John de Maundevile Adam Undevile Bernard de Frevile Richard de Rochvile Gilbard de Frankvile Hugo de Dovile Symond de Rotevile R. de Evyle B. de Knevuile Hugo de Morvile R. de Colevile A. de Warvile C. de Karvile R. de Rotevile S. de Stotevile
H. Bonum J. Monum W. de Vignoum
K. de Vispount W. Bailbeof S. de Baleyne H. de Marreys J. Aguleyne G. Agilon R. Chamburlayne N. de Vendres H. de Verdon H. de Verto C. de Vernon H. Hardul C. Cappan W. de Camvile I. de Cameyes
R. de Rotes R. de Boys W. de Waren
T. de Wardboys R. de Boys W. de Audeley
K. Dynham R. de Vaures G. Vargenteyn
I. de Hastings G. de Hastank L. de Burgee R. de Butuileyn H. de Malebranche S. de Malemain G. de Hautevile H. Hauteyn R. de Morteyn R. de Mortimere G. de Kanovile E. de Columb
W. Paynel C. Panner H. Pontrel
I. de Rivers T. Revile W. de Beauchamp
R. de Beaupale E. de Ou F. Lovel
S. de Troys I. de Artel John de Montebrugg H. de Mounteserel W. Trussebut W. Trussel
H. Byset R. Basset R. Molet
H. Malovile G. Bonet P. de Bonvile S. de Rovile N. de Norbec I. de Corneux P. de Corbet W. de Mountague S. de Mountfychet I. de Genevyle H. Gyffard I. de Say
T. Gilbard R. de Chalons S. de Chauward S. de Chauward Hugo Pepard H. Feret
J. de Harecourt H. de Haunsard J. de Lamare P. de Mautrever G. de Ferron R. de Ferrets I. de Desty W. de Werders H. de Bornevyle J. de Saintenys S. de Seueler R. de Gorges E. de Gemere W. de Feus S. de Filberd H. de Turberwyle R. Troblenuer R. de Angon T. de Morer T. de Rotelet H. de Spencer E. de Saintquinten G. de Custan I. de Saint Martin Saint Constantin Saint Leger et Saint Med. M. de Cronu et de St. Viger.
S. de Crayel R. de Crenker N. Meyuell I. de Berners S. de Chumli E. de Charers J. de Grey W. de Grangers S. de Grangers
S. Baubenyn H. Vamgers E. Bertram
R. Bygot S. Treoly I. Trigos
G. de Feues H. Filiot R. Taperyn
S. Talbot It. Santsaver T. de Samford G. de Vandien C. de Vantort G. de Mountague Thomas de
Chambernon S. de Montfort R. de Fernevaux
W. de Valence T. Clarel S. de Clervaus P. de Aubemarle H. de Saint Arvant E. de Auganuteys S. de Gant G. de Malearbe H. Mandut W. Chesun L. de Chandut B. Filzurs B. vicount de Low G. de Cantemere T. de Cantlow R. Breaunce T. de Broxeboof S. de Bolebee B. Mol de Boef J. de Muelis R. de Bins S. de Brewes J. de Lylle T. de Bellyle I. de Watervile G. de Nevyle R. de Neuburgh H. de Burgoyne G. de Bourgh S. de Lymoges
L. de Lyben W. de Helyun H. de Hildrebron R. de Loges S. de Seintlow I. de Maubank P. de Saint Malow R. de Leoferne J. de Lovotot G. de Dabbevyte H. de Appetot W. de Percy
I. de Lacy C. de Quincy E. Tracy
R. de la Souche S. de Somery I. de Saint John T. de Saint Gory P. de Boyly Richard de Saint Valery P. de Pinkeni S. de Pavely G. de Monthaut T. de Mountchesy R. de Lymozy G. de Lucy J. de Artoys N. de Arty P. de Grenvyle I. de Greys S. de Cresty F. de Courcy T. de Lamar H. de Lymastz J. de Monbray C. de Morley S. de Gorney R. de Courtenay P. de Gourney R. de Cony I. de la Huse R. de la Huse V. de Longevyle P. Longespye J. Pouchardon R. de la Pomercy J. de Pountz R. de Pontlarge R. Estraunge Thomas Savage
A little above mention was made of the bishop’s see of Sherborne, translated from thence to Salisbury. The first bishop of Salisbury was Hirman, a Norman who first began the new church and minister of Salisbury. After him succeeded Osmund, who finished the work, and replenished the house with great living and much good singing. This Osmund first began the ordinary, which was called ‘Secundum usum Sarum.’ Anno. 1076, the occasion whereof was this as I find in an old story-book, entitled ‘Eulogium.’ a173 f253
A great contention chanced at Glastonbury between Thurstan the abbot, and his convent, in the days of William the Conqueror. This Thurstan the said William had brought out of Normandy from the abbey of Caen, and placed him abbot of Glastonbury.
The cause of this contentious battle was, for that Thurstan, contemning their choir-service, then called ‘The use of St. Gregory,’ compelled his monks to ‘The use of William,’ a monk of Fescam, in Normandy.
Whereupon came strife and contentions amongst them, first in words, then from words to blows, after blows then to armor. The abbot, with his guard of harnessed men, fell upon the monks, and drove them to the steps of the
high altar, where two were slain, and eight were wounded with shafts, swords, and pikes. The monks, then driven to such a strait and narrow shift, were compelled to defend themselves with forms and candlesticks, wherewith they did wound certain of the soldiers. One monk there was, an aged man, who instead of his shield took an image of the crucifix in his arms for his defense, which image was wounded in the breast by one of the bowmen, whereby the monk was saved. My story addeth more, that the striker, incontinent upon the same, fell mad, which savoureth of some monkish addition besides the text. This matter being brought before the king, the abbot was sent again to Caen, and the monks, by the
commandment of the king, were scattered in far countries. Thus, by the occasion hereof, Osmund, bishop of Salisbury, devised that ordinary, which is called, ‘The use of Sarum,’ and was afterward received in a manner through all England, Ireland, and Wales. And thus much for this matter, done in the time of this King William.
This William, after his death, by his wife Matilda, or Maud, left three sons, Robert Courtsey, to whom he gave the duchy of Normandy; William Rufus, his second son, to whom he gave the kingdom of England; and Henry, the third son, to whom he left and gave treasure, and warned William to be to his people loving and liberal, Robert to be to his people stern and sturdy.
In the history called ‘Jornalensis,’ it is reported of a certain great man, who about this time of King William was compassed about with mice and rats, and flying to the midst of a river, yet when that would not serve, came to the land again, and was of them devoured. The Germans say that this was a bishop, who dwelling between Cologne and Mentz, in time of famine and dearth, having store of corn and grain, would not help the poverty crying to him for relief, but rather wished his corn to be eaten up of mice and rats.
Wherefore, being compassed with mice and rats, by the just judgment of God, to avoid the annoyance of them, he built a tower in the midst of the river Rhine, which yet to this day the Dutchmen call ‘Rat’s Tower;’ but all that would not help, for the rats and mice swam over to him in as great abundance as they did before, of whom at length he was devoured.
WILLIAM RUFUS F254
WILLIAM RUFUS, the second son of William the Conqueror, began his reign A.D. 1087, and reigned thirteen years, being crowned at Westminster by Lanfranc; who, after his coronation, released out of prison, by the request of his father, divers English lords, who before had been in custody. It chanced that, at the death of William the Conqueror, Robert Courtsey, his eldest son, was absent in Almany, who, hearing of the death of his father, and how William, his younger brother, had taken upon him the kingdom, was therewith greatly moved; insomuch that he laid his dukedom to pledge unto his brother Henry, and with that good gathered unto him an army, and so landed at Hampton, to the intent to have expelled his brother from the kingdom. But William Rufus, hearing thereof, sent to him fair and gentle words, promising him dedition and subjection, as to the more
worthy and cider brother; this thing only requiring, that seeing he was now in place and possession, he might enjoy it during his life, paying to him yearly three thousand marks, on condition that which of them overlived the other should enjoy the kingdom. The occasion of this variance between these brethren wrought a great dissension between the Norman lords and bishops, both in England and in Normandy, insomuch that all the Norman bishops within the realm almost rebelled against the king, taking part with Duke Robert, except only Lanfranc, and Wolstan, bishop of Worcester, above-mentioned, an Englishman; who, for his virtue and constancy, was so well liked and favored of his citizens, that emboldened with his
presence and prayer, they stoutly maintained the city of Worcester against the siege of their enemies, and at last vanquished them with utter ruin. But Duke Robert, at length, by the advice of his council (hearing the words sent unto him, and wagging his head thereat, as one conceiving some matter of doubt or doubleness), was yet content to assent to all that was desired, and so returned shortly after into Normandy, leaving the bishops, and such others, in the briars, who were in England, taking his part against the king.
This Rufus was so ill liked of the Normans, that between him and his lords was oft dissension; wherefore well near all the Normans took part against him, so that he was forced of necessity to draw to him the Englishmen.
Again, so covetous he was, and so immeasurable in his tasks and takings, in selling benefices, abbies, and bishoprics, that he was hated of all Englishmen.
In the third year of this king died Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, from whose commendation and worthiness, as I list not to detract anything (being so greatly magnified of Polydore, his countryman) so neither do I see any great cause why to add any thing thereunto. This I think, unless that man had brought with him less superstition, and more sincere science into Christ’s church, he might have kept him in his own country still, and have confuted Berengrius at home. After the decease of Lanfranc, the see of Canterbury stood empty four years.
After the council of Lanfranc above mentioned, wherein was concluded for translating of bishops’ sees from villages into head cities, Remigius, bishop of Dorchester, who, as ye heard, accom panied Lanfranc to Rome, removed his bishop’s see from Dorchester to Lincoln, where he built the minster, situated upon a hill within the said city of Lincoln. The dedication of that church Robert, archbishop of York, did resist, saying, that it was built within the ground of his precinct; but afterwards it had his Romish dedication by Robert Bleuet, next bishop that followed. By the same Remigius, also, was founded the cloister or monastery of Stow, etc.
In the fourth year of this king great tempests fell in sundry places in England, specially at Winchcombe, where the steeple was burned with lightning, the church wall burst through, the head and right leg of the crucifix, with the image of our Lady on the right side of the crucifix, thrown down, and such a stencil left in the church, that none might abide it. In London the force of the weather and tempest overturned six hundred houses. In the same tempest the roof of Bow church was hurled up in the wind, and by the vehe-mency thereof was pitched down a great deepness into the ground.
King William, as ye have heard, an exceeding pillager, or ravener rather, of church goods, after he had given the bishopric of Lincoln to his chancellor, Robert Bleuet, above mentioned, began to cavil; a vouching the see of Lincoln to belong to the see of York, till the bishop of Lincoln had pleased him with a great sum of money, of five thousand marks, etc.
As nothing could come in those days without money from the king, so Herbert Losinga, paying to the king a piece of money, was made bishop of Thetford, as he had paid a little before to be abbot of Ramsey; who, likewise, at the same time, removing his see from Thetford to the city of
Norwich, there erected the cathedral church, with the cloister, in the said city of Norwich, where he furnished the monks with sufficient living and rents of his own charges, besides the bishop’s lands. Afterward, repenting of his open and manifest simony, he went to Rome, where he resigned into the pope’s hands his bishopric, but so that immediately he received it again. This Herbert was the son of an abbot called Robert, for whom he purchased of the king to be bishop of Winchester, whereof run these verses:
“Filius est praesul, pater abba, Simon uterque:
Quid non speremus si nummos possideamus?
Omnia nummus habet, quod vult facit, addit et aufert.
Res nimis injusta, nummis fit praesul et abba.”
Ye heard a little before of the death of Pope Hildebrand, after the time of which Hildebrand the German emperors began to lose their authority and right in the pope’s election, and in giving of benefices. For next after this Hildebrand came Pope Victor III, by the setting up of Matilda and the duke of Normandy, with the faction and retinue of Hildebrand, who likewise showed himself stout against the emperor. But God gave the shrewd cow short horns, for Victor being poisoned, as some say, in his chalice, sat but one year and a half. Notwithstanding the same imitation and example of Hildebrand continued still in them that followed after. And, like as the kings of Israel followed for the most part the steps of Jeroboam, till the time of their desolation; so, for the greatest part, all popes followed the steps and proceedings of this Hildebrand, their spiritual Jeroboam, in maintaining false worship, and chiefly in upholding the dignity of the see, against all rightful authority, and the lawful king dom of Sion. In the time of this Victor began the order of the monks of Charterhouse, f255 through the means of one Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and of Bruno of Cologne,
a174 canon of Rheims. f256
Next to Victor sat Urban II, by whom the acts of Hildebrand were confirmed, and also new decrees enacted against Henry the emperor. In this time were two popes at Rome, Urban and Clement III, a175 whom the emperor set up. Under Pope Urban came in the white monks of the
Cistercian order, by one Stephen Harding, a monk of Sherborne, an Englishman, by whom this order had its beginning in the wilderness of Citeaux, within the province of Burgoin, as witnesseth Cestrensis. Others
write that this Harding was the second abbot of that place, and that it was first founded by the means of one Robert, abbot of Molesme, in Citeaux, a forest in Burgundy, A.D. 1098, persuaded perchance by Harding; and afterwards, A.D. 1185, it was brought into England by a certain man called Espek, who built an abbey of the same order called Rievale. f257 In this order the monks did live by the labor of their hands; they paid no tithes nor offerings; they wore no fur nor lining; they wore red shoes, their cowls white, and coats black; they were all shorn save a little circle; they ate no flesh but only on their journey. Of this order was Bernard.
“This Urban held. divers councils; one at Rome, where he excommunicated all such lay persons as gave investure of any ecclesiastical benefice, also all such of the clergy as subjected themselves to be underlings or servants to lay persons for ecclesiastical benefices, etc.
Another council he held. at Clermont f258 in France, A.D. 1095, where among other things, the bishop made an oration to the lords there present, concerning the voyage and recovery of the Holy Land. from the Turks and Saracens. The cause of this voyage first arose through one Peter, a monk or hermit, who, being in Jerusalem, and seeing the great misery of the
Christians under the pagans, made thereof ‘declaration to Pope Urban, and.
was therein a great solicitor to all Christian princes. By reason of this, after the aforesaid oration of Pope Urban, thirty thousand men, taking on them the sign of the cross for their cognizance, made preparation for that voyage, whose captains were Godfrey duke of Lotrain, with his two brethren, Eustace and Baldwin, the bishop of le Puy, Bohemund duke of Apulia, and his nephew Tancred, Raymund earl of St. Gilles, Robert earl of Flanders, and Hugh le Grand, brother of Philip the French king, f259 to whom also was joined Robert Courthoyse, duke of Normandy, with divers other noblemen, with the aforesaid Peter the Hermit, who was the chief cause of that voyage.
At that time many of the said noblemen put their lands and lordships to mortgage, to provide for the aforenamed voyage; as Godfrey, duke of Lorrain, who sold the dukedom of Bouillon to the bishop of Liege a178 for a great sum of money. f260 Also Robert Courthoyse, duke of Normandy, laid his dukedom to pledge to his brother William, king of England, for ten thousand pounds, etc.
Thus, the Christians, who passed first over the Bosphorus, having for their captain Peter the Hermit, a man perchance more devout than expert to guide an army, being trapped of their enemies, were slain and murdered in great numbers among the Bulgarians, and near to the town called Civita.
a179
When the nobles and the whole army met together at Constantinople, where Alexius was emperor, passing over by the Hellespont, going to Jerusalem, they took the cities of Nice, Heraclea, Tarsus, and subdued the country of Cilicia, appointing the possession thereof to certain of their captains.
Antioch was besieged, and in the ninth month of the siege it was yielded to the Christians, by one Phirouz, a180 about which season were fought many strong battles, to the great slaughter and desolation of the Saracens, and not without loss of many Christian men. The governance of this city was committed to Bohemund, duke of Apulia, whose martial knighthood was often proved in time of the siege thereof. And not long after Kerboga, a181 master of the Persian chivalry, was vanquished and slain, with a hundred thousand infidels. In that discomfiture were taken fifteen thousand camels.
Jerusalem, on the nine and thirtieth day of the siege, was conquered by the Christians, and Robert, duke of Normandy, was elect to be king thereof.
f261
Howbeit, he refused it, hearing of the death of King William Rufus of England; wherefore he never sped well in all his affairs after the same.
Then Godfrey, captain of the Christian army, was proclaimed the first king of Jerusalem. At the taking of the city there was such a murder of men that blood was congealed in the streets the thickness of a foot. Then after Godfrey reigned Baldwin, his brother; after him Baldwin the second, his nephew. Then Gaufrid, duke of Gaunt; and after him Gaufrid, his son, by whom many great battles were fought there against the Saracens, and all the country thereabout subdued, save Ascalon, etc. And thus much
hitherto touching the voyage to the Holy Land: now to our own land again.
About this time, as Matthew Paris writeth, the king of England favored not much the see of Rome, because of the impudent and insatiable
exactions which they required; neither would he suffer any of his subjects to go to Rome, alleging these words, “Because they follow not the steps of