List of grants from the foundation to Henry I
List of grants to St Andrew’s Church at Rochester, from the time of the foundation by King Æthelberht to Henry I, 604-1100. Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 177r-178r by Jacob Scott (pending review).
List of grants to St Andrew’s Church at Rochester, from the time of the foundation by King Æthelberht to Henry I, 604-1100. Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 177r-178r by Jacob Scott (pending review).
Transcription
177r (select folio number to open facsimile)
ANno ab incarnatione domini Sexientesi-
mo. Rex Athelbertus fundaunt eccle-
siam sancti andree apostoli roffensi et dedit ei. Preste-
feld . et omniem terram que est a meduwaie usque
ad orientalem postam cantaur in australi perte
et alias terras extra murum ciuitatis uersus
pertem aquilonalem.
Anno ab incarnatione domini septingesimo . xxx . viii .
Eadbertus Rex cantie dedit ecclesie sancti andree
Stokes. Et anno ab incarnatione domini. Septin-
gentisimo . lxiiii . Offa rex mertiorum et Sige-
redus rex cantie dederuit Frendesberiam.
Esclingham et Wicham. Item rex offa et
Ecbertus dederunt bromheie. Item rex offa
dedit Trottescliue. Et Ck enulfus[?]
rex merciorum dedit Borchstalle.
Anno ab incarnatione domini. Octingensimo . xxxviii .
Ecbertus Rex Westsaxonum et Cantuariorum
dedit eccliae sancti magnas libertates
et ista maneria. hallinges et Snodilande.
Athelwlfus rex filius Egberti regis. dedit
Cuckelestane. et holenberghe.
Eadmundus rex anglorum dedit Mallinges.
Quidam potensis[?] nomine Brichricus cum
177v
uxore sue Ciffwicha dederunt. Dantuna.
et langefeld. falchenham et darente. quod
manerium quomodo ad archiepiscopatum
peruenerit ignoratur. Et Eadgarus rex
anglorum dedit Bromlega. Athelredus
rex anglorum dedit Wldeham et litlebroc
Stantune et hiltune. Scil’ . xv . mansas ter-
rarum. Et Willelmus primus rex anglorum
reddidit has terras Roffensi ecclesie a principibus
in iuste ablatas. Stokes uidelicet et Dennintu-
na et Falchenham. Preterea inter cetera bona
magna que eidem ecclesie in uita sue fecit
imminente articulo mortis sue. centum
libras ei dedit et tunicam propriam regale,
et cornu eburneum. et alia plura ornamen-
ta. Et Willelmi Rex filius eisdem. dedit lam-
theham et hedenham ad uictum monachorum
qui quide’ concessit libertates quas ecclesia
Roffensis huc usque obtinuit . et sua carta con-
firmauit omnium perdictorum dona. Et No-
bilissimus Rex henricus multa bona contu-
lit. Scilicet ecclesias de boxle. de Gillefford.
derenteford. Suttune. cum capellis de Wil-
mintune et de kingesdune. Item ecclesias de
178r
chiselherste et de Wlewich. Item decimas
de strodes . et de chealkes. et alia multa.
Translation
In the year of our Lord's Incarnation six hundred, King Athelbert founded the Church of Saint Andrew the Apostle of Rochester and dedicated it. Priestfields, and all the land which is from the Medway to the east part of Kent in the south and all the land outside the walls… pertaining to aquilonalem. In the year of our Lord's incarnation xxx viii. Eadbert King of Kent gave to the church of Saint Andrew Stoke. And in the year of the Lord's incarnation. Seven hundredth lxiiii Offa, King of the Mercians, and Sigered, king of Cante, surrendered Frindsbury. Esclingham and Wicham. Also the king Offa and Ecbertus gave bromhei. Again the king gave Trottescliue a shot. And Ck enulfus [?] the king gave goods to Borstal. A year from the Lord's incarnation. Eighteenth xxxviii Ecbert, King of the West Saxons and Canterbury, gave great liberties and these manors to the holy church, Halling and Snodland. King Athelwulf, son of King Egbert, gave Cucclestone, and Hollingbourne. Edmund, king of the English, gave Malling. A certain power [?] named Brichricus and his wife gave Ciffwicha. Denton, and Langefeld, Falchenham and the manor. And Eadgar, King of the English, gave Bromleg. Athelred, King of the English, gave Wldeham and litlebroc to Stantune and Hiltune. 15 shillings, mansa of land. And William the first king of the English restored these lands to the Church of Roffen, which had been justly taken away by the princes. Stokes will see both Dennington and Falkenham. Moreover, among the other great goods which he did to the same church during his life, at the imminent moment of his death. He gave him a hundred pounds, and a royal coat, and an ivory horn. and many other ornaments. And King William the son of the same. He gave Lamtheham and Hedenham to the slaughter of the monks who had granted the liberties which the Church of Rochester had hitherto obtained. and by his charter he confirmed the gifts of all the lost. And the most noble King Henry brought many goods. Of course the churches of the Boxley. of Gillefford. Derenteford. Suttune with the chapels of Wilmintune and Kingsdune. Also the churches of Chiselherst and Wlewich. Likewise, the tithes of Strood, and of chealkes, and many other things.
Henry I's commemoration of the feast of St Paulinus
Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 187v by Jacob Scott (pending review).
Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 187v by Jacob Scott (pending review).
Transcription
187v (select folio number to open facsimile)
De feria sancti paulini. Henricus rex anglorum, Anselmo archiepiscopo,
et haimoni uicecomiti, et omnibus hominibus de cænt,
et omnibus baronibus suis totius anglię, salutem. Scia-
tis me dedisse et concessisse ęcclesię sancti andreę
apostoli, et sancti paulini confessoris, et episcopo Gundulfo
et monachis eiusdem ęcclesię, unam feriam omni
anno celebrandam duobus integris diebus in ci-
uitate rouecestra, id est ipsa die festiuita-
tis sancti paulini, et priori die ante ipsam festi-
uitatem, et totum theloneum quod inde eueniet
quietum cum omnibus consuetudinibus feriae tam
extra ciuitatem quam infra, in honorem praedictę
ęcclesię et ipsorum sanctorum. Testibus, Willelmo de Wereluuast,
et eudone dapifero, et haimone dapifero, et Willelmo peurel, et
haimone peuerel.
Translation
Concerning the feast of Saint Paulinus:
Henry, king of the English, to Anselm the archbishop, and Hamo the sheriff, and to all the men of the church, and to all his barons of the whole of England, greetings. Know that I have given and granted to the church of Saint Andrew the Apostle, and Saint Paulinus holy confessor, and Bishop Gundulf and the monks of the same church, one holiday to be celebrated every year for two days in the City of Rochester, that is, on the very day of the feast of Saint Paulinus, and the first day before the festival, and the whole toll which will result in peace with all the customs of the holiday both outside the city and within, in honor of the aforesaid church and their saints. Witnessed by: William of Werelwast, and Eudone the chief steward, and Hamo Dapifer, and William Peverel, and Hamo Peverel.
Bishop Gundulf builds Rochester Castle for the king in return for the manor of Haddenhamc.1108-c.1114 AD
William II confirms Archbishop Lanfranc’s grant of Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, to St Andrew’s Priory, Rochester, for which in return Bishop Gundulf builds Rochester Castle. From Textus Roffensis, folios 173r-174v; edited and translated by Dr Christopher Monk, 2022.
William II confirms Archbishop Lanfranc’s grant of Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, to St Andrew’s Priory, Rochester, for which in return Bishop Gundulf builds Rochester Castle. From Textus Roffensis, folios 173r-174v; edited and translated by Dr Christopher Monk, 2022.1
See general notes on editing and translation
Introduction
The manor of Haddenham in Buckinghamshire was the largest and single most important estate belonging to the monks of St Andrew’s Priory at Rochester. It produced rents, both monetary and food, which significantly contributed to the sustenance of the monks.
This record is a narrative account of King William II, also known as William Rufus, confirming Archbishop Lanfranc’s gift of Haddenham to St Andrew’s Priory. It is not, then, the royal act itself but rather a piece of, what we might call, reinforcing storytelling, a rehearsing of events known to the monks, events which bore directly on their livelihood and physical wellbeing.
Professor Richard Sharpe, in his excellent essay on this ‘Haddenham narrative’, explains the significance of this document:
If this were a tendentious story to justify the monks’ holding Haddenham, it is curiously off the point. It does nothing to establish either that Lanfranc was entitled to alienate [i.e. transfer the legal title to another] or even that the king confirmed the gift. And it has no value as evidence. It is, rather, a story from the collective memory of the community, a story that makes the wall of the castle, so visible from the cathedral priory, a tangible proof of the price they had paid for the king’s confirmation. What Gundulf got in return was security for the monks’ possession of Haddenham. (Sharpe, p. 377.)
William the Conqueror had previously granted Haddenham to Lanfranc. Lanfranc’s ownership is confirmed by the entry for Haddenham in Domesday Book.2 We might at first think that this meant Lanfranc was free to dispose of the manor as he saw fit, but the story shows this was unlikely, as it points out that the king had granted it to him in uita sua tantum, ‘only in his lifetime’, evidently meaning the lifetime of Lanfranc rather than the king’s lifetime.
Intriguingly, a subsequent reviser attempted to score out the phrase in vita sua (‘in his lifetime’), as if to reinforce the idea that Lanfranc had the right to transfer the manor; though, in doing this, all he was doing was confusing the story. However, in the early fourteenth century the Domesday record was copied and added into another of Rochester’s books, Custumale Roffense (c.1235),3 suggesting there may have been a continuing uneasiness on the part of the monks over this particular aspect of the narrative details.
The relevant point is, nevertheless, that the new king evidently objected to the easy transference of the manor to the monks and, it being unwise to gainsay William Rufus, it must have been thought more pragmatic to gain his consent, though at a cost. Sharpe observes that the end of the story makes it clear that Gundulf and Lanfranc ‘wanted the king to change the terms of tenure, so that the monks should hold the gift for ever, not merely until Lanfranc died’. In other words, William was being asked to give up the reversion of Haddenham to the Crown upon Lanfranc’s demise (Sharpe, p. 374). The story tells us that the price for this, after negotiation, was Gundulf’s building of Rochester Castle.
Connection to charters
Though not a charter itself, this narrative record is connected directly to two charters. These are Archbishop Lanfranc’s deed granting Haddenham to the Rochester monks, which is the only authentic surviving charter in his name (Sharpe, p. 364), and which is copied into the fourteenth-century cartulary known as Registrum Temporalium;4 and the charter of confirmation of this grant by William II, which is preserved in Textus Roffensis. You can read the text and translation of this second charter here.
Lanfranc’s grant states that the manor is ad uictum monachorum ‘for the living of the monks’. It also notes that it was given to him pro anima defuncti regis Willemi, qui michi hoc dedit, et pro anima regis W. filii eius et pro mea ‘for the soul of the deceased king William, who gave this to me, and for the soul of king W[illiam] his son, and for mine’ (Brett & Gribbin, p. 8).
The second charter, running from the bottom of folio 212r to halfway down 213r of Textus Roffensis, is addressed ‘to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and all the barons in the kingdom of the English’. It has, as Sharpe notes, a quite remarkable witness list which includes the king, Lanfranc, Archbishop Thomas of York (r.1070-1100), five other bishops, the king’s brother Henry (the future Henry I), Philip, the son of the Count of Flanders, Alan, Count of Rennes, three earls, and seven other important laymen. The presence of Henry means we can date the charter to the summer of 1088 (Sharpe, p. 365).
On folio 213r of Textus Roffensis, this charter is followed by Lanfranc’s own sanction of William’s confirmation, though this was not the work of the main scribe but appears on a replacement folio.5 Sharpe sees no reason, however, to doubt its authenticity (Sharpe, p. 365, note 5).
One further document concerning Haddenham is also preserved in Textus Roffensis. Following on from the previous item, an act by Gundulf, addressed to the shire court of Buckinghamshire, records a subsidiary adjustment to holdings in Haddenham in favour of the monks (Sharpe, p. 365, including note 6).
The narrator
The events described in this narrative relate to the year 1088, when Lanfranc and Gundulf sought royal confirmation of the Haddenham gift. The narrator is not necessarily contemporary with the making of Textus Roffensis, the principal scribe of which was writing around 1123. The composition of the narrative was clearly after the bishop had died, since the phrase beatę memorie ‘of blessed memory’ is used of Gundulf. Sharpe suggests it may have been written ‘during the five-year vacancy in the archbishopric that followed Anselm’s death in April 1109’, which suggests a narrator-monk who very likely knew Gundulf (Sharpe, pp. 368 and 377). We might then give a date of the composition of this record of between 1109 and 1114, though it may have been a few years later.
Despite what might be understood as a fictionalising of some of the detail within the narration – Sharpe points to several instances where ‘the narrator did not really understand the character of the negotiations’ at court (Sharpe, p. 377) – this record in Textus Roffensis is a remarkable witness to the procedures of business that lay behind many royal acts of the Anglo-Norman kings (Sharpe, p. 382).
Transcription
173r (select folio number to open facsimile)
Quomodo Willelmus rex filius Willelmi regis
rogatu Lanfranci archiepiscopi concessit
et confirmauit Rofensi ęcclesię sancti ANDReę
apostoli ad uictum monachorum manerium nomine
Hedenham, quare Gundulfus episcopus castrum
Rofense lapideum totum de suo pro-
prio regi[s] construxit. Aliud6 quoque beatę memorię gundulfus
episcopus non minus memorabile illis contu-
lit beneficium, sed omni potius omnibus seculis uentu-
ris dignum ueneratione. Castrum et enim
quod situm est in pulchriori parte ciuitatis
hrouecestrę pro regia concessione illius doni quod
sepedictus archiepiscopus praedictę ęcclesię ad uictum
monachorum disposuerat dare manerium ui-
delicet quod situm est in comitatu de bucin-
geham nomine hedenham,7 non enim aliter ut
ratum permaneret ipsi ęcclesię illud absque regis
concessione potuit dare, quia pater regis illud
dederat archiepiscopo ( )8 tantum ut sul-
limatus fuit in archiepiscopio. Vnde uuil-
lelmo filio eius ipsum patrem succedente in re-
gno ab archiepiscopo et episcopo de eiusdem manerii
concessione requisitus, respondit centum libras
denariorum habere se uelle pro ipsa concessione.
Quod postquam archiepiscopus et episcopus simul audie-
runt, consternati ualde pariter responde-
runt, illam tantam pecuniam neque tunc in promtu
sese habere, nec etiam unde eam acquirere
potuissent sese scire. Duobus autem amicis u-
trique parte fauentibus, Rodberto uidelicet fi-
lio haimonis, et henrico comite de uuar-
uuic, hinc regium honorem et integram eius ob-
seruantibus uoluntatem, hinc uero amicitiae
fauorem et pro dei amore ęcclesię praedictę mag-
nificum ac profuturum honorem, regi consulu-
erunt quatinus pro pecunia quam pro concessione
manerii exigebat, episcopus gundulfus quia in
opere cementarii plurimum sciens et efficax
erat,9 castrum sibi hrofense lapideum de suo
construeret. Quod ubi archiepiscopo et episcopo in-
notuit, tunc proculdubio magis consternati
dixerunt, et regię concessioni ex toto sese10 abnu-
ere, etiam et ipsum manerium in profundo maris
potius situm iri malle, quam prędictam ęcclesiam
sancti andreę futuris temporibus regiis exacti-
onibus mancipari debere. Nam quotienscunque
quilibet ex infortunio aliquo casu in castro
illo contingeret aut infractione muri, aut
fissura maceriei, id protinus ab episcopo uel ęcclesia
exigeretur usu reficiendum assiduo. Sicque episcopus
et ęcclesia futuri seculi temporibus omnibus, summa
districtione regię summitteretur exactioni. Isto itaque metu perterritus uterque, absit hoc a me
inquit archiepiscopus, absit quoque a me inquit et episcopus. Responsum hoc audiens11 comes henricus, quasi modestę
stimulis irę commotus honestatis dans concito
fremitus, inquit, Hactenus mea ęstimatione
ratus sum archiepiscopum Lanfrancum unum ex uiris
uniuersi orbis extitisse sapientissimis, nunc
autem nec insipientem quod absit esse dico, neque illa
quidem qua dudum sapientia callebat in presentiarum uigere12
ullatenus13 asserere audeo. Quid enim grauedinis
inquit in hoc est, castrum ad ultimum maius
pro xL libris14 ad uoluntatem regis facere, fa-
ctum uero comiti uel uicecomiti comitatus seu aliis
etiam quibus regi placuerit monstrare, mon-
stratum et ex omni parte integrum liberare, se-
mel uero liberato sese penitus expedire, nec unquam
ulterius inde se intromittere, nec etiam eo
respicere? Ad hoc, regem15 aduersus episcopum
uel ęcclesiam futurę seruitutis occasionem nul-
latenus quęrere, immo potius eos ab omni ser-
uitute liberare, atque sicut regem decebat
pro dei timore et seculi honore in summa libertate
eos conseruare uelle. His ergo et aliis nonnullis
huiuscemodi rationibus, tandem acquieuit
archiepiscopus. Igitur hoc pacto coram >rege< inito, fecit
castrum gundulfus episcopus de suo ex integro
totum, costamine ut reor Lx. librarum. Quod
quam diu in seculo subsistere poterit, pro gun-
dulfo episcopo manifesto indicio quasi loquens
erit, ęternum quidem illi ferens testimonium
quod manerium hedenham16 ęcclesię et mona-
chis sancti andreę ab omni exactione et ca-
lumnia regis et omnium hominum permane-
bit liberrimum et quietissimum in secula seculorum.17
Translation
How King William,18 son of William the king,19 at the request of Archbishop Lanfranc,20 granted and confirmed the manor named Haddenham as the living of the monks of the Church of Saint Andrew the Apostle, for which Bishop Gundulf built Rochester Castle, completely of stone, by his own means, for the king.
Bishop Gundulf of blessed memory also brought another benefit, for them no less memorable but all the more worthy of veneration, for all ages to come. A castle – indeed! – which is situated in the more beautiful part of the city of Rochester, in return for the royal grant of that gift which the aforesaid archbishop had arranged to give for the livelihood of the monks of the aforesaid church, that is to say, the manor named Haddenham which is situated in the shire of Buckingham. For he could not otherwise have given it to the church, in a way that it would remain authorised, without the king’s consent, because the father of the king had given it to the archbishop only [for his lifetime],21 when he was elevated to the archbishopric; after which, William his son, on succeeding his father in the kingdom, was asked by the archbishop and bishop for the grant of the same manor. He answered that he would want to have one hundred pounds sterling for this very grant.
After the archbishop and bishop had together heard this, equally greatly dismayed, they answered that they neither had such an amount of money ready to hand nor indeed knew from where they would be able to acquire it. However, they consulted with two of the king’s counsellors, supporters of both sides, namely Robert fitz Haimo,22 and Earl Henry of Warwick23 – on the one hand observing the honour and complete will of the king; on the other, indeed, observing the favour of friendship and, for the love of God, the magnificent and future honour of the aforesaid church – concerning whether instead of the money to the king, which was required for the granting of the manor, bishop Gundulf, seeing as he was in masonry work the greatest in understanding and the ablest, might from his own means build a stone castle for him in Rochester.
When this was made known to the archbishop and bishop, then they said, no doubt more appalled, that they refused the royal grant altogether, and, furthermore, would rather wish this very manor be allowed to go into the depths of the sea than that the aforementioned church of Saint Andrew should be surrendered to royal exactions for the future.
For whenever, from some misfortune, something should happen to the castle, either by weakening of the wall or splitting of masonry, it would immediately be demanded of the bishop and the church that it should diligently be repaired. Thus the bishop and the church at all times in the future would be subjected to utmost severity to meet royal demands.
And, therefore, both were terrified by this dread: “Far be this from me”, said the archbishop, and “Far be this from me also”, said the bishop.
Hearing this response, Earl Henry, stirred as if by spurs of restrained anger and wakened by honour, suddenly emitting roars, said:
Until now, by my estimation, I have regarded Archbishop Lanfranc to have been one of the wisest of men in the whole world; now, however, I do not say that he is foolish – far from it – but nor, indeed, dare I assert that the wisdom with which he had formerly been endowed is at this moment flourishing in every respect.
Indeed, one must ask, what is burdensome in this: to build, at the will of the king, a castle for, at the very most, 40 pounds; in truth, to show the deed to the earl or the sheriff of the country or to others, if it pleased the king, and having shown it to be complete on every side, deliver it; and once delivered, to set oneself completely free, never to deal with it or even to look back at it?
Further, the king would not in any way seek against the bishop or the church an occasion for future obligation. On the contrary, it is preferable to liberate them from every servitude; moreover, as a king it is fitting, for the fear of God and the honour of the world, to wish to keep them in the highest degree of liberty.
Well, with these and several other reasonings of this sort, the archbishop finally acquiesced. Consequently, by this agreement, entered upon in the presence of the king, bishop Gundulf made the castle out of all that he had, at the cost, I believe, of sixty pounds.
For as long as it will stand in the world, it will be clear proof on behalf of Bishop Gundulf, as if he were speaking, indeed, bearing eternal witness that the manor of Haddenham will continue to belong to the church and the monks of Saint Andrew, completely free and completely quit of all exactions and claims of the king and of all persons, for ever and ever.
Cited Works
Brett, Martin & Joseph Gribbin (eds.), English Episcopal Acta 28, Canterbury, 1070-1136 (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Sharpe, Richard, ‘Doing Business with William Rufus: The Haddenham Narrative’, in Textus Roffensis: Law, Language, and Libraries in Early Medieval England, ed. Bruce O’Brien and Barbara Bombi (Brepols, 2015).
Footnotes
1 My grateful thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading the English text. Any errors remain my own.
2 See the entry for Haddenham in Open Domesday [accessed 23 August 2022].
3 The digitised facsimile of Custumale Roffense is available online [accessed 23 August 2022]. The Domesday document is written in a probably fourteenth-century hand, and is thus a later insertion into the book, the majority of which was penned around 1235.
4 Also called Liber Temporalium.
5 The replacement folio also meant that the second half of the witnesses’ signatures had to be recopied. The hand, though not that of the main scribe, is nevertheless roughly contemporary with it, I would suggest.
6 In the left margin, before the green letter A, there is a so-called gallows-pole, or a Greek letter gamma; in the right margin, there is a manicule, a pointing finger, beside gundulfus. These are likely later marks, though still medieval, intended to draw attention to the document.
7 The spelling has been altered from hederham to hedenham. This is suggestive of the document being read at a later stage by a monk who wished, perhaps through caution or nervousness, to modify the name of the manor to what was apparently the current spelling of his time.
8 Text has been erased but it is still just about visible; Richard Sharpe gives it as in vita sua.
9 episcopus… erat, underlined by a later hand.
10 The letters se have been inserted above the line.
11 audiens has been inserted above the line over the word comes.
12 ŭ uigere is appended in the margin.
13 ull is appended in the margin.
14 The letter a has been partly erased and replaced by i which is inserted above.
15 The scribe has left a space after regem but for what purpose is unclear.
16 Spelling altered, probably from ‘Hederham’.
17 The letters at the end of seculorum are stretched in the manuscript.
18 I.e. William II, aka William Rufus (r. 1087-1100).
19 I.e. William I, aka William the Conqueror (r. 1066-1087).
20 Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury (r.1070–89), appointed by William I.
21 ‘only [for his lifetime]’, translating ‘[in vita sua] tantum’; a reviser had attempted to erase ‘in vita sua’ but it is still visible; see Sharpe, pp. 373-34.
22 Also often spelt Robert Fitzhamon (d. 1107). He was the son of Haimo, sheriff of Kent, and one of the king’s household stewards (Sharpe, p. 376).
23 Henry de Beaumont, earl of Warwick from 1088 to 1119.
