The Brevis Relatio de Guillelmo Nobilissimo Comite Normannorum, Written by a Monk of Battle Abbey, edited with an historical commentary

Elisabeth M. C. van Houts

doi:10.1017/S0960116300000828

^{page 8 note 1} Madan, F., Craster, H. H. S., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian library at Oxford, 7 vols (Oxford, 1895–1953), ii, 712.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} Bannister, A. T., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Hereford Cathedral Library, ed. M. R. James (Hereford, 1927), 147–9.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} For the history of this manuscript and an relevant literature, see van Houts, E. M. C., ‘The Ship list of William the Conqueror’, Anglo-Norman Studies x (1987), ed. Brown, R. A. (Woodbridge, 1988), 165–67, 177 (Appendix 2).Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} For my edition, see ibidem, p. 176 (and a photograph on 175).

^{page 9 note 5} Watson, A. G., Catalogue of dated and datable manuscripts c. 700–1600 in the Department of Manuscripts of the British Library (London, 1979), i, no. 543.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 6} Handlist of Manuscripts in the National Library of Wales, i (Aberystwyth 1943), 2Google Scholar. I am most grateful to Dr Daniel Huws, former Keeper of Manuscripts at the National Library of Wales, for letting me consult his description of the manuscript. The manuscript comprises ff. 192 written in one hand in the ‘anglicana formata’ of the mid-fourteenth century. The contents are 3–61 Secretum secretorum Aristotelis (ed. Steels, R. (Oxford, 1920), 36–172)Google Scholar; 61v–75v Brevis Relatio; 76–90 Generacio regum Scocie. A list of Scottish kings followed by a collection of documents relating to the years 1291–1301; 91–130v Pope Innocent III, ‘De contempu mundi’ (ed. Migne PL 217, 701–46Google Scholar and ed. R. E. Lewis (1980); 131–182v several apocryphal bible texts followed on 182–186v by a collection of miscellaneous verses.

^{page 9 note 7} However, the last paragraph, 21, was edited from this manuscript by Hardy, T. D., Descriptive Catalogue of Materials relating to Great Britain and Ireland, 3 vols (London, 1862–1871), ii, 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 8} Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. Leclerq, J., Rochais, H., viii (Rome 1977), no. 238Google Scholar. Detailed descriptions of this manuscript can be found in Wilmart, A., ‘Eve et Goscelin’, Revue Bénédictine, 50 (1938), 42–83 at 51–55CrossRef Google Scholar and Talbot, C. H., ‘The Liber confortatorius of Goscelin of Saint-Bertin’, Analecta Monastica, 3rd s. Studia Anselmiana, 37 (Rome 1955), 23–5Google Scholar. As the titles of these articles imply, the most significant text other than the Brevis Relatio is the unique copy of Goscelin of Saint-Bertin's Liber Confortatorius addressed to the recluse Eve, formerly a nun at Wilton, but now at Saint Laurent at Angers (1–114v.) Then follows a series of short texts written in the thirteenth century on the murder of Thomas Becket, which is incomplete due to the loss of one folium; on 115 follow a text on the martyrdom of St. Catherine and an antiphon with notes in honour of St. Bartholomew. 116 contains a hymn on St. Catherine.

^{page 10 note 9} Par. 12 note k. Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie de 911 à 1066, ed. M. Fauroux (Caen, 1961)Google Scholar, no. 64 contains the foundation charter of Duke Robert for Cerisy dated 12 November 1032.

^{page 10 note 10} van Houts, E. M. C., ‘Wace as historian’, Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth century, ed. Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (Woodbridge, 1997), 103–32 at 115.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 11} Printed by Giles as an appendix to his edition of the Brevis Relatio (London, 1845), 22–23.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 12} James, M. R., Jenkins, C., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace (Cambridge, 1931), no. 99Google Scholar; Ker, N. R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (London, 1964), 203.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 13} For a study of different types of autograph manuscripts of historians, see Garand, M. C., ‘Auteurs latins et autographes des xie et xiie siècles’, Scrittura e Civiltà, 5 (1981), 77–104, esp. 97–8.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 14} The alteration of ‘langis’ into ‘laneis uestibus’ can be explained in two ways, both of which point to the author being influenced by the French vernacular. Either ‘langis’ stands for the Latin word ‘lanis’, the verb in the ablative used as a substantive noun, from ‘lanio’, to tear, to grieve (von Wartburg, W., Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 5 (Bonn, 1950), 164–5Google Scholar, s.v. ‘laniare’). Written by a French speaking person the word could easily be spelled as ‘langis’ (or indeed ‘lagnis’). Subsequently, it was misinterpreted in French as deriving from ‘lange’ (wool) and hypercorrected back into Latin as ‘laneis uestibus’, woollen garments (Greimas, A. J., Dictionnaire de l'ancien français jusqu'au milieu du xive siècle, 2nd ed.Paris, 1968), 356Google Scholar s, v, ‘lange’). Alternatively, von Wartburg s.v. ‘lange’, wool (Idem, 159–60) has a note explaining that in Old French ‘langis’ occurs often as a noun/substantive in conjunction with ‘nuz piez’ meaning an informal garment. I am most grateful to Professor Giovanni Orlandi for guidance in this matter.

^{page 12 note 15} See paragraphs 1–2, notes x … x.

^{page 12 note 16} See par. 10, notes q and r: the missing words are inuadiaret et tunc Henricus fratri suo regi Anglorum.

^{page 12 note 17} GND, ii, 218Google Scholar; Chibnall, M., The Empress Matilda (Oxford, 1991), 15–17, 24–7.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 18} The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trl. Garmondsway, G. N. (London, 1972), 249.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 19} The matter is complicated because the Brevis Relatio text in S ends with the one but last sentence of par. 13 and thus omits paragraphs 14 to 21. Clearly the monk of Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte was interested in the eleventh and early twelfth-century sections and not in the anecdotes about the early dukes of Normandy.

^{page 13 note 20} His release from the Tower of London is mentioned in the Annals of Bermondsey, which according to Martin Brett's reconstruction, go back to a series of now lost London annals, Brett, M., ‘The annals of Bermondsey, Southwark and Merton’, Church and city 1000–1500. Essays in honour of Christopher Brooke, ed. Abulafia, D., Franklin, M., Rubin, M. (Cambridge, 1992), 298Google Scholar: ‘Et eodem anno miraculose uirtute sancte crucis liberatur Willelmus comes Moritonie de turri Londonie.’ The annal of 1140, in the same collection, tells of the count's entrance into the community of Bermondsey (ibidem, 299). However, the annals of Bermondsey need to be used with care due to the number of demonstratively erroneous entries. According to Henry of Huntingdon, William had been blinded at the orders of King Henry I (HH, x. 1, 698–9). The Pipe Roll of 1130 (ed. Hunter, J., London 1833, p. 143)Google Scholar shows him to be in the king's custody. I am very grateful to Warren Hollister and Martin Brett for help with this note.

^{page 14 note 21} Battle Chronicle, 46–7, 68–9Google Scholar, and in particular 94–5 which read as a paraphrase of par. 13.

^{page 14 note 22} For Abbot Ralph, see Battle Chronicle, ed. Searle, 130–2 and Southern, R. W., Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge, 1990), 372–6.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 23} The Life of Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, ed. Thomson, R. (Toronto, 1977), 78Google Scholar and Musset, L., ‘La formation d'un milieu social original: les chapelains normands du duc-roi au xie et au début du xiie siècle’, Aspects de la société et de l'économie dans la Normandie médiévale (xe–xiiie siècles), ed. L. Musset, J. Bouvris, V. Gazeau (Caen, 1988), 106.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 24} For record keeping, legal interest and historical writing at Rochester, see Wormald, P., ‘Laga Eadwardi: the Textus Roffensis and its context’, Anglo-Norman Studies xvii (1994)Google Scholar, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, 1995), 243–66 and Brett, M., ‘Gundulf and the cathedral communities of Canterbury and Rochester’, Canterbury and the Norman Conquest. Churches, Saints and Scholars 1066–1109, ed. Eales, R., Sharpe, R. (London, 1995), 15–26.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 25} ‘Hyde’ Chronicle, 283–321 at 290: ‘Infinitam namque sanctarum multitudinem reliquiarum deferri jussit, superque eas filacterium gloriosi martyris Pancratii, quod oculum bovis vocant, eo quod gemmam tarn speciosam, quam speciosam in medio sui contineat, collocavit, certissime sciens tantum martyrem nulla temeritate posse deludi.’ Roman de Rou, ii, 98 (IIIe p., ll. 5601–4): ‘desus out mis un filatiere,/tot le meillor qu'il pout eslire/e le plus chier qu'il pout trover,/ oil de boef l'ai oi nomer./Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 26} For a discussion of the amulets of the Conqueror at Battle, see my ‘The memory of 1066 in oral and written tradition’, Anglo-Norman Studies xix (1996)Google Scholar, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Woodbridge 1997), 167–9.

^{page 16 note 27} Gesta Guillelmi, 124.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 28} HH, vi. 30Google Scholar; 394–5 and see p. cvi, where it is suggested that Henry is the earliest authority to use the French word, taken from a lost chanson. Note that the scribe of O wrote ‘standart’ but then corrected it to ‘standarum’ (par. 6 note w].

^{page 17 note 29} Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, trsl. Garmonsway, 192–5. The Chronicle ofJohn of Worcester, ed. Darlington, R. R., McGurk, P., Bray, J., ii (Oxford, 1995), 600–601Google Scholar; Gesta Guillelmi, 100Google Scholar; GRA, i, 280Google Scholar; The Bayeux Tapestry, ed. Wilson, D. (London, 1985), plate 31.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 30} Heremanni Miracula sancti Edmundi, ed. Liebermannn, F., in Ungedrückte Anglo-Normannische Geschichtsquellen (Strassburg, 1879), 245–6Google Scholar: ‘Quo regali tumulato more ante diei missam, Theophaniorum die, statim cum introitu misse inthronizatur in solio regni Haroldus filius comius Godwini, callida vi veniens ad regnum.’ For the author, see now A. Gransden, ‘The composition and authorship of the ‘De miraculis Sancti Eadmundi’ attributed to “Hermann the archdeacon”’, Journal of Medieval Latin, 5 (1995), 1–52Google Scholar. See also George Garnett's commentary in his ‘Coronation and propaganda: some implications of the Norman claim to the throne of England in 1066’, TRHS, 5th s, 36 (1986), 90–116 at 93 n. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 31} The strong language used against Harold reflects the vocabulary of Guy of Amiens in the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, see Orlandi, G., ‘Some afterthoughts on the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio’, Media Latinitas. A Collection of Essays to mark the occasion of the retirement of L.J. Engels, ed. Nip, R. I. A., van Dijk, H. and van Houts, E. M. C., Instrumenta patristica, 28 (Turnhout, 1996), 117–27 at 119–22.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 32} For recent discussions of the changing attitudes in Normandy and England to the conquest at the beginning of the twelfth century, see Williams, A., The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995), 155–86Google Scholar and van Houts, E. M. C.. ‘The memory of 1066’, 167–79.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 33} E. Searle argues that the story of the vow was invented by the Battle monks in the mid-twelfth century, see Battle Chronicle, 17Google Scholar and ‘The abbey of the conquerors’, Proceedings of the Battle Conferma ii (1979), ed. Brown, R. Allen (Woodbridge, 1980), 154–64.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 34} Bachrach, B., Fulk Nerra the Neo Consul 987–1040 (Berkeley, 1993), 130–6Google Scholar and Actes des comtes de Flandre 1071–1128, ed. Vercauteren, F. (Brussels, 1938), no. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 35} I am grateful to Martin Brett for pointing this out to me.

^{page 18 note 36} Gibson, M., Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford, 1978), 227–9.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 37} See par. 1, note a.

^{page 19 note 38} The Chronicle of Robert of Torigni, ed. Howlett, R., Chronicles of the reign of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 4 vols, Rolls Series, iv (London 1889), p. xxxvi–vii.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 39} The complete disregard for Bishop Odo of Bayeux may well be due to Abbot Ralph's partisanship for Lanfranc who had campaigned so hard on behalf of the monasteries to regain land wrongfully held by Bishop Odo as earl of Kent.

^{page 19 note 40} van Houts, E. M. C., ‘The Ship list’, 168.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 41} Battle Chronicle, 122–4.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 42} Davis, R. H. G., King Stephen (London, 1977), 7Google Scholar; Hollister, C. Warren, ‘The aristocracy’, The Anarchy of Stephen's Reign, ed. King, E. (Oxford, 1994), 37–66 at 42.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 43} Strictly speaking he was not the seventh, but the ninth, ruler of Normandy. By counting Duke Richard III (1026–7) and his brother Duke Robert the Magnificent (1027–35) as one generation, and Robert Curthose and Henry I as another one, the author achieves his numbering of generations. See also the similar listing in par. 12 where Duke Richard III is left out.

^{page 20 note 44} OV, iii, 104–8.

^{page 20 note 45} ‘… et postea heredes tui [se. Hugh Capet] usque ad septimam generationem possidebunt gubernacula torius regni’ (Ex historia relationis corporis s. Walarici abbatis, Recueil des Historiens de France, ed. M. Bouquet, ix, 147–8).Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 46} Goody, J., The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983), 134–46CrossRef Google Scholar on the prohibited degrees of consanguinity which covered seven generations.

^{page 21 note 47} Robert of Torigni, inspired by the Brevis Relatio, renumbered the eight books of the Gesta Mirmannorum Ducum so that the eighth and last one on Henry I became the seventh. He also explained in his prologue to Book VIII that Henry represented the seventh generation of Norman rulers (GND, ii, 200–3Google Scholar). For the Capetians, see Brown, E. A. R., ‘La notion de la legitimité et la prophetie à la cour de Philippe Auguste’, La France de Philippe Auguste. Le temps des mutations, ed. Bautier, R. H. (Paris 1982), 77–111 at 91–3.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 48} The story goes back to the troubled years of Duke Richard I's minority after the murder of his father William Longsword in 943, when the Normans managed to hang on to their semi independence from Louis IV with the support of Danish troops. The Danes probably came from the Norman Cotentin and represented descendants of Danish settlers, rather than Viking support from Denmark (Dudo, , 239–45Google Scholar; GND, i, 110–13).Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 49} This paragraph, as part of Robert of Torigni's Gesta Normannorum Ducum version, has been discussed in the context of the feudal arrangements between Normandy and France by Lot, F., Fidèles ou vassaux? (Paris, 1904), 231–5Google Scholar and Lemarignier, J. F., Recherches sur l'hommage en marche et les frontières féodales (Lille, 1945), 96–100Google Scholar; Hollister, C. Warren, ‘Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman regnum’, Speculum, 51 (1976), 202–242, esp. 229–31CrossRef Google Scholar correctly identified Robert of Torigni's source, but misled by Giles's edition dated the paragraph one decade too late.

^{page 22 note 50} For a discussion of the sources and interpretation, see Hollister, , ‘Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman regnum’, 228–9.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 51} Dudo, , 172–3Google Scholar; GND, i, 68–71Google Scholar. Wace followed the Brevis Relatio version but substituted Longueville-sur-Scie for Longpaon (now Darnétal, Seine Mar.), see Roman de Rou, i, 56Google Scholar (IIe p, l. 1236).

^{page 22 note 52} GND, ii, 292–304.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 53} The ‘Hyde’ Chronicle was undoubtedly written by someone connected to the Warennes. What is still not clear is whether the author wrote in Lewes priory or whether he wrote from Normandy. I hope to return to this matter when I publish my new edition of this chronicle, see Lewis, C. P., ‘The earldom of Surrey and the date of Domesday Book’, Historical Research, lxiii (1990), 329–36CrossRef Google Scholar; Gillingham, J., ‘The Hyde chronicle’Google Scholar, appendix to his ‘Henry of Huntingdon and the twelfth-century revival of the English Nation’, Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. Forde, S., Johnson, L. and Murray, A. V. (Leeds, 1995), 90–1Google Scholar and van Houts, , ‘The memory of 1066’, 177–8.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 54} GND, ii, 194–5, 202–7, 216–23, 280–9.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 55} Roman de Rou, i, 272–4Google Scholar (IIIe p., 11. 2987–3036).

^{page 23 note 56} Ibidem, i, 273–4 (IIIe p., 11. 3025–36): ‘Baruns,’ dist il, ‘eirez, eirez!/Leisiez le fol, ne l'adesez!/ pelerins sumes, ne devum/ moveir medlee ne tençun;/ mal fait ki medlee cumence,/ tut recevom en pacïence,/ mult devriom noalz sufrir/ pur noz pechiez espeneïr./ se li pautonier me feri/asez ai noalz deservi;/ mielz aim le cop k'il m'a duné/ ke tute Ruem ma cité.’/

^{page 24 note 57} For the oxe's eye reference, see above note 25; the baby William reference (Roman de Rou, i, 268Google Scholar (IIe p., 11. 2869–86) is closer to William of Malmesbury (GRA, ii, 285Google Scholar: ipso quoque momento quo partu laxato, in vitam effusus pusio humum attigit, ambas manus junco, quo pavimenti pulvis cavebatur, implevit, stride quod corripuerat compugnans. ostensum visum mulierculis, laeto plausu gannientibus; obstetrix quoque fausto ornine acclamat puerum regem futurum.) than the Brevis Relatio.

^{page 24 note 58} M. Brett's review of E. Searle's edition of the Battle Abbey Chronicle, Medium Aevum, 150 (1981), 319–22 at 322Google Scholar; Battle Chronicle, 34–6.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 59} As far as a translation of the text is concerned, I shall publish a translation of the paragraphs 1–10 in my The Normans in Europe (forthcoming, Manchester Medieval Sources in Translation series). Most of the text of the paragraphs 11–20 can be found in GND, vol. ii as part of Robert of Torigni's work.

^{page 25 note b} om A

^{page 25 note c} add Conquestoris A

^{page 25 note d} perspicuus L

^{page 25 note e … e} om L

^{page 25 note f} om SL

^{page 25 note g} om ASL

^{page 25 note h} elefantinus A

^{page 25 note i} Hi S

^{page 25 note j} ipsum L

^{page 25 note k} add par S

^{page 25 note l} om ASL

^{page 25 note m} om A

^{page 25 note n} om L

^{page 26 note o} Paratisque A

^{page 26 note p} huiusmodi A

^{page 26 note q} p.e.s. A

^{page 26 note r} uero L

^{page 26 note s} f.h. L

^{page 26 note t} add huius S

^{page 26 note u} s.b. A

^{page 26 note v} Nicha A

^{page 26 note w} q.p. A

^{page 26 note x … x} om A

^{page 26 note a} c.R. SL

^{page 26 note b} his qui written over an erasure O, om. S, hiis AL

^{page 26 note c} autem A

^{page 26 note d} om SL

^{page 26 note e} easdem ASL

^{page 26 note f} accipiebat A

^{page 26 note g} eum supra [super L] SL

^{page 26 note h} om SL

^{page 26 note i} a.D. A

^{page 26 note j} atque eis A, eis S

^{page 27 note k} om L

^{page 27 note b} degressus A

^{page 27 note a} uero A

^{page 27 note c} om S

^{page 27 note d} om S

^{page 27 note e} audirent A

^{page 27 note f} f.s. W A

^{page 27 note g} defidens A

^{page 27 note h} quod AL, quod quia S

^{page 27 note i} a.e. SL

^{page 27 note j} om A

^{page 27 note k} Valesdunans A

^{page 27 note l} exhereditare SL

^{page 27 note m} om A

^{page 27 note n} atque ASL

^{page 27 note o} om ASL, Flandrie ASL

^{page 27 note p} habuit A

^{page 27 note q} prefugebat A

^{page 27 note a} s.r. A

^{page 27 note b} Ponteum A

^{page 28 note c} adductus L

^{page 28 note d} aliquot L

^{page 28 note e} Inde L

^{page 28 note f} conuersus L

^{page 28 note g} ferus L

^{page 28 note h} om S. add ei ASL

^{page 28 note i} facie written on erasure O

^{page 28 note j} add rediit L

^{page 28 note k} Londonie SL

^{page 28 note l} t.q. SL

^{page 28 note m} peruenit S

^{page 28 note n} om A

^{page 28 note o} comite L

^{page 28 note p} n.m.h. S

^{page 28 note q} om SL

^{page 28 note r} ducem L

^{page 28 note s} add idem S, inde L

^{page 28 note t} ergo ASL

^{page 28 note u} om ASL

^{page 28 note v} quum L

^{page 28 note w} postpotens L

^{page 28 note x} i.f. ASL

^{page 29 note y} igitur A

^{page 29 note z} ciuibus written on erasure O

^{page 29 note a} Londonie SL

^{page 29 note b} Londonie SL

^{page 29 note a} quum L

^{page 29 note b} e.i. ASL

^{page 29 note c} om S

^{page 29 note d} e.f.h. A, h.e.f. S

^{page 29 note e} om SL

^{page 29 note f} extitisset S

^{page 29 note g} illis S, add et illis L

^{page 29 note h} concilium L

^{page 29 note i} illi written on erasure O, sibi A

^{page 29 note j} om S

^{page 29 note k} posset A

^{page 29 note l} add sibi ASL

^{page 29 note m} om A

^{page 29 note n} concilio L

^{page 29 note o} ignobilitatem L

^{page 29 note p} erat S

^{page 29 note q} possent L

^{page 29 note r} Quias S

^{page 29 note s} huius AL

^{page 29 note t} sexagesimo sexto om L

^{page 30 note u} applicuit AL.

^{page 30 note v} f.D. A

^{page 30 note w} m.s. ASL

^{page 30 note x} c.W.i. SL

^{page 30 note y} concito L

^{page 30 note z} altera partem A

^{page 30 note a} m. magna A

^{page 30 note b} f.s.H. S

^{page 30 note c} ilium l

^{page 30 note d} erant AS

^{page 30 note e} om S

^{page 30 note f} om A

^{page 30 note g} quod S

^{page 30 note h} uenturum AL

^{page 30 note i} esset A

^{page 30 note j} quid L

^{page 30 note k} add suo SL

^{page 30 note l} Anglia S

^{page 30 note m} Londoniam AL

^{page 30 note n} de Anglia A

^{page 30 note o} preparare A

^{page 30 note p} s.d. S

^{page 30 note q} solos S

^{page 30 note r} om L

^{page 31 note s} om L

^{page 31 note t} uirq S

^{page 31 note u} om S

^{page 31 note v} ilium A

^{page 31 note w} ducere A

^{page 31 note a} ergo AS

^{page 31 note b} pro certo om A

^{page 31 note c} perjures L

^{page 31 note d} ueniret SL

^{page 31 note e} om SL

^{page 31 note f} circulo L

^{page 31 note g} u.c. ASL

^{page 31 note h} non A, om S

^{page 31 note i} subtiterunt A, sustiterunt S

^{page 31 note j} om S

^{page 31 note k} om S

^{page 31 note l} om L

^{page 31 note m} p.i. S

^{page 31 note n} bello L

^{page 31 note o} nec S

^{page 31 note p} quodcuque AS

^{page 31 note q} om A

^{page 31 note r} hec S

^{page 32 note s} s.e.f. SL

^{page 32 note t} f.s. ASL

^{page 32 note u} eum AS, ipsum L

^{page 32 note v} qui A

^{page 32 note w} add uel standarum O, standarium AS, standarum L

^{page 32 note x} c.W. S

^{page 32 note y} sint S

^{page 32 note z} uera S

^{page 32 note a} a.p.u. S

^{page 32 note b} equm A

^{page 32 note c … c} que suum super que sedebat S, que super quern sedebat L

^{page 32 note d} om SL

^{page 32 note e} om ASL

^{page 32 note f} om S

^{page 32 note g} om SL

^{page 32 note h} erased S

^{page 32 note i} ergo ASL

^{page 32 note j} pugnatibus ASL

^{page 32 note k} f.d. S

^{page 32 note l} uesperam A

^{page 32 note m} Normannis ASL

^{page 32 note n} pungna A

^{page 33 note o} add tune ASL

^{page 33 note p} add pugne S

^{page 33 note q} o.p. S

^{page 33 note r} om L

^{page 33 note s} ergo ASL, add ilis L

^{page 33 note t} … magnas ASL

^{page 33 note u} reddentes L

^{page 33 note v} concesserat ASL

^{page 33 note a} text of L breaks off due to loss of fol; text resumes in 11, see note g

^{page 33 note b} t.i. S

^{page 33 note c} p.a.e. AS

^{page 33 note d … d} om S

^{page 33 note e} qui S

^{page 33 note f} credebat A, cedebat S

^{page 33 note g} add rex AS

^{page 33 note h} ex AS

^{page 33 note l} esset AS

^{page 33 note j} add de S

^{page 33 note a} misericorditer regnum AS

^{page 33 note b} contulisset A, tulisset S

^{page 33 note c} quod S

^{page 34 note d} honore AS

^{page 34 note e} om inde AS

^{page 34 note f} an AS

^{page 34 note g} inuenire posset AS

^{page 34 note h} committeret AS

^{page 34 note i} tandum S

^{page 34 note j} om AS

^{page 34 note k … k} om S

^{page 34 note l} Dominum O

^{page 34 note m} d.h. om S

^{page 34 note n … n} om AS

^{page 34 note o} omnium S

^{page 34 note p} p.e.s. S

^{page 34 note q} Dei S

^{page 34 note r} deiecta AS

^{page 34 note s} quam AS

^{page 34 note t} m.i.A. AS

^{page 34 note u} m.e. S

^{page 34 note v … v} multi qui tune erant S, om A

^{page 35 note a} a.s. AS

^{page 35 note b} om S

^{page 35 note c … c} Maxime uero AS

^{page 35 note d … d} quosdam clericos ibi maculauerat heresis Berengarii AS

^{page 35 note e} om. S

^{page 35 note f} om A

^{page 35 note g} suo S

^{page 35 note h … h} om S

^{page 35 note i} suo S

^{page 35 note j} s.p. S

^{page 35 note k} infringisset A, infegisset S

^{page 35 note l} est A

^{page 35 note m … m} om A

^{page 35 note n} i.t. A

^{page 35 note o} inde AS

^{page 35 note p} om A

^{page 35 note q} R.f.s.d.N. A

^{page 35 note r} alium S

^{page 35 note s} om S

^{page 35 note t} . add est AS

^{page 35 note u} sacratusque AS

^{page 35 note v} Londonie AS

^{page 35 note w} W.r. A

^{page 36 note x … x} iam moriturus AS, uenit written on erasure O

^{page 36 note y … y} Anglice monete AS

^{page 36 note z} ergo AS

^{page 36 note a} Normannorum S

^{page 36 note b} Anglorum S

^{page 36 note c} g.i. S

^{page 36 note d} multo S, add enim AS

^{page 36 note e} om S

^{page 36 note f} om AS

^{page 36 note g} om AS

^{page 36 note h} eius A

^{page 36 note i … i} om AS, u.p. S

^{page 36 note j} sunt AS

^{page 36 note k} extra A

^{page 36 note i … i} om AS

^{page 36 note m} ulla u.e. S

^{page 36 note n} om S

^{page 36 note o} totamque N. S

^{page 36 note p} om S

^{page 36 note q} fratrem suum S, inaudiaret … suo om A

^{page 36 note r} r.A. om AS

^{page 37 note s} om AS

^{page 37 note t} uenaret S

^{page 37 note u} occumberet AS

^{page 37 note v} f.e.H. AS

^{page 37 note w} qui S

^{page 37 note x} add de rege et regina S

^{page 37 note y} est A

^{page 37 note z} r.A. S

^{page 37 note a} add totam S

^{page 37 note b} imperator S

^{page 37 note c} autem S

^{page 37 note a} R.f.s. S

^{page 37 note b} inuadiaret S

^{page 37 note c} uersus AS

^{page 37 note d} om S

^{page 37 note e} diceret AS

^{page 37 note f} quod S

^{page 37 note g} text of L resumes

^{page 37 note h} r.a.H. L

^{page 38 note i} v.c. SL

^{page 38 note j} ilium SL

^{page 38 note k} profectu A

^{page 38 note l} si L

^{page 38 note m} c.i.e. A

^{page 38 note n … n} om. SL

^{page 38 note o} enim ASL

^{page 38 note p} e.d. ASL

^{page 38 note q} omnino L

^{page 38 note r} c.q. add ipsius domini L

^{page 38 note s} Techebray A

^{page 38 note t} quod L

^{page 38 note u} ei S

^{page 38 note v} d.t.o. S

^{page 38 note w} irruere L

^{page 38 note x} illos A

^{page 38 note y} eo ASL

^{page 38 note z} eius S

^{page 38 note a} om S

^{page 38 note b} add sua A

^{page 38 note c} decreuit ASL

^{page 38 note d} om S

^{page 39 note e} N.e.A. L

^{page 39 note f} ad presens om S

^{page 39 note g} ibidit L

^{page 39 note a} om A

^{page 39 note b} add modo ASL

^{page 39 note c} illam A

^{page 39 note d} sicut S

^{page 39 note e} f.p. S

^{page 39 note f} om SL

^{page 39 note g} uocatur S, dictus L

^{page 39 note h} om S

^{page 39 note i} f.h.W. S

^{page 39 note j} regit L

^{page 39 note k} add abbatie Cerasii fundator extitit et S

^{page 39 note l} ut A

^{page 39 note m} om S

^{page 39 note n} add inde S

^{page 39 note o} add ciuitatem L

^{page 39 note p … p} qui non solum om S

^{page 39 note q} et S

^{page 39 note r} om S

^{page 40 note a} add comitum S

^{page 40 note b} add apud ASL

^{page 40 note c} R.f. ASL

^{page 40 note d} d.s. SL

^{page 40 note e} add et S

^{page 40 note f} Matilda L

^{page 40 note g} D.e. S

^{page 40 note h} D.u.e. L

^{page 40 note i} posset S

^{page 40 note j} p.e. L

^{page 40 note k … … k} om S

^{page 40 note l} dicimus AL

^{page 40 note m … m} om AL

^{page 40 note n … n} om A, et ideo … diponuit hodie facit L

^{page 40 note o … o} fecimus A, facimus L

^{page 40 note p} disponamus L

^{page 40 note q} dum L

^{page 40 note r} facimus L

^{page 40 note s} end of S

^{page 40 note t} solebant A

^{page 40 note a} p.h.g. L

^{page 41 note b} a.c. L

^{page 41 note c} Rotomagensis L

^{page 41 note d … d} omnem populum suum AL

^{page 41 note e} christianam L

^{page 41 note f} om A

^{page 41 note g} om A

^{page 41 note h} om L

^{page 41 note i} archiepiecopatum L

^{page 41 note j … j} perdidimus AL

^{page 41 note k} p.s. A

^{page 41 note l} molestiam AL

^{page 41 note m} Comes ergo AL

^{page 41 note n} et sue AL

^{page 41 note o} ergo AT.

^{page 41 note p} om L

^{page 41 note q} fuae L

^{page 41 note r} leugam AL

^{page 41 note s} ab AL

^{page 41 note t} urbe AL

^{page 41 note u} om AL

^{page 41 note v} om A

^{page 41 note w} ciuibus AL

^{page 41 note x} iacuerunt L

^{page 41 note y} add apud AL

^{page 42 note z} quod L, non A

^{page 42 note a} om A

^{page 42 note b … b} sensum non habuissent A

^{page 42 note c} cum AL

^{page 42 note d} processione AL

^{page 42 note e} laneis uestibus AL

^{page 42 note f} esset AL

^{page 42 note g} om L

^{page 42 note h} fuerat AL

^{page 42 note i} laneis uestibus AL

^{page 42 note j} fuit A

^{page 42 note k} om A

^{page 42 note l} comes c. A

^{page 42 note m} h.s. A

^{page 42 note n … n} om L

^{page 42 note o} cuius L

^{page 42 note p} uillam A

^{page 42 note q} Peonum A

^{page 42 note r} om L

^{page 42 note s} magna A

^{page 42 note a} dicunt A

^{page 43 note b} sum A

^{page 43 note c} add apud AL

^{page 43 note d} huius A

^{page 43 note e} ergo AL

^{page 43 note f} eo L

^{page 43 note g … g} discessi AL

^{page 43 note h} a L

^{page 43 note i} om L

^{page 43 note j} om L

^{page 43 note k} ille L

^{page 43 note l} procederet A

^{page 43 note m} expectarent A

^{page 43 note n} uerum A

^{page 43 note o} add ita AL

^{page 43 note p} putauit A

^{page 43 note q} om L

^{page 43 note r} om L

^{page 43 note s} uero L

^{page 43 note t} fuerat AL

^{page 43 note u} tamen AL

^{page 43 note v} om A

^{page 44 note w} lignulo AL

^{page 44 note x} quod A

^{page 44 note y} sulcos A, fustos L

^{page 44 note z} s.u. om L

^{page 44 note a} illo A

^{page 44 note b} om A

^{page 44 note c} ueniret L

^{page 44 note d} lignulo AT,

^{page 44 note e} quod A

^{page 44 note f} sulcos A, fustos L

^{page 44 note g} quos A

^{page 44 note h} Et L

^{page 44 note i … i} om AL

^{page 44 note j … j} non differet AL

^{page 44 note a} fuit A

^{page 44 note b} f.e. A

^{page 44 note c} om L

^{page 44 note d} add autem AL

^{page 44 note e} om A

^{page 44 note f} om L

^{page 44 note g} om AL

^{page 44 note h … h} interfecerunt AL

^{page 44 note i … i} om AL, add sunt L

^{page 44 note j} nauigantes L

^{page 44 note k} om A

^{page 44 note l} applicuerunt AL

^{page 44 note m} om L

^{page 44 note n} n.c. A

^{page 44 note o} i.p. A

^{page 45 note p} add illud A

^{page 45 note q} p.c.e. L

^{page 45 note r} conciliare A, consilare L

^{page 45 note s … s} om AL

^{page 45 note t} illis L

^{page 45 note u} uenerant A

^{page 45 note v} om L

^{page 45 note w … w} om AL

^{page 45 note x} om AT.

^{page 45 note y … y} e.a. om AL

^{page 45 note z} neque A

^{page 45 note a} om L

^{page 45 note b} s.th. AL

^{page 45 note c} om A

^{page 45 note d} om A

^{page 45 note e} sicut A

^{page 45 note f} om L

^{page 45 note a} uero L

^{page 45 note b} eo A

^{page 46 note c} d.s. A

^{page 46 note d} furati L

^{page 46 note e} hic A

^{page 46 note f} u.i.c. A

^{page 46 note g} om L

^{page 46 note h} dare L

^{page 46 note i} om L

^{page 46 note j} s.u. L

^{page 46 note k} add eius A

^{page 46 note l} om A

^{page 46 note a} om A

^{page 46 note b} refectorium L

^{page 46 note c} solebant A

^{page 46 note d} peregisset

^{page 46 note e} u.a.a. A

^{page 47 note f} mandauit A

^{page 47 note g} s.i. L

^{page 47 note a} uenit L

^{page 47 note b} a.m. om L

^{page 47 note c} et A

^{page 47 note d} om AL

^{page 47 note e} add posuit A

^{page 47 note f} , g lignulum AL.

^{page 47 note h} illud AL

^{page 47 note i} lignulum AL

^{page 47 note j} in misterium A

^{page 47 note k} … om A

^{page 47 note l} possim A

^{page 47 note a} om A, add superius AL

^{page 47 note b} enim A

^{page 47 note c} esset AL

^{page 47 note d} forte A

^{page 47 note e} apparuit L, end of O

Article contents

The Brevis Relatio de Guillelmo Nobilissimo Comite Normannorum, Written by a Monk of Battle Abbey, edited with an historical commentary

Extract

Access options

References

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Article contents

The Brevis Relatio de Guillelmo Nobilissimo Comite Normannorum, Written by a Monk of Battle Abbey, edited with an historical commentary

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests