saint of Steyning], but had been lately impeded by a bridge that had been erected at Bramber. Here then was another Sussex port placed in Norman hands. Yet this does not exhaust the list. Mr. Freeman seems to have strangely overlooked the fact that the great benefice of Bosham, valued under the Confessor at £300 a year, had been conferred by Edward on his Norman chaplain, Osbern, afterwards (1073) Bishop of Exeter, whose brother, in the words of the Regius Professor, was the "Duke's earliest and dearest friend," and who, of course, was of kin both to William and to Edward. Now this Bosham, with Thorney Island, commanded a third Sussex harbour, Chichester haven." But at London itself also we find the Normans favoured. The very interesting charter of Henry the Second, granted by him, as Duke of the Normans, in 1150 or 1151, to the citizens of Rouen, confirms them in possession of their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the days of Edward the Confessor.8 Here then we have evidence-which seems to have eluded the research of our historians, both general and local—that, even before the Conquest, the citizens of Rouen had a haven of their own at the mouth of the Walbrook, for which they were probably indebted to the Norman proclivities of the Confessor. The building of "Richard's Castle" plays a most important part in Mr. Freeman's narrative of the doings of the Normans under Edward the Confessor. We hear of its building, according to him, in September, 1051: Just at this moment another instance of the insolence and violence of the foreigners in another part of the kingdom served to stir up men's minds to the highest pitch. Among the Frenchmen who had flocked to the land of promise was one named Richard the son of Scrob, who had received a grant of lands in Herefordshire. He and See for Osbern, Mr. A. S. Ellis's Domesday Tenants in Gloucestershire, p. 18. May not Peter, William's. chaplain, Bishop of Lichfield, 1075, have similarly been the Peter who was a chaplain of Edward? 8 Chèruel's Histoire de Rouen pendant l'époque communale, i. 245. Richard and his Castle 321 his son Osbern had there built a castle on a spot which, by a singularly lasting tradition, preserves to this day the memory of himself and his building. The fortress itself has vanished, but its site is still to be marked, and the name of Richard's castle, still borne by the parish in which it stood, is an abiding witness of the deep impression which its erection made on the minds of the men of those times. . . . Here then was another wrong, a wrong perhaps hardly second to the wrong which had been done at Dover. Alike in Kent and Herefordshire, men had felt the sort of treatment which they were to expect if the King's foreign favourites were to be any longer tolerated.9 Accordingly, Godwine, Mr. Freeman wrote, demanded (8th September, 1051) "the surrender of Eustace and his men and of the Frenchmen of Richard's Castle." In a footnote to this statement, he explained that "The castle' [of the Chronicle] undoubtedly means Richard's Castle, as it must mean in the entry of the next year in the same Chronicle." 10 Of the entry in question (1052) he wrote "The castle' is doubtless Richard's Castle. . . . Here again the expressions witness to the deep feeling awakened by the building of this castle." So, too, in a special appendix we read: A speaking witness to the impression which had been made on men's minds by the building of this particular Richard's Castle, probably the first of its class in England, is given by its being spoken of distinctively as "the castle" even by the Worcester chronicler (1052; see p. 309), who had not spoken of its building in his earlier narrative.12 We have, thus far, a consistent narrative. There was in Herefordshire one castle, built by Richard and named after him. It had been the cause of oppression and ravage, and its surrender, as such, had been demanded by Godwine in 1051. A year later (September, 1052) Godwine triumphs; "It was needful to punish the authors of all the evils that had happened" (p. 333); and "all the French B. H. • N.C., ii. 136-8. 10 Ibid., p. 140. 12 Ibid., p. 607. Y men who had caused them were at last outlawed. But now comes the difficulty, as Mr. Freeman pointed out: The sentence did not extend to all the men of Norman birth or of French speech who were settled in the country. It was meant to strike none but actual offenders. By an exception capable of indefinite and dangerous extension, those were excepted 'whom the King liked, and who were true to him and all his folk' (ii. 334). We have a list of those who were thus excepted, which contains some names which we are surprised to find there. The exception was to apply to those only who had been true to the king and his people. Yet among the Normans who remained we find Richard, the son of Scrob, and among those who returned we find his son Osbern. These two men were among the chief authors of all evil (ii. 344). That is to say, the Lord of Richard's castle, on whose surrender and punishment Godwine had specially insisted, was specially exempted, as guiltless, when Godwine returned to power.13 In me, at least, this discrepancy aroused grave suspicion, and I turned to see what foundation there was for identifying the offending garrison of 1051 with that of Richard's castle. I at once discovered there was none whatever. We have here, in short, one of those cases, characteristic, as I think, of the late Professor's work, in which he first formed an idea, and then, under its spell, fitted the facts to it without question. The view, for instance, of the unique position of Richard's castle as "the castle" at the time is at once rendered untenable by the fact that, on the return of Godwine, Normans fled "some west to Pentecostes castle, some north to Robert's castle," in the words of the Chronicle.14 Moreover, the former belonged to Osbern, "whose surname was Pentecost" (cognomento Pentecost), who, as we learn from Florence, was forced to surrender 13 "Norman Richard still held his castle in Herefordshire" (Hunt's Norman Britain, p. 69). 14 Mr. Clark refers to this passage, adding :-"So that these places, probably like Richard's castle, were in Norman hands” (M. M. A., i. 37). The Two Osberns Confused 323 it and leave the country, as was also the fate of another castellan, his comrade Hugh.15 It is important to observe the clear distinction between Richard, son of Scrob, of Richard's castle, and Osbern Pentecost, of Pentecost's castle, of whom the former was allowed to remain, while the latter was exiled. But it is another peculiarity of Mr. Freeman's work that he was apt to confuse different individuals bearing the same name.16 In this instance, he boldly assumed that "Pentecost, as we gather from Florence [?] . . . is the same as Osbern, the son of Richard of Richard's castle, of whom we have already heard so much" (ii. 329), although the latter, a wellknown man, is always distinguished as the son of his father, and never as Pentecost. And he further assumes that "Pentecost's castle was identical with Richard's castle, "the first cause of so much evil" (ibid.). These identifications led him into further difficulty, because Osbern, the son of Richard, is found afterwards holding "both lands and offices in Herefordshire" (ii. 345). To account for this, he further assumes as "certain that Osbern afterwards returned" (ibid.). This assumption led him on to suggest that others also returned from exile, and that "their restoration was owing to special entreaties of the King after the death of Godwine" (ii. 346). The whole of this history is sheer assumption, based on confusion alone. Now let us clear our minds of this confusion, and keep the two castellans and their respective castles apart. On the one hand, we have Richard, the son of Scrob, who was left undisturbed at his castle, and was succeeded there by 15 "Osbernus vero, cognomento Pentecost, et socius ejus Hugo sua reddiderunt castella." 16 I have noted several cases in point, that of Walter Giffard being the most striking. But we also read in William Rufus (ii. 551) that “Henry, son of Swegen, who comes so often under Henry the Second, is the unlucky descendant of Robert, son of Wymarc," that is to say, Henry " of Essex," who was a son of Robert, not of Swegen, and who belonged to a wholly different family and district. his son Osbern; 17 on the other hand, we have Osbern, "whose surname was Pentecost," and who had to surrender his castle, to which the guilty Normans had fled, and to go into exile. Can we identify that castle? I would venture to suggest that it was no other than that of Ewyas Harold in the south-west corner of Herefordshire, of which Domesday tells us that Earl William had refortified it ("hoc castellum refirmaverat"), implying that it had existed, and been dismantled before the Conquest It heads, in the great survey, the possessions of Alfred of Marlborough, and although its holder T.R.E. is not mentioned, we read of the two Manors which follow it: "Hæc duo maneria tenuit Osbernus avunculus Alveredi T.R.E. quando Goduinus et Heraldus erant exulati" (i. 186). Mr. Freeman, of course, assumed that this Osbern was identical with Osbern, the son of Richard, the Domesday tenantin-chief. This assumption is not only baseless, but also most improbable: for Alfred was old enough to be fatherin-law to Thurstan (Mortimer), a Domesday tenant, and would scarcely therefore be young enough to be nephew to another Domesday tenant-in-chief. I would suggest that his uncle was that Osbern "Pentecost" who had to surrender his castle and flee on the return of Godwine and Harold. This would exactly fit in with the Domesday statement, as also with the dismantling of Ewyas Castle.18 Ewyas Harold fits in also with the chronicle's mention of the Normans fleeing "west" to Pentecost's castle. We have now seen that Richard's castle did not stand alone, and that there is nothing to identify it with that Herefordshire castle ("ænne castel ") of which the garrison had committed outrages in 1051, and which is far more likely, so far as our evidence goes, to have been "Pentecost's 17 "Worse than all, the original sinners of the Herefordshire border, Richard and his son Osbern, were still lords of English soil, and holders of English offices” (iv. 53). 18 Named, as Mr. Freeman pointed out, after Harold, son of Earl Ralph, not after Harold, son of Godwine. |