The manor at Haddenham, 1088 AD

William II grants the manor at Haddenham, held by Archbishop Lanfranc, to the church of St Andrew, Rochester, and its monastic community; 213r, Lanfranc sanctions this grant, 1088.¹ Transcription and translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, ff. 212r-213r by Jacob Scott. Edited with additional notes by Dr Christopher Monk.

Introduction

Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury (r. 1070-1089), held the manor of Haddenham in Buckinghamshire when King William I (r. 1066-1087),² the father of King William II (r. 1087-1100),³ granted it to him around the time Lanfranc became archbishop. Haddenham is recorded in Domesday Book as held by Lanfranc in 1086.⁴

Subsequent to this, Lanfranc granted Haddenham for the living of the monks of St Andrew’s Priory (see Sharpe, p. 364). William II confirmed the grant to the Rochester monks in the summer of 1088 (Sharpe, p. 365); this is the charter transcribed and translated below. Haddenham was the most valuable manor held by the monks.

The witness list of the charter is, as Richard Sharpe points out, quite remarkable. Written in the Norman style, it begins with the king and Lanfranc and includes Thomas, archbishop of York (r. 1070-1100); five other bishops;⁵ an abbot;⁶ the king’s brother Henry (the future Henry I);⁷ Philip, son of the Count of Flanders;⁸ Alan, Count of Rennes;⁹ three earls;¹⁰ and seven other important laymen (Sharpe, p. 365).¹¹

This charter relates directly to the narrative record on folios 173r-174v of Textus Roffensis, which is a re-telling by one of the monks of St Andrew’s Priory of the background story that led to William II’s grant. In short, Lanfranc requested, along with Bishop Gundulf of Rochester, that the new king confirm Lanfranc’s gift to the monks and, moreover, that he change the terms of his father’s original grant. The original had only allowed for Haddenham to be held by Lanfranc whilst the archbishop was alive. Now it was to become a perpetual grant, meaning the monks would hold Haddenham forever. The king agreed, but in return Gundulf had to build for him a new stone castle at Rochester.

You can read a fuller account of this along with the transcription and translation of the Haddenham narrative here .

Lanfranc’s sanction document, 123r

This document was appended to William II’s grant of Haddenham on a replacement folio. It is not in the hand of the principal Textus scribe, though it is quite similar and of the same period. Replacing the original folio also meant that the second half of the witness list had to be recopied.

The replacement of the folio may initially rouse suspicion, but it seems quite likely that there was nothing more iniquitous than an initial oversight on the part of the principal scribe, or that his exemplar at the time did not include Lanfranc’s sanction. Once its omission was evident, therefore, it made complete sense to incorporate it, even if that did mean replacing a page.

Even though other surviving acts of William II do not have sanctions like this, there is nothing inherently controversial in its contents. Moreover, as Sharpe points out, Lanfranc’s sanction of the king’s confirmation may be authenticated by comparison with the equally unique confirmation of Henry I for Rochester with its sanctions by both Archbishop Anselm and Gundulf. The latter survives as an original, complete with seals of the king, the archbishop, and the bishop (Sharpe, p. 365, note 5). As Sharpe observes, we may conjecture that the original act of William II likewise bore the seals of both king and archbishop (Sharpe, p. 365).

Anathema and grammar

Charters quite often contain an anathema, a warning of the consequences to one who contravenes the charter’s directives. Though William II’s grant does not include such, Lanfranc’s sanction does. In the anathema he not only declares that the judgement of the traitor Judas shall befall any who flout the king’s grant, but that he will personally excommunicate them.

At this point, the future perfect tense is used for the series of verbs relating to all those who may in the future take away or attempt to take away the manor of Haddenham from the church of St Andrew, Rochester, and who may receive and retain it. The future perfect tense is used in charters and deeds to describe a time in the future when the document will be read.¹² By contrast, Lanfranc’s statement concerning his excommunicating of such theoretical persons is in the present tense. This juxtaposition of different tenses conveys the idea that Lanfranc’s illustrious spiritual presence would continue even after his death. He would, in effect, be still present to excommunicate the offenders!

Transcription

212r (select folio number to open facsimile)

De Hedenham; VVILLELMVS rex anglorum, archiepiscopis,
episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, cęterisque
omnibus baronibus suis regni anglorum
salutem. Notum uobis omnibus esse uolo, quod
ego uuillelmus dei gratia rex anglorum filius

212v

uuillelmi regis anglorum concedo ęcclesię
rofensi sancti andreę apostoli ad uictum mona-
chorum manerium quod uocatur hedenham
quod situm est in comitatu de bokingeham
quod tenuit lanfrancus archiepiscopus de patre
meo et de me, quod donat eidem rofensi ęc-
clesię pro salute animę patris mei et ma-
tris meae, et pro salute animae meae et animae
suę. Et ideo eius rogatu et amore hoc do-
num suum praedictę ęcclesię concedo et regali
auctoritate propria manu confirmo, ita
quiete tenendum iure perpetuo, sicut praedi-
ctus archiepiscopus de patre meo et de me illud
quiete tenuit usque in pręsentem diem.
+ Signum Willelmi regis anglorum. + Signum
lanfranci cantuariensis archiepiscopi. + Signum
thomę eboracensis archiepiscopi. + Signum Re-
migii lincoliensis episcopi. + Signum Walcelini
uuentoniensis episcopi. + Signum mauricii lun-
doniensis episcopi. + Signum osmundi serberien-
sis episcopi. + Signum Rodberti herefordensis episcopi.
+ Signum Baldeuuini abbatis sancti eadmundi.
+ Signum henrici fratris regis. + Signum philip-
pi filii rodberti comitis flandrię. + Signum

213r

Alani comitis. + Signum hugonis comi-
tis. + Signum heinrici comitis. +
Signum Willelmi comitis. + Signum
eudonis dapifer. + Signum Rogerii bi-
gotis. + Signum Goffridi de magna
uilla. + Signum Rodberta filii haimo-
nis. + Signum hugonis de monte for-
ti. + Signum Gisleberta de tonebrig-
ge. + Signum hugonis de bello cam-
po. +; Confirmatio Lanfranci archiepiscopi. Ego Lanfrancus non meis meritis sed
gratia dei archiepiscopus, hoc donum
meum quod regia auctoritate confir-
matum est confirmo, et auctoritate
dei omnipotentis et omnium sanctorum
excommunico omnes illos qui prędictum
manerium de prędicta ęcclesia uel abstule-
rint, uel auferre temptauerint, uel abla-
tum ab aliis cognita ueritate receperint
uel retinuerint. Ęterna pęna cum
iuda proditore sit eis, nisi ad satisfacti-
onem uenerint.

Translation

Concerning Haddenham:

William, King of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and all the rest of his barons of the kingdom of the English. Greetings. I want it to be known to you all that I, William, by God’s grace, King of the English, son of William, King of the English, do grant to the church of Saint Andrew the Apostle, Rochester, for the living of the monks, the manor which is called Haddenham, which is situated in the county of Buckingham, which is held by Lanfranc, the archbishop of both my father and me, and which he now gives to the same church of Rochester for the salvation of the souls of my father and my mother, and for the salvation of my soul and his soul. And therefore, at his request and through love, this gift of his to the aforesaid church I grant, and with royal authority by means of my own hand I confirm it, thus to be held peacefully by right forever, just as the aforesaid archbishop of my father and of me has peacefully held it to this present day.

+ The sign of William, King of the English.

+ The sign of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury.

+ The sign of Thomas, Archbishop of York.

+ The sign of Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln.

The sign of Walkelin, Bishop of Winchester.

+ The sign of Maurice, Bishop of London.

The sign of Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury.

+ The sign of Robert, Bishop of Hereford.

+ The sign of Baldwin, Abbot of Saint Edmunds,

+ The sign of Henry, brother of the king.

+ The sign of Phillip, brother of Robert, Count of Flanders.

+ The sign of Count Alan.

+ The sign of Earl Hugh.

+ The sign of Earl Henry.

+ The sign of Earl William.

+ The sign of Eudo Dapifer.

+ The sign of Roger Bigod.

+ The sign of Geoffrey de Magnaville.

+ The sign of Robert fitz Haimo.

+ The sign of Hugh de Montfort.

+ The sign of Gilbert of Tonbridge

The sign of Hugh de Beauchamp.

+ [and others].

The confirmation of Archbishop Lanfranc:

I, Lanfranc, not by my own merits but by the grace of God, Archbishop; this gift of mine, which was by royal authority confirmed, I confirm; and by the authority of God Almighty and all the saints I excommunicate all those who will have either taken away¹³ the aforesaid manor from the aforesaid church or attempted to take it away, or received what was taken away and, knowing the truth, retained it. Eternal punishment with Judas the traitor is for them, unless to repentance they come.

Cited work

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

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 Our grateful thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading the English text; any mistakes remain our own.

2 Aka ‘the Conqueror’.

3 Aka William Rufus.

4 See Haddenham | Domesday Book (opendomesday.org)

5 These five are Remigius de Fécamp, bishop of Lincoln (r. 1067-1092); Walkelin, bishop of Winchester (r. 1070-1098); Maurice, bishop of London (r. 1085-1107); Osmund, bishop of Salisbury (r. 1078-1099); and Robert, bishop of Hereford (r. before 1079-1095).

6 Baldwin, abbot of St Edmunds (1065-1097/98).

7 Henry I, r.1100-1135.

8 Evidently, Philip of Loo, son of Robert the Frisian, Count of Flanders from 1071 to 1093.

9 Alan II, Count of Rennes (r. 1084-1112), also known as Alan Fergant; he was also Alan IV, Duke of Brittany (r.1072-1112).

10 These three are Hugh d’Avranches, Earl of Chester from 1071 to 1101; Henry de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Warwick from 1088 to 1102, and who is recorded as one of the two negotiators of the king in the Haddenham narrative document (see below); and William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey from 1088 to 1101 and 1103-1138. It seems unlikely that William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey is meant, as he was mortally wounded in the Easter of 1088, though he evidently did not die until 24 June 1088 (see Sharpe, pp. 375-76).

11 These seven are Eudo Dapifer (d. 1120); Roger Bigod of Norfolk (d. 1107); Geoffrey de Magnaville, aka Geoffrey de Mandeville (d. c.1100), constable of the Tower of London; Robert fitz Haimo, or Fitzhamon (d. 1107), one of the king’s negotiators in the Haddenham narrative document (see below); Hugh de Montfort (d. c.1088); Gilbert of Tunbridge, aka Gilbert de Clare (d. c.1115); and Hugh de Beauchamp (d. after 1101), the sheriff of Buckinghamshire.

12 See The National Archives online: Lesson 4 - Future perfect tense - Latin (nationalarchives.gov.uk) [accessed 25 August 2022].

13 ‘will have either taken away’, translating ‘uel abstulerint’ of the following lines.

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.

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

173v

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

174r

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

174v

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.

Bishop Gundulf confirms Gilbert the priest's grant at Haddenham, a.1086 AD

Bishop Gundulf confirms a grant by Gilbert the priest of three hides at Haddenham in exchange for Gilbert entering the monastic life, Date: after 1086¹. Textus Roffensis, ff. 213r–213v. Translated from Latin and edited by Dr Christopher Monk.

Transcription

213r² (select folio number to open facsimile)

De Dudicote. _Gundulfus Rofensis episcopus, Rodberto Lincoliensi episcopo,

213v

et Goisfrido uicecomiti, et omnibus fidelibus regis
Francigenis et Anglis de comitatu de Bukin-
geham, salutem. Sciatis quod Gislebertus noster clericus
de Hedenham concessit ęcclesię Rofensi Sancti Andreę
tres hidas terrę quas habuit in suo dominico in He-
denham, ea conuentione quod quando ipse uoluerit
fiet ibi monachus. Et hoc idem concessit et confirmauit
Radulfus filius suus ex toto. Et ego concessi eidem Radulfo
ęcclesiam de Hedenham cum una hida et dimidia terrę, et
duobus pratis, Coiea, et Cetemora, et concessi ei pasturam
decem boum, et omnes consuetudines que ad eandem ęcclesiam
pertinent, insuper quicquid Gislebertus tenuit in Heden-
ham, exceptis illis tribus supradictis hidis terrę. Et de ipsa ęcclesia non faciet ullum seruitium,
nisi, quod ad ęcclesiam pertinet tantum.

Translation

Concerning Dollicott³

Gundulf bishop of Rochester to Robert bishop of Lincoln,⁴ Geoffrey the sheriff, and all the faithful of the king, the French and the English, of the county of Buckingham, greetings. Let it be known that Gilbert our priest of Haddenham has granted to the church of Saint Andrew in Rochester three hides of land which he held as demesne in Haddenham, ⁵ with the agreement that when he himself wishes he will become a monk there. And that Ralf his son has granted the same and confirmed it fully. And I have granted to the same Ralf the church of Haddenham with one and a half hides of land and with two meadows, Coiea and Cetemora;⁶ and I have granted him pasture for ten cows and all customs which pertain to that same church,⁷ in addition to whatever Gilbert held in Haddenham, except those three hides of land mentioned above.

And the church itself will not create dues for service, except those pertaining to the church only.

Footnotes

1 Gilbert is recorded as the owner of these three hides of Haddenham in an entry of Domesday Book (1086): opendomesday.org/place/SP7408/haddenham [accessed 06.03.18].

2 Folio 213 is a replacement leaf, added sometime later in the twelfth century; the hand is not that of the main scribe.

3 The heading ‘De Dudicote’ alludes to the name of the three hides of land within the manor of Haddenham – a ‘sub-manor’, as William A. Strange puts it – granted by Gilbert to the church of St Andrew, Rochester. The place-name Dudicot evidently corresponds to Dollicot(t), which is recorded in the seventeenth century as a ‘field’ unit of land, and which survives as the street name Dollicott in modern day Haddenham. Dudicot (as ‘Dodecot’) is mentioned in Custumale Roffense (c.1235) as supporting 250 sheep, and the meadow there was to be mown by its tenants ‘for love and not as a duty owed’, for which they were rewarded with ‘one wether and one cheese worth 4 pence and one salt bacon and one bundle of straw’. See William A. Strange, ‘Haddenham and Cuddington: The Early History of Two Buckinghamshire Villages’, Buckinghamshire Papers 11 (2007), esp. pp. 11-12, 25, 28 (Figure Two), and 37. My thanks to William for personally communicating this information about Dudicot/Dollicott. It should be noted that ‘Concerning Dollicott’ (2024) is a correction of my previous ‘Concerning Didcot’ (2018) and the information in this present footnote (2024) is a revision of the original footnote (2018).

4 Robert Bloet (also, Bluet), bishop of Lincoln, r. 1093/4–1123.

5 ‘in demesne’, translating in dominico. ‘Demesne. […] land held for the lord’s own use rather than let or leased’: A Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases, ed. Christopher Corèdon with Ann Williams (D. S. Brewer, 2005). Dominicus, Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources ‘3c. demesne, land held for lord’s use’: logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#dominicus [accessed 06.03.18].

6 Unidentified place-names of the two meadows; left untranslated.

7 Customs: e.g. tithings and other dues owed the church.