Fortified by tea with a friend, by now becoming a bit of a ritual, we both made our way to the Examination Schools in Oxford for the latest instalment of David Bates’ Ford Lecture series on the Normans and empire. For one and two, follow the links. The subject of number three, was William the Conqueror himself.
David Bates is very well qualified to talk about William the Conqueror, having not only written his own biography of the duke, but also extensively studied William of Poitiers, ‘the Conqueror’s first biographer’. This lecture included then thoughts on biography as well as sociological theories of empire. William’s character, as described by the chroniclers and interpreted by various more modern historians (David Douglas, Frank Barlow and Michel de Bouard were mentioned) was important in understanding how empire, based around a single figure, functioned. William of Poitiers’ Gesta Guillelmi with its attempt to engage in serious debate about good and bad kingship and use of imperial themes to portray William the Conqueror as a special kind of king is thus central. David’s discussion of the Gesta Guillelmi was by way of a plea to include its subject in wider debates about political culture.
Emotion, particularly anger, played a large part in David’s discussion, particularly regarding how a king imposed his will on his subjects who could be rather wayward. Set in the context of political culture (see particularly Gerd Althoff’s work), anger was part of the theatre of the court, used to resolve property and other disputes. In other words, the emotion itself was part of the way in which the court and the king functioned. These ideas are not new in themselves, but in terms of tying them to ideas of empire, David is trying to push the debate forward. In common with previous lectures, the importance of narratives in charters, as well as the chronicles, was stressed.
Returning to his examination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power, David turned towards the conquest of England, contrasting attempts at accommodation with outbreaks of concerted violence. Reading my notes, soft power in this case refers to an ‘enabling environment’ created by William’s promises to uphold the laws of Edward the Confessor and his decision to maintain his territories as separate regna inhabited by separate gentes. William of Malmesbury rendered this as a promise to treat England and and the French territories equally. However, and here David made reference to George Garnett’s recent work, Conquered England, the different legal and political practices in England and Normandy in particular, were problematic leading to trouble. This is especially apparent in the division of the regna between William’s sons as described by Orderic Vitalis. [gloss: If William had wanted to disinherit Robert Curthose, he was prevented from doing so as he had already been designated as heir. To get round this problem William made William Rufus king of England.]
Other aspects of imperial kingship were mentioned along the way, notably religious patronage and, as one would expect, Domesday Book (the ultimate imperial project?). Above all, what came through strongly was the emphasis on personal relations and how these were constructed linking in with the second lecture.
Thanks for these. Sound like they were quite interesting.
They were!
[...] my mind for various reasons that I will write about later, but you can read about them by following the links [...]