1902 Encyclopedia > Normandy

Normandy




NORMANDY {Terra Northmannorum, Northmannia, Normannia, Normendie, Normandie) is the name which was given to part of northern Gaul in consequence of its occupation in the early part of the 10th century by the Northmen, whose name was on Gaulish soil gradually changed into Normans. Till that time the land which has ever since borne the name of Normandy had no distinct name, nor any separate political being. In ecclesiastical geography it answers very nearly, but not quite exactly, Geogra-to the province of Rouen. This includes the archdiocese phical of Rouen and the six suffragan dioceses of Evreux, Lisieux, bo.und" Se-ez, Bayeux, Coutances, and Avranches. Politically it was, at the time of the Scandinavian settlement, part of the great duchy of France, of which it took in nearly the whole of the sea-coast. The name " Neustria " is sometimes used as equivalent to Normandy; but of the old Neustria Normandy formed only a small part. As France was cut off from Neustria, so Normandy was cut off from France.

Normandy, in its widest extent, reached on the eastern side to the rivers Eu and Epte, of which the Eu empties itself into the English Channel near the town of that name, while the Epte flows in the opposite direction and joins the Seine near Vernon. These streams form the boundary during nearly, but not quite, the whole of their course. Along the Epte the boundary of the duchy forsakes that of the ecclesiastical province, as the diocese of Rouen stretched a considerable way on the French side of that river. To the west Normandy is parted from Britanny by the border stream of Couesnon, but the shape of the coast makes the actual frontier very small. To the south the boundary of Normandy towards the duchy of France and the great counties which were parted off from it mainly followed the ecclesiastical frontier. But the diocese of Seez stretched beyond the duchy, while the conquests of William I. added to Normandy part of the diocese of Le Mans, and therefore of the province of Tours. The land thus marked out took in the districts of Caux, Talou, Rouen, Evreux, Lisieux, Bayeux (Bessin), Avranches, and Coutances (Cotentin, pagus Constantinus), with the greater part of the Hiesmois and about half the Vexin. This last was often a disputed ground between Normandy and France.

But the main feature of the country is its sea-coast and its great river. A glance at the map (Plate XIII., vol. ix.) will show that the coast of Normandy, long as it seems, is little more than the mouth of the Seine. To the west that mouth is guarded by the peninsula of Coutances, the Danish land which, it has been remarked, is the only peninsula in Europe, besides the older Danish land, which points to the north. To the west this peninsula presents a bold front to the Atlantic, forming with the Breton coast a bay in which lie the Norman islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and some smaller ones. Normandy, in fact, was the seaboard of France in the strict sense, the coast lying between Britanny on the one side and Flanders on the other. It is that part of the Continent which lies most directly opposite Britain. The Norman duchy, in short, as long as it had an independent being, was inter-posed between England and France; and in that position lies the key to its whole history. Towns. The chief city of the duchy was always the ecclesiastical metropolis of Rouen (Rothomagus), the great city of the lower Seine. It is to be noticed that Rouen, like the cities of southern Gaul, keeps its own local name and has not taken the name of a tribe. Evreux, Seez, Bayeux, Lisieux, Avranches, preserve tribe names. The name Constantia or Coutances belongs of course to the later Roman nomen-clature of imperial times. Other towns which figure in Norman history, as Caen, Falaise, Alencon, are of later origin. Havre de Grace dates only from the 16th century, long after the loss of Norman independence. Modern In the divisions of modern France, Normandy answers divisions. t0 thg departments of Lower Seine (cap. Rouen), Eure (cap. Evreux), Orne (cap. Alengon), Calvados (cap. Caen), Manche (cap. St Lo), and to the modern dioceses of Rouen, Evreux, Seez, Bayeux, and Coutances. The boundaries of Rouen and Evreux have been changed; Lisieux has been joined to Bayeux, and Avranches to Coutances. The archbishop of Rouen still keeps the title of primate of Normandy; otherwise the name of the duchy has gone out of formal use. Early It must be remembered that the land to which the Scandi- Northmen thus permanently gave their name was only settle11 one °^ several Scandinavian settlements in Gaul, though ments. ^ was the greatest and the only lasting one. Nor was the whole of the land which became the Norman duchy occupied at once. The whole second half of the 9th century was largely taken up in both Gaul and Britain with Scandinavian inroads, which in both countries led to important Scandinavian settlements. Settlement in Britain came first, and the great settlement in Gaul seems to have been made after its model. By the peace of Wedmore, iElfred found his own West-Saxon kingdom untouched and indeed enlarged. But a large part of England, over which he claimed at most a vague external supremacy, was left to the Danish invaders. Their king embraced Christianity, and, like his English predecessors, accepted a formal West-Saxon supremacy. A variety of later causes made the history of the Scandinavian settle-ment in England to differ widely from that of the Scandi-navian settlement in Gaul; but in their beginnings the two are exactly alike. The smaller Scandinavian settle-ments, those of Hasting at Chartres, of Bagnald at the mouth of the Loire, had no historical importance. The settlement of Rolf at Rouen grew into the duchy of Normandy. The treaty of Clair-on-Epte followed the model of that of Wedmore. The Scandinavian invader embraced Christianity, and he became the man of the king of the Western kingdom. But he received no part of the king's immediate territory. His settlement was made wholly at the cost of the duke of the French. The only difference was that the duke of the French still went on reigning at Paris, though no longer at Rouen, while the English dynasties of Mercia, East Anglia, and Deira came alto-gether to an end. But the two settlements are exactly alike in this, that the converted Northman becomes the man of the king, though the settlement is not made at the cost of the king's immediate dominions. In both cases the king is strengthened, though in different ways. The West-Saxon king received an actual increase of im-mediate territory in the shape of that part of Mercia which formed the lordship of iEthelred and ^Ethelflaed. The Carolingian king received no increase of territory, but his position was distinctly bettered when the great and threatening duchy of France was split into the two rival duchies of France and Normandy. That Normandy was cut off from France in the strict sense, from the duchy of the house of Paris, is a point in its history which must always be remembered. It is the key to that abiding rivalry between France and Normandy which was inherent in the position and history of the two lands. No moment-ary policy on the part of their rulers could ever get over it. It lived on in truth to become no unimportant element in the general history of Europe. The close connexion which arose between Normandy and England handed on to England the inheritance of rivalry which had first begun between France and Normandy, an inheritance which England kept in its fulness for ages after its separation from Normandy. It is likely enough—con-sidering the position of the two kingdoms, we may call it certain—that, had a separate state of Normandy never existed, a rivalry between England and France would have arisen out of some other cause. As a matter of fact, it was out of the older rivalry between France and Normandy that it did arise.

The settlement of Clair-on-Epte and the beginning of Settle-the Norman state are commonly placed in the year 912. mentof There seems some reason to think that it may have hap- ^la,ir'on pened a few years later. There is no thoroughly trust-worthy account. The writers in the Western kingdom plainly say as little as they can about the matter; they disliked the very name of the "pirates," as the Normans are called by Bicher of Bheims down to the end of the century and beyond it. The earliest writer on the Norman side is Dudo, dean of St Quentin, who wrote late in the century, a rhetorical i riter of the courtly school. But there is no doubt that the chief of the Scandinavian set-tlers was Rolf (in var ous spellings), known in Latin as Rolf. Rollo and in French as Rou, a viking leader to whom many earlier exploits, real or mythical, are attributed. He received, as a grant from Charles the Simple, king of Carolingia or the Western kingdom, a tract of land of which Rouen was the centre and head, a tract certainly stretching as far as the Epte to the east, most likely stretching as far as the Dive to the west. It is an im-portant part of the case that, though the land was cut off from the duchy of France, yet the grant was a grant from the king and not from the duke of the French, and that the king and not the duke received Rolf's homage. The two princes were presently at war, Robert, duke of the French, having been elected as opposition-king in 922. Rolf seems to have stuck faithfully to his own lord, King Charles, alike against Robert and against Robert's son Hugh, called the Great, and the king, Rudolf of Burgundy, whom Hugh set up. The Normans were thus at war with France almost from the moment of their settlement, and they were rewarded by a further acquisition of terri-tory at the expense of the French duchy, namely, the Bessin or land of Bayeux. France was now nearly or wholly cut off from the sea. The Norman princes further claimed, by virtue of these early grants, a supremacy over both Britanny and Maine, which they were never able fully or lastingly to enforce. Land Of the nature of the settlement made by the Northmen and jn the part of Gaul which they changed from France to of*Nor Normandy we can judge only by the results. The new mandy. state for a while had no recognized territorial name. To the end of the century it is simply "Terra Northman-norum." " Northmannia," a name which with Einhard meant Denmark, which in Adam of Bremen commonly means Norway, becomes, in the shapes of "Nortmannia," "Normannia," "Normendie," and the like, fully estab-lished in the next century as the name of the Norman land in Gaul. In English chronicles it appears as " Bicar-des land," from the princes of that name; it is not "Nor-mandi," "Normandie," "Normandig," "Normandige," till after the Norman Conquest. The chief again has no cer-tain titles ; at Bheims he was " princeps Northmannorum," or, more heartily, "dux piratarum." In the next century he becomes regularly " dux " or " comes Normannorum " ; that is, he was "dux" as regards the Norman people, "comes" as regards his overlord the Western king. The people become definitely "Normanni," "Normend." It is not easy to say to what extent the Scandinavian settlers became mingled with the earlier occupiers of the land, or again how far those earlier inhabitants were of Frankish and how far of Celtic descent. It is plain that the land was parted out among Scandinavian landowners very much as in the Danish districts of England, and many places, just as in those districts, keep the name of the first Scandinavian lord. And it can hardly fail that, after the long harryings which went before the actual settlement, the population of the lands which lay open to the Northmen must have become scanty, and many parts are likely to have been quite forsaken. On the other hand, it is certain that before the end of the 10th century there was an oppressed peas-antry in the land, and it is hardly likely that descendants of the original conquerors could have sunk so low in so short a time. The actual tillers of the soil were most likely to a great extent descendants of the earlier inhabitants; that is, they would belong to the same mixed nationality as the people of the duchy from which Normandy had been cut off, to that mixture of Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic elements which has formed the modern Frenchman. Yet in Normandy, as elsewhere, the tendency would come in which makes the actual cultivators of the soil sink rather than rise, and it is by no means unlikely that the later peasantry of Normandy were largely the descendants of the Scandinavian conquerors. Anyhow, a nobility gradually sprang up among the Normans themselves, consisting chiefly, it would seem, of those who could claim any kind of kindred or affinity, legitimate or illegitimate, with the ducal house. Some of the greatest Norman houses sprang from kinsfolk of wives or mistresses of the dukes who were themselves of very lowly degree. This is always likely to happen when a nobility is first forming. Early in the 11th century the order of "gentlemen" as a sepa-rate class seems to be forming as something new. By the time of the conquest of England the distinction seems to have been fully established.

The Norman, with the softened form of his name, is distinguished from the Northman by his adoption of the French language and the Christian religion. In the case of Rolf himself, as in the case of Guthrum, his baptism formed one of the terms of the agreement. The convert took the name of Robert, from the duke of the French, who acted as his godfather; but, as in other cases of baptized Danes, he was still always spoken of by his earlier name. Whether Rolf himself learned French we are not told; his language at the time of his homage is spoken of as English. This doubtless means any Low-Dutch or Scandinavian tongue, as opposed alike to High-Dutch and to French. Among his followers the twofold change took place with very different degrees of speed in different parts of the duchy. At Rouen and Evreux and in the eastern part gener-ally, the first grant to Rolf, the change seems to have been very speedy. .In some other parts circumstances made it much slower. Thus, at Bayeux it would seem that an earlier Saxon colony coalesced with the Scandinavians; at all events, a Teutonic tongue of some kind lived on there long after Rouen had come to speak no tongue but French. In the Cotentin, a still later acquisition, both the Northern speech and the Northern creed were kept up by fresh settlements from Scandinavia. The result was a wide distinction between the eastern and the western, the French and the Scandinavian, parts of the duchy, which led to important political consequences as late as the reign of the Conqueror.

The Cotentin, with its appendage of the Channel Islands, William seems not to have been added to the land of the Northmen Long-till after the accession of its second duke, William surnamed sword-Longsword, about 927. Whether Rolf died, or abdicated, or was killed in battle, and the exact date of his son's accession, do not seem clearly fixed. The certain point is that William became the man of King Charles in 927, and that he refused all allegiance to the rival king, Budolf of Burgundy, as long as Charles lived. His own reign lasted till 943. It is one of the most confused periods in the history of Gaul, and a good deal of the confusion is owing to the shifting policy or caprice of William himself. He changed sides more than once in the struggles between Lewis, the Carolingian king at Laon, and the more power-ful Duke Hugh of Baris. At last, there can be little doubt, he was murdered by the practice of Count Arnulf of Flanders. In Normandy itself the history and effects The of his reign are more marked. We see the struggle Heathen between the heathen or Danish party and the Christian, christian which may be also called the French, party. By this must party, be understood the party of the French speech and French civilization, not at all a party in the political interest of France. Its policy was to make Normandy a Christian and French-speaking state, an independent member of the Western kingdom, alongside of France and Flanders. The two parties are distinctly marked as geographical. The first years of William's reign are marked by a revolt of the heathen party, who demand the cession of the lands west of the Bisle. The Christian and French-speaking duke might reign in the region which had adopted his creed and tongue; the western Normandy should form a separate state, heathen and Scandinavian. Though all this rests on the not very high authority of Dudo, it bears the stamp of truth ; it falls in with facts earlier and later; it is not the kind of story to grow up in the hands of a rhetorical panegyrist. William, successful over the rebels, appears as a Christian, not without fits of special devotion, and as anxious to take his place among the great princes of the Carolingian kingdom, notwithstanding the reproach of pirate origin that still cleaves to him. Yet he does not show himself the enemy of the other side. Himself speaking both tongues, he has his son Bichard sent to Bayeux to gain a fuller mastery of the Northern speech, and he seems even to have admitted fresh settlement from the North in the western part of the duchy. The deep and clearly intentional darkness in which contemporary writers at Bheims leave the Norman history of this period makes any minute knowledge of this reign quite hopeless. But we may safely set it down as a time of struggle between the two elements in the land, a time in which things, on the whole, tended to the strengthening of the Christian, French, eastern element,—the influence of Rouen and not that of Bayeux.

Richard It was the long reign of "William's son, Bichard the the Fearless, which finally settled the position of Normandy Fearless. an(j wnjcn na(j no sman influence on the position of France. We must always remember that Normandy and France were alike vassal states of the Western kingdom, the kingdom of the Carolingian king at Laon, a king who, in all but the moral influence of his kingly dignity, was a prince of far smaller power than either of his mighty vassals. Normandy, rent away from France, bound by direct homage to the king at Laon, had hitherto been on the whole an ally of the king who dwelled beyond the dominions of the duke. The fifty years of Richard's reign changed all this. For the events of its early days we are not left wholly to Dudo; the writers at Rheims tell us enough to show that the division between the heathen and the Christian Normans was still strongly marked. The heathen party, strengthened by a new band of settlers from the North, got hold of the young Richard and persuaded or compelled him to fall back to his heathen worship. Richard was the son of William by a Breton mother, one who stood to his father in that doubtful relation which was called the Danish marriage, and who might be spoken of as wife or concubine at pleasure. At Bheims she bore the harsher name; yet it is a matter of avowed record that her son was received as his father's successor by King Lewis. But the young duke —it is hard not to give him the title, though it is perhaps premature—was presently got hold of by the heathen party, who were just then strengthened by a fresh settlement from the North. The Christians sought help both at Laon and at Paris; king and duke entered the land, seemingly in concert, in two successive years (943, 944). The heathens were defeated; the king occupied Rouen and the whole Norman land, doubtless with the intention of keeping it. Nothing could better suit the king of Laon than to rule at Rouen as well, and to hem in the duke of Paris on both sides. The Norman writers tell a romantic tale of the escape of young Richard from captivity at Laon. What is more certain is that Normandy soon rose against Lewis, and that, by the help of a Danish leader, in whom the Normans see the famous king Harold Blaatand, the king was defeated and made a prisoner. The policy of Hugh of France now obtains possession of Lewis and a commendation of Richard to himself. Lewis was released on surrendering Laon; his kingdom was cut down to Compifegne. In 946, in alliance with the Eastern king Otto, the future emperor, Lewis invaded France and Normandy, but the forces of the two kings failed before both Paris and Rouen.





Gaul.
These events fixed the position of the Norman duchy for some time. It is not clear whether Richard, along with the other princes, renewed his homage to Lewis; it seems certain that he became the man of the duke of the French. Things are thus turned about; Rouen, lately friendly to Laon and hostile to Paris, is now friendly to Paris and hostile to Laon. Normandy is the faithful and powerful ally of France under its successive dukes, Hugh the Great and Hugh Capet. The Norman duke is the son-in-law of the elder, the brother-in-law of the younger, of the French princes. It does not appear that Richard ever did homage to King Lothair, the successor of Lewis; he once at least, France, in 961, appeared in arms against him. At last, in 987, head of came the change which united the duchy of France with the Western kingdom. Hugh of Paris was chosen to succeed to the crown of the last Lewis of Laon. This revolution, so often mistaken for a mere change of dynasty, was in fact the making of a nation. And in the making of that nation the Norman duchy had no small share. The close union between Normandy and France which had been brought about by Hugh the Great had a double result. It made Normandy French; in the end it made Gaul French. Up to this time Carolingia had been a kingdom of many nations and languages. The kings of Laon were still German; they relied on German memories, on the slight German element still left in their kingdom, on the support of the German king beyond the Rhine. The great county of Flanders, stretching much further to the south than the present use of that name, was a land of the Nether-Dutch speech. The Bretons in the extreme west kept the Celtic tongue which they had brought over from the greater Britain. The lands south of the Loire, nominally part of the kingdom, but seldom playing any part in its history, kept their own variety of the Romance speech, and a national spirit altogether distinct from anything in northern Gaul. Most central of all lay the duchy of France, the land of which Faris was the centre and the cradle, the land of the new-born French speech and French nationality. The supremacy of Gaul was not likely to fall either to its Celtic or to its Nether-Dutch element; it might well fall either to its High-Dutch, its French, or its Aqui-tanian element. The close alliance between Hugh and Bichard, between France and Normandy, determined to which element it should fall. Had Normandy remained Scandinavian, France, hemmed in between Teutonic Laon and Teutonic Rouen, might never have reached to the head-ship of Gaul. But Bichard's French alliance settled the question between French and Scandinavian in Normandy. Normandy, itself become French, turned the balance in Nor-favour of the French element; it ruled that France should mandy be the head power of Gaul, that the duke of the French j^™8 and the king of the French should be the same person. The first creation of Normandy, a power shorn off from France and shutting out Paris and the whole duchy from the sea, had been a frightful blow to the French power. But the loss was more than made up when the policy of Hugh the Great won back as an ally what he had lost as a ruler, when he was chosen king by the help of the Norman duke, and when his election as king meant the final estab-lishment of France as the leading state of Gaul, of French as its leading speech, of Paris as its ruling city.

This good understanding between France and Normandy, at all events between the kings of the French and the. dukes of the Normans, lasted through the reign of Bichard the Fearless, through the reigns of the second and third Bichard and that of Robert, till the accession of Robert's son, William the Bastard, afterwards known as _ the Con-queror and the Great, in 1035. The duke is now the most faithful and the most cherished vassal of the king. His vassalage is not doubtful. If Bichard the Fearless, after the recovery of his duchy, no longer acknowledged the supremacy of King Lewis of Laon, he had cordially com-mended himself to Duke Hugh of Baris. When the second Hugh became king, it would have been a mere question of words whether the homage of the Norman vassal was due to the French lord in his kingly or in his ducal char-acter. More than once during this period the Norman dukes appear as the powerful helpers of the Farisian kings. They date their charters by the years of the kings, and recite the consent of their lords to their grants and other acts. All this is to be carefully noticed, because at a later period of Norman history, the period when Norman history is most closely connected with English history,all is different.
Yet English dealings both with France and Normandy began early. In the disputes of the early days of Lewis, his uncles iEthelstan and Eadmund successively interfered on his behalf, and, so far as France and Normandy were

the enemies of Lewis, this was English interference directed against both Normandy and France. But direct dealings between England and Normandy begin at a later time, in the latter days of Bichard the Fearless. A dispute be-tween Bichard and the English king iEthelred which arose about 991 is said to have been hindered by the interven-tion of Pope John XV. from growing into a war. There can be little doubt that the quarrel arose out of the close connexion which still went on between Normandy and the Scandinavian North. The Danish invaders of England were received with welcome in Norman havens and were allowed to sell the plunder of England to Norman buyers.

Richard the Fearless died in 996, known to the last at Bheims only as duke of the pirates. Yet he had made his duchy Christian and French. It might be too much to say that every trace even of heathen worship, much less of Danish speech, had died out from the lands of Bayeux and Coutances. The speech at least, we may be sure, lingered some time longer, the more so as we hear of fresh Danish settlements in the latter days of Bichard. And, even if speech as well as creed died out, the two left behind them the tradition of local distinction and local enmity between the eastern and the western parts of the duchy. The true Normandy, the land which was still in some measure Teutonic, began on the left bank of the Dive. But Normandy as a state was Christian and French. The French speech of Rouen gradually supplanted the Danish speech of Bayeux. Yet, as commonly happens in such few Teutonic words, chiefly words of seafaring life, now crept into the Romance tongue of northern Gaul, in addition to the far greater infusion which had found its way in ages before as a result of the Frankish conquest. In Normandy itself the local nomenclature became Teutonic to an ex-tent which makes itself felt on the map. Scandinavian endings like toft and by live on in the shape of tôt and bœuf, and they are constantly coupled, like the by of Lincolnshire and the ton, of Pembrokeshire, with the names of Scandinavian settlers. Even in the most French part of the duchy, some places, like Caudebec and Dieppe— the cold beck and the deeps—keep Teutonic names under a very slight disguise. And the Conqueror's own Falaise, bearing a name which has passed into the general voca-bulary of the French tongue, is simply the Teutonic feds, whether the name dates from Frankish or from Norman settlement.

Richard Of one effect of the reign of Richard the Fearless the Good. we gefj a picture in the peasant revolt (which has been already spoken of) which marked the beginning of the reign of his son Bichard the Good (997). A peasant revolt implies masters, and harsh masters. It is hard to say how far the distinction of oppressor and oppressed coin-cided with distinction of race ; but it is certain that the movement had some special and promising features. The peasants of Normandy set up a commune—or something to which later writers gave a name which became afterwards so well known—more than sixty years before the burghers of Le Mans did the like. We seem to be reading the history of Friesland or of the Three Lands rather than that of any part of the Western kingdom. But the revolt was fully and harshly put down, and the rule of the " gentlemen " was made safe. It is noticed that Bichard the Good would have none but gentlemen about him. This seems to mark the final establishment in Normandy, as in other lands, of the new nobility, the nobility of office, or rather the nobility of kindred to the sovereign. We soon begin to trace the history of the great Norman families, only one or two of which can be seen, and that dimly, before Bichard the Good. It illustrates the origin of Norman nobility that Budolf of Ivry, who put down the revolt, was the duke's uncle, but only because his father, a miller, had married the cast-off wife or mistress of William Longsword. So at least the story goes, and a story of this kind is sure to have this kind of truth; such a rise as it describes was possible and likely. After all, it may be that the revolt was not a mere failure. Villainage in Normandy was both lighter and died out earlier than in most parts of France.

The thirty years of the reign of Richard the Good con-tinue the period of unbroken friendship between Normandy and France, and also between Normandy and Britanny. But we find the Norman duke warring, sometimes on his own account, sometimes as the ally of the French king, with his neighbour of Chartres, and in the more distant lands of the ducal and even the royal Burgundy. His relations with the North and with England are of more consequence. Bichard is charged with bringing two heathen sea-kings, one of whom is said to have been afterwards the famous Saint Olaf, as helpers against Chartres; we hear also of a second quarrel with iEthelred, and even of an English invasion of the Cotentin. It is more certain that in 1002 iEthelred married Richard's sister Emma, a marriage which may be set down as the first link in the chain of events which led to the Norman conquest of England. Eleven years later, when iEthelred was driven from his kingdom, he found shelter with his wife and her children at the court of his brother-in-law. Soon after iEthelred's death and Cnut's establishment in England, Emma married Cnut. Unbroken peace reigned between Cnut and Bichard, and Emma's children by iEthelred, iElfred and Eadward and their sister Godgifu, were brought up at the court of their Norman uncle,—another stage in the drama of the Norman Conquest.

The short reign of Richard's son Richard (1026-1028) Robert, was marked only by disputes
between the duke and his father of brother Robert, count of Hiesmes, who presently succeededtlie Con" to the duchy. He too maintained the French alliance, 1ueror-and restored King Henry to his crown when he was driven from it by his stepmother Constance. But friendly relations both with Britanny and England now ceased. Robert seems to have married and put away Estrith, the sister of Cnut, either before her marriage with Earl Ulf or more likely after his death. This led to a quarrel between Robert and Cnut, and to an attempted invasion of England on behalf of the banished iEthelings, the sons of iEthelred and Emma. Robert at last made the pil-grimage to Jerusalem, and died on his way back in 1035. He had already made the great men of Normandy swear to the succession of his natural son William, born to him of Herleva of Falaise before his accession to the duchy. William the Bastard, one day to be the Conqueror, was about eight years of age at the death of his father.

There can be no doubt that the succession of William Succes was most unwillingly accepted. It was the acceptance ofsi°n of one who was at once bastard and minor. The law 0fWiniam-hereditary succession was nowhere very distinctly defined; but it is clear that the notion of some kind of hereditary succession, as distinguished from election even within a particular family, had made much greater advances in Normandy than it had in England. No princes were more lax as to marriage than the Norman dukes; both William Longsword and Bichard the Fearless were the offspring of unions which were very doubtful in the eye of the church, and Bichard the Good and the other children of Richard the Fearless were legitimated only by the after-marriage of their parents. But the son of Robert and Herleva was pre-eminently the Bastard; there was no pre-tence of marriage of any kind. He was accepted, so far as he was accepted, simply because there was no candidate whose right was so distinctly better than his as to unite the whole country on his behalf. Of the other members of the ducal kindred, some were themselves of doubtful legitimacy, while others could claim only through the female line. The result was that the minority of William was a time of utter anarchy, of plots, rebellions, public and private crimes of every kind, but that the young duke was never altogether set aside for any other claimant. And now for the first .time since the very earliest days of the Norman state we find France unfriendly. The whole relations between the two powers change from the time of William's accession. It could not be in the beginning the personal act of the boy William himself. But the fact that William came to the duchy as a child had very likely a good deal to do with the change. The alliance had never been a natural one; it had been alliance between prince and prince rather than between people and people, and now, during William's minority, there was no prince in Normandy ready to do to the ruler of France such good service as had been done by earlier Norman princes. While the princes were personal friends circumstances might make it convenient to forget that Normandy was a land lopped away from France; as soon as those circumstances had passed away the French kings and the French people again remembered that Rouen barred the way between Paris and the sea. For a while each power stood in need of the other. Normandy owed to France its introduction into the Christian and Romance-speaking world. France owed to Normandy its new position among the powers of Gaul. As the remembrance of these benefits on each side passed away, the far more natural feeling of rivalry and dislike showed itself again. After the accession of William there still are periods of friendship between France and Normandy; but they alternate with more marked periods of enmity. The steady and faithful alliance is at an end; it is significant that the name of the French king disappears from the charters of the Conqueror. If an immediate occasion of quarrel was at any time needed, it could always be found in the disputed frontier of the Vexin, the border district between Rouen and Paris. Old grievances are rubbed up again. Norman pride tells the tale of the Norman settlement, of the humiliation of the dukes and kings of Francia. French enmity finds scornful epithets for the intruders who had cut off so goodly a land and so great a city from French dominion.

The first sign of this, revival of the older and more natural feeling was shown when King Henry took advantage of the weakness of Normandy to advance his fortune at its expense. From this time the relations between king and duke are, among a good many shiftings, more often hostile than friendly. It was also during William's minority that the attempt of the iEtheling iElfred on the English crown took place. He went with Norman com-panions, and in some accounts the enterprise swells into a Norman invasion. At all events, it marks another step towards a greater Norman invasion.
The ill feeling towards William finally broke out when he had reached an age to act for himself. This was in 1047, and the movement is one of special interest and importance, as bringing out more strongly than anything else the long-abiding distinction between the two parts of the duchy. Eastern or French Normandy, the land of Rouen and Evreux, clave to William; western or Teu-tonic Normandy, the land of Bayeux and Coutances, rose against him. The stirrer up of strife was Guy of Brionne, son of Beginald, count of the Burgundian pala-tinate, by a daughter of Bichard the Good. The plan seemingly was that Guy should supplant William in the eastern district, and should leave the barons of the west to themselves. William asked and obtained help of his lord, the king of the French. It is not easy to see why Henry, who had hitherto acted an unfriendly part towards Normandy and who before long acted it again, should have stepped in, when the dismemberment of the duchy would seem to have been just what he would have wished. However this may be, the rebels were overthrown in the Estab-fight of Val-es-dunes by the joint forces of king and lis!'ment duke; the power of William over his duchy was fullypfl^r established; and, though a difference may to this day be seen between the two parts of Normandy, they never again appeared in open strife against one another.

That part of the reign of William which comes between the battle of Val-es-dunes and the invasion of England was the great day of Normandy as a wholly distinct and practically independent power. Under the wise and vigorous rule of its great duke the duchy became one of the most flourishing parts of Gaul and of Europe. We can now for the first time call up a fairly distinct picture of the coun-try. The great Norman families, many of whom after-wards won a second establishment in England, now stand out distinctly. They are wealthy and powerful, but under William's rule they are made to feel that they have a master. Many of them, as we have seen, were the duke's kinsfolk; some were favourites of his own advancing. The counts of Eu and of Evreux, the lords of Beaumont, Grantmesnil, and Conches, the viscounts of Avranches and Saint-Sauveur, stand out among many others. Greater than all was the mighty house that was formed by the union of the houses of Montgomery and Belleme, a house holding lands both of Normandy and of France, and rank-ing rather with princes than with ordinary nobles. Of those raised by William himself, we see his personal favourite William Fitz-Osbern of Breteuil, and his half-brother Robert, to whom he gave the county of Mortain, while his other half-brother Odo held the bishopric of Bayeux. These were the sons of Herleva by her husband Herlwin of Conteville, whom she married after the death of Duke Robert. That side of the feudal theory by which the noble holds of the prince and does military service for the lands which he holds was never better carried out than it was in Normandy under William. But under him the great lords were not only vassals but sub-jects. The reign of law was enforced; the towns grew and trade flourished; the settlement of foreigners was encouraged; Duke William in his own duchy showed all the great qualities which enabled him to become the conqueror and the ruler of England, without that darker side of his character which necessarily followed on his position as conqueror.

Nowhere do these qualities stand out more clearly than His in his dealings with the church. William was neither the Dealings enemy nor the slave of the ecclesiastical power. He held the Q^^6 supremacy over the spiritual estate with a firm hand. He had the great advantage that the prelates of Normandy were his vassals and subjects, holding their temporal estates of him and not of a king or emperor beyond his dominions. He was advocate of all his own churches; he bestowed them at his will, and held firmly to the right of investiture. But he was a church-reformer in the best sense. He chose the best men from all lands for the bishoprics and abbeys in his gift. Among those whom he promoted and befriended are the great names of Lanfranc and Anselm. Up to this time the Norman bishoprics had been used as provisions for cadets and kinsmen of the ducal family, a custom of which the promotion of his own half-brother Odo during his minority was one of the last and most scandalous examples. Devout and strict in his own life, William backed up every effort for the enforcement of discipline and the improvement of morals. His reign was the great time for the foundation of the Norman monasteries. Some, as Jumieges, Cerisy, Bernay, Mont St Michel, are of older date; but now every noble became the founder of a monastic house. The duke's own foundation of St Ste-phen's at Caen was among the foremost. In short, during the reign of William Normandy was looked on as an eccle-siastical paradise. It is certain that in no part of Europe was law, temporal and ecclesiastical, more strictly enforced. Wars. This time was also a time of wars, during which the borders of the duchy were enlarged. For a short time the friendship with France went on. William repaid the king's help at Val-és-dunes by help in his wars with Geoffrey of Anjou. This led to a long rivalry between Anjou and Normandy, which largely took the shape of a struggle for the county of Maine, which lay between the two. As early as 1048 William extended his frontier in that direction; in 1063 he obtained possession of Le Mans and the whole county. Meanwhile he had two wars with France. Henry encouraged Norman rebels, and twice, in 1054 and 1058, he invaded Normandy, each time to suffer defeat. At the time of the invasion of England Normandy was strength-ened by the weakness of its neighbours. The crown of France had passed to the minor Philip, and Anjou was divided and torn in pieces by civil disputes. The duchy, under its great duke, was at the very height of its power, prosperity, and renown when the duke of the Normans won himself a higher title. Position The conquest of England by William had no direct effect of Nor- on ^jje internal condition of Normandy; but it altogether after the changed the position of the duchy as a European power. Conquest Save for three short intervals, it never was again a wholly of Eng- distinct power with a prince to itself. So far its position may be said to have been lowered; but, on the other hand, it became part of a power far greater than the single duchy of Normandy had ever been. For a while England in some sort followed Normandy; the common sovereign of the two lands could use the strength of England for Nor-man purposes. Then, under the Angevin house, Normandy and England alike became parts of one of those motley dominions, like that of Burgundy under the Valois dukes or of Austria in yet later times, in which a crowd of sepa-rate states are brought together without any tie but that of a common ruler. The result was that Normandy, after handing on to England its tradition of enmity towards France, itself fell back into its old union with France. And it must not be forgotten that Normandy after the Conquest of England was in itself much less strong than Normandy before the Conquest of England. A great part of the goodness, so to speak, of the land had crossed the sea into the conquered kingdom.





The rule of King William in his duchy was on the whole less prosperous than that of Duke William had been. His later years were clouded by revolts and occasional defeats. Maine revolted in 1073, and one stage of the revolt is memorable, because William had to strive, not with a rival prince, but with a commonwealth. Le Mans set up the first commune north of the Loire. But city and county were won back, largely by the work of Englishmen, whom the Conqueror, after overthrowing their own freedom, used to put down freedom elsewhere. In 1076 he was defeated in an attempt on Dol by the forces of Britanny and France. The next year followed the revolt of his own son Robert, and a border warfare on the frontier of Mortagne. In 1083 a single castle in Maine, that of Sainte-Susanne, suc-cessfully withstood him for three years. In 1087 the old dispute with France about the Vexin again arose, and cost William his life at Mantes. But, though this is a different picture from the uninterrupted success of the earlier part of his reign, there is no reason to think that the general peace and prosperity of the duchy was at all disturbed. The fighting was wholly on the borders, and it must have done much less damage to the country at large than the two French invasions of the earlier period.

With the death of the Conqueror the most flourishing state in western Europe became the most wretched. William's successor Robert was incapable of government. The land fell back into the same kind of anarchy which had been during William's minority. It was torn in pieces by private wars. More remarkable was the attempt of the city of Rouen to claim the position of a separate commonwealth, as Le Mans had done some years before. Some parts of the duchy were saved from anarchy by dis-memberments which transferred them to other rulers. Robert sold the Cotentin to his brother Henry, by whom it was lost and recovered more than once. His other brother, King William of England, in two invasions occupied a large part of the country. Maine revolted again, but the commune of Le Mans was not restored ; independent counts ruled once more. At last in 1097 Robert went with the crusade, and mortgaged the whole duchy to William, who occupied the country and restored some kind of order. He recovered and lost Maine more than once in warfare with its count, Helias. The death of William Rufus in 1100 again separated Normandy, England, and Maine. Robert came back to Normandy, but his misgovernment again raised up enemies against him. Henry invaded Normandy, and by the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106 the kingdom and the duchy were again united. It seems that Henry scrupled to take the title of duke while Robert lived, and he lived a captive in England till a year before the death of Henry himself in 1135. But Henry was none the less the ruler of Normandy, and he made the Normans pledge themselves to the succession of his children.

It was now no longer the duke of the Normans who reigned in England, but the king of the English who reigned in Normandy. England, deeply influenced and changed as she had been by the Norman Conquest, had now, under the English-born Henry, recovered her position as a power. Men at the time looked on Normandy as conquered by England, and saw in Henry's victory on Norman ground the reversal of his father's victory on English ground forty years before. And there was a sense in which this was true, even though Henry's foreign policy was directed far more to Norman than to English objects. England as a power was far greater than Normandy, and it was growing less and less Norman. It was as king of the English that the sovereign of Normandy appeared to the world at large. And under his rule the advantage which an island has over a continental dominion was plainly shown. The two great Norman rulers of the day, Henry of England and Roger of Sicily, each kept his island king-dom in perfect peace, and used his continental territory as a battle-ground. Henry's Norman rule was for many years disturbed by the claims of his nephew William, the son of Robert, whose side was taken both by several foreign princes and by a rebellious party in the duchy. Another cause of dispute was found in the affairs of another nephew, Theo-bald count of Chartres, son of Henry's sister Adela. Out of these questions several wars arose between Henry and Lewis VI. of France (1109-1137), supported commonly by the successive counts of Flanders, among whom William, the son of Robert, himself appears, as he held that county for a short time before his death (1127-1128). But there were intervals of peace. The treaty of Gisors in 1113 reads almost as if Lewis, in ceding to Normandy the border-land of Belleme, ceded with it all right's of superiority over the duchy. Yet in 1120 Henry found it convenient to make his son William, who had in 1115 received the hom-age of the Normans as his successor, himself do homage to the French overlord. William died almost directly after-wards in the White Ship, and in 1126 Henry procured the assent of his nobles to the succession of his daughter Matilda as lady of England and Normandy. She was now the childless widow of the emperor Henry V., who had been a firm ally of his father-in-law. The next year Henry married his daughter to Geoffrey Plantagenet, son of Falk, count of Anjou and Maine. Anjou, whose counts had been such dangerous neighbours to Normandy, was thus to be united to the duchy and to the kingdom. These schemes in the end took effect. On Henry's death in 1135 the claims of Matilda were cast aside; the rule of a woman was too great a novelty for either kingdom or duchy. England chose Henry's nephew Stephen, the younger brother of Theobald of Chartres. Normandy inclined to Theobald himself, but accepted the choice of England. The legitimate male line of the Conqueror was now extinct, and the stronger feeling with regard to legiti-mate birth which had grown up within the last hundred years hindered any such succession as that of the Conqueror himself. In earlier times Robert of Caen, Henry's natural son, renowned in England as earl of Gloucester, would have been a more obvious choice than either Matilda or Stephen. Now he could only assert the rights of his sister, and so plunge England into anarchy. The strife, which in England took a shape for which civil war is far too good a name, took in Normandy the less frightful shape of foreign invasion and conquest. Stephen's claim was from the first disputed in arms by Matilda's husband Geoffrey. Stephen showed himself in Normandy only for a moment in 1137, when his son Eustace did homage to King Lewis. Geoffrey Under gradually possessed himself of Normandy, partly by French the and Flemish help (1139-1145). Five years afterwards he Dukes"1 reSiSne(l the duchy to his son Henry, who the next year succeeded his father in Anjou and Maine. The next year (1152) he married Eleanor, the divorced wife of Lewis VII. (1137-1180), in her own right countess of Poitou and duchess of Aquitaine. By the union of all these territories a dominion was formed unlike anything which had been seen before in Gaul, but which, as has been remarked already, has had its parallel in later times. Duke Henry, in right of his father, his mother, and his wife, gathered together a crowd of dominions which made him far more powerful than his lord, the king of the French. But there was no connexion between the several duchies and counties that he held beyond the fact that he held them. And when presently the duke became a king the lack of unity became greater still. By the agreement which settled the strife of Stephen and Matilda, the crown of England passed at the death of Stephen to the son of Matilda. In 1154 began the memorable thirty-five years' reign of Henry II. of England. But the king of England was also himself duke of Normandy, count of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, and in his wife's name count of Roitou and duke of Aqui-taine. During his reign and that of his eldest son the connexion between England and the Continent was at once closer and wider than it ever was before or after.

With the formation of the great Angevin dominion, the being of Normandy as a separate power comes to an end. The mere union with England had not that effect in any-thing like the same degree. While the same man was king of the English and duke of the Normans, but had no dominions beyond his kingdom and duchy, there wTas nothing in the relation to wound Norman national pride. The common sovereign took his highest title from England; but his policy was apt to be directed at least as much by Norman as by English interests, and the men of Normandy could not forget that England was the conquest of their fathers. And, if English feeling could from one side look on Normandy as a conquered land and on Tinchebrai as the reversal of Senlac, it was equally easy to look on Tinche-brai as a strife between Norman and Norman, in which it was a mere accident that the chosen chief of one and the stronger Norman party, himself the son of the greatest of Norman princes, happened also to be king of the island kingdom. After all, a conquest of England by Normandy or of Normandy by England was a less grievance than a conquest of Normandy by Anjou. Normans and Angevins hated one another with the hatred of neighbours; nothing could be so utterly offensive to all Norman national feeling as the triumphant entry of Geoffrey into Rouen. Each accession which the Angevin prince made to his dominions made matters worse. Normandy became more and more a simple unit in the long roll-call of the possessions of its sovereign, and a unit marked out in a special way. It was not, like England, the possession which gave its ruler his rank among princes. It was not, like Anjou, the home of his direct forefathers. It was not, like Maine, the land of his own birth. What marked it out from his other possessions was that, while he had received all the rest by some form or other of peaceful succession, Normandy alone was a conquered land.
It is not likely that the rule of its Angevin dukes ever called forth much loyalty in the Norman duchy. There was no sign of open discontent, and Henry and Richard were not princes to be lightly thrown aside. The real greatness of the father, the shadowy glory of the son, went for something, even with subjects who had no special love for them or their house. On the death of Richard in 1199 the succession of John was admitted in Normandy, as in England, without dispute. To bring this about it was perhaps reason enough that Anjou took the side of Arthur. But John's victory at Mirabeau put an end to any hope of a division of the dominions of the Angevin house. And when Arthur, in the expressive phrase of Roger of Wen-dover, "vanished," when the French king took on himself the part of his avenger and declared John to have forfeited Forfeited all fiefs that he held of the French crown, there was no to France, zeal in Normandy to withstand French invasion. The king-duke, to be sure, himself showed as little zeal as any man; but the Normans of an earlier day, with or without the help of their prince, would assuredly have made a stouter resistance than the subjects of John made to Philip Augustus. With wonderful speed (1203-1204) Continental Normandy passed away from an Angevin duke to a French king. One was as much and as little a stranger as the other; and a union with the dominions of the Continental overlord might seem less ignominious than the position of one among many Continental provinces of the island king.

The whole duchy, however, was not lost. The mainland passed to the king of the French ; the islands still clave to their duke. Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and their smaller fellows have ever since remained possessions of the kings of England, but forming no part of their kingdom. They still keep their own language, constitution, and laws, and they have never been incorporated with the United King-dom. It is somewhat singular that the kings of England, still holding as they did part of the Norman duchy, should have so soon given up their Norman title. This was done when the treaty of Xaintes (Saintes) between Henry III. and Saint Lewis was finally carried out in 1259.

Normandy now ceases for a while to have a distinct Hands history. But its earlier history largely influences the °" t0 history which was to come. England, as England, had y^^p, no real quarrel with France; but the abiding quarrel be- rei with tween France and Normandy had drawn England within France, its range. The kings and the people of England, used to fight with France in a Norman quarrel, kept on the feeling of rivalry towards France, even after Normandy itself had gone over to the other side. The fact that the English kings kept Aquitaine after the loss of Nor-mandy—for the inheritance of Eleanor was not forfeited by the crime of her son—was the immediate occasion of many of the

But the traditional feeling was handed on from the days when Englishmen and Normans fought side by side against Frenchmen. In Normandy itself the memory of the connexion with England soon died out. We read, and it seems strange as we read, of the quarrel which, in the days of Edward I., arose between the crowns of England and France out of the disputes between Norman subjects of France and Gascon subjects of England. But the national feeling of the English towards France was none the less an inheritance handed on from the Norman rights of Varaville and Noyon.

From the time of John's forfeiture Normandy ceased to be a separate state. It was a dominion of the king of France, though often granted out as a separate apanage to members of the royal family. The land fell back upon its natural geographical position as the northern seaboard of France, though now the seaboard of a France that had been vastly enlarged since the land of the Northmen had been cut off from the old French duchy. The value of such a province to the kingdom was beyond words; but it was now simply a province of France, keeping much that was characteristic, holding to a strongly-marked pro-vincial life, but not parted off by any distinction that can be called national. One cause of the ease with which the . land went back to its old position in the days before Rolf doubtless was that so much of the national strength had been used up in the settlements in England and Sicily. The life of the Normans as a people—though a people, strictly so called, they hardly formed—is very far from being shut up within the duchy of Normandy.

Still, the union between Normandy and France—at all events, the possession of Normandy by the French kings of the house of Paris—was not to be altogether unbroken. The duchy was for a while to go back again to the descend-ants of its ancient dukes. The Normans had forgotten their connexion with England, but it was not always for-gotten by English kings and statesmen. The remarkable thing is that the thought of reunion does not show itself till a much later time, when the immediate tradition must have passed away. In the two great English invasions of France Normandy plays an important part; but it does not appear that the descendants of Rolf and William were any more welcome in their ancestral duchy than in other parts of the French dominion. But Normandy holds quite a different position in the two great parts of the Hundred Years' War. Under Edward III. it was often the scene of war, because geographical causes naturally made it so; but it was so only as any other part of France might happen to be. The war of Crecy and Foitiers was not in any special way a war for Normandy. Edward was rather a French prince claiming the crown of France than an English king seeking the aggrandizement of his kingdom. When the settlement of Bretigny was made Normandy was not among the lands that were given up to England. It was otherwise with Henry V. He was before all things an English king bent on extending the power of England. If he wished to make Continental conquests, Normandy, both from geographical position and from historical associations, —associations which became keener in some sort as they grew more distant,—was the land which before all others invited his ambition. His war with France, his formal union of the crowns of England and France, were, we may be sure, only means towards his real design, the annexa-tion of Normandy to the crown of England. In every negotiation he was ready to waive his claim to the French crown; he always insisted on the cession of the Norman duchy in full sovereignty. His war was before all things a war for Normandy. In his serious invasion of 1417— to be distinguished from the earlier military promenade which led to the fight of Agincourt—he gave himself out, though he gave himself out in vain, as the lawful duke of the duchy. He thoroughly subdued the duchy as his Recon-first work, and from 1418 to 1450 Normandy again became quest by a possession of the English crown. The treaty of Troyes, HemTv-in its 17th clause, speaks of Normandy as a land conquered from the kingdom of France, yet as actually being at the time a separate possession of the king of England, a land which, by the 21st clause, he was bound, on succeeding to the kingdom of France, to reunite with that kingdom. By that treaty England and France were to be united on the same terms as Sweden and Norway, Hungary and Austria, in later times; but by this clause Normandy is to be part of the kingdom of France, neither part of the kingdom of England nor a separate possession of the common king. Henry never succeeded to the crown of France; he died heir and regent of that kingdom. Normandy therefore was not reunited to France, and Henry, on his deathbed, revealed the object of his whole career. He was prepared for the loss of France, but not for the loss of Normandy. Things might take their course in other ways, but the guardians of his child were to conclude no peace with Charles of France unless Normandy was ceded to the crown of England in full sovereignty. Henry VI. succeeded to both king-doms ; he uses the style of both, and never uses the style of the Norman duchy; yet in documents of his time the duchy is in a marked way distinguished from the kingdom of France. Such phrases as "oure saide royaume of Fraunce and oure saide duchie of Normandie " are common. In the journal of the embassy in 1445, " Guyenne et Nor-mandie et les autres terres esquelles les rois Dangleterre avoient droit avant la question de la couronne "are pointedly distinguished from the lands which were held or claimed by the English kings only by virtue of their claim to the French crown. That Henry V.'s object, the lasting union of England and Normandy, would have been no gain to England needs no proof; but there can be little doubt that the thirty years of English occupation were a gain to Normandy. As far as was possible in a time of war—yet war between France and England was a less evil than war between Burgundians and Armagnacs—King Henry and John duke of Bedford secured to their conquest a far better administration and more of general wellbeing than it had had or than it had again under French rule. But by this time Normans had become Frenchmen. The best English rule was but the rule of a stranger, and the land willingly went back to that dominion of the house of Faris from which it had twice been cut off, at times five hundred years apart.

From this time the history of Normandy is simply part of the history of France. It is the record of such events in French history, some of the most important events in later French history among them, as took place within the bounds of Normandy. The duchy still kept a certain separate being, and its people still kept a large measure of separate feeling. Philip of Comines remarks that the Normans were always best pleased to have a duke of their own. But such a duke of Normandy, son or brother of the reigning king of France, holding a mere apanage and not a sovereign fief, remained a French subject, and had not the same independent position as a duke of Burgundy or Britanny. Philip of Comines further remarks on the wealth of the duchy—the fruit possibly in some measure of the administration of King Henry and Duke John. Normandy brought in a third of the whole income of the French crown. To this day Normandy is easily seen, by those who look below the surface, to be in many things a separate land from France ; compared with southern Gaul, it has much in common with England. But the history of Normandy as a European power ends with the Angevin conquest in the 12th century. Since then it has never stood alone, even as it might still be said to stand alone under the Conqueror and under Henry I. The question from that time was whether Normandy should be a dependency of England or an integral part of France. The latter was in every way the more natural condition. The reunion under Henry V. was a striving against manifest destiny. It shows what a great man can do and what he cannot. (E. A. P.)


Footnotes

Stevenson's Letters and Papers of Henry the Sixth, i. 129.




Search the Encyclopedia:



About this EncyclopediaTop ContributorsAll ContributorsToday in History
Sitemaps
Terms of UsePrivacyContact Us



© 2005-17 1902 Encyclopedia. All Rights Reserved.

This website is the free online Encyclopedia Britannica (9th Edition and 10th Edition) with added expert translations and commentaries