Ian Short, trans., Three Anglo-Norman Kings: The Lives of William the Conqueror and Sons by Benoît de Sainte-Maure. (Medieval Sources in Translation 57.) Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2018. Paper. Pp. vi, 227. $25. ISBN: 978-0-8884-4307-6.

Speculum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 902-903
Author(s):  
Thelma Fenster
Keyword(s):  
Anglo Norman ◽  
William The Conqueror

The Earl, the Kings, and the Chronicler

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B. Patterson
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Twelfth Century ◽  
Full Length ◽  
English History ◽  
Cultural Revival ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Anglo Norman ◽  
Merchant Class ◽  
History Of ◽  
William The Conqueror

This book is the first full length biography of Robert (c.1088 × 90–1147), grandson of William the Conqueror and eldest son of King Henry I of England (1100–35). He could not succeed his father because he was a bastard. Instead, as the earl of Gloucester, Robert helped change the course of English history by keeping alive the prospects for an Angevin succession through his leadership of its supporters in the civil war known as the Anarchy against his father’s successor, King Stephen (1135–54). The earl is one of the great figures of Anglo-Norman History (1066–1154). He was one of only three landed super-magnates of his day, a model post-Conquest great baron, Marcher lord, borough developer, and patron of the rising merchant class. His trans-Channel barony stretched from western Lower Normandy across England to South Wales. He was both product as well as agent of the contemporary cultural revival known as the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, bilingual, well educated, and a significant literary patron. In this last role, he is especially notable for commissioning the greatest English historian since Bede, William of Malmesbury, to produce a history of their times which justified the Empress Matilda’s claim to the English throne and Earl Robert’s support of it.

The Anglo-Norman Card of Adela of Blois

1990 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 569-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. LoPrete
Keyword(s):  
Twelfth Century ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Medieval Period ◽  
Real Power ◽  
Family Ties ◽  
Family Politics ◽  
Anglo Norman ◽  
William The Conqueror

Down through the twelfth century, politics were as much, if not more, the affairs of personalities and families as the affairs of state. One corollary of this premise is that certain women, as creators of family ties and managers of households, can be shown to have exercised more effective real power than traditional legal and institutional approaches to the medieval period have brought to light. As an instrument of long-term policy, marriage politics were fraught with uncertainties, but when dominant and powerful personages were able to capitalize on opportunities, the resultant alliances could prove effective in the realization of precise political aims. A re-examination of the available evidence for the career of Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror and countess of Blois, Chartres, and Meaux, from the perspective of family politics reveals that the Anglo-Norman – Thibaudian alliance, confirmed in her marriage to the eldest son of count Thibaud of Blois-Chartres, was actualized by Adela as an effective determinant of political action in the nearly twenty years she acted as the acknowledged head of the Thibaudian family.

The Irony of English Feudalism

1963 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Warren Hollister
Keyword(s):  
Time And Space ◽  
The West ◽  
Norman Conquest ◽  
Anglo Norman ◽  
William The Conqueror ◽  
The Ideal

Everyone is familiar with the story of how William the Conqueror brought feudalism to England. Despite some recent voices to the contrary, medievalists are for the most part inclined to agree that the Norman Conquest introduced the fief into a previously non-feudal land. Moreover, since feudalism did not arise in England gradually and of its own accord but instead was imposed from above by an all-powerful conqueror, it is usually described as more symmetrical — more “perfect” — than the feudalism of the Continent. One historian, reflecting the views of many others, asserted recently that in the years after 1066 “England became the most perfectly feudal kingdom in the West.”It is well to be wary, however, of too much perfection in an institution such as feudalism. It is always possible that in identifying an institution at a particular point in time and space as “perfect” or “nearly perfect” one is being misled by the surface appearances which usually accompany decay. As institutions become less and less relevant to their societies, they are apt, for a while at least, to assume the appearance of increasing orderliness, increasing selfconscious coherence, increasing formalism. These tendencies have been noted by a number of sociologists and have by no means escaped the attention of Professor Parkinson. To determine whether they apply to the so-called model feudalism of Norman England is both hazardous and difficult, but the effort must be made. So much has been written on the question of whether any real traces of feudalism can be detected in England before the Conquest that it may prove refreshing to scrutinize critically the “ideal” feudal state of post-Conquest times, particularly if it can be shown that Anglo-Norman feudalism was not so perfect after all.

Three Anglo-Norman Kings: The Lives of William the Conqueror and Sons by Benoît de Sainte-Maure, trans. Ian Short. Mediaeval Sources in Translation, 57. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2018, viii, 228.

Mediaevistik ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 435-436
Author(s):  
Raymond Cormier
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Anglo Norman ◽  
William The Conqueror

Respected professor of medieval French and foremost specialist in Anglo- Norman, Ian Short can cast his net wide and does so brilliantly with the volume under review. Eleven thousand lines cover here the period from 1027 (conception of William the Conqueror) to 1135 (death of Henry I)—all lively and dynamic in this translation, while much historical background is revealed in these vivid and impressively-written pages (in spite of Benoît’s often stilted style): treason and transgressions, murder and mayhem, betrayals, hypocrisy, depravity, ominous dream sequences, punishing sieges; but also on occasion magnificent festivities amidst peace and prosperity. Revolting descriptions grace the narrative as well: “[they drew their…] swords, their trusty blades of engraved steel, and dashing out their enemies’ brains, […gouged] out their entrails and intestines.” (102) At this point we encounter a lion and a fire- breathing dragon (102–103). Elsewhere a bear is slaughtered (131). On the other hand, Benoît does gush enthusiastically over Henry II’s mother, the “Empress” Matilda (N.B., there are six Matildas in the index): a “[…] widely celebrated figure, for it is my firm belief that there is nothing in the whole of my book that people would be happier to listen to, seeing that her impressive and highly regarded achievements are so much more extraordinary than those of any other person.” (172)

Changing Perceptions of the New Administrative Class in Anglo-Norman and Angevin England: The Curiales and Their Conservative Critics

1990 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph V. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Twelfth Century ◽  
Base Stock ◽  
Anglo Norman ◽  
William The Conqueror

A complaint among twelfth-century English moralists and chroniclers was that monarchs were choosing “men raised from the dust” to be their ministers and counselors instead of members of old noble families. They charged that the king was choosing as his courtiers or familiares low-born men—plebes, ignobiles, even rustici or servi—allowing them to usurp places that belonged to the aristocracy. This chorus of complaint began in the time of William the Conqueror's sons. Only then did nobiles and curiales begin to divide into two distinct groups, and new administrative posts provided opportunities for new men to rise to greater wealth and influence.The early twelfth-century monastic chronicler, Orderic Vitalis, wrote that William the Conqueror “raised up the lowest of his Norman followers to the greatest riches.” Often cited is his complaint about Henry I, “So he pulled down many great men [illustres] from positions of eminence …. He ennobled others of base stock [de ignobili stirpe] who had served him well, raised them, so to say, from the dust, and heaping all kinds of favors on them, stationed them above earls and famous castellans.” The author of the Gesta Stephani also complained that Henry I took men of low birth [ex plebeio genere], who had entered his service as court pages and enriched them, endowed them with wide estates, and made them his chief officials. Another chronicler, Richard of Hexham, made a similar comment, although in admiring rather than condemning language, “He oppressed many nobles because of their faithlessness; he elevated to high honors many commoners [ignobiles], whom he found to be upright and loyal to him.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document