ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
VOL. I.
[p. 33, l. 17], dele “the father of one of the men who had crossed the sea to trouble England.” Robert of Bellême had not come yet; see [p. 56.]
[p. 37, note 3]. The comparison of Bristol and Brindisi is a good deal exaggerated; but a certain measure of likeness may be seen.
[p. 94, l. 18], dele “of the same kind.” See the distinction drawn in [p. 604.]
[p. 96, note 2], for “abjuvare” read “abjurare.”
[p. 133, note]. See vol. ii. p. 330.
[p. 180, note]. I do not know how “Esparlon”—Épernon—comes to be reckoned among the possessions of Robert of Bellême. We shall find it in vol. ii. p. 251 in the hands of the French house of Montfort.
[p. 183, l. 4 from bottom], for “Rotrou” read “Geoffrey.”
[p. 184, note 1]. See vol. ii. p. 396.
[p. 214, side-note], for “William of Geroy” read “William son of Geroy.”
[p. 217, l. 13], for “uncle” read “brother.”
[p. 238, note 3], for “Aunde” read “Aumale.”
[p. 243, note 2]. I really ought to have mentioned the wonderful forms of torture which the man of Belial inflicted on his lord and his other prisoners (Ord. Vit. 705 A, B); “Per tres menses in castro Brehervallo eos in carcere strinxit, et multotiens, dum nimia hiems sæviret, in solis camisiis aqua largiter humectatis in fenestra sublimis aulæ Boreæ vel Circio exposuit, donec tota vestis circa corpus vinctorum in uno gelu diriguit.”
[p. 247, l. 3]. I suppose that Walter of Rouen, son of Ansgar, who appears high in the King’s confidence in vol. ii. pp. 241, 370, is a brother of this William. This is worth noting, as showing how Rufus picked out men likely to serve his purpose from all quarters.
[p. 251, l. 5]. See below, [p. 461, note 3]. It would be worth enquiring whether this name Champ de Mars is old or new. There is a Campus Martius at Autun, whose name is certainly at least mediæval; but, as it is within the Roman walls, it can hardly date from the first days of Augustodunum. It divides the upper and lower city, quite another position from that at Rouen.
[p. 298, l. 6]. Orderic is hardly fair to Edgar when he says (778 B), “Hic corpore speciosus, lingua disertus, liberalis et generosus, utpote Edwardi regis Hunorum filius [see 701 D and N. C. vol. ii. p. 672], sed dextera segnis erat, ducemque sibi coævum et quasi collectaneum fratrem diligebat.”
[p. 302, note 1], for “Witan” read “Gemót.”
[p. 307, l. 6]. Something of the kind was actually done somewhat later; see below, [p. 435]. But that was a challenge through ambassadors.
[p. 326, note]. In strictness Anselm did not appeal to the Pope at all. See below, [p. 598].
[p. 335, l. 15], for “unrighteousness” read “unrighteousnesses.”
[p. 353, l. 6 from bottom]. I ought not to have forgotten the character of Ralph Luffa given by William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 205); “Radulfus proceritate corporis insignis, sed et animi efficacia famosus, qui contuitu sacerdotalis officii Willelmo juniori in faciem pro Anselmo archiepiscopo, quem immerito exagitabat, restiterit. Cumque ille, conscientia potestatis elatus, minas ingeminaret, nihil alter reveritus baculum protendit, annulum exuit, ut, si vellet, acciperet. Nec vero vel tunc vel postea austeritatem inflecteret si assertorem haberet. Sed quia discessu suo spem ejus et ceterorum, si qui boni essent, Anselmus enervavit, et tunc causa decidit et postmodum damno succubuit.” This seems at first sight to stand in contradiction to Eadmer’s picture of all the bishops, except possibly Gundulf (see below, pp. [497], [513], [516]), forsaking and renouncing Anselm. We can understand that Eadmer would be inclined to make the worst of the bishops as a body, while William of Malmesbury would be inclined to make the best of the particular bishop of whom he was writing. This is one of the passages in which William of Malmesbury in his second edition watered down the vigorous language of the first. As he first wrote it, the King appeared as “leo ferocissimus Willelmus dico minor.” On second thoughts the comparison with the wild beast was left out.
[p. 355, l. 15]. I have sent Herbert to Rome at this time, in order to bring him back for the meeting at Hastings in 1094. See below, pp. [429], [448]. I find that some difficulty has arisen on account of the words of Eadmer (see [p. 429]), which have been taken as implying that Herbert joined in the consecration of Anselm. Dr. Stubbs puts him on the list in the Registrum. But surely the words might be used if all the bishops came who were in England and able to come.
[p. 355, side-note], for “1091–1093” read “1091–1098.” See vol. ii. p. 267.
[p. 375, note 6], for “perversitatam” read “perversitatem.”
[p. 385, l. 2], for “undoubtedly” read “by himself.”
[p. 408, l. 15]. There must however have been some exceptions. See the Additions and Corrections to vol. ii. p. 508.
[p. 450, l. 3 from bottom]. Yet the guarantors, even on William’s own side, held him to be in the wrong. See [p. 461].
[p. 469, note 1.] The reference is to the passage of Orderic, quoted in vol. ii. p. 537. But it is hard to understand how Henry can have been at war with William in 1094. Yet there is the passage from Sigebert quoted in [p. 471, note 3], where the date must be wrong, but which seems to hang together both with this passage of Orderic and with the suspicions on the Kings part implied in the narrative in the Chronicle.
[p. 469, l. 10], and [note 3], for “son” read “grandson.”
[p. 485, l. 3], for “of” read “to.”
[p. 492, l. 2], put semicolon after “within.”
[p. 506, note 2]. This passage is very singular, especially the words “nec ipsum advertere posse putaverunt.” On this last point the bishops seem to have been right, as Anselm himself nowhere puts forward any such claim to exemption.
[p. 516, note 3]. Besides the difficulty about Gundulf, there is the further difficulty about Ralph of Chichester, who, as we have just seen, is said by William of Malmesbury to have taken Anselm’s side. He at least stood in no such special position to the Archbishop as the Bishop of Rochester did.
[p. 522, side-note], for “May” read “March.”
[p. 546, l. 12]. Worthiest certainly when any actual work was to be done; but the idle sojourn at Laodikeia (see [p. 565]) makes the general epithet too strong.
[p. 551, l. 10], for “Rotrou” read “Geoffrey.”
[p. 571, l. 3]. I believe there is no authority for this English form, “Evermouth,” though it is not unlikely that “Ebremou” may, like so many other names in Normandy, really be a corruption of some such Teutonic name. The place is in Eastern Normandy, in the present department of Lower Seine.
[p. 579, note 1]. This is that singular use of the words “Christianitas” and the like which we find in such phrases as “Courts Christian” and “Deanery of Christianity.” We must not think of such a “subventio Christianitatis” as the Spanish Bishop sought for at the hands of Anselm. See vol. ii. p. 582.
[p. 586, l. 25]. For “three” read “four,” and add the name of Robert Bloet. He is the Robert referred to in the next page.
[p. 604, note 1]. The right to be tried is confined to the Peers; other persons of course may be so tried, if they are impeached by the Commons.
[p. 609, note 1]. When I was at Benevento this year (1880), I had hoped to get a sight of the cope, as the treasury of the metropolitan church is rich in vestments. But they are all of much later date, and I could hear nothing of the relic which I sought for.
[p. 614, last line]. See more in vol. ii. p. 403.