Having now examined the direct evidence for the statement that the citizens were forced to surrender unconditionally to William by the successful breaching of their walls, I propose to show that the acceptance of this statement does violence not only to the facts of the case, but to all that is known of William's character, to the English Chronicle, and to Domesday; and I shall prove that it rests beyond dispute 'on the foundation of a single error'.
Assuming for the moment the accuracy of Mr Freeman's version, namely, that the city had been placed, by a breach, absolutely at William's mercy, what treatment of its citizens would his character and his whole career lead us to expect? 'At all stages of his life,' as Mr Freeman observed, paraphrasing the famous words of the English Chronicle (1087), 'if he was debonnair to those who would do his will, he was beyond measure stern to all who withstood it' (ii. 167). Again, speaking of his march on Exeter, the Professor insisted on the fact that 'the policy of William was ever severity to those who withstood him, and gentleness to those who submitted to his yoke'.[25] How he applied this principle in practice was shown at Romney and at Dover in 1066. Romney had successfully resisted the landing of a party of Normans,[26] and William was resolved to avenge the deed.
It was his policy now, as ever, to be harsh whenever he met with resistance, and gentle to all who submitted easily.... Harrying then as he went, William reached Romney. The words which set forth his doings there are short, pithy, and terrible. He took what vengeance he would for the slaughter of his men (iii. 533-4).
Dover, on the contrary, made no resistance, but surrendered before he 'had thrown up a bank, or shot an arrow'. It was, therefore, 'plainly his policy to show himself mild and debonnair as it had been his policy at Romney to show himself beyond measure stark'.[27]
Such being William's settled principle, what might the citizens of Exeter expect? Even before the siege began the fear that they had sinned too deeply for forgiveness made them disown the capitulation their leaders had arranged.[28] The reference is doubtless to conduct similar to that which had brought upon Romney William's merciless vengeance.[29] But how stood the case at its close?
- (1) They were rebels. And for these 'rebels, as they were deemed in Norman eyes' (iv. 135), confiscation was the penalty (iv. 127-8).
- (2) 'The movement at Exeter' was not merely a rebellion, but one which was 'specially hateful in William's eyes' (iv. 140).
- (3) They had been guilty of 'cruel and insulting treatment' to William's earlier emissaries (iv. 138).
- (4) They had offered William himself an 'insult as unseemly as it was senseless' (iv. 155).
- (5) They had flung to the winds their own capitulation with such audacity that William 'ira repletus est' (iv. 152).
- (6) They had offered a prolonged and desperate resistance, costing the lives of many of his men (iv. 156).
Verily, in William's eyes, the cup of Exeter's iniquities must have been exceedingly full.
Even in cases of ordinary resistance his practice, we learn, was so uniform that Mr Freeman could take it for granted, 'after the fall of Exeter', that
the heavy destruction which fell on the town of Barnstaple, in the north-western part of Devonshire, and the still heavier destruction which fell on the town of Lidford, might seem to show that these two boroughs were special scenes of resistance (iv. 163).[30]