The History of the Norman Conquest of England

Last updated

Title page of the first edition of the last volume Freeman's Norman Conquest.jpg
Title page of the first edition of the last volume

The History of the Norman Conquest of England: Its Causes and Its Results is a six-volume study of the Conquest by Edward A. Freeman, published between 1867 and 1879. Recognised by critics as a major work of scholarship on its first publication, it has since proved unpopular with readers, many of whom were put off by its enormous length and copious detail. Academics have often criticized it for its heavily Whig treatment of the subject, and its glorification of Anglo-Saxon political and social institutions at the expense of their feudal successors, but its influence has nevertheless been profound, many Anglo-Norman historians of modern times having come around to some of Freeman's main conclusions.

Contents

Composition and publication

Freeman first wrote about the Conquest while he was still a student at Oxford, where his 1846 essay "The Effects of the Conquest of England by the Normans" was submitted for, but failed to win, a prize. [1] In 1859 and 1865 he published lengthy reviews of the last two volumes of Sir Francis Palgrave's History of Normandy and of England. Exploring his points of agreement and disagreement with Palgrave Freeman decided to embark on his own history of the Conquest, reasoning that its approaching 800th anniversary might well make such a work popular. He believed that he had so completely worked out his own position on the historical controversies involved that "there will be little more to do than write down what is already in my head". [2] He began work on the History on 7 December 1865, writing to a friend that it was a book "which I can do easier than anybody else, as I have worked so much at the subject for twenty years past". [3] In the event, Freeman's decision to trace the remoter causes of the Conquest in much greater detail than he had originally planned put paid to all hopes of bringing his history down to William the Conqueror's accession in time for the octocentenary. [4] His first volume, taking the story as far as the death of Harthacnut, appeared in 1867; subsequent volumes in 1868, 1869 and 1871 dealt with the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson and William the Conqueror respectively; and an 1876 volume explored the consequences of the Conquest in later reigns, with a final index volume in 1879. Freeman later issued two revised editions. [5]

Freeman aimed his History at both specialists and non-specialists. In an 1867 letter he wrote that

I have to make my text a narrative which I hope may be intelligible to girls and curates, and in an appendix to discuss the evidence for each point in a way which I hope may be satisfactory to Gneist and Stubbs. [1]

He drew on the massive corpus of primary sources published over the previous eighty years, and on the works of 19th-century historians, particularly Augustin Thierry, Sharon Turner, Sir Francis Palgrave, and J. M. Lappenberg, but he felt it unnecessary to search out manuscript material and never went to either the British Museum Library or the Public Record Office, preferring his own well-stocked bookshelves. He also corresponded with scholars such as J. R. Green, James Bryce, W. F. Hook, W. R. W. Stephens, and especially William Stubbs, for whom he always professed the greatest admiration, as did Stubbs of him. A contemporary rhyme went:

See, ladling butter from alternate tubs
Stubbs butters Freeman, Freeman butters Stubbs.

Frank Barlow summarised Freeman's qualifications to write such a history:

a good knowledge of languages, including Anglo-Saxon, and an interest in field archaeology and architecture, with the ability to sketch buildings and their features. He was much involved in politics and not unreasonably regarded participation in government as useful training for a historian…Above all, he had tremendous zest. [3]

Marjorie Chibnall added that in his knowledge of medieval chronicles Freeman had no rival. [6] As a set-off to this list Barlow noted Freeman's dogmatism, pugnacity and indifference to various subjects he considered irrelevant to his survey of 11th century England: theology, philosophy, and most of the arts. [3]

Freeman went on to publish a history of The Reign of William Rufus (1882), in two volumes. He also wrote a series of works on the Anglo-Saxon and Norman periods aimed at a popular readership: Old English History for Children, a work he had had in mind since before he began the History of the Norman Conquest, was published in 1869; A Short History of the Norman Conquest in 1880; and William the Conqueror in 1888. [7] [8] [9] In 1974 J. W. Burrow produced an abridged edition of the History of the Norman Conquest of England. [10]

Themes

Freeman was a man of deeply held convictions, which he expounded in the History of the Norman Conquest and other works with vigour and enthusiasm. These included the belief, common to many thinkers of his generation, in the superiority of those peoples that spoke Indo-European languages, especially the Greek, Roman and Germanic peoples, and in their genetic cousinhood; also in the purely Teutonic nature of the English nation. He asserted that the Anglo-Saxon invaders of England had largely killed or driven out the original Celtic inhabitants, though he admitted that "the women would doubtless be largely spared", an exception which fatally flawed his argument. His conviction of the racial purity of the Anglo-Saxon people was highly influential on later generations of writers. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] His enthusiasm for Anglo-Saxondom knew few bounds when it came to their social and political institutions, and to his greatest heroes. These included Alfred the Great, Earl Godwin and Harold Godwinson, though he also began increasingly to admire William for his policy of protecting his revolution by retaining Old English institutions wherever possible. Freeman placed much greater faith in Anglo-Saxon historical writings than in the Norman chronicles, which he considered vitiated by sycophancy to the Norman court. [16] [1] [17] He had learned from Thomas Arnold a belief in the continuous and cyclical nature of history in general. Taking his cue from Francis Palgrave, Freeman applied this to early medieval history by making the thoroughly Whiggish claim that the first parliaments of the reigns of Henry III and Edward I had brought the country back to something like the Anglo-Saxon institution of the Witenaġemot, or national council, and that the constitution of the country had evolved through the Conquest period rather than being entirely remade. An unbroken line thus connected the Witenaġemot with Victorian democracy. This all had the effect of diminishing the significance of his own subject, since it meant that 1066 had for Freeman "not the importance either of a beginning or of an ending, but the importance of a turning point". [18] [19] [20] [21] Hammering the point home, he wrote that,

I cannot too often repeat, for the saying is the very summing up of the whole history, that the Norman Conquest was not the wiping out of the constitution, the laws, the language, the national life, of Englishmen. [22]

Reception

The book's sales were healthy, but never so great as Freeman had hoped. Doubtless this was partly caused by the sheer off-putting size of his books, but perhaps also by the fact that his historical prejudices were quite out in the open, leading readers to wonder whether his conclusions could be trusted. [23]

Reviews of the History were respectful and in most cases favourable, though some reservations were expressed. The Gentleman's Magazine , for example, noted the harshness with which Freeman treated his opponents and his "unmistakably strong belief in the correctness of his own views", but agreed with many of them, excepting only his insistence on spelling Anglo-Saxon personal names (Ecgberht, Ælfred etc.) in unmodernized form. [24] The Saturday Review , the North American Review and the Literary World all agreed in regretting Freeman's indifference to social history, as opposed to political and military history. [25] [26] The Month , a Catholic magazine, objected only to Freeman's outspokenly Protestant opinions on the "abject superstition" of some of the medieval saints, and bade him keep a civil tongue in his head on this point. [27] The Edinburgh Review reached a more ambivalent verdict than most. It praised him for finding a middle line between the conflicting views of Thierry and Palgrave on the importance of the Conquest, and acknowledged that on many important points "Mr. Freeman has pronounced a judgment which will be accepted as conclusive by all historical scholars", but it devoted much space to its impatience with Freeman's enthusiasm for Anglo-Saxon institutions and for his particular heroes. [28] Chambers's Cyclopædia of English Literature told a wide readership that the History was "among the great works of the present century". [29]

But in the later years of Freeman's life the book's reputation was injured by a series of attacks levelled on it by the genealogist and local historian J. H. Round. Round brought against Freeman the same kind of aggressively pedantic nit-picking that Freeman himself had been used to bring against other historians. [30] Round was neither interested in nor knowledgeable about Anglo-Saxon history, but had "an instinctive feeling that in England our consecutive political history does, in a sense, begin with the Norman conquest". [31] Part of his motivation was political: as a Conservative who detested Freeman's Liberalism he reached the damning verdict that Freeman "was a democrat first, and historian afterwards". [32] Freeman and his supporters responded to Round's criticisms, but Round did not give up the attack. "Truth cannot be silenced, facts cannot be obscured", he wrote. "I appeal, sure of my ground, to the verdict of historical scholars, awaiting, with confidence and calm, the inevitable triumph of the truth." [3] Many of his attacks on Freeman were well placed, and their effect was to turn a whole generation of scholars against him, [31] [3] while to the general reading public, as Freeman himself acknowledged, "I seem to be either unknown or a subject for mockery". [33]

After Freeman's death in 1892 critical opinion slowly began to change. In 1906 Thomas Hodgkin, without endorsing the accuracy of Freeman's History, called it "the great quarry from which all later builders will hew their blocks for building", [34] and as the 20th century advanced the tide continued to turn as academics examined Freeman's Norman Conquest with renewed interest, even if the general public did not. The historian D. J. A. Matthew considered it "one of the most cited but least read historical monuments written on any historical subject." [35] One exception was General George S. Patton, who in 1944 read Freeman's History in advance of the D-Day landings, hoping to learn where to conduct a campaign in Normandy by studying William the Conqueror's choice of roads. [36] In 1953 David Douglas wrote that

as a detailed narrative of the Norman Conquest, Freeman's book has never been superseded, and it is those best versed in the history of eleventh-century England who are most conscious of its value. [37]

Frank Barlow saw Freeman's influence as being profound. Modern historians, Frank Stenton and Ann Williams among them, have again come to share some of his beliefs, including the existence of a degree of historical continuity across the Norman Conquest, and to view English and Norman events in the broader context of European history. [38] [39] In 1967 R. Allen Brown called the History "a notorious high-water mark in studies of 1066". [40] In the present century Anthony Brundage and Richard A. Cosgrove have been more reprehensive, writing that the History’s

organization, judgments, and style strike the modern reader as well over the top: uncritical and injudicious, remorselessly detailed, and a prose that adored long, languid sentences. [41]

They nevertheless admit that

Even after knowledge of their shortcomings [is] taken into consideration, his conclusions remain a powerful voice on behalf of a nation whose past and present gloried in liberty, democracy and constitutional government

and they acknowledge that Freeman's views on the English national identity have had a lasting influence. [42]

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 Chibnall 1999, p. 59.
  2. ↑ Blaas 1978, p. 187.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Barlow 2011.
  4. ↑ Freeman 1867, p. v.
  5. ↑ Eliot, Simon; Stray, Christopher (2013). "History, Law, and Literature". In Eliot, Simon (ed.). The History of Oxford University Press. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University press. p. 565. ISBN   9780199543151 . Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  6. ↑ Chibnall 1999, pp. 59–60.
  7. ↑ Hunt, William (1901). "Freeman, Edward Augustus (1823–1892)". In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography: Supplement. Volume 2. London: Smith, Elder. p. 251. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  8. ↑ Tout, Thomas Frederick (1932). The Collected Paper. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 128. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  9. ↑ Bonser, Wilfrid (1957). An Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Bibliography (450–1087). Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 74. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  10. ↑ Baugh, Albert C.; Cable, Thomas (2002) [1935]. A History of the English Language (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 126. ISBN   0130151661 . Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  11. ↑ MacDougall, Hugh A. (1982). Racial Myth in English History. Montreal: Harvest House. pp. 100–101, 119–122. ISBN   0887722121.
  12. ↑ Walker, Hugh; Walker, Mrs. Hugh (2011) [1913]. Outlines of Victorian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 173. ISBN   9781107600096 . Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  13. ↑ Freeman 1867, p. 18.
  14. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, p. 98.
  15. ↑ Stenton, Frank (2000) [1970]. Stenton, Doris Mary (ed.). Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 254. ISBN   0198223145 . Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  16. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, pp. 103–104.
  17. ↑ Blaas 1978, p. 188.
  18. ↑ Blaas 1978, pp. 188–189.
  19. ↑ Skinner, Q. (1993). "History and Ideology in the English Revolution". In King, Preston (ed.). Thomas Hobbes: Critical Assessments. Volume 1. London: Routledge. p. 112. ISBN   0415080819 . Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  20. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, pp. 105–106.
  21. ↑ Barlow 1983, pp. 151–152.
  22. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, p. 103.
  23. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, pp. 103, 106.
  24. ↑ "Norman Conquest of England". The Gentleman's Magazine. New Series. 4: 775–781. December 1867. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  25. ↑ "[Review]". North American Review. 105: 640–645. October 1867. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  26. ↑ "The Norman Conquest". The Literary World. 4 (8): 351. 1 January 1874. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  27. ↑ "Our Library Table". The Month. 8: 103–105. January 1868. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  28. ↑ "[Review]". Edinburgh Review. 130: 94–109. July 1869. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  29. ↑ Carruthers, Robert, ed. (1880). Chambers's Cyclopædia of English Literature. Volume 8 (3rd ed.). New York: American Book Exchange. p. 44. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  30. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2007, pp. 49–50.
  31. 1 2 Barlow 1983, p. 152.
  32. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, p. 100.
  33. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, p. 106.
  34. ↑ Hodgkin, Thomas (1906). The History of England from the Earliest Times to the Norman Conquest. London: Longmans, Green. p.  507 . Retrieved 4 November 2015. builders will hew their blocks.
  35. ↑ Matthew, D. J. A. (1994). "The English Cultivation of Norman History". In Bates, David; Curry, Anne Curry (eds.). England and Normandy in the Middle Ages. London: Hambledon Press. p. 16. ISBN   1852850833 . Retrieved 4 November 2015.
  36. ↑ Patton, Jr., General George S. (1995) [1947]. War as I Knew It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. p. 92. ISBN   0395735297 . Retrieved 4 November 2015.
  37. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2007, p. 50.
  38. ↑ Barlow 1983, pp. 151–153.
  39. ↑ Chibnall 1999, p. 60.
  40. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2007, pp. 50–51.
  41. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2007, p. 47.
  42. ↑ Brundage & Cosgrove 2016, p. 101.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ealdred (archbishop of York)</span> 11th-century abbot and Archbishop of York

Ealdred was Abbot of Tavistock, Bishop of Worcester, and Archbishop of York in early medieval England. He was related to a number of other ecclesiastics of the period. After becoming a monk at the monastery at Winchester, he was appointed Abbot of Tavistock Abbey in around 1027. In 1046 he was named to the Bishopric of Worcester. Ealdred, besides his episcopal duties, served Edward the Confessor, the King of England, as a diplomat and as a military leader. He worked to bring one of the king's relatives, Edward the Exile, back to England from Hungary to secure an heir for the childless king.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Norman Conquest</span> 11th-century invasion and conquest of England by Normans

The Norman Conquest was the 11th-century invasion and occupation of England by an army made up of thousands of Norman, French, Flemish, and Breton troops, all led by the Duke of Normandy, later styled William the Conqueror.

Leofric was a medieval Bishop of Exeter. Probably a native of Cornwall, he was educated on the continent. At the time Edward the Confessor was in exile before his succession to the English throne, Leofric joined his service and returned to England with him. After he became king, Edward rewarded Leofric with lands. Although a 12th-century source claims Leofric held the office of chancellor, modern historians agree he never did so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stigand</span> 11th-century Archbishop of Canterbury

Stigand was an Anglo-Saxon churchman in pre-Norman Conquest England who became Archbishop of Canterbury. His birth date is unknown, but by 1020 he was serving as a royal chaplain and advisor. He was named Bishop of Elmham in 1043, and was later Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury. Stigand was an advisor to several members of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman English royal dynasties, serving six successive kings. Excommunicated by several popes for his pluralism in holding the two sees, or bishoprics, of Winchester and Canterbury concurrently, he was finally deposed in 1070, and his estates and personal wealth were confiscated by William the Conqueror. Stigand was imprisoned at Winchester, where he died.

Robert of Jumièges was the first Norman Archbishop of Canterbury. He had previously served as prior of the Abbey of St Ouen at Rouen in Normandy, before becoming abbot of Jumièges Abbey, near Rouen, in 1037. He was a good friend and adviser to the king of England, Edward the Confessor, who appointed him bishop of London in 1044, and then archbishop in 1051. Robert's time as archbishop lasted only about eighteen months. He had already come into conflict with the powerful Earl Godwin and, while archbishop, made attempts to recover lands lost to Godwin and his family. He also refused to consecrate Spearhafoc, Edward's choice to succeed Robert as Bishop of London. The rift between Robert and Godwin culminated in Robert's deposition and exile in 1052.

Ranulf Flambard was a medieval Norman Bishop of Durham and an influential government minister of King William Rufus of England. Ranulf was the son of a priest of Bayeux, Normandy, and his nickname Flambard means incendiary or torch-bearer, and may have referred to his personality. He started his career under King William I of England, probably in the compilation of the Domesday Book of 1086, as well as being the keeper of the king's seal. On the death of William I, Ranulf chose to serve the new king of England, William Rufus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William de St-Calais</span> 11th century Norman Bishop of Durham, England

William de St-Calais was a medieval Norman monk, abbot of the abbey of Saint-Vincent in Le Mans in Maine, who was nominated by King William I of England as Bishop of Durham in 1080. During his term as bishop, St-Calais replaced the canons of his cathedral chapter with monks, and began the construction of Durham Cathedral. In addition to his ecclesiastical duties, he served as a commissioner for the Domesday Book of 1086. He was also a councillor and advisor to both King William I and his son, King William II, known as William Rufus. Following William Rufus' accession to the throne in 1087, St-Calais is considered by scholars to have been the new king's chief advisor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Augustus Freeman</span> English historian (1823–1892)

Edward Augustus Freeman was an English historian, architectural artist, and Liberal politician during the late-19th-century heyday of Prime Minister William Gladstone, as well as a one-time candidate for Parliament. He held the position of Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, where he tutored Arthur Evans; later he and Evans were activists in the Balkan uprising of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1874–1878) against the Ottoman Empire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Norman yoke</span> Alleged oppression of the English by the Normans

The Norman yoke is a term denoting the oppressive aspects of feudalism in England, attributed to the impositions of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England, his retainers and their descendants. The term was used in English nationalist and democratic discourse from the mid-17th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Siward, Earl of Northumbria</span> 11th-century Earl of Northumbria in England

Siward or Sigurd was an important earl of 11th-century northern England. The Old Norse nickname Digri and its Latin translation Grossus are given to him by near-contemporary texts. It is possible Siward may have been of Scandinavian or Anglo-Scandinavian origin, perhaps a relative of Earl Ulf, although this is speculative. He emerged as a regional strongman in England during the reign of Cnut. Cnut was a Scandinavian ruler who conquered most of England in the 1010s, and Siward was one of many Scandinavians who came to England in the aftermath, rising to become sub-ruler of most of northern England. From 1033 at the latest, he was in control of southern Northumbria, present-day Yorkshire, governing as earl on Cnut's behalf.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas of Bayeux</span> Norman Archbishop of York

Thomas of Bayeux was Archbishop of York from 1070 until 1100. He was educated at Liège and became a royal chaplain to Duke William of Normandy, who later became King William I of England. After the Norman Conquest, the king nominated Thomas to succeed Ealdred as Archbishop of York. After Thomas' election, Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, demanded an oath from Thomas to obey him and any future Archbishops of Canterbury; this was part of Lanfranc's claim that Canterbury was the primary bishopric, and its holder the head of the English Church. Thomas countered that York had never made such an oath. As a result, Lanfranc refused to consecrate him. The King eventually persuaded Thomas to submit, but Thomas and Lanfranc continued to clash over ecclesiastical issues, including the primacy of Canterbury, which dioceses belonged to the province of York, and the question of how York's obedience to Canterbury would be expressed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gisa (bishop of Wells)</span> 11th-century Bishop of Wells

Gisa was Bishop of Wells from 1060 to 1088. A native of Lorraine, Gisa came to England as a chaplain to King Edward the Confessor. After his appointment to Wells, he travelled to Rome rather than be consecrated by Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury. As bishop, Gisa added buildings to his cathedral, introduced new saints to his diocese, and instituted the office of archdeacon in his diocese. After the Norman Conquest, Gisa took part in the consecration of Lanfranc, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, and attended Lanfranc's church councils. His tomb in Wells Cathedral was opened in the 20th century and a cross was discovered in his tomb.

Æthelric was the second to last medieval Bishop of Selsey in England before the see was moved to Chichester. Consecrated a bishop in 1058, he was deposed in 1070 for unknown reasons and then imprisoned by King William I of England. He was considered one of the best legal experts of his time, and was even brought from his prison to attend the trial on Penenden Heath where he gave testimony about English law before the Norman Conquest of England.

Robert the Lotharingian was a priest who became Bishop of Hereford following the Norman Conquest of England. His writings serve as one of the best sources for information on the process of compiling the Domesday Book, and he may have introduced the abacus to England.

Siward Barn was an 11th-century English thegn and landowner-warrior. He appears in the extant sources in the period following the Norman Conquest of England, joining the northern resistance to William the Conqueror by the end of the 1060s. Siward's resistance continued until his capture on the Isle of Ely alongside Æthelwine, Bishop of Durham, Earl Morcar, and Hereward as cited in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Siward and his confiscated properties in central and northern England were mentioned in Domesday Book, and from this it is clear that he was one of the main antecessors of Henry de Ferrers, father of Robert de Ferrers, the first Earl of Derby.

Magnus was a son of Harold Godwinson, King of England. He was, in all likelihood, driven into exile in Dublin by the Norman conquest of England, along with two of his brothers, and from there took part in one, or perhaps two, expeditions to south-western England, but with little military success. They probably cost him his life.

Ulf or Wulf was a son of Harold Godwinson, King of England. He was captured during the course of the Norman conquest of England, and imprisoned in Normandy, being released only at the death of William the Conqueror.

Harold was a son of Harold Godwinson, King of England. He was driven into exile by the Norman conquest of England, and found refuge at the court of the king of Norway.

The Battle of Northam, sometimes known as the Two Battles of Northam, were fought around Northam Parish, Devon in 1069 between a Norman force led by Brian of Brittany and an Anglo–Saxon army commanded by Godwin and Edmund, two sons of the late English king Harold Godwinson. The Normans inflicted heavy casualties on the Saxons and forced them to retreat from Devon.

There were two Danish attacks on Norman England. The first was an invasion in 1069–1070 conducted in alliance with various English rebels which succeeded in taking first York and then Ely before the Danes finally accepted a bribe to leave the country. The second was a large-scale raid in 1075, intended to support the Revolt of the Earls, in which the Lincolnshire coast and York were both ravaged. A third attack was planned in 1085, and a large invasion fleet comprising Danish, Flemish and Norwegian vessels was gathered, but it never sailed. All three attacks were motivated by a claim on the English throne asserted originally by Cnut the Great's nephew Sweyn II, king of Denmark, and maintained by later Danish kings until as late as the 13th century, but neither of the two realised attacks succeeded in making Sweyn's claim good, or indeed gained anything for the Danes apart from a certain amount of plunder.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.