READING GUIDE, WEEK 2: Kingship
A. William
of Malmesbury, on the Battle of Hastings, excerpted from his History
of the Kings of England
The Battle of Hastings was one of the few significant pitched battles
of the Middle Ages. In January of 1066 King Edward the Confessor of England
had died without heirs. It was said that on his deathbed Edward had designated
his wife’s brother, Earl Harold of Wessex, as his heir. Since Harold was
the most powerful Earl in the kingdom, he duly succeeded Edward as King
Harold. But William, the duke of Normandy, a large province in northwestern
France, disputed Harold’s right to the throne for a variety of reasons.
According to William, Harold was thus an oathbreaker who had stolen what
was rightfully William’s. William gathered an army, and, in September
of 1066, landed in southern England near the town of Hastings, where he
met Harold in battle. William of Malmesbury was one of the most famous
and respected English monastic historians (that is, he was a monk) of the
12th century. During the process of writing his epic “History of
the Kings of England,” he studied in many monasteries throughout England
and talked to noblemen of the realm. His “History” is therefore given much
credence by modern historians, even though it was written 70 years after
Hastings.
1. Make sure you can recreate the sequence of events that led to William’s
victory. How did the battle progress? Why did William and the Normans
win?
2. Historians of the Middle Ages (perhaps like modern ones!) were hardly
impartial. Can you detect a slant to William’s account of the battle?
3. What does William of Malmesbury have to say about the character
of the Normans? of the English? In what ways does he think that their ‘national
characters’ helped contribute to the outcome of the battle? Is this a fair
interpretation, do you think?
4. What picture of William the Conqueror do we derive from this account?
What were his virtues? What were his failings? From this brief excerpt
can we begin to establish a model of kingship?
5. How can we reconcile William of Malmesbury’s comments about the
English with the fact that he was English?
B. Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle: on William the Conqueror’s Character, 1087
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is more properly termed an annal, for it
was a document that was updated annually; at the end of the year the monks
who kept the chronicle recorded the great events of the year. It
is called “Anglo-Saxon” because it was begun in the 8th century, when the
Anglo-Saxon kings ruled England. The chronicle was continued through the
Norman conquest and only petered out in 1154 (to be replaced by more ‘profesional’
historians like William of Malmesbury).
1. The monks keeping the Chronicle liked to assess rulers after they
had died (William died in 1087). What did they find praisworthy about the
king? What did they criticize about him?
2. Come up with a list of terms that define William’s kingship.
3. Notice in paragraph 3 the reference to a ‘great survey’; this refers
to the Domesday Book, which was commanded in 1086 and completed in 1087.
4. What relationship ought a king have to the church, according to
the chronicle?
C. Domesday
Book (Instructions and Extract), 1087
The Domesday Book (so called because it’s comprehensiveness seemed
analagous to Doomsday, especially to those who wanted to avoid paying taxes
to the king) was a titanic effort to compile statistics concerning land-holding
in England. Some terms: England was divided into shires (like counties);
the official who oversaw the king’s interests in each shire was called
the sheriff. Many shires were further divided into hundreds for purposes
of law, taxation, and village identity. The basic unit of rural organization
was the manor. Manors varied widely in size, but usually anywhere from
5-20 manors comprised a hundred. Sometimes manors were identical in shape
and size to peasant villages, but occasionally a large village might be
broken into several manors, or sometimes several villages might be grouped
into one manor. As we shall see later in the course, ‘peasant’ is
a generic word describing poor rural laborers of a wide variety of sorts:
in this text villains (or villeins), free-men, soc-men, cottars, bordars
and serfs are all peasants of slightly different status. Within a typical
manor, the land was divided according to custom; part of it (sometimes
as much as half) was designated for the use and profit of the aristocratic
lord of that manor. This part of the manor is known as the demesne (or
domain); the rest of the land of the manor was divided into plots alloted
to individual peasant households. The exact size of the demesne or
of a peasant plot was described in terms of acres, carucates, leagues,
or firlongs (all are measurements of land). If a lord were wealthy
he might own many hundreds of manors. As a result, he generally left the
day-to-day supervision of the manor to an official (often of peasant birth)
called the reeve.
1. The ‘Instructions’ in the text were delivered by the king to each
of his sheriffs; they describe the process by which the Domesday Book was
made. What specific things did the king want to know about each manor?
2. How did the king expect to get this information?
3. The king was also interested in the overall value of the manor,
and especially in how its value had changed over time. What dates did he
use as guideposts for establishing value?
4. From the sample entries we learn how the Domesday Book was organized:
first by shire (in our case Norfolk), then by major aristocratic landholder
(here, Robert Malet), then by hundred and manor (for instance, the first
entry is from Fredrebruge Hundred and involves the manor of Glorestorp).
Why did he organize the book in this way?
5. From this selection what seems to have been the trend in land values
in Norfolk? Had they risen or fallen?
6. All the entries in our excerpt belong to the large estate (or fief)
of Robert Malet, one of the king’s trusted men. Yet you will note (see
for example the manor of Culverstestun) that often these great lords granted
some of their lands to some of their lesser (but still aristocratic) followers.
Why might they do this?
7. Why did William command the Domesday book to be created? To what
use might he put it? Can you see any flaws in William’s plan?
D. Orderic
Vitalis on King Henry I
The on-line text contains an excellent introduction to this text. I
need not repeat it here. There are many names and places in this text,
but you should focus on (ie., memorize) only the most important: Orderic,
Henry I, Duke Robert, Robert of Belleme, Eustace of Breteuil, and Eustace’s
wife Juliana. We are interested here in Orderic’s thoughts about good rulership,
not in memorizing genealogies.
1. What does this tell us about royal justice? how did it work? How
extensive was it? Over what things and people did Henry I have jurisdiction?
2. From this text, what can we learn about medieval warfare? How did
warring parties usually proceed?
3. What does forfeiture mean? When and why did it occur?
4. Loyalty, treason and honor are fundamental concepts that underpin
Orderic’s account. How were aristocrats (and the king) affected and/or
influenced by these traits?
5. What seems to be the difference between the feudal garrison and
the mercenaries? Do they act differently? Why?
6. Why does Orderic think Robert of Belleme was truly a bad man? What
separates him and his actions from the actions of those nobles that Orderic
sees as good and fair? Give examples of his actions that support this point.
7. Orderic wants us to contrast the character and actions of Henry
I with his brother Duke Robert. What does Orderic think about Robert? Is
he a good duke? a good ruler? Why or why not? Look at the adjectives Orderic
uses to describe the duke. Conversely, was Henry I a good king? a
good ruler? Why or why not?
8. What was the origin of Eustace’s complaint with Henry I? What does
this tell us about the expectations of the aristocracy? What does Orderic
think of Eustace? Does he see him as evil (like Robert of Belleme)? Why
?
9. Take note of the treatment of hostages. Why were hostages given?
What does this tell us about royal power?
10. What do the aristocrats think about the value of vengeance? Does
Orderic agree?
11. What role does Juliana play? Does she have power? Of what sort?
What does Eustace entrust her with? How does she act towards Henry I? Does
this surprise you?
12. What stereotypes about women does Orderic offer here?
13. How did the feud between Eustace and Henry end? Are you surprised
by Henry’s actions? Why? What does this tell us about the expectations
of kingship?
E. Peter
of Blois, Description of King Henry II (from a letter written in 1177)
Henry II was the grandson of Henry I. Lord in his own right of the
important French provinces of Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine, as well
as (by marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine) Aquitaine, he became King of England
at the end of a civil war in 1154. This vast collection of territories
(England and half of France) is sometimes called the Angevin Empire by
modern historians. By the 1170s Henry was clearly the most powerful monarch
in Europe. Peter of Blois was a churchman who worked in the king’s chancery;
he wrote hundreds of letters to important men of all sorts, and this one
contains the best description of Henry II. The letter refers to the
famous murder of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. Thomas,
formerly a friend and official of Henry’s, was appointed archbishop by
the king, and although Henry expected Thomas to continue to act as his
servant, Thomas took his duties seriously and tried to preserve the liberty
of the church from royal control. A long series of disputes between king
and archbishop took place in the 1160s. Finally, in 1170, four of
Henry’s household knights took it upon themselves to rid the king of this
thorn in his side; they rode to Canterbury and hacked the archbishop to
death in front of the high altar. Thomas was immediately revered as a saint,
and Henry, although probably innocent of the murder, was forced to perform
humiliating public penance.
1. What did Henry II look like physically?
2. What was Henry II’s temperament like? Does his temperament help
explain his success as king?
3. What did Henry spend his days doing?
4. What did Henry think about learning? about education? is this important?
Why?
5. What does Peter say about the Thomas Becket affair? What is his
verdict on the king’s culpability?
F. Magna
Carta, 1215
Magna Carta, or the “Great Charter,” was a document issued by King
John of England in 1215. As such it had the force of law. What is
significant about this, however, is that he was forced to issue this particular
law by a group of rebellious barons. Those barons (aristocrats) were
angry because they thought that John was trying to curtail their traditional
rights and duties and to expand the powers of the monarchy. The political
context was important, too, for John had been trying to raise money to
pay for an attempt to reconquer the lands he had lost to King Philip of
France in 1203-1204. Although the specific articles of Magna Carta
are fairly straight-forward, the difficulty comes in interpreting its overall
meaning and significance. Some have seen it as a shining beacon of
democracy, others as nothing more than a typical list of feudal rights
and responsibilities. Our duty is to try to put ourselves in the
shoes of both King John and the barons and ask what they were thinking
about when they conceived this document; remember, too, that 13th century
aristocrats did not share the same general assumptions about human nature,
political structure, social structure, and “fairness” as 21st century undergraduates.
1. Is this document a radical blueprint for democracy or a conservative
statement of feudal society? What was motivating the barons? What did they
intend by forcing John to sign and issue this document?
2. The form of this document is significant. Charters conveyed, or
preserved, liberties. If you possessed a charter in the 13th century,
it meant you had a written guarantee of certain privileges from a lord.
Why does it make sense that the barons’ demands appear in the form of a
charter?
3. What is relief (#2)? What does this clause suggest about John’s
behavior prior to 1215?
4. Why were the barons so interested in guardians and guardianship
(sometimes called wardship)?
5. What do clauses 7 and 8 suggest about John’s behavior toward widows?
6. Why is clause 12 so important? Were the barons trying to assert
a general principle of government here? Or were their concerns more immediate?
7. Clause 14 talks about summoning subjects for the purpose of consent.
Is this a parliament yet?
8. What can we learn about justice and law from clauses 16-22?
9. What do the restrictions on royal constables and sheriffs (nos.
28-30) suggest had been going on before 1215? What is the barons’ goal
here? To eliminate royal government?
10. Clauses 38-40 are crucial to the development of later ideas of
limited government. Examine them closely.
11. What does clause 49 tell us about John’s way of ensuring the loyalty
of his men?
12. How should we explain clause 50? Who (probably) are these men?
Why do the barons want them removed?
13. What does clause 54 suggest about women’s ability to plead in law
courts?
14. How did the barons plan to make John keep his word about all of
this?
15. What was the council of 25? What powers did it have? How was it
to work?
16. Clause 61 is often said to include a “right to rebellion”.
Can you find it?
17. What implications does clause 61 have for the power and nature
of the monarchy?
18. I stated above that John had been trying to raise money for a war
in France to regain his lost lands. Draw up a list of those practices
that John had probably been performing as a means of raising money.
What did the barons think of this? Did they oppose his right to collect
money, or was it something else that angered them?
INFORMAL WRITING ASSIGNMENT: [applicable only to 221-02] (due
January 24)
Write a 2-paragraph response
to the following: Why did Orderic think Henry I was a good king?