HOUSE OF GEROY. son of 229 Norman noble, to whose daughter Geroy had been be- CHAP. VIII. trothed, but the marriage was hindered by the premature death of the bride.1 By another wife he had a numerous family, many of whom were distinguished in Norman history. He was himself succeeded by his second son William William, who, like his father, was attached to the house of Geroy. Belesme, and also distinguished himself in the war with Maine. He had however to contend for the possession of his estates against the violence of Count Gilbert of Brionne, a man who, on this as on some other occasions,1 seems to have failed to carry into his private relations those principles of honourable conduct which in so marked a way distinguished his administration of public affairs. William was a brave soldier and a faithful vassal, ready to undergo any personal loss on behalf of his lord or of his friend. He was also bountiful to the Church, though they were granted to Geroy, they were, by what accident does not appear, not included in the diocese of any Bishop. Geroy's conscience was troubled at a state of things so contrary to all ecclesiastical rule. He accordingly inquired which of the neighbouring Bishops was the most worthy, and, hearing much of the virtues of Roger, Bishop of Lisieux (990-1024), he annexed his lands to that diocese. He procured however certain privileges for the clergy of his lordships, especially an exemption from the oppressive jurisdiction of the Archdeacons; "Ut clerici terræ suæ non irent ad placitandum extra potestatem eorum, nec opprimerentur injustis circumventionibus Archidiaconorum." He might well make this stipulation, if the Archdeacons of his time were like those described by John of Salisbury some generations later (Ep. clxvi. ap. Giles, i. 260). In Mr. Stapleton's map Escalfoy is marked in the diocese of Lisieux, but Montreuil in that of Seez. 1 William of Jumièges (vii. 11) makes him receive these lordships from Duke Richard, "Richardi Ducis, cujus dono in Normanniâ duo municipia obtinuit," but it seems from Orderic (463 B) that the ducal grant was only a confirmation of the will of Helgo; "Liberalis Dux agnitâ virtute ejus honoravit, eique totam terram Helgonis hæreditario jure concessit." 2 Will. Gem. u. s. "Ex his filiorum et nepotum militaris turma propagata est, quæ barbaris in Angliâ vel Apuliâ seu Trachiâ vel Syriâ nimio terrori visa est." 3 Will. Gem. vi. 7. 4 Compare his dealings with Herlwin, above, pp. 215, 216. He held lands of Count Geoffrey of Mantes, who was taken prisoner CHAP. VII. he strictly maintained the ecclesiastical privileges of his own lordships.1 Twice he made the pilgrimage to Jeru William Talvas. salem, once during the height of his prosperity, and once after the great misfortune which clouded his later days. Blinded by For he it was whom the fierce Talvas, in defiance of every tie of gratitude, of hospitality, and of feudal honour, blinded and mutilated when he came as a guest to his bridal. The daughter of Talvas too, the cruel Mabel, pursued the house of Geroy throughout life with unrelenting hatred.3 In He grants his old age he became a monk at Bec, a house to which Evroul to he had already been a benefactor. Saint Bec. He had given to Herl Saint Evroul and the win and his monks the lands of by William Talvas, who required the destruction of the castle of Montacute as his ransom. This castle belonged to William the son of Geroy, who at once destroyed it to bring about the liberation of his lord. Ord. Vit. 464 C. 1 Ord. Vit. 464 A. "Episcopales consuetudines Monasterioli et Escalfoii fundo habebat, nec ullus Archidiaconorum ibidem presbyteros ejusdem honoris circumvenire audebat." 2 See above, p. 183. 3 578 A. + According to William of Jumièges (vii. 23), he died at Gaeta on his return from a mission of some sort ("pro quibusdam rationalibus caussis”) to Apulia. 5 Ord. Vit. 461 A; Chron. Becc. i. 195. This is doubtless the grange which Lanfranc found greatly troubled by rats. His biographer (i. 284, 285) cites it as a proof of his humility that he personally carried a cat to make war upon them. 6 They were the sons of Robert of Grantmesnil (see above, p. 197) and Hadwisa, daughter of Geroy (Orderic, 465 B). After Robert's death Hadwisa married William, son of Archbishop Robert. Their daughter Judith, having taken the veil, afterwards married Roger, Count of Sicily (484 B), but, as a punishment for her sacrilege, she remained childless. RESTORATION OF SAINT EVROUL. tion of Evroul. 231 of Hugh we shall hear again in the history both of CHAP. VIII. Normandy and of England. Their pious uncle approved Restoraof the design, but pointed out that the site which they Saint had chosen was lacking in the two great monastic neces- 1050. saries of wood and water.1 Let them rather join with him in restoring to its ancient splendour the fallen house of Saint Evroul, placed on a spot suited for every monastic want.2 Uncle and nephews joined their energies and their purses; the rights of Bec over the spot were exchanged for another estate, and the new Saint Evroul arose with the full licence of Duke William, of Archbishop Malger, and of the other Prelates of Normandy. Monks were brought from Jumièges, and a brother of that house, Theodoric by name, became the first Abbot of the new foundation.3 But the house seems to have been far less fortunate in its rulers than Bec. Theodoric after a while laid aside his office, driven to resignation, it is said, by the cabals of the co-founder Robert of Grantmesnil, who, having made his profession in the house, had obtained the rank of Prior. Robert was chosen to the 1059. Abbotship, but, a few years after, he was himself deposed, 1063. or driven to resignation, by Duke William, and long 1 See above, p. 218. 2 William of Jumièges (vii. 23) puts into his mouth a long historical discourse, in which, I am sorry to say, he speaks of Charles the Simple as "filius Ludovici cognomine Nihil-fecit." 3 Ord. Vit. 461 C et seqq., 625 D; Will. Gem. vii. 23. He was the only monk for whom the cruel Mabel had any reverence. Ord. Vit. 470 A. See his character, Ord. Vit. 467 D; his intrigues, 474 C et seqq.; his election, 477 A. He began a new church, but did not finish it, 480 C. He also gave to the house (468 B) an illuminated psalter-doubtless of English work-which the Lady Emma had given to her brother Archbishop Robert. His son William seemingly stole it from his father, and gave it to his wife Hadwisa, mother of Robert of Grantmesnil, "de camerâ patris sui familiariter sustulerat, dilectæque suæ conjugi Hadwise omnimodis placere volens detulerat." On Abbot Robert see also Will. Gem. vii. 26. 5 Ord. Vit. 481 B. 1050. 1058. CHAP. VIII. Controversies followed between him and his successor of the movement in Normandy with the Osbern.1 I have given a sketch of the origin of these two famous monasteries, partly because their stories bring before us so many members of the leading Norman families, but mainly Connexion as illustrating the great religious movement which was religious then at work in Normandy, and which was not without its share in bringing about the Conquest of England. When we come to a later stage in our history, we shall Conquest see with what art both William and his trusty counsellor of England: Lanfranc contrived to appeal to the religious feelings of the Normans, to represent the English King as a sinner against the local saints of Normandy, and to represent the Conquest of England as a holy war undertaken to chastise the ungodly. Such a vein of sentiment could hardly have been safely appealed to except at a time when there was a great religious stir in the national mind. One side of this movement is shown in the foundation of so many monasteries, in the zeal with which men gave of their substance for their erection, in the eagerness with which men, often the same men, pressed to become members of the holy brotherhoods. But a still more honourable fruit of the religious mind of Normandy, one however which Normandy only shared with many other parts of Europe, is to be found in the acceptance during this period of the famous Truce of God. The Truce of God. This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness, at once to the ferocity of the times, and also to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy and laity alike felt that the state of things which The whole story is given at some length in Neustria Pia, pp. 104-110. But remark the expression of William of Jumièges (vii. 23), "multos labores postea in procuratione servorum Dei perpessus est." There were probably two sides to his story, as to most others. PRIVATE WAR. 233 they saw daily before their eyes was a standing sin against CHAP. VIII. God and man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. We cannot doubt that in those parts of Britain where the authority of the English Kings was really established, the evil was smaller than it was in any part of Gaul. Neither can we doubt that in Normandy, during the minority of William, the evil was even greater than it was in other parts of Gaul. But the extreme disorder of that minority was simply an exaggerated form of what might be called the normal state of things throughout the greater part of Western Europe. Every man claimed the right of private war Private against every other man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. It is clear that, in such a state of things, an utterly unscrupulous man, to whom warfare, however unjust, was a mere trifle, had a decided advantage over his more peaceable neighbours. A few men like William Talvas might throw a whole province into disorder; and men who were in no way naturally disposed to wrong or violence were necessarily driven to constant warfare in sheer self-defence. The poor and the weak were of course the chief victims; when one gentleman harried the lands of another, the immediate tillers of the earth must have suffered far more severely than their master. It was the tenants of Herlwin, rather than Herlwin himself, who had most bitterly to complain 1 Was the Truce of God ever preached, or ever needed, in England? I am not aware of any mention of it, unless the so-called Laws of Eadward, c. 2 (Schmid, 492), at all refer to it. See below, p. 236. war. |
