were actualh pre+ent (GrinnelI-M ilne 1968 :

whose members were notoriously un- scrupulous in defence of their interests (Southern 1958: 193-226; Johnson 196 1 :xvi, I b-i- 13, and hc tells his story gf the conflict between king and archbishop entirelv from Anselms point of view. Hir acco&t of rvents in his Hkstoria novorum is openly pre- judiced, for he states in the pwface that the ihief nova ITS of his time was the resistince of the archbishop to royal authority over the Church. This clash of principle in church- state relations was essentially new, as Ead- mer was the first writer to realize (Southern 1966:303--4, 310), but he ignored its im- pl ications for secular government.

The Tecond contribution to ;he myth came from the monastic chroniclers of Henry I!I reign, who accepted Henry as the good king whose coronation charter prorn- ised to sweep away the bad old days of his predecessor. Their facts are essentially those , of Eadmcr : their literary embellishments are their own work. The frequent tendency to treat the mid-twelfth-century chroniclers as corroborative of Eadmer ignores the elementary precaution of evaluat ing such evidence according to the vested interests of the house which produced the work, or those elf the house from which a chronicle derived its source-material on earlier reigns. The works which derive from Eadmer reflect Canterburys jaundiced view of William while they are dealink with the church-state controversy, but when they turn to secular matters, they admit, half grudgingly and half admiringly, that the king had exactly the talents required at that particular time - a judicious bl end of severity, generosity and ebullience. CIrderic , summing up of the king5 flair fc r government would in fact serve elqually well as an appraisal of Henry I Khibnall 1973: 179; Stubbs 1889:373), ex-

cept that not even Henrys greatest admtre.s could call him dashing.

William was given less qualified appraisal by houses which remembered him a$ a benefactor. Battle Abbey, for instance, was founded by his father, who left its endow- ments in a precarious state. William II put Battle\ finances onto a sounder footing, and the monks were duly appreciative (Brookc 1963 : 165), but their chronicle was not in the mainstream of the monastic his- torical tradition, and was virtually ignored bv the professional historians of the ninctccnth century, who gave the Rulirs mvth the form which has survived almost to the prc.5cnt (Galbraith 19k5: 127). The monks of Durham had a more ambiva!ent attitude towards William II. He wa9 theit patron, whom they could not criticize, but * thcv noted that hc treated other houres badlv(Mcchan 1975:.53).

Writers who were able to take a detached view of Williams poficies are much more favourable than the closely inter-related monastic chroniclers. Suger, abbot of Saint - Dcniq, was no cloiqtcred historian, but chic1 minister of the king of France. His firm grasp of the realities of political life led him to recogniire Williams achievements, and it is here that we must look for their most ob- jective appraisal in the twelfth century (Southern 1933 : 1 LB; Prestwich 1954 : 27). Geoffrey Gaimar, 1 clerk of Caen, gave a glowing account ,yf Williams reign, hut Gcofh ev was esscnt idly a wri tcr of romance (Gransdcn 197.5:37 2). The kings militarv skill and ebullient character maclc him an ideal hero for a work of this sort, but it ip scarcely sober history. Neither Suger nor Gcofficy wa9 drawn on to any extent by thtb , ninctt~enth-century historians.

The third contribution to the mvth came

16

fi-om Hem-v I. Following his accession to the t hr-one in dubious circumstances,4 he needed supper-iers, including the eminent clerics, aid 11 i 5 unprecedented coronation charter largely promised to repudiate Wil- liams treatment of the ~~~~~~o~iurn. To rein- fix-cc his posit ion, however, he followed

Wi Iliamq prx tices, while fostering the myth ofthc tvmnt Rufus, to lead people to believe that these wele thing% of the past. William \aid fi-anklv that no ruler once firmlv in power ca11 ~wrt out everything he promised while bidding fix $upporf (Rule 1884: 2.5). Henr\ lvfi his subject\ to work that one out lot Ihcm\el\es. Bv the time thev did, the\ \\Yr( irl RITiI t i1\1

Most historians did not venture to reject the myth out of hand? As each advanced know- ledge in one particular field, so Williams stock went up in that respect, but the writer hastily added that of course nothing could be said in the kings favour on other counts.

ThtB major aspects of Willnam Rufuss reign have no v been re-examined and put in their proper context. We have evidence of a king who furthered the policies of his able predecessor, made important advances of his ol,un, and was forced to make no real cone essions - something which can he said for very few of Williams successors. His policies were assiduously followed by his brother and the stronger among their suc- cessors, vet his own achievements are rarely given p lore than grudging recognition. There is no longer any place in historical scholars1 ip for those pantomime villains Rufu:l and Flambard, and their replace- ment in secondary literature by the resolute and f&ward-looking King William II and his a!,tute minister Ranulf, bishop of Dur- ham, is long overdue. No consideration should be given to an equally unrealistic at- tempt F_;) whitewash their characters. Suc- cessfL1 jnedieval kings and their servants wer: net nice people in the vulgar sense of amiable and altruistic nonentities. The rare exceptions were totally unsuited for the posit ions theT occupied, and caused more suffering by their ineptitude I-han did the hard-headed majority. P.s Orderic Vitalis said, the Nonnans were a warlike people, and needed a firm hand to control them (Chibn& 1973:82). Medieval society was turbu!en-, and presented many problems, of elementa y civil order and national defence,

, to name only the most are largely spared today.

obvious, which we Recognition is due

to those who met them head on, but is not always given, such is the tenacity of myth.

Notes

I ConverseI\, the unorthodox private life of a popular hero su( h a?~, Richard I would be plaved down bv the chroniclel ). 2 Rlchardsoq 1955 268-9; Rigg 1902.87. I am gra tefii 1 to heirs Sharon Licbermar. for these refererlces 3 bla\on torthc oming; the extent of Beauchamp control over WorcestershIre is discussed at length in the rntrodltctlon to this volume. 4 Brr)oke 1963. 170-l: Grinnell-Milne 1968; but compare Hollister 1973 :637-X% Most writers on the pericld l)clicvr that Willinm II was murdetcd, etthel on the ot4er.s of his brothel or by di\sidcnts who \up- posed that their in7terests would bc better served with Henry on the throne, although Profcqsor Hollister maintains that the kings death was simplv due to a hunting accident. In either ctlse, potential supporters must bc pcrsldcd that Ilenry had more to ofTer than Robert. 5 Honournble exceptions include !-Iowdl 1962 and Southern 1933 and 1970 and, in a mow general work, Barlow 195 5

Literature

Aleuandcr, M 1966 (11 an4 1. The erlt Ilest English poems. London.

Arnold, T. (cd). 1882. Symconis monachi opela om- nia, 1. RS. London.

Barlow, F. 1955. The fcudnl kingdom of England 1042-1216. London.

Barrow, G W. S. 1966. The Anglo-Scottish hot der. Northern history 1: 2 l-42.

Bates, D. R. 197.5. The chtracter and career of Odo, bishop of Ba\ruu ( 1049/50-1097) Speculutn 50: f- 20.

Brewer,_J S. and others ted.) 1891. Gtraldi Cambrensis opera, 8. RS. 1 mdm~

Brooke, C. N. L. and others ted.) 1955. The letters of John of Salisburv, 1. London.

Brooke, C N L. 1963. The Saxon and Norman ktngs. London.

Brocke, C. N. I. and G. Keir. 197.5. London SC%1 2 16 : the sh.+ping of a city. London.

18

Carnphcll. J 197 5 Obscrvattons on English govern- rntbnt Irom thin tenth to the twelfth ccnturv Tlans- actions of the Roval Historical Soctety, fifth series 25 39-54

DUIIC,III, A. A. M 1075 Slotkind the makmg ol a kingdom F_dinl)tlt gh.

Fd\\mds. .J. G Ifih The Norma 15 and thr W&h ma11 h. PIOC (~bd111g\ 01 the B~ttrsh Acadcmv 43 15% 77.

Ftcv~m,\n, F A X82,r ,\nd b. Tlic I sign of Willr,ml RU~II\ L\ols o\t:,lll.

G,tIbt,ltth. V. )I 194 1 Roger \r,;c~ldg lbcr and M,ltrhcw P,\i i\ C,l,r\goll\

G,rll)t,tith V H. 1915 Good ktngs ,111d l)a(: kmgs in medic-v,ll Fn~~h\h hi\torv H~rtory 30 lI9-32.

GI ansdcn. A I 97 J. PI opdgatd,~ III English medic~.il historiographv. Journal of mradieval htstory i * 3b3- Xl.

GI mncll-Milnc, D. l96:J The killing ofwilliam Rufus Newton Abbot.

H,t11, H. (tad ) 1896 The Red Book of thtn Eul hqwr, I. Llmdlm

H,t\kins, C. H. I9 18. Not tnnn institution\. Nc w York. Hr\kin\. C. H. 1924. Studies in the history of medieval

\, icncc. C.imt)t itlfic (M,tss 1 Hill, R. (f d.) 1962. The Gestd Francorum. London. Hollrhter, C. W. 1973. The %trange death of William

Ruflts. Spccuhtm 48:637-13. Holliwr, C. W. 1976 Nlvmandy, France and the

Anglo-Norm,ln tqwm. S,wcuh~m 5 1: 202-42. Howell, A. 1962. Regalian I ,ght In rncnclicval England.

LOI& Jn. Jamison E. 1938. The Sicilian Norman kingdom in the

mind of Anglo-Norman contemporaries. Proceed- ings of the British Arademy 24.237-85.

Johnson, C (ec ) 1950 The dialogue of the exche- oucr bv Rtchard fit7 Nigcl London

Johllsm. C (cd 1 1961 Hugh the chantor. the history ofthc( hurch >fYork 1066-I 127. London

Kcalcb, E. J. I97 2. Roger of Sallcbury, wceroy of Eng- h..nd Bcrkclel .

Le P,ttourcl, _J. I97 I Normandv and England 1066- I 11-i Rcadtnp ,

M iFon, E 1976 The role of the English partshioner, I Ic)c)-I 500 Journal of ecclestastical htbtory 27 I7- 29.

Mason, E (c-d ! forthcoming. The Beauchamp car- tularv Pipe RoI1 Society, new series. London.

Mason, J F. A 1963. Roger de Montgonlery and his \on\ (1067-I 102). Transacttons of the Royal Hlstortcal Soc~ct\.. fifth sertcs 13: l-28

Mcch,ln. B 197 i Out\idcrs, Insiders and prol,crtv at Durham ,lrou 1d I IO0 %udles in church h~~~orv 12. (h111( h. WC Irt . ,~nd politics Ok ford

MOII I\. C 1971 The dr\co\cv\ of thv Indwtdua?l lO,O- 1200 London

Prcstwtch, .J 0 I954 War ,:I ai finance In the Anglo- Normnn st(tte Ttansactlorbs of the Royal HIstorIcal Sorictv, lifth s-rics 4 l9- :.%.

Rccdj, W T , Iunlor I9C\G. A i-v origins of the general c\re in rhlb rclgn of Hcnn Speculum 4 I 688-724

Rlchard\on. I-t G 1955 I cl rw of The sermons of Thom

Southelfn, R. W. 1958. The Canterbury forgeries. English historical review 73: 193-226.

Southern, R. W. ted.1 1962 Vita sanctl Anselmi. Lon- don.

Southern, R. W. 1966. Saint Anselm and his bio- grapher. Cambridge

Southern, R. W. 1970. Medieval humanism and other studies. Oxford.

Stenaorn, F. M. 1961. The first century of English feudalism 1066-l 166. Second reviwd edition. Ox- ford.

Stevenson, J. ted.1 1858. Chronicon monastcrii de Ailingdon, 2. RS. London.

Stubbs, W. !884. The constitutional histay of Eng- land. 1. Oxford

Stubbs, W. :c*d.) 1889 Ge5ta legurn, 2. RS. London. Stubb\, W. e-l 1 1966. Sek,t ch,lrters and other II-

lu~t:,ltionf of English constitutional1 histor\. Ninth edit1 In Oxford

Tellen Bach, G. 1959. Church, state and Chrlstwl socwtv at the time of the Investiture Contest. Third impklon Oxford

Vaughrl, S. N. 1975. St Anselm of Canterbury: the philr>sopFer-saillr as politician. Journal of mrdieval historv 1. 79-305.

West, I; I9C3. The iusticiarship in England Cam- bridge

Wightnlan, 4. E 1966. The Lacy family in England and rJorm,lndy 1066-l 194. Oxford.

Willianls, J , ab Ithel led.1 1860. Brut y Tywysoglon. RS. Londo*1.

Wright, D (transl 1 1957 Beowulf London.

20