The Chroniclers of King Henry I of England: Do Twelfth Century Historians Invariably Depict Henry as a Good King?
The eleventh and twelfth century was a rather turbulent time for the English monarchs, and there are certainly varying depictions of these monarchs and different explanations for events by the contemporary historians. To answer a question as complex as the one shown above, one must enter the mind of the authors of these contemporary histories. This of course, is impossible and the closest one can get to understanding the minds of twelfth century historians is to understand their background, their own personal history and how that would have impacted their outlook on the world and the events that had happened in the previous decades of their life before writing. This essay will explore three varying historians during this period; Orderic Vitalis and his Ecclesiastical History, William of Malmesbury and his Gesta Regum Anglorum, and finally the Welsh chronicle: Brut y Tywsogyon. Of course, these histories and historians are not the only ones that were; I would have liked to include other historians that are much less written about such as Hugh the Chanter in York or Henry of Huntingdon, who were as important as the historians mentioned. However, the historians to be discussed provide some of the fullest accounts of Henry’s reign while also providing a range of backgrounds given their places of origin. The point must be made that not all twelfth century historians depict Henry as a good king; however, there are times when historians such as William of Malmesbury and especially Orderic Vitalis do depict Henry as such, as this essay will demonstrate.
One of the leading twelfth century historians was Orderic Vitalis; the author of the Ecclesiastical History, which M. Chibnall argues is one of the most valuable histories of the Anglo-Norman world. Born near Shrewsbury in 1075, the early years of his life were spent in England. He spent most of his life in Saint-Evroult, Normandy, where he would write his famous history. An argument made by J. A. Green, was that as a result of King Henry’s visit to Orderic’s community in 1113, Orderic softened to Henry’s character. Green says that this ‘helps to explain why Orderic undertook his great work and why Henry loomed so large in its later pages’. To add, J. Sapp has plausibly suggested that Henry’s suppression of violent nobles also contributed to Orderic’s positive depictions of Henry. It may have been a mix of all of these factors that made Orderic so supportive of Henry. However, it is much more likely to be a result of Orderic’s own heritage of England (Orderic’s mother was English and so he was born and spent his early years in England) as well as Henry’s suppression of violent nobles. An example of this would be Orderic’s description of the Battle of Tinchebray, where he describes Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy as an ‘iniquitous ruler’. During Robert Curthose’s reign in Normandy from 1087, Orderic claims that Normandy was ‘dominated by godless bandits’ and existed ‘without a true ruler’, referring to Curthose himself as sinful and ‘foolish’. Moreover, at a time when Orderic’s monastery and surrounding border towns were feeling the turbulence of Curthose’s new rule, Norman Lords also fought amongst themselves over land and patronage from their new duke, Robert Curthose. These troubles being associated with Curthose’s rule most definitely tainted Orderic’s portrayal of Curthose, whereas Henry became the hero as he was evidently the man who ended Curthose’s rule and stamped his authority into all corners of Normandy. Henry was described as a holy man, humble and ‘glorious’. After the arrival of Henry in Normandy and his victory at the Battle of Tinchebray in 1106, the situation for Saint-Evroult improved massively as he suppressed the rebelling nobles in the area, and brought peace to his monastery. Green supports this argument, ‘He [Orderic] believed that it took a strong ruler to keep the aggressive characteristics of the Norman people in check.’ Henry provided the characteristic of a ‘strong ruler’ that Normandy apparently needed. Orderic even refers to Henry as the ‘Lion of Justice’ that was prophesied in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Merlin.To Orderic therefore, Henry was a sufficient ruler, it was only Curthose’s bloodline that would destroy that said peace. Orderic was writing his Ecclesiastical History from around 1114 to the late 1130s, decades after the Battle of Tinchebray in 1106- so it is also likely that Orderic wanted to justify Henry’s rule in Normandy; portraying Curthose as a bad ruler and exaggerating Normandy’s apparent desperate need for a ‘strong ruler’ did this well in his books. For example, ‘The tearful laments of unhappy Normandy were carried across the sea, and the king of England was summoned by the pleas of the afflicted’. Orderic’s aim here was to justify Henry’s invasion of Normandy despite it rightfully being in Curthose's hands, as he was the eldest brother. In reality, Henry had no right to invade Normandy and faced little threat from Curthose; however, Orderic’s claim that the Norman people were crying for Henry’s help justify his actions, thus presenting Henry as just and fair. In addition Orderic wrote ‘Your brother [Robert Curthose] does not truly hold Normandy nor does he govern the people as a duke should’. This makes Henry’s rule in Normandy look like he was working on behalf of God by saving Normandy from his brother’s sin and violence. Perhaps Orderic truly believed that Henry was working for a holy purpose by seizing Normandy from Robert Curthose, hence his exaggeration of Henry’s holy characteristics.
On the other side of the channel, the half-English and half-Norman historian, William of Malmesbury was writing his prolific histories. Born c.1085-1090, towards the south of England near Malmesbury, he provides modern day historians with a slightly different perspective of King Henry I in comparison from Orderic Vitalis writing in Normandy. The first version of his great history, Gesta Regum Anglorum, is likely to have been completed around February of 1126 however, sections of the history were completed before 1118. Malmesbury’s work, unlike Orderic’s, was much more contemporary; the terminating point of the first edition being 1125, only a year prior to his completion of the work. According to R.M. Thomson, in the Gesta Regum Anglorum, Malmesbury writes almost as if he was a modern day or ‘professional’ historian. He references his sources, discussing the reliability and the dating of the same to create a relatively fair view of the characters he writes about. Despite, J. A. Green’s argument that Malmesbury ‘cleverly avoided praise or condemnation of Henry’, Malmesbury does have a preference to King Henry I in comparison to other leaders, such as William Rufus. For instance, when describing Rufus, Malmesbury said ‘it is that some men [in reference to Rufus], when they have nothing to give away, betake themselves to violence, and the hatred they earn… is greater than the benefit they confer on the recipients of their bounty.’ Clearly, Malmesbury saw William Rufus as an example of an inadequate king, as he continued, ‘The knightly code of honour disappeared; courtiers devoured the substance of the country people’ he continued, ‘Spineless, unmanned, they were reluctant to remain as Nature had intended they should be’. A king who brought his court and men down a sinful path was the epitome of a careless and terrible king.
Writing nearly two decades after Rufus’ death, Malmesbury clearly had no intention of pleasing Rufus and would have felt no need to tip toe around his younger brother, Henry. Malmesbury’s depiction of Rufus here purposefully contrasts with how Henry is depicted, most likely to illuminate Henry’s character as a good king. Good leadership was not the only thing Malmesbury saw in an adept king, it was also someone who sustained ‘peace and justice “without shame to his nobility”.’ All of these characteristics, Malmesbury claimed Henry possessed, but did he truly believe what he was writing? As mentioned previously, Malmesbury was writing his Gesta Regum during the lifetime and reign of Henry I, and as Malmesbury says himself people ‘paid a bitter price for… disloyalty’. Perhaps then, Malmesbury only depicted Henry as a good king out of fear of punishment? Malmesbury was commissioned to write his Gesta Regum by Queen Matilda, the wife of Henry, and so it is likely he was fulfilling her request to present Henry as a model king. Of course, one will never know without asking the author himself, but from the evidence time has provided historians, this is the most likely argument.
Let us travel across the border and into Wales, where Welsh Cistercian monks were also writing their perspective of Henry’s rule. The most important Welsh chronicle from this time period is the Brut y Tywsogyon; also known as the Chronicle of the Princes. All of the versions of this chronicle cover a span of six hundred years from the late seventh century to the late thirteenth. A later addition expands the Brut to 1332, and then later to 1461. Writing over a century after the reign of Henry I, one must take into account that this is not a contemporary history.. In comparison to other contemporary historians such as Malmesbury, it must be understood that the authors of the Brut will not have had the pressures of avoiding offence to the monarch or their immediate family. So, although the facts and dating may be inexact in some places, the mood and memory of the Welsh opinion of Henry I may be more accurate than a more contemporary history. The motives of the Welsh chronicle are less well surmised than that of the Malmesbury account. One possible account could be that the Welsh Cistercian monks took inspiration from some of the great English and Norman histories from the twelfth century, with a desire to preserve their own perspective of history. Perhaps it was to show future generations how Welsh royalty were forced to bow down to English invaders. Again, without the pressure of trying to impress the monarch in question, the Brut is more truthful about the Welsh opinion of the English lords and their king, especially Henry I. J. E. Lloyd, one of the most influential historians of Welsh history in this period, believed that the original Latin chronicle was likely to have been written between three monastic centres: St. Davids, Llandbadarnfawr and Strata Florida. With each monastic centre writing a section of history, the Brut y Tywsogyon can be seen as ‘a collaborative historiographical endeavour’. This medieval chronicle is very unique in comparison to other twelfth century historians such as Orderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury, in that it depicts King Henry not necessarily as a good king, nor a bad one. In fact, as O. W. Jones argues, the authors of the Brut reveal that their political sympathies were not restricted to one obvious answer, as a result of its multiple authorship. So, the question ‘Why do twelfth century historians invariably depict Henry as a good king?’ isn’t quite a factual one. Although the Brut doesn’t explicitly say Henry was a bad king, it also doesn’t praise Henry like William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis does. For example, in 1114, the Brut describes Henry as what O. W. Jones labels ‘deceitful, tyrannical and genocidal’. It reports that Gilbert fitz Richard accused Owain ap Cynan, Prince of Gwynedd, and his men of theft; consequently, ‘Henry, king of England, moved a host against the men of Gwynedd and above all to Powys’. The author continues, ‘And out of hate for them [the Welsh], they [Henry and his men], set their minds upon exterminating all the Britons’. The fact that Henry apparently came full force against the men of Gwynedd and Powys for the small crime of theft expresses that the author of the Brut saw Henry as tyrannical, or as Jones describes, genocidal. Yet again, the Welsh chronicle doesn’t completely condemn Henry; in fact, it shows a deal of respect for him. The clearest example of this is when the author writes of Henry II: “he was the grandson to Henry the Great, son of William the Bastard’. Referring to Henry as ‘the Great’ demonstrates that although Henry wasn’t a ‘good’ king to the Welsh as Malmesbury would define it, it shows that the authors of the Welsh chronicle had a great level of respect for Henry, even after his death.
To conclude, twelfth century historians mostly do depict Henry as a successful and good king. Out of the sources discussed, it is only the Brut y Tywsogyon that claims Henry as a cruel king because of his ‘genocidal’ treatment of the Welsh. Therefore, contemporary historians do not invariably depict Henry as a good king. On the contrary, historians such as Orderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury do depict Henry as a good king because they benefitted from Henry’s rule personally, and/or because they were commissioned by a close relative of Henry’s, as in Malmesbury’s case. For the case of the Brut y Tywysogyon, the authors although, not agreeing with Henry’s actions in Wales, did show a deal of respect for the King. Whether these historians truly believed what they were writing is a whole additional issue, that could be looked into in the future.
By Geneva Henson
Bibliography:
Primary Sources:
Brut y Tywysogyon/The Chronicle of the Princes, Peniarth MS 20 Version. Edited and translated by T. Jones. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1952.
Orderic Vitalis. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol. 6. Edited and translated by M. Chibnall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
William of Malmesbury. Gesta Regum Anglorum, vol. 1. Edited and translated by R.A.B Mynors, R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Secondary Sources:
Björn, W. ‘William of Malmesbury on Kingship’, History, 90 (1) (2005): 3-22.
Chibnall, M. The World of Orderic Vitalis: Norman Monks and Norman Knights. Oxford: Boydell Press, 1984.
Cooper, A. ‘“The Feet of Those That Bark Shall Be Cut Off”: Timorous Historians and the Personality of Henry I’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 2525 (23) (2000). 47-67.
Green, J. A. Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Green, J. A. ‘The Written World: Past and Place in the Work of Orderic Vitalis, by Amanda Jane Hingst’, The English Historical Review, 127 (528) (2012). 1190-1191.
Hagger, M. S. Norman Rule in Normandy, 911-1144. Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 2017.
Jones, O. W. ‘Brut y Tywysogion: the History of the Princes and Twelfth-Century Cambro-Latin Historical Writing’, The Haskins Society Journal 26 (2015). 209-228.
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. ‘Orderic Vitalis (1075- c. 1142)’. Accessed 7 November 2023. https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-20812?rskey=rsiO58&result=1
Medievalists.net. The Normans are an Unconquerable People: Orderic Vitalis’ Memory of the Anglo-Norman Regnum during the Reigns of William Rufus and Henry I, 1087-1106’. Accessed 7 November 2023. https://www.medievalists.net/2014/03/normans-unconquerable-people-orderic-vitaliss-memory-anglo-norman-regnum-reigns-william-rufus-henry-1087-1106/
Shopkow, L. History & Community: Norman Historical Writing in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1997.
Thomson, R. M. William of Malmesbury. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.