Dispute between Bishop Gundulf and Pichot, Sheriff of Cambridge, a.1087
The dispute between bishop Gundulf and Pichot, sheriff of Cambridge, after 10871. Textus Roffensis, ff. 175r–176v. Translated and edited by Dr Christopher Monk.
Transcription
175r (select folio number to open facsimile)
De
contentione inter Gundulfum et Pichot:
Tempore2 Uuillelmi regis Anglorum magni, pa-
tris Uuillelmi regis eiusdem gentis, fuit
quędam contentio inter Gundulfum Hrofensem
episcopum et Pichot uicecomitem de Grendebruge,
pro quadam terra quę erat de Frachenham et ia-
cebat in Giselham, quam quidam regis seruiens
Olchete nomine, uicecomite dante praesumpse-
rat occupare. Hanc enim uicecomes regis
esse terram dicebat, sed episcopus eandem beati Andreę
potius esse affirmabat. Qua re, ante regem ue-
nerunt. Rex uero pręcepit ut omnes illius co-
mitatus homines congregarentur, et eorum iudi-
cio cuius terra deberet rectius esse probaretur. Illi autem congregati, terram illam regis esse po-
tius quam beati Andreę, timore uicecomitis af-
firmauerunt. Sed cum eis Baiocensis episcopus qui
placito illi praeerat non bene crederet, praecepit
ut si uerum esse quod dicebant scirent, ex se ipsis
duodecim eligerent, qui quod omnes dixerant
iureiurando confirmarent. Illi autem cum ad
consilium secessissent, et inibi a uicecomite per in-
ternuntium conterriti fuissent, reuertentes
uerum esse quod dixerant iurauerunt. Hi
autem fuerunt, Eaduuardus de Cipenham,
Heruldus et Leofuuine saca de Exninge, Eadric
de Giselham, Wfuuine de Landuuade, Ordmer
de Berlingeham, et alii sex de melioribus comi-
tatus. Quo facto, terra in manu regis reman-
sit. Eodem uero anno monachus quidam GRIM
nomine quasi a domino missus ad episcopum uenit. Qui cum audiret hoc quod illi iurauerant,
nimium admirans et eos detestans omnes esse
periuros affirmauit. Ipse enim monachus diu
prepositus de Frachenham extiterat, et ex eadem
terra seruitia et costumas ut de aliis terris
de Frachenham susceperat, et unum ex eisdem qui
iurauerant in eodem manerio sub se habuerat. Quod postquam episcopus Hrofensis audiuit, ad episcopum
Baiocensem uenit, et monachi uerba per ordi-
nem narrauit. Quę ut episcopus audiuit, mona-
chum ad se uenire fecit, et ab ipso illa eadem
didicit. Post hęc uero unum ex illis qui iuraue-
rant ad se fecit uenire, qui statim ad eius
pedes procidens confessus est se periurum esse. Hinc autem cum illum qui prius iurauerat
ad se uenire fecisset, requisitus se periurum esse
similiter confessus est. Denique mandauit
uicecomiti ut reliquos obuiam sibi Londoniam
mitteret, et alios duodecim de melioribus eiusdem
comitatus, qui quod illi iurauerant, uerum esse
confirmauerant. Illuc quoque fecit uenire
multos ex melioribus totius Anglię baronibus. Quibus omnibus Londonię congregatis, iudicatum est
tam a Francis quam ab Anglis illos omnes periuros
esse, quandoquidem ille post quem alii iurauerant,
se periurum esse fatebatur. Quibus tali iudicio
condemnatis, episcopus Hrofensis terram suam ut
iustum erat habuit. Alii autem duodecim
cum uellent affirmare iis qui iurauerant
se non consensisse, Baiocensis episcopus dixit, ut hoc
ipsum iudicio ferri probarent. Quod quia se fa-
cturos promiserunt, et facere non potuerunt,
cum alii sui comitatus hominibus trecentas libras
regi dederunt.
Translation
The dispute between Gundulf and Pichot:
In the time of William, the great king of the English,3 father of King William of the same people,4 there was a certain dispute between Gundulf, bishop of Rochester,5 and Pichot,6 the sheriff of Cambridge, about certain land which belonged to Freckenham and which was situated in Gisleham,7 which a certain servant of the king, named Olchete, had presumed to occupy by grant of the sheriff. For the sheriff said this land was the king’s but the bishop affirmed that, rather, this very land was St Andrew’s.8 Therefore, they came before the king. And, indeed, the king ordered that all the men of that county be assembled and by their judgements it should be agreed to whom the land rightfully belonged.
However, those assembled affirmed, out of fear of the sheriff, that the land belonged to the king rather than to St Andrew. But when the bishop of Bayeux,9 who was presiding over that assembly, did not entirely believe them, he ordered that if they knew what they said to be true, then they should choose twelve from among themselves who should confirm with an oath what they had all said. Once, however, these ones withdrew to deliberate, and were there intimidated by the sheriff, via his intermediary, they swore on returning that what they had said was indeed true. These men were Edward of Chippenham; Harold and Leofwine, sake-holders of Exiling;10 Eadric of Gisleham; Wulfwine of Landwade; Ordmer of Berlingham; and six others from among the nobles of the county. That done, the land remained in the hand of the king.
In the same year, however, a certain monk named Grim, as if sent by the Lord, came to the bishop. When he heard what they had sworn by oath, greatly astonished and cursing, he affirmed them all to be perjured. For the monk himself had long since been steward of Freckenham, and out of that same land had received services and customs, as from all the other lands of Freckenham, and had had under him in that estate one from among those who had sworn the oath.
After the bishop of Rochester heard this, he came to the bishop of Bayeux and recounted the monk’s words. When the bishop heard this, he made the monk come to him, and he learned the same thing from him. Indeed, after this, he made one from among those who swore the oath come to him, who, immediately placing himself at [the bishop’s] feet, confessed to have perjured himself.
When, moreover, he made the one who first swore the oath come to him, he too, on being asked, confessed to have perjured himself. Finally, he ordered the sheriff to send the rest to meet him at London, as well as another twelve of the nobles of that county who had confirmed to be true what the others swore. And there also he made to come many from among the noble barons of all England.
When everyone had been gathered at London, it was judged, equally by the French as by the English, that all these ones were perjured, in that their swearing had followed that of the one who had admitted to perjuring himself. These ones having now been condemned by such justice, the bishop of Rochester thus had his land, as is just. But since the other twelve then wished to affirm that they themselves had not consented to that which the others swore on oath, the bishop of Bayeux said that they would have to prove this by the judgment of [hot] iron. Because they themselves promised to do this, but were unable to do so, they then, with the other men of their county, paid thirty pounds to the king.
Footnotes
1 This account was evidently originally written down sometime after William II took the throne in 1087, as he is referred to in the opening sentence. This was then later copied into Textus Roffensis by the main scribe around 1123. The events referred to took place sometime between the commencement of Gundulf’s bishopric in 1077 and the fall from grace and imprisonment of Odo, bishop of Bayeux, in 1082.
2 Tempore…
3 William I, ‘the Conqueror’, r. 1066–87.
4 William II, ‘Rufus’, r. 1087–1100.
5 Bishop Gundulf, r. 1077–1108.
6 Sometimes known as Picot.
7 Both in modern-day Suffolk.
8 That is, it belonged to the priory of Rochester Cathedral. Gundulf was not only bishop of Rochester but also prior of the monastery.
9 Odo, William I’s half-brother, and also earl of Kent, d. 1097.
10 ‘sake-holders’, translating saca, and likely indicating they were holders of certain land rights (‘sake and soke’); see saca, Dcitionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources: available here [accessed 06.03.18].