Quantcast
Channel: Carmen and Conquest
Viewing all 47 articles
Browse latest View live

Blogging the Carmen and the Conquest

$
0
0
Today's the big day.  I'm getting ready to hit the publish button to send my translation of the Carmen off to Kindle for publication.  So I guess this first post to the blog is about why I did it.

There is only one contemporaneous account of the Norman Conquest: Carmen de Normannicum Conquestum or The Song of the Norman Conquest.  The Carmen is an 835 line untitled epic poem attributed to Guy de Amiens, Bishop of Amiens, probably penned in early to mid-1067.  He drew on eyewitness accounts of the events depicted, and dedicated the resulting poem to Lanfranc of Pavia, Abbot at the Abbey of St Stephen at Caen in 1066 and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1070.  Lanfranc had accompanied William the Conqueror throughout the conquest as an advisor on religious and political matters.  He was in a position to have observed first hand all the events described, and indeed, may have been one of the sources for Guy de Amiens in compiling the conquest story.  Lanfranc is invited by Guy in the dedication of the Carmen to amend his draft to make it acceptable for publication to the world.  For these reasons, the Carmen is broadly regarded as providing the most authoritative account of the Norman Conquest.

The Carmen only exists now as one Latin manuscript in Medieval Latin miniscule script on vellum, with a further fragment of the first 66 lines, in the Royal Library of Brussels.  It is a very fragile record of the great events of 1066.  Years later the Bayeux Tapestry would depict the same scenes, but that is the graphic novel version of the conquest story.  It is the Carmen alone that offers the official record.  Every word has weight, every line has import. 

The image below approximates the actual size of the Carmen manuscript:



I started my own English translation frustrated by the quality of the 1972 translation published by Oxford Medieval Texts.  The translators missed a lot of context, and good translation requires context.  I am sympathetic that theirs was a fair effort, but modern techniques make a better translation possible and perhaps inevitable.  And I rejected utterly their tortured punctuation in favour of a much simpler model.  While there is no punctuation in the original text, it seemed to me that the author had carefully scripted and delimited his ideas line by line.  Once I grasped the tight and elegant structure of the Carmen, if my English jarred, I knew it was wrong.

I began working through a few lines at a time just for fun, to discover for myself the meaning in key scenes of the Carmen.  Soon it was an obsession to unlock all the meaning and make it accessible in English to a wider readership and wider scholarship.  I hope the result is a cracking good read that will be enjoyed by everyone who comes to it, whether Latin scholar, armchair historian, battle re-enactor or student.

When it originally appeared in a French collection of Anglo-Norman Chronicles it was styled Carmen de Hastingae Proelio - the Song of the Battle of Hastings.  A further transcription a decade later title it Carmen de Bello Normannico - Song of the Norman War.  I do not regard either of these earlier names as accurately capturing the scope of the Carmen. The Carmen provides an account of the Norman Conquest from departing Dives to St Valery-sur-Somme to the a camp and fortress on the Sussex coast to the bloody battlefield to Hastings to Dover to Winchester to London to Westminster.  It encompasses everything from the preparation of the fleet to the coronation of William the Conqueror.  It offers history, religion, blood, plunder, politics and conquest.  For these reasons I am giving my translation of the Carmen the bigger and more accurate title:  Carmen de Normannicum Conquestum - The Song of the Norman Conquest.

As I began to put history to the narrative of the Carmen, many surprising facts came to light, and many surprising patterns emerged.  Some of these facts will be at odds with the received wisdom and general understanding of English history about the conquest.  That is unfortunate, but progress requires the recognition of error.  The Carmen is very likely right, and history as it is taught is very likely wrong.  So much of what we think we know is what we choose to know.  Perhaps it is time to offer a wider choice that places English history in a wider context, painted on a wider canvas.  

My translation of the Carmen makes the following revelations:
  • Where the Norman fleet landed on the Sussex coast;
  • Where the camp was erected;
  • Where the former fortification was restored and why it had been razed;
  • Why certain parts of Sussex and Kent were raided and not others;
  • Where the battle was fought;
  • Where the thousands of Saxon and Norman dead are likely buried;
  • Where Harold died and where Harold's remains were buried;
  • Who approached William to seek a political settlement for London;
  • The legal argument the envoy used to win William into conceding London's liberty;
  • The identity of the Norman prelate at the bilingual coronation in Westminster Abbey;
  • Why Battle Abbey couldn't be on the battlefield and why the alternative site was chosen.
These are big advances in the conquest history.  They require a lot of confirmatory authority and archeology.  That requires a team rather than an individual effort, and years rather than weeks.

The objective of this blog is to provide a forum for sharing ideas and evaluating theories that emerge as the Carmen reveals its own truth about the events of 1066.  In like spirit to Guy de Amiens, I am happy to learn from others and to open my work to collaboration and supplement. 

The Carmen and The Conquest: Published at last

$
0
0
It's been a rollercoaster ride of thrilling insight and wearing frustration, but finally I hit the "publish" button on the Kindle publishing website this morning.  The Carmen and The Conquest will be available worldwide as an ebook within 12 hours.


I have no idea what the world or even historians will make of this translation or the commentary that accompanies it.  That will be a further part of the adventure.  Until now it has just been me and Guy de Amiens, communing across the centuries that intervene between his lifetime and mine through the written record of his words.  Now I've invited the whole world to enter into our dialogue, critiquing my work in translating him this year and challenging his authority on the events of 1066.

Should be fun.


The Carmen and The Conquest: Kindle Link

$
0
0
I have to admit checking every few hours yesterday to see if the ebook was available at Amazon yet.  It was there when I checked after dinner.

The Carmen and The Conquest


What's wrong with the Barlow Carmen?

$
0
0
The short answer to the title question is I don't know what's wrong with the Barlow Carmen.  I haven't seen the Barlow Carmen.  It costs over £100 on Amazon and isn't available from any public lending library in southeast England.  I might have been able to obtain it on inter-library loan from the British Library, but I am not a scholar and didn't want it for research.  I wanted a Carmen to read for personal enjoyment.  I wanted a Carmen to understand the contemporaneous Norman story of the events of the conquest as they unfolded in 1066.

Now that I have produced my own English translation of the Carmen, those familiar with the Barlow Carmen ask why I bothered. The question has been raised five times in three months, so here is the answer.

I never intended to translate the Carmen before actually doing so.  I took possession of the only English translation Carmen I could obtain (the Morton & Muntz Carmen from 1972) from my local library on 25th January, having waited three weeks for the only copy available in southeast England, and within days the Carmen took possession of me.

It is an indictment of the academic press that the Carmen is so hard to get and so expensive.  Every schoolchild in Britain should know about the Carmen as an epic story of blood, plunder and conquest that shaped world history.  Every English historian should have a copy.  Although if they were exposed to the M&M version, they might not find the story gripping or credible.  Right away I began to see problems with the translation.

I started translating a few lines myself, one or two at a time, and the more I did, the angrier I got.  There is so much more in the Carmen than appeared in the English.  I stopped reading the English.

I found the original published Carmen from 1840 and another transcription from 1869.  I transcribed the Carmen in Latin from beginning to end, and then began translating it from line 1 to line 835.  When I finished I went back and re-translated everything that jarred.  Where the Latin didn't make sense, I checked all the transcriptions for possible errors and made sensible corrections of my own.  I kept doing this obsessively for more than four months, sometimes 20 hours a day.  My son became frightened when he started coming home from school to find me still hunched over the keyboard in my jammies, not having bothered to eat, brush my teeth or feed the cats.  If anyone doubts the originality of my efforts, I have plenty of translations of incrementally improving quality to prove that I did the work.

Why is my Carmen worth reading?  First, it costs £100 less than the Barlow Carmen.  If you want a Carmen that reads well and doesn't put you in debt, mine is a sensible choice.  Second, my Carmen is available worldwide instantly as an ebook, where the Barlow Carmen is almost entirely unavailable to the public except to scholars with access to specialist libraries or people who can drop £100 on a book.  Third, my Carmen is free of received translation and therefore probably truer to the original Latin.  I'll let others compare the texts, but what I know for certain is that I reveal significant new facts embedded in the Latin of the Carmen while still translating it word for word from the original.

The most glaring wrong-headed mis-translation involves lines 681 to 688.  I'll provide comparisons of the M&M and mine below.  This is only an example of how a better translation completely changes the history revealed in the Carmen. 

Morton & Muntz Carmen:

In the city there was a certain man crippled by a weakness of the loins and therefore slow upon his feet, because he had received some few wounds in the service of his country.  He was borne on a litter, lacking the ability  to move, yet he commanded all the chief men of the city and the affairs of the community were conducted by his aid.  To this man, by an envoy, the king secretly revealed a better choice, privately seeking to learn how far he favoured this.

Tyson Carmen:


681.           Intus erat quidam contractus debilatate
Among those drawn together to weaken

682.           Regnum sicque pedum signis ab officio,
Royal powerwas a bishop whose staff of office was a shepherd’s crook,

683.           Vulnera pro patria quoniam numerosa recepit.
Sorrowful for his country because the multitude were besieged.

684.           Lectica vehitur mobilitate cavens.
A litter was set in motion bearing him cautiously.

685.          Omnibus ille tamen primatibus imperat urbis,
Of all men, those most superior rule over the City,

686.           Ejus in auxilio publica res agitur.
Overseeing it in the public interest.

687.           Huic per legatum clam rex pociora revelat.
He revealed this legacy unknown to the better king,

688.           Secreti poscens quatinus his faveat.
Asking to what extent hewould support separate rule.

As far as I can tell from excerpts online, Barlow sticks with the dude with the groin injury in his translation, evidencing the dangers of received translations.  I have some sympathy as I caught two transcription errors in the Latin in these lines.  But just on common sense grounds, earlier translators should have been wary.  The Carmen doesn't describe anyone's physical features, so making six lines descriptive of someone not even royal struck me as immediately false.

The bishop, probably William of Malmesbury, Bishop of London (pro patria indicates he was perceived as a Londoner), was troubled by the siege's effects on London's citizens.  He went to King William at Westminster and revealed that London was a church livery borough.  The livery status of London was the legacy unknown to William (clam).

Res publica is the phrase that gives us the word republic, a community that covenants liberty in exchange for municipal obligations.  Here the words are reversed, but the meaning is clear enough.  London is a civil jurisdiction self-administered by its aldermen having a livery port.  The City owed its loyalty to the king and its tributes to the church.

The London bishop has revealed to King William that the most powerful church in France has a claim over London just as Fecamp Abbey in Normandy held Hastings and the Rye Camber ports in Sussex under other royal charters.  The King of France is William's suzerain as Duke of Normandy, and in any event, William would never offend the powerful Church of Saint-Denis.  As soon as William learns that London is a livery port of Saint-Denis, he immediately concedes to London's citizens all the customary immunities and privileges of civil jurisdictions, common to both England and France.  He assures the bishop that the aldermen can continue to rule the City if they swear an oath of loyalty to him as king, as was customary for aldermen of civil jurisdictions in both countries.  

French, Norman and Breton shipping into the port of Billingsgate in London would remain free of tax and toll into the 13th century.  Free trade endured between London and France for more than 500 years!  London owes its ancient liberties to French clerics - and two French brothers who left them the original legacy in 788.  Did you know that?  I didn't before I started studying the Carmen.  And no one has ever identified the bishop as the emissary of the City in 1066 before.

The legacy of this political accommodation still shapes British politics.  The City still elects the Lord Mayor from its aldermen.  The City has its own police force, independent of the London Metropolitan Police.  The wealthy elite of the City still resist taxation and regulation by Westminster.  Had William treated London as harshly as he treated Dover - whose burgesses had thrown off the church's protection and rebeled against royal authority under Godwin of Wessex - then the City of London and British history would be very different today.

And that's why I translated the Carmen word by laborious word.  It is important that the history the Carmen reveals about the Norman Conquest be better understood and more widely available.  Priced on Amazon Kindle under £7.00 in Britain and under $10.00 in the USA, I am  hopeful that many others will enjoy the Carmen and come to better appreciate the history and events of the Norman Conquest.

A medieval data standard? The Carmen suggests a Barony Naming Convention

$
0
0
A lot of the globalisation of financial markets has been driven by the implementation of global data standards so that computers can talk to each other in the same language around the world.  I've been involved in developing these data standards for international payments and securities markets for almost 20 years.  As a result, I am perhaps more sensitive to data standards than many.

Perhaps that is why I am drawn to Latin.  Latin was a global Roman-era and medieval data standard for globally consistent communications.  Anyone speaking or writing Latin could communicate with anyone else speaking or writing Latin throughout the Roman Empire or the Catholic Church.

When I first read through the Carmen in Latin portus ab antiquis Vimaci - the ancient port of Vimeu - at line 48 leapt out at me, as I had already read somewhere that the Norman invasion fleet departed from St Valery-sur-Somme, at the mouth of the Somme River.  Indeed, the description of the port in the Carmen said that the Abbey of Saint Valery overlooked the port and that it was at the mouth of the Somme, so there could be no mistake.

So what or where was Vimaci/Vimeu?  Why was the name Vimaci used by the Guy de Amiens writing the Carmen instead of the name of the port, despite his being otherwise very economical in his text?

Vimeu is not a port or even a town.  It was a medieval barony.  The medieval barony spread inland from the coast of the Somme covering a pretty large area.   As soon as I saw this, I thought<barony naming convention/>!

The cleric who wrote the Carmen adopted a convention of ignoring local place names in favour of referencing the barony associated with the local place and supplementing the barony name with locally descriptive features.  If this was true for Guy de Amiens, it might be true for other medieval clerics as well.

A barony naming convention would explain why the Normans called it the Battle of Hastings instead of naming it for the battlefield.  The battle took place in the Rape (barony) of Hastings on land that was subject to Hastings' jurisdiction.  The Saxons called it the Battle of Senlac according to Orderic Vitalis, after the local name of the place.  Senlac means "sandy stream" and would fit the wide, sandy Brede Valley through which the estuarine Brede River meandered.

A barony naming convention would explain why the makers of the Bayeux Tapestry wrote that the fleet sailed for Pevensey if it landed at Petit Iham.  The port of Petit Iham was a limb of the Rape (barony) of Pevensey, owing the service of ships, men and boys to Pevensey each year for fixed terms.
38HIC WILLELM[US] DUX IN MAGNO NAVIGIO MARE TRANSIVIT ET VENIT AD PEVENESAEHere Duke William in a great fleet crossed the sea and came to Pevensey

File:BayeuxTapestryScene38.jpg

A barony naming convention would explain why the raiding parties went to loot Hastings though it is clear from the pictures in the tapestry - and particularly the depiction of the boats with open oar ports - that the camp was some remote distance from Hastings along the coast.
40ET HIC MILITES FESTINAVERUNT HESTINGA UT CIBUM RAPERENTURand here the knights have hurried to Hastings to seize food

File:BayeuxTapestryScene40.jpg

A barony naming convention would explain why the makers of the Bayeux Tapestry wrote that the a motte was erected at the Hastings camp.  Iham Hill was a parish in the jurisdiction of medieval Hastingas, probably going back to the original King Offa charter giving Hastings, Pevensey, Londonwick and other ports and trade privileges to the Abbey of Saint-Denis.  The camp of the invasion force was in the Rape of Hastings.
45ISTE JUSSIT UT FODERETUR CASTELLUM AT HESTENGA CEASTRAHe ordered that a motte should be dug at Hastings Camp



File:BayeuxTapestryScene45.jpg

The same barony naming convention would explain why the army marched from Hastings to go to battle.  If the building shown is the rebuilt "fortress lately razed" of St Leonard's Church on Iham Hill, then it makes sense.  St Leonard's was a parish of Hastings, in the Rape of Hastings.
48HIC MILITES EXIERUNT DE HESTENGA ET VENERUNT AD PR[O]ELIUM CONTRA HAROLDUM REGE[M]Here the knights have left Hastings and have come to the battle against King Harold

File:BayeuxTapestryScene48.jpg

Hastinga being sacked is clearly different to Hastinga Ceastra where they have camped, and both look different to the fortified place from which the army marches.  If they are all named Hastings because of a Barony Naming Convention, then these diverse scenes of the Bayeux Tapestry which seem to imply three different places may finally make sense.

I am not enough of a medieval scholar to know whether others have detected the use of a barony naming convention before in other medieval clerical works, but I am very keen to find out!

Who killed King Harold at the Battle of Hastings?

$
0
0
This scene from the Carmen is the one that most interests popular historians.  The death of King Harold is described from line 533 to line 554.

Because the manuscript Carmen in Medieval Latin miniscule lacks any punctuation, this scene is open to multiple interpretations of who exactly killed King Harold.  The received translation of the Carmen has William the Conqueror himself leading the charge of four united to kill the king.  I've decided this is nonsense as no other record of the Norman Conquest suggests that Duke William himself killed King Harold.  That is the kind of fact that would have been established early if either true (unlikely) or politically compelled by an egomaniac duke (even less likely). 

The composer of the Carmen is sane, even-handed and not given to flights of flattery (unlike some later Norman chroniclers), so I don't think he would make a scene of the duke killing the king if that isn't how the battle was described to him.  Instead, I think earlier translators erred in ignoring the intent of the word alter in line 537.  It can mean another or it can mean one of two.   



535.           Advocat Eustachium, liquens ibi praelia Francis,
He [Duke William] called Eustace to him, leaving the French to clear the field,

536.           Oppressis validum contulit auxilium.
To unite in aid of conquering the summit.

537.           Alter, ut Hectorides, Pontivi nobilis heres,
One of two Hughs, like Hector, the noble heir of Ponthieu,

538.           Hos comitatur Hugo, promtus in officio.
Another Hugh accompanied him, eager to serve.

539.          Quartus Gilfardus, patris a cognomine dictus.
Giffard made a fourth, called by his father’s surname.

540.           Regis ad exicium quatuor arma ferunt.
These four came armed for the destruction of the king.



Eustace of Boulogne is the first to respond to the duke's summons.  It would be a waste of a word to distinguish the next person from Eustace or highlight him as another among four.  The composer of the Carmen doesn't waste words.  Every word has meaning that contributes to the story being told.  Also, the final line confirms that four came to the summons.  For this reason I think alter used here must mean one of two Hughs.

One of the two Hughs was the heir to the very home of Guy de Ponthieu (later Bishop Guy de Amiens) and a kinsman.  Hugh de Ponthieu was a nephew of Bishop Guy de Amiens, and someone the bishop would want to distinguish.  He therefore styles his kinsman Hugh as Alter ut Hectorides - One of two like Hector - to give him a bit of martial classical polish.  This distinguishes him from the eager Hugh, possibly Hugh de Monfort or Hugh de Avranche, of the line that follows.  The fourth was the younger Walter Giffard.

Each of the four plays a role in the death, so that King Harold falls to lance, sword, pike and axe.  It would make no sense to have three other killers and four distinct blows if the author wanted to give William the Conqueror credit for King Harold's death.

The death of Harold was already in dispute in 1067, as the Carmen's composer notes at line 542, so he would have been cautious in writing a record of the battle that he then hoped would be read throughout the world.

It seems likely quite a mob of allied cavalry responded to the duke's summons for an assault on the summit.  The resulting melee may have been variously reported.

Alternatively, Guy de Amiens may have been anticipating other claims for the credit of killing King Harold. The story of an arrow striking down the king first emerges from Amatus of Monte Cassino in 1080.  The Italian archers at the Battle of Hastings may have wanted credit for the famous victory.  This would explain why the Carmen at line 543 says "Through great carnage is the martial claim proven." 

Certainly the archers and crossbowmen were critical in overwhelming the superior numbers of Saxons in the shield wall and fyrd.  Even if there were 12,000 - as the Carmen suggests - their pikes, swords and axes, and even their spears, would have been ineffectual against allied artillery firing at them all through the morning, as described in the Carmen, decimating their ranks from a safe distance.  The terror of death raining down on them while they stood helpless must have been maddening.  Saxons had never confronted crossbow bolts before, capable of piercing their shields and chainmail.  Even the Norman arrows were steel tipped and barbed for maximum penetration and damage, and they had spent all year manufacturing sufficient arms for the attack.  Having provided the strategic advantage which assured victory for the Normans, the allied archers from Italy may have sought credit for the death of King Harold as well.

The Bayeux Tapestry does not clarify things much here.  There are two figures potentially identified as Harold in the scene titled "Here King Harold is killed".
One might have an arrow in his eye, although it is suggested this was added later.  The other is being cut down by a knight, and possibly having his leg cut off.  The Carmen would support the later image as being King Harold.  The Carmen depicts Harold as fighting bravely to the last.

Interesting to note the French already stripping the dead of anything of value in the lower margin of the Tapestry, again consistent with the narrative of the Carmen.




Lanfranc - A very unhappy archbishop of Canterbury!

$
0
0
I came across a 1070 letter of Lanfranc of Pavia (prior of Bec, next abbot of Caen, then archbishop of Canterbury from 1070) to Pope Alexander II, and had no sooner started reading it than I was hooting with laughter.  It's a pure joy to read, despite it expressing the unhappiness of poor Lanfranc at finding himself beset among the brutish, pagan and near-pagan English against his will. 

Here it is, from Lanfranci Opera, J.A. Giles (1844):

To Pope Alexander, the chief shepherd of holy Church, Lanfranc, an unworthy prelate, canonical obedience.  I know no one, holy father, to whom I can with greater propriety unfold my troubles than to you, who are the cause of these calamities.  For when William, duke of Normandy, drew me forth from the monastery of Le Bec where I had assumed the religious habit, and appointed me to preside over that of Caen, I found myself unequal to the task of governing a few monks.  Therefore I cannot comprehend by what dispensastion of the Almighty I have been promoted at your behest to undertake the supervision of an innumberable mulititude.  The aforesaid prince, after he had become king of England, tried every means to bring this about, but laboured in vain until your legates, Ermenfrid, bishop of Sitten, and Hubert, cardinal of the holy Roman Church, came to Normandy, caused the bishops, abbots and magnates of that land to be assembled, and in their presence and by virtue of the authority of the apostolic see commanded me to undertake the government of the church of Canterbury.  Against this I pleaded in vain my incapacity and unworthiness, my ignorance of the language and of the barbarous people.  My plea did not avail.  What need of further words!  I gave my consent, I came, I took the burden upon me, and such are the cares and troubles, the discomfort of mind I daily endure, so great are the annoyance, the suffering, the losses caused me by different persons pulling me in opposite directions, the harshness, avarice and baseness that I see around me; so dire is the peril to which in my view holy Church is exposed, that I grow weary of my life, and lament that it has been prolonged to witness such times.  But bad as is the present state of things when I look around me, I feel the future will be still worse.  That I may not detain your highness, whose time must be fully occupied with other weighty matters, longer than is necessary - since it was beyond dispute by your authority that I became charged with these duties - I entreat you in God's name and for the sake of your own soul, by the same authority to release me from them and grant me leave to return once more to the monastic life I love above all other.  Do not, I pray, spurn this my petition, for I only ask what is right and necessary to my well-being.  You should remember, and indeed never forget, how ready I have always been to entertain in my monastery your kinsfolk and others who came bearing letters of introduction from Rome.  I instructed them in both sacred and secular learning as well as I was able to teach or they to learn; and many other things I might mention in which I have been of service to you or your predecessors when time or circumstances allowed.  My conscience bears witness that I do not say this boastfully or by way of reproach, or to obtain favours from you beyond what is due to my obedience.  My sole object in writing this letter is to put forward a just and valid reason why for Christ's sake I should obtain the favour I am seeking at your hands.  If, however, you should be guided by the interests of others and decide to refuse my request, it is greatly to be feared you may run the risk - which  God forbid - of committing a sin by the very act you consider well-pleasing to God.  For I have met with no spiritual success in these parts either directly or indirectly, or, if any, it is so slight that it cannot possibly be weighed against my misfortunes.  But enough of this for the present.  When I was at Rome and by God's grace had the pleasure of seeing you and conversing with you, you invited me to visit you again the following year at Christmas and to spend three or four months in your palace as your guest.  But God is my witness, and the angels, that I could not do so without great personal inconvenience and to the detriment of my affairs.  For this there are many different reasons, too long to be related in a short letter; but, should the heavenly powers preserve my life circumstances permit, I long to visit you and the shrine of the holy apostles and the holy Roman Church.  To this end I entreat you to pray the divine mercy that long life may be granted to my lord the king of England and peace from all his enemies.  May his heart ever be moved by love for God and holy Church with all devotion of spirit.  For while he lives we enjoy peace of a kind, but after his death we may scarcely hope to experience either peace or any manner of good.
I can't help wondering if Pope Alexander II had the same reaction I did when he read this, and envision him rolling about on crimson cushions laughing at the trials of the ever-insolent and insubordinate Lanfranc.

Despite his cares of office, Lanfranc would outlive his former student.  Alexander II died in 1073.  Lanfranc would remain archbishop of Canterbury until his death in 1089.  His death removed the last constraint on the ill-natured William Rufus, King William II, who then fell out with the Church and brought chaos on the realm as the wily Lanfranc had much earlier predicted.

Paperback Carmen Now Available

$
0
0
The paperback version of The Carmen and the Conquestis now available worldwide.  It's a good feeling to handle a physical book still, even if the words are the same as the ebook version.  Somehow paging through a book allows me to take in information differently, and retain it more effectively, and I suspect I am not alone in this. 

And it looks good.  The cover now features a map of the region where I believe the Carmen says the action all took place, with the Saxon red dragon pennant marking where King Harold's forces might have gathered and the Norman banner marking where the Norman camp is suggested.




Now begins the marketing phase in my career as Guy d'Amiens' 21st century translator.  I've got postcards with the cover printed on them and a description of the book on the reverse.  The first batch will go out today to bookshops concentrated around the Hastings area, parts of London, and university bookshops.  It will be interesting to see what sort of response is generated.

I showed the book to someone over the weekend who lives near Hastings.  He immediately grasped the import of the map, and agreed that the Normans would have chosen a sensible estuarine port for the landing.  When I explained about the Fecamp Abbey interest in the region, he agreed that the Brede Valley was most eligible, although he has always had a local partiality for Cuckmere as a possibility.  Given how heavily laden the Norman boats must have been with men, horses, weaponry and supplies, I can't see Duke William being keen to extend his journey by almost double the distance - and almost all of that at sea in the chops of the Channel with treacherous bars, reefs and coastal currents. 

The conversation reminded me that almost everyone on the south coast of England will have fixed views on the Norman Conquest, and few will readily accept new insights or even facts that conflict with cherished biases.  All I can expect is to open a conversation, revealing a new understanding of the Carmen's text, and see where it leads.



Carmen and Conquest Press Release

$
0
0


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: 13/06/2013
Contact: Kathleen Tyson, +44 **** *** 566, carmenandconquest@gmail.com
Oldest record of the Norman Conquest reveals a new history of 1066
A new translation of the 1067 epic poem of the Norman Conquest suggests William the Conqueror landed at Winchelsea, the Saxons died facing the Normans on the ridge above Hastings, and the City of London owes its historic liberties to French clerics.
London– Published this month and available globally through Amazon as both a paperback and ebook, The Carmen and the Conquest provides the original 1067 Latin account of the Norman Conquest by Bishop Guy d’Amiens and an English translation by Kathleen Tyson that breaks new ground for the history of 1066.  Geographic clues in the poem place the 500 Norman ships and 5000 troops recruited from throughout Europe in the Brede Valley, then an estuarine port tidal all the way from Winchelsea to Sedlescombe.  Tyson suggests the landing was chosen because it provided the safest beachhead for the heavily laden ships and the Normans perceived the port as legally Norman territory.  The land and port had been held under royal charters by Fecamp Abbey in Normandy until Godwin of Wessex and the young Harold (King Harold in 1066) violently seized the land from the Norman clerics and colonists in 1052.  Hastings and Pevensey were also seized from foreign abbeys, making them territorial objectives of the invaders and not just scenes in the conquest landscape.
“The Carmen tells a thrilling story with important insights into the causes and course of the conquest.  Past translations have omitted important details and been inaccessible to the history reading public, and I wanted that to change,” said Tyson.  She started translating the Latin piecemeal herself when she suspected the account of negotiations for the City of London was inaccurate.  In her translation King William cedes privileges and self-determination to the City when told by a bishop that a French church has claims there. 
Tyson isn’t the first to suggest the Normans might have landed in the Brede Valley.  Dr Marjorie Chibnall of Clare Hall, Cambridge, who died aged 96 last year, suggested the Brede Valley as a possible landing site in 1995.  Orderic Vitalis’ 12th century Ecclesiastical History, which Dr Chibnall translated, records that the Saxons gathered to confront the Normans at the place they called Senlac and named the battle as the Battle of Senlac.  Senlac means sandy stream.  The Brede River, swelled twice daily by tides, would have been the most prominent sandy stream in Sussex in 1066.  If the battle was fought on the great ridge above Hastings, as Tyson now suggests, the Saxons would have been facing the river and sands in the valley below while the Normans faced toward the steep slope of the ridge and Hastings, explaining the different names each side gave to the same battle.
Tyson even provides a reason for siting Battle Abbey somewhere else entirely.  One of King William’s first acts was to legally convey Hastings and other coastal lands back to Fecamp Abbey in 1067, so that when he founded Battle Abbey to memorialise his conquest three years later he had to look further inland for another hill.

- ### -

.

Two excerpts revealing the importance of context in translation

$
0
0
Morton & Muntz 1972 Carmen (Oxford Medieval Press):

In the city there was a certain man crippled by a weakness of the loins and therefore slow upon his feet, because he had received some few wounds in the service of his country.  He was borne on a litter, lacking the ability  to move, yet he commanded all the chief men of the city and the affairs of the community were conducted by his aid.  To this man, by an envoy, the king secretly revealed a better choice, privately seeking to learn how far he favoured this.

Tyson 2013 Carmen (Granularity / CreateSpace):


681.           Intus erat quidam contractus debilatate
Among those drawn together to weaken
682.           Regnum sicque pedum signis ab officio,
Royal powerwas onewhose staff of office was a bishop's crozier,
683.           Vulnera pro patria quoniam numerosa recepit.
Sorrowful for his country because the multitude were besieged.
684.           Lectica vehitur mobilitate cavens.
A litter set forth bearing him cautiously.
685.          Omnibus ille tamen primatibus imperat urbis,
Of all men, those most superior rule the City,
686.           Ejus in auxilio publica res agitur.
Overseeing it in the public interest.
687.           Huic per legatum clam rex pociora revelat.
He revealed this legacy unknown to the better king,
688.           Secreti poscens quatinus his faveat.
Asking to what extent hewould support separate rule.

London was a church livery port, granted to the Abbey of Saint-Denis in a royal charter by King Offa in 790, along with the ports of Hastings and Pevensey.  William the Conqueror had known about the livery status of Hastings and Pevensey, and indeed the seizure of the ports by Godwin of Wessex was almost certainly casus belli for the Roman Catholic Church joining forces with Duke William for the invasion of England.  William had not known about London, but as soon as he is told by the bishop of the French church's livery claim, he cedes all the customary privileges and immunities owed to a church harborough, including self-administration by elected aldermen. 

This passage is my favourite in the Carmen as it offers an 11th century defense of democracy and civil rule.  And it shows better than any other part of the translation why historical context is important to good translation.

--- Article Removed ---

$
0
0
***
***
*** RSSing Note: Article removed by member request. ***
***

Speaker notes from Leeds International Medieval Congress 2013

$
0
0


[This was written on Wednesday, 3rd July 2013 at IMC Leeds 2013]

I’m at my first International Medieval Congress in Leeds.  I’ve learned huge amounts about history, filling in quite a few gaps that have niggled as I worked away at the Carmen over the past six months, but I’ve also learned how an academic conference is organised and how academics interact.  It’s very different to the commercial and banking events I’m more familiar with, but quite as exciting.

As there were mostly doctoral candidates and young historians presenting, I thought I’d offer some tips as many will be new to presenting to an international audience.


  • Most presenters speak too fast.  Each academic has only 15 or 20 minutes to present a paper.  They try to cram as much of their research into it as they can sensibly convey, usually producing something 10 – 12 pages long to read.  They then stand there and read the text to the audience at top speed, heads bowed.  This is ineffective.  The audience is a global audience, and most have English as a second language.  Reading a complex text, head bowed so they can’t read your face or lips, ensures that most of the audience will have little idea what you are saying and be barely able to follow your line of reasoning.  Spending more time on organising content and then speaking slowly while looking at the audience to gauge their comprehension would convey more information more effectively.

  • Too few among the presenters provide contact details or website links.  As the IMC organisers do not publish contact details for participants, this makes it difficult to follow up easily on issues or observations.  Few seem to carry business cards either, making follow up or networking difficult.  Business cards cost almost nothing to print.  Everyone at a conference should have them, but especially speakers.

  • PowerPoint and hand-outs are your friends.  Those presenters, particularly those with heavy accents both native English and non-English, that used PowerPoint and/or hand-outs to illustrate Latin text, compare sources or summarise key points were much more effective.

  • If you a presenting to build your professional profile (and who isn’t?) then sit straight, stand when presenting, and speak clearly, a little louder than you are comfortable with.  This will make you more memorable and more impressive.

Having been a public speaker throughout my career, I’m quite fussy about sitting in the audience.  I enjoyed the papers I heard much more than I expected to, but still a few improvements in style would go a long way toward a better audience experience.

King Offa's 790 Charter for London, Hastings and Pevensey to Saint-Denis of Paris

$
0
0
London, Hastings and Pevensey were French/Norman colonies in medieval England, settled by colonists from 788 onwards who described inland England as "foreign". Hostility and tensions grew as the size and wealth of the ports increased. First Pevensey fell to Godwin in 1042, then Hastings in 1052. With London and other church lands at risk in 1066, Normandy, France and the Roman church allied to conquer England and place William of Normandy on the throne.


I’ve been trying to find the full text of the 790 charter whereby King Offa confirmed the grant of ports at Hastings, Pevensey and Londonwick to Saint Denis for some time.  Today I finally found not one but two transcriptions of the charter in Latin, but only partial translations to English.  

Never one to shy from some fun Latin translation, I’ve rendered my own quick and dirty translation of the charter below.  This is a fascinating document, confirming the grant of three principal ports of early medieval England to the national church of France.  Hastings and Pevensey would remain French for more than 250 years, until taken by Godwin of Wessex - King Harold's father.  London would remain French influenced much longer, into the 13th century, with its independence secured by a further charter from William the Conqueror in 1066.

Why would an English king give London, Hastings and Pevensey to France?  For the care of his soul and the stability of his kingdom, sure, but also because Saint Denis was a commercial powerhouse and would bring the dynamic commercialism of early medieval France and his hero Charlemagne into staid and parochial England through profitable and efficient administration of the ports.  

King Offa emulated Charlemagne, with whom he regularly corresponded, in developing England once he had conquered and secured the formerly tribal kingdoms into a unified realm. 

  • He established mints that standardised the silver penny with that used in France.  These coins were styled much superior to anything before or after among the Saxon princes, evidencing the immigration of Italian or French coinsmiths during Offa's reign.
  • He brought in the Tribal Hideage to determine property rights, land use and taxation.
  • He organised the countryside into territorial hundreds, with a borough town given to a church in every hundred to promote trade and commerce. 
  • He promoted the marriage of his sons and daughters (unsuccessfully) with the heirs of Charlemagne that the kingdoms might become closer entwined through posterity.
  • He endowed the Roman church in England richly with lands and commercial privileges to promote the civilising and stabilising influence of Christianity among a widely dispersed, pagan, tribal set of peoples whom he sought to govern as a single, united realm.
  • He adopted Carolingian forms for diplomas and charters and used a well-crafted seal in contrast to the barbarous style of his predecessors and successors.

Hastings, Pevensey and London ports were the medieval equivalents of Hong Kong, city-state colonies to be settled by foreigners to promote inland trade and commercial development.  In fact, Hong Kong might be better described as the modern beneficiary of the ancient livery ports of England.  Chinese rulers could have overrun Hong Kong at any time with enough political will, but they did not and they do not today because trade and technology are more important than sovereignty and taxes over a few square miles of port and a few stroppy foreigners whose departure would weaken and diminish the future prospects of an emerging economy.  

English, French, Normans and other ambitious settlers came to the colonies of London, Hastings and Pevensey to set up businesses and prosper from trading with the inland English.  The English are referred to as “foreign” in port documents of the day.  The status of the ports as “law-worthy” (self-governed by aldermen) and duty-free made them very attractive and established the model for ports into modern times (think Dubai).

Where “Londonwick” is located is a matter of dispute.  It has been placed outside the City of London’s walls below the Strand and as far away as Sandwich, but I think it is pretty clearly Billingsgate.  London-wick literally translates as tidal, estuarine port at London.  The tidal, estuarine port at London was at Billingsgate in 788.  There is no reason to think King Offa’s geography so bad that he couldn’t find London, and there is every reason to expect that London then, as today, attracts many immigrants from across the channel.  And Billingsgate itself is named for the practice of stamping duty paid on imports.  Bulla means stamp or seal, and would have been given on customed goods at the port by the port reeve who collected the taxes for the monks.  Very likely the name evolved once the Saint Denis monks established their customs house at the port.

More to the point, the Benedictines of Saint Denis established a church at the port of Billingsgate to administer trade at the port.  It was dedicated to Saint Botolph, the first Benedictine saint of England.  There are three other churches dedicated to Saint Botolph, each outside a principal gate of the City of London.  Very likely the commercial footprint of the monks expanded out from the port to control all trade in and out of London, exactly as they controlled all trade in and out of Paris.

Why is all this important?  Because Godwin of Wessex and the young Harold hated the French and the Normans, and resented their freedom from tax and toll as overlords of Wessex.  Godwin coveted their gold and their silver and their ability to tax trade across the channel and inland, competing with his own retainers.  He seized Pevensey from Saint Denis in 1042 and then took Hastings from Fecamp Abbey (given it by King Cnut in 1030) in 1052 when Edward the Confessor was too weak to resist.  He also took ports from the English church, including Bosham from Chichester and Dover from Canterbury.

Imagine if Chairman Mao had rolled tanks into Hong Kong in 1951 and killed all the British industrialists, bankers and merchants living there, seizing all their gold and other wealth.  Well, the French and the Normans resented seizure just as bitterly, and the pope in Rome would have resented royal charters being undefended by the sitting monarch in England.  Abbot John of Fecamp Abbey came to England in 1054 to plead with Edward the Confessor for restoration of the ports, but Edward would not raise an army against the powerful and popular Harold of Wessex.

As long as the French, Normans and Rome thought William, Duke of Normandy, would succeed Edward as king, they took no action.  Once Harold, who had no noble blood, took the crown of England, his foes across the channel allied together to conquer England.  The French would have feared losing London.  The Normans resented losing both the crown and the ports in Sussex belonging to Fecamp Abbey.  Rome would have feared losing all of England to a degraded Christianity approaching the former paganism, with loss of wealth and influence throughout the lands previously bestowed by more Christian monarchs on the early church in England.

In September of 1066 a fleet set sail for England to take the crown and restore the church’s lands.  It carried a papal banner, ring, and edict to all the clerics of England to support William’s claim to the throne.  The monks of Fecamp Abbey provided a boat of their own with twenty warrior monks, a captain and very likely a harbour pilot.

King Harold brought his nobles, hauscarls and fyrd to meet the invaders near the Sussex coast.  His army suffered defeat from fusillades of arrows and darts and alternating cavalry charges.  Harold fell.  William took command of his realm.  To secure the approval of London to his coronation, he granted the French and English citizens of London to be law-worthy, as they were in Edward's day, with rights of inheritance.  He was crowned king with the Witenagemot's assent on Christmas Day 1066.

Below is the charter that set the whole train of events into motion.


By command of Offa, Glorious King of England:

Evident and established fact declares the frailty of human life being bound to countless daily misfortunes.  Therefore anyone to keep and be master of believing repents and safeguards before he passes across the mournful void.  Therefore every one of us must strive anxiously while the will of God grants we remain, lest these same be without the spiritual and just rewards when they pass away.

On which account in the name of God, I, Offa, King of Mercia, provide to Abbot Maginarius through his legate Nadelharium of land in that place at the gate known widely by the name Londonwick, where the two brothers Agonawala and Sigrinus together owned property they voluntarily willed two years ago to Saint Denis, precious martyr, who is in France. In completion of the same, I likewise surrender all my claims at law to receive tax and custom payable to myself until now retained, whether in gold or silver or other rents altogether, for the sake of love for God the all-powerful and reverence for the blessed martyrs Denis, Rusticus and Eleutherius, to the Abbot Maginarius and the holy brotherhood and their successors in the same illustrious monastery that is established in Gaul in honour of the martyr.  With a devout and willing mind, together with my wife and my son, and with the consent of my nobles, from this day I concede the emergence of the muniment and I want it to be perpetual, so that from this day neither I nor my heirs, nor any earthly power may reclaim it hereafter whatever he accounts as his due nor take it back, but always in my time and even my successors in power abide by the order of the abbot and the brotherhood pleasing to Christ, that they may become greater and more perfect.  In addition, our friend and faithful Duke Berhtwald and his brother Eadbald, provided a place of refuge at their property Rotherfield, which is in the county called Sussex above the river Saforda,[1]and the sea ports of Hastings and Pevensey, some time past in an undertaking legally witnessed in favour of the same martyred saints petitioned in great sickness that then afflicted the duke.  When he had made a recovery, the aforesaid abbot asked likewise for an undertaking.  We and my noble assembly approve and confirm together.
If anyone, contrary to this strongly desired disposition to the blessed martyrs for love of God and care of our salvation detracts, infringes or dishonours these grants, a curse come upon him damning him to eternal fire. Who however protects and sustains will live with the blessing of God in perpetuity.
That this may secure full strength, each signature below affirms, as well I make my mark impressed in seal.
The year of our Lord 790, indiction 13, the 33rd year of my reign, with these witnesses, second day of Easter, three days before the ides of April, in Tamworth, this charter I confirm with a sign of the cross of Christ.
        I, Offa, king of England these gifts my hand confirms and subscribes.
        Hygberht, archbishop [Lichfield] subscribes.
        Unuuona, bishop [Leicester] subscribes.
        Cynethryth, queen, subscribes.
        Ecgferth, son of the king, subscribes.
        Brorda, duke, subscribes.
        Berhtwald, duke, subscribes.
        Eodbald, duke, subscribes.
        Edwin, count, subscribes.

        I, Nedelharius, monk, with my brother Vitale and Duke Eodbald, accept this letter from the hand of the king and carry it with me into France to place above the tomb of blessed martyr Saint Denis to preserve this order forever, where the memory of the king as benefactor will be celebrated in perpetuity.  Amen.


    


[1]Literally Sea-ford, the river may refer to either the Rother or the Ouse, both of which had headwaters near Rotherfield and both of which were estuarine rivers at the time, with tideways reaching deep into Sussex that could be forded at low tide.    

Mea Culpa - Well, this is embarassing . . .

$
0
0
I've temporarily suspended the Carmen from sale for some fairly substantive revisions.  Having received the digital images of the manuscript yesterday, I've been able to check those transcription sections that were particularly problematic against the manuscript.

I'm crushed to report that the agent of the City's negotiations with King William was not William the Norman, Bishop of London, celebrated for just this achievement in the City for over 700 years - until nudged aside by the mythical Ansgar the Staller.  However, the agent wasn't Ansgar the Staller either, so at least I was in good company being misguided by the text.  It was someone else entirely.  The manuscript - clear before me - suddenly revealed the answer in a blinding flash of insight.  This section of the Carmen now makes perfect sense, even without changing a word - as all the transcribers have done to make sense of the section.  And I'm chagrined to admit he really did have enfeebled loins and walked slow.

I'd be gutted if I weren't so thrilled to be working with the manuscript at last.  It's amazingly liberating to be free of received transcription, checking each word individually against the manuscript to ensure the accuracy of my own transcription.  And the script is very beautiful.  I've fallen in love with the Carmen all over again.  I worked on it for 12 hours continuously yesterday, and could happily have worked all night too.

Until now I've been making emendations as infeliticies are brought to my attention, one of the benefits of publishing in print-on-demand format.  That was never very satisfactory, even though each time I thought I had it finally 'right'.  As I go through the manuscript I'm now also checking each word of Latin to ensure the translation suits case/declension/tense/etc.  Having the manuscript to work from means I'm not imagining earlier transcription errors in compiling my transcription or translation (as I admit I did with kidney and kingdom).  There may still be transcription errors in the manuscript from its copying, but that's still an improvement on using the 19th century transcriptions.

The Latin to English translation will now be much more precise.  In my amateur enthusiasm I had thought conveying the sense of the text would be enough, but the Latin pedants have schooled me harshly otherwise.  I'm determined to be as literal as I can get without sacrificing too much readability.  I am still aiming for the popular history market rather than exclusively academic libraries, but hope to find a balance between meticulous reflection of the Latin and a melifluous cracking good read.

I'll save the answer of who saved London for another day, having learned the hard way that a bit of diligence in private is better than infelicities in the translation in public.  I'll discuss it with those at the Battle Conference this weekend first to get their reactions.

In other news, I've finally received from the British inter-library loan system the only available copy of the Barlow Carmen.  As I suspected, it came from the British Library.  It's a good thing I'm not relying on libraries for my sales with that track record to go by.  I wonder if it broke double digits.  Anyway, I'm grateful to have it, and will compile a concordance of Merton & Muntz / Barlow / Tyson translations for academics that want to enquire about discrepancies between the translations.  There are going to be enough to make the exercise well worth while in establishing credibility for the new translation.

For those happy or unhappy few of you who bought the Carmen between April and now, whether in Kindle or print formats, I'll exchange for a new one if you want to be updated.  Drop me an email with the some part of the receipt for purchase: carmenandconquest (at) gmail (dot) com.  I can't say fairer than that.


Published! Carmen de Triumpho Normannico - The Song of the Norman Conquest

$
0
0
Well, it's finally done.  After months of painstaking effort I'm now happy enough to hit the PUBLISH button again.  The book is called Carmen de Triumpho Normannico - The Song of the Norman Conquest.  It is the first transcription and translation to benefit from high resolution images of the 12th century manuscript.  It also has end notes on all the changes from earlier transcriptions, as well as footnotes putting the narrative of the Carmen in historical context.

I'm also publishing an English-only version titled The Song of the Norman Conquest for those who don't want the distraction of Medieval Latin with their history. 

I've been much more rigorous in what is included this time around.  I've taken out most of the speculative content, though some of that was very compelling and would benefit from more research.  I still think there's more to the backstory of the conquest than we currently understand, but the evidence is likely to lie in archives in Paris and Rome.

The geographic clues in the Carmen are perhaps the most exciting contribution to a fuller understanding of 1066.  Based on the description in the Carmen I suggest the Norman fleet landed in the estuarine Brede Valley and camped below Iham.  The 'fort lately destroyed' that gets rebuilt was likely St Leonard's church on Iham, an alien cell of Fecamp Abbey for administration of the port.  The battle was probably somewhere above the Udimore ridge along the Roman roads there.  The hill might be quite modest as William (mounted) can see Harold (on foot) fighting on the summit from the ridge below, implying it was smaller than the usual candidates of Battle hill, Telham hill and Caldbec hill.  A battle on or above the Udimore ridge makes sense of the forces seeing each other on the march and is consistent with the Anglo Saxon Chronicle account of Harold coming down from mustering his forces at Appledore.  The Roman road crossed the Rother at the limit of its tidal reach, running down to Sedlescombe at the limit of the Brede's tidal reach.  But if Harold was in a hurry, which the Carmen says he was, and as he knew the area well, he might have had his forces cross the Rother below Bodiam or Northiam at low tide using makeshift bridges. 


I was down in Winchelsea last weekend to speak to the Winchelsea Archeological Society about the geography of the Carmen.  We got pretty excited thinking that the Normans had landed in the valley and that Harold might be buried somewhere on Iham.  It was great fun talking to a roomful of people who are open to questioning the traditional assumptions about the Battle of Hastings and maybe even doing a few test trenches to see if there's something to find today.

It's not Battle, or Caldbec Hill or Crowhurst . . . So where WAS the Battle of Hastings?

$
0
0
The Time Team special on 1066: The Lost Battlefield aired tonight.  What we now know is that the Battle of Hastings was not at Battle, nor at Caldbec Hill, nor at Crowhurst.  The best guess of the Time Team guys, based on some sketchy laser mapping of just the Battle town centre, was that it might be under a traffic circle on the edge of town.  Not exactly rigorous or convincing.

Of course, if you start by putting the Norman army and Harold's men in the wrong place at the start of their march that fateful day, you're not likely to find the right place for the battlefield.  If the Normans were not marching from the modern town of Hastings, but from the medieval port of Hastings at Winchelsea or their camp in the Brede Valley, then the battle happened somewhere else entirely.

I feel vindicated.  Hooray!  I'm not such a loonie!


Honing and polishing the Carmen . . . and saying thanks

$
0
0
I blundered into Latin translation in January of last year unintentionally.  I just wanted to translate a few lines of the Carmen where I had my doubts that the previous translators had grasped the right meaning.  I ended up translating all 835 lines of the Carmen and publishing the translation in the spring.  Then came the hurtful realisation that I hadn't done as good a job as I believed, and that I had got several things flat wrong.

Instead of abandoning the effort of retranslating the Carmen, I decided to do it properly from first principles.  I bought the digital images of the manuscript Carmen from the Royal Library of Brussels.  No one had ever asked for these before, so I had to pay the price of having every precious page of manuscript photographed for the quality images I wanted.

It took five weeks.  In the interim I went to the International Medieval Congress in Leeds and the Battle Conference in Cambridge.  Meeting academic historians convinced me I didn't want to be one but helpfully clarified standards and expectations.

I still wanted to translate the Carmen and offer the best translation ever realised in English.

When the photographs arrived in late July, I went to work again.  Instead of wondering what the manuscript really said while working from other historians' transcriptions, I could see for myself and make my own judgements.  It was transformational.  The transcription and translation that resulted were stronger and I stand ready to defend them.

There were still a few errors, but the helpful review of some of the friendlier academics and Latinists helped hone and polish the translation.  I am particularly grateful to John Gillingham, David Bates and Elisabeth Van Houts - all professors of medieval history - and to Stephen Jenkins, Valerie Eads and Catherine Bilow who provided useful guidance on improving my grasp of Latin.  Publish-on-demand allows updating the text as errors and infelicities come to light, so I will gratefully receive all criticism that is aimed at strengthening the text.

Engaging with historians and reading more broadly meant my analysis of the text improved markedly as I became aware of a richer context for the events of the Carmen.  I am particularly proud of three edits from last fall.  One is realising the distinction between tribute and customs duties in the Carmen, so that William grants relief from tribute to Winchester, settling for merely payment of customs levies.  For that I am grateful to Niel Middleton for his paper Early medieval port customs, tolls and controls on foreign trade.  The second was the realisation that Norman names might be distinct from English names for the same places, for which I am grateful to David Georgi for Language Made Visible: The Invention of French in England after the Norman Conquest.  And finally, I came across a medieval text on mathematics that allowed me to translate to my own satisfaction the number of troops accompanying William on the Norman Conquest.  These lines of the Carmen have been maddeningly elusive for all translators, but it turns out this was because we missed the joke.  There was a medieval pun explained in a maths treatise which unravelled the mystery:  ten times ten times ten is a thousand and therefore a cube.  And five thousand more makes six thousand troops.  Guy d'Amiens was an entertainer, educator and poet, and wove the maths pun into the Carmen.

All I ever wanted to do was to express the Carmen in English accurately.  I hope to have done that now.  Perhaps there may still be edits, but for the past three months I've been content.  That's a record since I discovered the Carmen. 



Did the Normans follow Caesar's invasion plan?

$
0
0
I've added a biggish insight to the footnotes of the Carmen: the suggestion that the Normans were following the same plan of attack as Caesar recorded in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and the Romans and Normans likely used the same port for the invasion fleets.

At line 32 of the Carmen William is described as "another Caesar" so clearly Caesar was a popular role model. The Commentaries on the Gallic Wars were widely copied in antiquity as a great read.  They were a first century best seller.  They offered a wealth of detail on military strategy, politics and civic administration.  Reading the Commentaries was like getting a medieval MBA.

The port for the invasion and the timing of the attack were critical choices for both commanders.  Wanting to reduce risks, William might well copy Caesar.

Tides vary seasonally, with the highest tides of the year corresponding with the full moons around the time of the equinox.  September, nearing the autumnal equinox, would bring the highest tides while still being warm enough for a military campaign.  You might go in on the September flood and return on the October flood, giving you a month of raiding.

It is worth remembering that the Normans were just a few generations descended from Vikings, and expert at coastal raiding and navigation.  The name Viking comes from the practice of raiding up estuarine waterways using the flood of the tide to get in and the ebb of the tide to get out.  Vics or wicks were estuarine river mouths.  Place names ending in -vic or -wick were port settlements.  The seasons for coastal raiding were the spring and the fall, coinciding with the strongest tides.

According to the Commentaries, Caesar launched his fleet in 55bc at the end of the summer a few days before the full moon, probably 16th or 17th September.  The full moon occurred on September 20th at 20:57.  That was three days before lunar perigee and about 3.5 weeks before the equinox, all key tidal factors. The unexpected violence of tidal surge in the port the night of the full moon caused massive damage to Caesar's ships, stranding him and his troops while the the ships were repaired.

William launched his fleet from Dives-sur-Mer just after the full moon of 6th September in 1066, probably not wanting to repeat Caesar's mistake, and being much more clued up on tides.  Adverse wind kept the Normans embayed until 12th September, when they used a western wind to reach St Valery-sur-Somme.  They were kept there by unrelenting rain and storms until 26th September, when the skies cleared, the weather became unseasonably warm, and the wind shifted to the ideal southeast wind suiting the Channel crossing.

Whether it was coordinated or not, Harald Hardrata's fleet seems to have launched for the north of England to join forces with Tostig Godwinson using the high tides just after the September full moon too.  They arrived in the north of England on 8th September, giving them a span of successful raiding before Harold's army came north and defeated them on 25th September at Stamford Bridge.

Tostig Godwinson was married to the sister of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders.  She was the aunt of William's wife Matilda, Baldwin's daughter.  When Tostig was exiled by his brother, Harold of Wessex, in 1065 he fled to Flanders, then travelled to Normandy to treat with William.  Tostig's raids in the spring of 1066 on the south coast of England were with the aid of a Flanders fleet, just as his father Godwin's raids had been in 1052.  Tostig later goes to Norway to engage Harald Hardrata's support for invasion.  The idea that Tostig and William were in cahoots isn't very far fetched.  The timing of sailing of the two fleets from Norway and Normandy in September seems to support it. The Carmen expresses great sadness that it is Tostig who dies rather than Harold at line 136.

Caesar made a night crossing in 55 bc, reaching the shingle off the English coast in the fourth hour and allowing his fleet to form up and anchor until the 9th hour.  William also makes a night crossing of the Channel and anchored when he reached the shingle off the English coast to allow the fleet to form up.  He probably anchored near Old Winchelsea, where he landed again in 1067.  At line 116 the Carmen says, "On the open sea you moor offshore."  Both of them waited for the fleet to join up and rested their men, waiting for light and the turn of the tide before entering the long estuarine harbour.  They would want to benefit from every minute of flooding tide to ensure that the water would continue to rise under the heavily laden ships as they navigated the channel.  With a rising tide they could be sure of being lifted free if grounded and would be safer from defenders on the shore.

In the Commentaries (IV:23) Caesar describes the harbour as having steep ridges close either side which were lined with defenders.  A bladed weapon thrown from the heights would hit the strand below.  This accords exactly with the approach into the Brede Valley - then a tidal loch navigable all the way to Sedlescombe.  The mouth (ostium) was braced by Rye to the north and Iham to the south.  There were steep cliffs at Iham and across on the Udimore ridge.

By 1066 the sandy loch was the harbour for Hastingas, the name of the region around the port.  The town was called Hastingecastre or Hastinge villa.  The 12th century De Viis Maris, a guide to coastal navigation, says that Hastinge villa had a castle and town but no port.  It says the port of Hastings was at Winchelsea, seven miles distant.  That's a pretty clear statement.

Tradition has the landing in 1066 at Pevensey, but there was no port of the name on the coast in 1067.  De Viis Maris names Penresse as the next fort and port eight miles to the west of Hastings, and Penenesse as the next headland.  Pen means enclosure or basin, so covers both fort and port in Saxon.  Ras means headland from Iceland to India, but vasse (pronounced wash) means swamp or saltmarsh in Frankish and Saxon.  The Normans always wrote the name as Penevesse - port in the wash - more clearly meaning port in the swamp.



The saltmarsh extended so deep inland that the Roman road goes far north, almost to the Thames, before offering a crossing to the east.  If Hastings was where William wanted to be, he would have been stupid to believe he could land at Pevensey and march his army around to Hastings as some believe.  He wasn't stupid.

Caesar says that he took advantage of wind and tide to sail a further eight miles inland at the port.  The Carmen says that the Normans proceeded three hours from the leaving the sea behind before landing.  That's about the same distance probably.

The Bayeux Tapestry shows the boats being poled to the landing place and the masts being struck down.  This is consistent with an estuarine landing place, not a seaport.  Horses are led from the ships onto the firm strand without ramps.  Harold's landing in Normandy in 1064, by contrast, shows erect masts and massive anchors, as one would expect in a seaport.  When the Normans raid Hastingas the boats in the Bayeux Tapestry are detailed in a row on the beach with open oar ports.  This is consistent with rowing on the tides for local coastal raiding of the Rye Camber region.  The attack on Romney when the local boatmen defeated the Normans was probably an unsuccessful raiding party, not stragglers who missed the main landing.  Tenderden, also raided, could be accessed via the estuarine channels.



Caesar's ships beach on an open and level shore eight miles from the sea (aperto ac plano littore), likely beyond Brede on the south side of the large, sandy port.  The Normans beach on a sheltered strand (littora tuta at line 124), also described as a pleasant, calm arc of strand (laeta sinu placido at line 128).  Both fleets seem to have landed in a very similar place.

Whether or not William the Conqueror was "another Caesar" he may have followed Julius Caesar's template for invasion of England.

A Brede Valley landing might not just be a discovery about the Normans, it might also prove to be a discovery about the Romans.  Historians have tended to place Caesar's landing in Thanet or Deal even though neither place offers a port eight miles deep or has high cliffs close on either side or would be subject to violent tidal surge.  Historians also put the Norman landing on a remote spur of land in a swamp with no roads through the salt marsh to Hastings.  Perhaps they lacked our ability to see geography through time and only saw a pastoral valley between Sedlescombe and Winchelsea and a passable coast road between modern Pevensey and Hastings.  In offering the Brede Valley for the Norman Conquest I may have also solved the mystery of where Caesar landed over a thousand years earlier.


Hastings - a name and a port like Ostia?

$
0
0
Hastings may be a name derived from Ostia, and sensibly have described the Roman port in Britainnia for control of trade between the province and Gaul opposite its mouth.  If so, the map below may be an accurate depiction of the great port which existed from Roman times until shifting shingle closed it to the sea in the 13th century, creating the pastoral Brede Valley.



I've always been dissatisfied with the common belief that Hastings was named for an undocumented and suppositional tribal leader named Haesta.  While the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does name Hastens as the leader of a fleet of 80 ships that come up the Thames in AD 893, with 250 more ships coming up the Limne, this is long after the region to the south was named Hastingas.

The documented Hastens (or Haustuin, Hastingus, Alstingus, Alstagnus, Hastencus or Haustem) was a Viking (using the term in its functional sense of describing those who raid up estuaries or wicks) from Normandy.  He appears to have raided both sides of the Channel from Paris to London.  He must have been a respected and established Christian chieftain in the 9th century as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says his two sons are godsons to King Alfred and Alderman Ethered.  For this cause his captured wife and sons are returned to him in AD 894 by King Alfred.  A young Rollo, the first duke of Normandy at its founding in 911, might have been a captain in the Hastens fleet as Wace says in the Roman de Rou (the story of Rollo) that he raided Britain in his youth.

It is possible that Hastens, like the Dread Pirate Roberts, was a name taken by whoever led the hoards of Frankish-Danish pirates ransacking the Saxon Shore, but there's nothing but guesswork to support such an idea.

The earliest records of Hastings as a region are Saxon royal charters of Behrtwald, Offa, Aedelwulf and Edgar in Latin benefitting the abbey of St Denis.  These four charters of the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries reference portus Hastingas. The tenth century law code of Aethelstan in Old English names the defended capital of the region as Hastingacaestra.  Coins issued by King Cnut and King Harold bear the name of the mint as Hastinga a century later.

The fact that the royal charters were written in Latin rather than Old English has led some to suspect their authenticity, but this criticism is weak.  Royal charters were often drafted by those benefitting.  St Denis, the most powerful church in Frankish Gaul, was a religious order in the Apostolic See of Rome directly subject to the authority of the pope.  It was based in Paris, the Frankish capital, and controlled markets and trade into Paris from the Port de Paris where the abbey had its grandest edifice.  Any prelate from St Denis would draft a charter in Latin using Carolingian form.  A charter to St Denis as an alien abbey to secure closer alliance and protection from both Frankish Gaul and Rome would naturally be written in Latin.  Also, Mercian kings like Behrtwald and Offa were very closely connected by trade, marriage and Frankish tribal identify to the Frankish tribes opposite their domains in Gaul.  Offa's wife Cynethreth may have been of royal Frankish birth and kinswoman of Charlemagne.  King Offa preferred Latin for correspondence with Charlemagne and the pope in his regular correspondence with them. 

In the twelfth century Symeon of Durham offers another clue as to the history of the Hastings region.  He refers to the Hastingorum gens - the people belonging to the Hastings region - as conquered by King Offa in AD 771.  All other battles name kings and leaders who have been defeated in battle, but in Hastings it is the people of the region that are assimilated to Offa's kingdom.  Hastingorum, like Anglorum or Normannorum, describes the people of a region.  This unique usage for Offa's success in uniting Hastings to England led me to think the Hastings region may have lacked a king and been ruled as a republic of its citizens, like other ancient Roman ports founded as colonies of Rome - including the port of London.

If so, Hastings might be a corruption of the name of the port.  The earliest Roman port was Ostia, the port of Rome itself, 30 miles distant from the capital.  Ostia is from the word os for mouth.  It geographically describes an opening to the sea created by a tidal estuary. The region of Ostia, embracing the port to the west of the estuary and the fortified town to right, was a colony of Rome, self-governed as a republic of its colonists from its founding in the earliest days of the Roman Republic.  The colonists were exempt poll tax (tributa) and also exempt military service away from Ostia, as their munera (civic obligations) as colonists were to fund the building of fortifications, port infrastructure and markets and defend the port against attack.

A few weeks ago I found further evidence that Ostia might be the basis for the name Hastings in looking at the fourth century Tabula Peutingeriana.  The name of the fortified town across the estuary from Portus, the massive defended port of Rome, is written as Hostis on the map, and the road to the port from Rome is the Via Hostensis.  A similar cognate could well be the name for the Roman port in the south of England.  An English corruption at the far western end of the Roman Empire might be Hastes, and those belonging to the port colony would be Hastingorum and the way there Hastiensis




We know from the twelfth century De Viis Maris that the port of Hastings was at Winchelsea, eight miles from the shore fort and town.  The approach to the port was bounded by the cliffs of the Udimore ridge to the north and the Guestling ridge to the south, creating a natural os or mouth.  Ostia or Hastia would be a sensibly descriptive name for a port situated in such a place between two peninsulas.

Interestingly, portus did not always mean port.  Its original meaning was door or gate, and it implied both an opportunity for entry and a vulnerability to attack.  The Roman god Portunus was the god of keys and locks, protecting doors from forced entry, and later the god to protect harbours from foreign attack.  He was also a god of fortune - good and bad.  Opportunity and fortune are both cognates of portus.  The Gates of Portunus in Rome were open when Rome was at war defending its territory and imperial privilege of tribute and taxes and closed when all of the Roman Empire was at peace (not very often or for very long).

It is through usage that portus takes on the nautical meaning of seaport.  The Roman Empire restricted trade and travel between its provinces and between the Empire and foreign domains to those ports where the Roman senate during the republic and later Roman emperors had established fortifications and authorities for collection of ship taxes (portoria) customs duties (vectigalia).  Roman ports were typically enisled either by nature, as islands or peninsulas, or through manmade canals around the fortified port (as at Portus in Ostia and the canalised ancient London in Britannia).  Sailors, pilgrims and visitors were given freedom of the port and protected during their stay.  They were not allowed entry to the country beyond the port unless they held a document authorising them to pass through the port gate to the road leading inland - a passport.  This formality ensured that those passing through or trading in a port could not gain local intelligence or mix with local tribes or treat with local leaders, promoting the security of Roman control over their extensive domains.

The Roman Empire's fleet for patrolling the Saxon Shore, the Classis Britannia, had its base in the estuarine Rye Camber and directly administered the iron mines, forestry, bloomeries and forges of the Weald region of the Brede Valley as a centre for shipbuilding and armament.  It would make sense that they would call the region which opened with two peninsular arms to the sea Ostia or Hostis or Hastis for the same reasons a similar estuarine opening and port was given the name near Rome centuries earlier.

Reinforcing the theory that Hastings may be a cognate of ostia is the Roman infantry rank of Hastati, usually the poorest and youngest soldiers and often ill-equipped.  The hasta was the most basic infantry spear given to auxilliaries for local protection.  The Hastati were the first battle line in early Roman battle formations.  They would lead the initial attack but then allow their line to be penetrated by the enemy, drawing the enemy in where the enemy ranks would confront and be surrounded by the hardened, seasoned and better equipped professional Roman troops.  Of course, hasta also came to connote all the authority of Rome, such that contracts between the Roman senate and publicani syndicates were made under a spear (sub hasta) and a planted spear was used to convene an assembly for official business or legal judgement.  This usage too would make Hastia a suitable name for a Frankish-colonised port for Roman administration and taxation of the province Britannia and its trade with the empire.  

Altogether the theory that Hastings evolved from ostia is much more satisfying and appears better evidenced than the unsupported illusion of a leader named Haesta.



Going to Battle for a Better History of 1066

$
0
0
We make choices in life, and I've made a big one.  I've revised the Carmen to include an Introduction with several theories I've been developing for the past year that will challenge commonly received English history, and I'm going to take these theories to the Battle Conference and put them out there for academic historians to kick sand at in ten days' time.  The Carmen has turned into a Rosetta Stone of medieval history and geography.

After the Battle Conference I'm going to come back and finish writing my next book: The Great Lost Port of England's Conquest.

The four sections of the Introduction in the updated Latin & English Carmen paperback (not yet available in Kindle versions or English only) are:

(1)  The backstory to 1066 is that the outlaws Godwin and Harold raided and seized the vast Holy See jurisdiction of Rammesleah held by Fecamp Abbey after they were exiled from England in 1051 and during their rebellion against King Edward the Confessor in 1052; Godwin and Harold bribed the boatmen of Hastingas into joining the rebellion, leading to defections of other boatmen and bondsmen on the coast contrary to their oath of loyalty to the king; Earl Harold refused to give the possessions back when Abbot John of Fecamp Abbey travelled to England to seek restoration of Holy See possessions in 1054, despite the support of King Edward the Confessor for the abbey; and Pope Alexander II feared losing all Catholic Church possessions, revenues and authority in England when Earl Harold had himself 'crowned' king in 1066. 

(2)  Four mis-identifications in earlier translations of the Carmen are corrected:  Felix Hellocis at line 503 is a Trojan, a 'son of Hellas', in poetic compliment to the unknown Englishman who brings down Duke William's second horse with a javelin strike, an allusion to the legend of Brutus of Troy, the eponymous first king of Britain.  Ansgardus at lines 689 and 725 is the Germanic birth name of Edgar the Aethling; Ansgar was the name given the baby in Hungary in 1051 and by which he would be known in Frankish abbeys and courts where the Carmen would be sung.  The magistrate of London secretly offered a 'better separation' by King William at line 685 is Godfrey de Magnaville, the veteran portreeve of London since 1051.  And the 'other of equal rank' to Archbishop Ealdred of York at line 802 holding King William's left hand is Bishop William of London, consistent with the canonical equality of London and York as laid down by Saint Gregory in the 6th century.


(3)  The Norman fleet landed at portus Hastingas & Pevenisel - the Frankish name for the  great estuarine port braced by peninsulas named Hastingas and Pevenisel, between the manors of Hastingas and Bretda in Sussex.  The Normans camped on the strand to the west of the harbour below Iham, and the camp once established became the settlement of Old Winchelsea, the novus burgus of the Domesday Book for the manor of Hastingas.  The 40,000 Normans who emigrated to England in the first year after the conquest would have swelled the town, cementing its importance for trade and communication with Normandy.  The town was washed away from the strand in the violent storms of the 13th century and rebuilt above the harbour on Iham in 1280 as Winchelsea.  Pevenesel was resettled elsewhere too in 1207 when the higher reaches of the estuarine Brede River silted up;  King John gave the barons of Pevenesel the spur below saltmarsh where the Roman shore fort of Anderitum stood, a place called Penevesse ('fort in the saltmarsh or wash') by the Anglo-Saxons and Penevesel in Domesday Book; he allowed the burgesses to keep their Cinque Ports liberties in their new town, now Pevensey.



(4)  The Holy See, the episcopal see of the pope in Rome, had legal jurisdiction over Rammesleah from early medieval times, and perhaps going back to the Roman Empire.  This made the region legally a separate domain outside the king's realm under early medieval legal principles - Rameslege means 'Rome's lowey' or 'Rome's law' in Anglo-Saxon.  The pope and clerics bitterly resented a Holy See jurisdiction being violently taken and occupied by Godwin and Harold in 1052 and retained by Harold to 1066.  Holy See territories were extraterratorial and inviolable under canonical law, and anyone violating Holy See possessions could expect excommunication in this life and divine retribution thereafter.   It was because he was excommunicate at his death that Duke William denied a burial in consecrated ground to King Harold, consistent with canonical law;  instead Harold was buried on a cliff above the port where the camp was sited 'under a heap of stones' at line 584 in the Carmen.


These theories are big changes to the Norman Conquest story, but I'm now ready to go to Battle with them!

In addition to airing the new Carmen theories at the Battle Conference this summer, I will be presenting to the Battle and District Historical Society in October.  So I guess I get to go to Battle twice with the new theories.  Let's hope my fate at Battle will be kinder than Harold's was.


Viewing all 47 articles
Browse latest View live