THE BATTLE OF VAL-ES-DUNES.

617

said to be Eadward's "consanguineus germanus ex Gunhildâ amitâ suâ, sorore patris sui." The confusion is delightful, but it preserves the fact that the kindred between William and Eadward had something to do with an aunt of one or other of them.

NOTE W. P. 251.

THE BATTLE OF VAL-ES-DUNES.

AFTER my account of the battle was written, I received a small work by the Abbé Le Cointe, Curé of Cintheaux (now of Cormelles), called "Conspiration des Barons Normands contre Guillaume-leBâtard, Duc de Normandie, et Bataille du Val-des-dunes, 1047" (Caen, 1868). M. Le Cointe had examined the ground very carefully, both before and since my visit in 1867, and the result of his researches was a most minute topographical account, full, accurate, and rich in local interest. Since its publication, I have had the pleasure of a second visit to Val-ès-dunes in May 1868, in company with M. Le Cointe himself and with M. Puiseux, then Professor of History at Caen, and now at Tours. Between my two visits the foundations of the chapel of Saint Lawrence had been brought to light, and many skeletons had been found there and in other parts of the field. Since then I am told that further researches have discovered stone coffins and other antiquities, but seemingly of Merowingian date.

With regard to more strictly historical matters, M. Le Cointe, following in the main the same authorities as I do, gives essentially the same account. But he also makes use of a manuscript Chronicle of Normandy, which however seems not to be earlier than the fifteenth century, and whose mistakes he often stops to point out. Late writings of this kind are of course valuable only when there is reason to believe either that their authors had access to earlier written authorities now lost, or else that they embody trustworthy local traditions. The Chronicle in question contains two statements which, if true, are highly important, and the truth of which it would be most desirable to test. One is that the rebels were strengthened by a party of Angevins and Cenomannians, commanded by Ingelram, nephew of Count Geoffrey Martel (Le Cointe, pp. 19, 35). The other is that the men of Caen-faithful among

the faithless-took the side of the Duke (p. 18). It is quite possible that the influence of the local chieftains would be smaller, and that of the sovereign greater, in a considerable and growing town than it was at Coutances and Bayeux.

I would call particular attention to M. Le Cointe's excellent remarks on the position of the rebel forces, in p. 25.

NOTE X. p. 271.

THE COUNTS OF ANJOU AND OF CHARTRES.

WITH Geoffrey Grisegonelle, and still more with Fulk Nerra, we begin to get on firmer historical ground than we can find in the days of the earlier Counts. Fulk fills an important place in the history of Rudolf Glaber, having two whole chapters (ii. 3, 4) pretty well to himself. And the exploits of Geoffrey derive more or less of corroborative testimony from several independent sources. The panegyrist of the family (Gest. Cons. 246) tells us that Geoffrey took an active part in resisting Otto's invasion of France in 978 (see vol. i. p. 236). And in the inscription from Loches printed in Pertz, iii. 623, we find what is evidently meant to be an account of the same war, and that in the words of Fulk Nerra himself, only it is somewhat strangely transferred to the reign of Robert. The story ends, "Rex Rotbertus, congregato generali concilio, consilio patris sui et episcoporum, comitum, baronum, dedit Gaufrido Comiti quidquid Rex Lotharius in episcopatibus suis, Andegavensi scilicet et Cenomannensi, habuerat." We learn from a distinct and contemporary authority that Geoffrey had before that taken a part in that wild raid against Aachen (see vol. i. p. 236) by which Lothar had provoked the German inroad. "Lotarius. . . Lotharingiam calumniatus est. Cujus expeditionibus Gosfridus Comes Andegavorum, pater Fulconis ultimi, interfuit, nostræque ætatis multi viri." (Chron. S. Maxentii, Labbé, ii. 203.) The words "Fulconis ultimi" could hardly have been used during the life of Fulk Nerra; it looks therefore as if the Chronicler wrote, in extreme old age, after Fulk's death in 1040. These entries about Geoffrey's attendance on Lothar fit in curiously with a Breton account (Chron. Brioc. Morice, p. 32), how Geoffrey

THE COUNTS OF ANJOU AND OF CHARTRES.

619

seized on Guerech, the Breton Bishop and Count, on his return from the King's Court, and forced him-setting a precedent for two more famous acts of his grandson—to surrender Nantes.

Rudolf Glaber is very full on the war between Geoffrey and Conan, and the battle of Conquereux ("Concretus" in Rudolf, "Conquerentium" in the Angevin, "Concruz" in the Breton, Chronicles) in the County of Nantes. The Bretons mention two battles on the same spot, one in 982, the other in 992 (v Kal. Julii), when Conan was killed (Chron. Bret. ap. Morice, i. et seqq.); the Angevin writer (Labbé, i. 275) speaks of the latter only. In the battle recorded by Rudolf, Conan seems not to be killed, but to be only "truncatus dexterâ" (ii. 3). Conan, according to Rudolf, had taken the title of King, like several of his predecessors. This assumption may not have been unconnected with the great revolution of 987. Rudolf's account of the Bretons (ii. 3) is amusing. Their land, "finitimum ac perinde vilissimum, Cornu Galliæ nuncupatur." This vile country "habitatur diutius a gente Brittonum, quorum solæ divitiæ primitus fuere libertas fisci publici et lactis copia, qui omni prorsus urbanitate vacui, suntque illis mores inculti ac levis ira et stulta garrulitas." Rudolf indeed is just now so full on Angevin matters that the local panegyrist is often content to copy him.

As for the Counts of Chartres, I was in vol. i. pp. 454, 455, misled by a passage of William of Jumièges (v. 10) into confounding the first and the second Odo. Odo the First died in 995, and was succeeded by his son Theobald, who was followed in 1004 by Odo the second. It was this second Odo who waged the war about Tillières. In D'Achery, iii. 386, there is a charter of Richard the Good, restoring to the Church of Chartres lands which had been alienated from it, doubtless in the war of Tillières.

Rudolf Glaber (iii. 2) calls the younger Odo, "secundus Odo, filius scilicet prioris Odonis, qui quanto potentior, tanto fraudulentior ceteris." He goes on to say, "Fuit etiam juge litigium et bella frequentia inter ipsum Odonem et Fulconem Andegavorum Comitem, quoniam uterque tumidus superbiâ, idcirco et pacis refuga." The Angevin Chronicles, on the other hand, charge King Robert with leaving Fulk to fight their common battles all by himself. This first war, especially the battle of Pontlevois, will

be found narrated in most of the Chronicles of the time. See Gest. Cons. 253; Chronn. Andeg. (Labbé, i. 275, 286, 287) 1016, 1025, 1026, 1027; Chron. S. Maxent. (Labbé, ii. 206) 1016, 1026; Chron. S. Florentii, ap. Morice, 122. The most striking piece of detail, the intervention of Aldebert of Perigeux in 990, comes from Ademar (iii. 34, ap. Pertz, iv. 131); "Urbem quoque Turonis obsidione affectam in deditionem accepit et Fulchoni Comiti Andegavensi donavit. Sed ille ingenio doloso civium amisit post paullulum, et iterum Odo Campanensis eam recuperavit." Odo is prematurely called "Campanensis," as he did not become Count of Champagne till 1019.

Odo's last war (see p. 274) is described, among French writers, by Rudolf Glaber, iii. 9; in the Gesta Consulum, 254; in the Fragment in Duchesne, iv. 97; and in the Chronicle of Saint Peter at Sens (D'Achery, ii. 475), where the date is given as 1046. It is described also by all the German writers, whom the matter more immediately concerned. See the authorities collected by Struvius, Hist. Germ. i. 342, to which may be added the very brief notices of Lambert under the years 1033 and 1037. The Kingdom of Burgundy, which came to an end in 1032 by the death of King Rudolf (see vol. i. p. 731), was claimed by Odo as well as by the Emperor Conrad, both being sisters' sons to Rudolf. Odo obtained some advantages in Burgundy, and he is said to have received an offer of the Crown of Italy. He then contemplated a restoration of the Lotharingian Kingdom and a coronation at Aachen. In Germany he was clearly looked upon as the representative of French aggression. While one manuscript of Hermann calls him "Princeps Gallica Campaniæ," another calls him "Princeps Carlingorum" (see Pertz, v. 121, and the old edition of Pistorius, p. 137). On this very remarkable expression, see vol. i. pp. 600, 601.

But still more remarkable is the sort of echo of these distant events which reached Ireland. In the Annals of Ulster, 1038 (O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scriptt. iv. 324), we read of "prælium inter Cuana Regem ferorum Saxonum et Othonem Regem Francorum, in quo cæsi sunt millia plurima." So in Tigernach, under the same year (O'Conor, i. 287), "Prælium inter Cuanum Regem Saxonum et Otam Regem Francorum, in quo occisi sunt mille cum Otâ.” Here Conrad the Frank is called King of the Saxons. Not only is

THE IMPRISONMENT OF WILLIAM OF AQUITAINE. 621

the Imperial dignity forgotten, but the memory of the great Saxon dynasty seems to extend itself over all succeeding Kings and Emperors. Then Odo, a French Count, striving after the Kingdom of Burgundy, or in truth after any Kingdom that he could get, is magnified into a King of the French. Lastly, "feri" seems to be a standing epithet for all Saxons, whether continental or insular. The Ulster Annals (O'Conor, iv. 326) in the very next year record the death of "Haraldus Rex Saxonum ferorum," that is, Harold the son of Cnut.

NOTE Y. p. 273.

THE IMPRISONMENT OF WILLIAM OF AQUITAINE.

THIS imprisonment of William of Aquitaine is described at greater or less length by a whole crowd of writers. See the Gesta Consulum (257, 258), where the war is very fully narrated; the Angevin Chronicles under 1033; Chron. S. Mich. ap. Labbé, i. 350; Will. Pict. 86; Will. Malms. iii. 231; Chron. S. Maxent. 1032, 1035. According to the Gesta the war began out of the quarrel about Saintonge, and it is probably with reference to that county that both William of Poitiers and William of Malmesbury speak of the Duke of Aquitaine as the "lord" (dominus) of Geoffrey. Fulk Nerra himself also in a letter to King Robert, preserved among the letters of Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (Duchèsne, iv. 192), speaks of "Guillemus Pictavorum Comes herus meus." The Chronicle of Saint Maxentius also speaks of the battle "juxta monasterium Sancti Jovini ad Montem Cærium" (Labbé, ii. 207). It is of course dwelt on at much greater length in the Gesta.

The cession of Bourdeaux, asserted by William of Malmesbury, seems hardly credible. The author of the Gesta, generally not disposed to underrate the successes of the Angevin house, speaks only of the cession of the disputed territory of Saintonge. William of Poitiers (86) says only that "argenti et auri pondus gravissimum, atque prædia ditissima extorsit." And the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius (a. 1036) speaks of no territorial cession at all, but only of a ransom; "Isembertus Episcopus Pictavis fecit synodum, ubi magnam pacem [doubtless the Truce of God] firmavit. Qui, cum Eustachiâ uxore