LAST CHAPTERRETURN TO INDEX
This manuscript (17) , known as "The Carmen", is believed to have been written by Guy Bishop of Amiens (1058 - 1075) and takes on new significance, as a result of recent work (18) by Elisabeth M.C. van Houts, of Nunham College Cambridge. This supports the view that contrary to recent belief, the Carmen was written as early as the Autumn of 1067. It is suggested that the Bishop dedicated his poem to Lanfranc, in the hope that he would mediate between himself and Pope Alexander II. The conclusion is that the Carmen is the first known Latin poem to have been written for the Anglo-Norman court, containing 835 lines of Latin text and liable to contain information that is of great value in authenticating any possible site for the Invasion.
The Carmen provides us with a series of new clues to the actual site of the landings. After describing the departure from Saint-Valery and a mid Channel rest prior to dawn, there is a flowery report concerning the first hours of that day.
"But after rosy dawn brightened the lands and sun cast beams over the world, you (William) gave command to set course and make sail, ordering that the vessels should weigh anchor. When you reached safe landing-places, leaving the sea astern, the third hour of day was rising over the earth."
I believe this is an interesting observation since the writer is being very precise in text that could easily be overlooked. It does not say that a bay was entered, nor does it say the fleet entered a river. Terminology is used that describes leaving the sea behind them at the third hour and landing places in the plural. The third hour being approximately 9am , being three hours after dawn (19). Even now the fleet has not landed yet somehow it has left the sea behind.
In the following paragraph the mystery deepens by the next description
"Robbed of her terrified inhabitants, the land destined for you joyfully received you and yours in a calm bay.."
What we appear to be being told is that a calm bay has now materialised, at which point the landing happened. This confirms the Poitiers reference to "Robbed of her terrified inhabitants" endorsing the landing as unopposed and further undermines Pevensey, since Pevensey is not named, nor is the castle that stood there. Given that Pevensey was dominated by the castle structure of the time, in an otherwise unnamed landscape, the omission is, I believe, significant. How could a chronicler of the day describe the invasion yet omit the key point of describing where it took place? This question is of course answered later in the same text when the site is named.
If the text was referring to Pevensey Bay, as has been accepted to date, it is worrying that the description does not fit that of Pevensey Bay, which was mainly open to the sea and would appear to any invasion force as little more than a coastal feature. In anything other than fine weather the far side of the bay is not always visible, due to the distance across the estuary entrance. In order for the water to be calm it had to be confined in a much smaller area. The reference to the calm bay is in direct conflict with the fact that they had sailed the previous night, because sailing conditions were good (20). This means an onshore wind, which would leave no area in Pevensey calm. Given the time of year (21) the claim that Pevensey Bay was a calm bay, either during or within 24 hours of an onshore wind, on such a large relatively unprotected expanse of water, cannot be realistically sustained. The only conclusion must be that the bay itself was protected in some way from the sea. The most likely solution being that the bay was either in a protected estuary, capable of landing several hundred boats, with a relatively narrow entrance, or more likely a harbour. This latter proposal being supported by the description of William's camp and these events being at a port, later in this same manuscript (22) .
Having landed a further series of mysteries unfold, all within the confines of a single paragraph.
"Fearing to lose the ships, you surrounded them with earthworks and guarded the shores. You restored the dismantled forts which had stood there formerly and set custodians to hold them. Having gained control, though over no great space, your people attacked the region, laid it to waste, and burnt it with fire."
The Carmen claims William ordered that the ships that had bought them to England be earthed up (23) in some way. The implication being that should the army decide to desert the way home was barred . This was the move of a wise commander and if correct it is highly likely that remains of the Invasion fleet still exist even today. It should also be noted that the guards stood over the "shores" (in the plural. This confirms the presence of a number of shores that would be found in a small bay rather than a single sea shore such as that at Pevensey.
Next there is a reference to restoring dismantled forts at the site of the landing. This is most interesting since the scribe puts the forts in the plural. This has been used by scholars in the past to seek to justify Hastings as the Invasion site, since it has been suggested that a series of mounds at Hastings adjacent to the castle stretch back to before the Romans (24) . The Carmen is phrased quite specifically and says that the forts were dismantled - suggesting dereliction and that William restored them as part of the landing arrangements. This does not fit Pevensey or Hastings and is yet another mystery that we shall seek to resolve. Charles Dawson, who wrote the definitive history of Hastings castle in 1909 (25) was one of the first contemporary writers to notice the possibility that something could be wrong with the reporting of Hastings castle in the invasion story, when he wrote:
“That the raising of such mounds was a common Norman system of defence is well established; on the other hand, the supposition that they were raised by the Anglo-Saxons at any period rests upon no known facts.
The Bayeux Tapestry does not set all doubts at rest respecting the date of the mound at Hastings. What we see is something taking place at Hastings Castra. Assuming that Hastings Castra is identical with the site at Hastings Castle (which is a reasonable presumption) the question remains as to whether there was already a mound and castle there before the date of the invasion, which latter may have dismantled on Harold's departure for the North in the Autumn of 1066. The Latin words annexed to the view of the tapestry are somewhat unusual if not exceptional. Does the word "foderetur" mean that the digging was with the intention of entrenching an already-existing mound and "Castellum" at Hastings Caestra, or does it mean that it was done for the purpose of raising the mound upon which the Castellum was erected?There are figures in the foreground digging (26), but no figures are shown in perspective building the "Castellum". The "Castellum" is shown already there while the digging is going on, and might equally well represent a castle that had been dismantled as one in the course of erection. The words of the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, one of the oldest authorities referring to the landing of William says "You rebuild the castles that were lately destroyed (durita) and place custodians in them to guard them" It is difficult to adapt these words to the erection of the ready made forts which William is said to have brought with him (27).
In consequence a big question mark rests over any valid claim that Hastings castle was in existence at the time of the invasion. The castle's leading authority expresses doubts when trying to reconcile the authority of the Bayeux tapestry against what he believes to be the position of the mound at the time, if indeed any mound existed. The whole basis of argument that Hastings castle must have been in existence prior to the invasion rests upon the presumption that the pictures shown in the Bayeux tapestry are those of the Hastings castle, which could have been built after the invasion. If that was the case the Bayeux tapestry would have to be showing a different castle at Hastings - one that was subsequently destroyed, or one that has never been found.
Lastly, in relation to the strange paragraph in the Carmen there is a clear indication from the text that the Normans gained control of an area that was relatively small, otherwise there was no need to state "Having gained control, though over no great space.."
There now follows the story of how the English heard of the Invasion.
"One of the English, lying hidden close to a sea-rock, perceived how the countless ranks spread far and wide and saw the fields glittering, full of glancing arms. He saw the people, their homes ravaged by flames for their perfidy, perish by the raging sword, and what tears the children shed for their fathers' slaughter. He ran to mount a horse and sped to tell the king."
Whilst it has little relevance to the establishment of the landing site, I believe it indicates the likelihood that these events did take place as written. My reason for believing this being the recounting of the same story in another text, which I shall deal with when dealing with the Wace manuscript.(28)
Much later in the text the Carmen tells the same story as the Poitiers pre-battle pep talk, but this time given by William during the famous rout by the English, which nearly cost the Normans dear. As a rallying call to his men he raises his helmet to turn the tide
"To the Normans he showed a furious countenance......You fly from sheep, not men, and fear without cause; what you are doing is most shameful! The sea lies behind you: the sea-voyage back is formidable, wind and weather against you. It is hard to return home, hard and long the voyage; here no way of escape remains for you."
The reference to the sea lying behind them is certainly something that was of great relevance to most of the men, who had probably never before been on a major sea voyage. Whether these events took place on the battlefield, or at the Norman camp, cannot be established and could certainly have been both.
In common with Poitiers the Carmen confirms that Harold's body is returned to the Norman camp for the necessary rites. A remarkable confirmation of events that runs contrary to what would be expected from a Christian invader and runs contrary to the popular belief that he was buried at Waltham Abbey.
"The corpses of the English, strewn upon the ground, he left to be devoured by worms and wolves, by birds and dogs. Harold's dismembered body gathered together, and wrapped what he had gathered in fine purple linen; and returning to his camp by the sea, he bore it with him, that he might carry out the customary funeral rites.(29) "
However Harold's mother offers to purchase the body with his weight in gold.
"But the Duke, infuriated, utterly rejected both petitions, swearing that he would sooner entrust the shores of that very port to him - under a heap of stones. Therefore, even as he had sworn, he commanded the body to be buried in the earth on the high summit of a cliff."
this tale is further expanded with the description of the marker stone embossed with the words
"By the duke's commands, O Harold, you rest here a king, That you may still be guardian of the shore and sea"
What is remarkable is the proposal by the Carmen that Harold was effectively given a Viking funeral (30) on a headland near by.
The why's and wherefore's at this time are not for me to consider, but given the failure in the past to find certifiable confirmation of Harold's grave (31) I have as yet no reason to disbelieve this version of events. What interests me is that the camp is clearly identified as being by the sea and is stated as being at a port. The first time this expression is used and one of great importance.
As if to endorse this point the Carmen rounds off the events at Hastings by naming the site of the camp
"For a fortnight William remained in the camp at the port of Hastings and from there he directed his march towards Dover." (22a)
At no point in the previous text has this scribe named any place in England. Only after the battle is won is Hastings named and it is described as being at the camp from which all these events occurred. There is no room for doubt that the camp that the text describes is at the port of Hastings. If this is correct, as I believe I can show, along with all the other unresolved matters, the question must be asked why have no certain archaeological remains ever been found at this port, when the town of Hastings was being developed. I believe that this question can be best answered when we look at the castle and port site.
In conclusion the Carmen states that the landing places were probably inland away from the coast, since the sea was left behind at nine in the morning and the turn of the tide on that day was believed to be between 11am and 12 noon (32) . Given the fact that the Invasion fleet was a considerable size (33) it is more than probable that William, being an excellent commander and organiser, would have directed the landing to take place in unison at the turn of the tide. If this theory is correct several hours elapsed between the entrance to the port (as the text later describes the site) and the actual landing. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the landing site was in a bay, that was off of the immediate coast line, capable of holding several hundred ships, especially if more than one shore needed defending. It could be argued that although Pevensey Bay is very large and did not fit the comments in the text exactly, the rhetoric was sufficiently flowery to allow artistic interpretation to take over. Whilst this could account for yet another inconsistency it appears questionable, to a sceptical reader, that the writer would be so specific if it was intended to leave room for doubt.
Any reasonable person describing such a landing would have named the site as Pevensey Bay if they had landed at Pevensey and known the name of the place. The omission of this information and an alternative detailed description of a name of the port, leaving out the name of the bay, makes it far more probable that the name of the bay was either the same name as the port (later named as Hastings) or alternatively, but far less likely, unknown.
As the story unfolds further information is revealed, suggesting that the fleet, or at least part of it, may still be where it was left. If they had earthed up their ships, upon William's orders, then some timbers would inevitably remain, even after what was visible above the water had been removed by the local inhabitants for housing or other use. The fact that the main army left the site, two weeks after the battle and never returned, makes a strong case for invasion fleet remains to be found somewhere in the vicinity of the proposed camp.
The Carmen tells us that William secured a small area of land at the time of the Invasion and later tells us quite directly in the same narrative that their camp was geographically located at the port of Hastings. I do not believe it necessary to place the complete text in front of the reader, since this is available to those who wish to verify the matter. However, the complete text indicates to me that the events of the landing, the building of the first wooden fort and the location of the Norman camp, were all at the same place. If this is correct, as I believe it is, then finding the port is the first element that is required to find the site of the landing. However the problem is that to date no-one has been able to do this. I believe that I can provide the necessary archaeological and geographical proof that backs up each of these manuscript claims.
There is one last observation that I would make in relation to the Carmen, that should be aired. This is the fact that throughout history, until the end of the Victorian era, the Carmen was always considered a wholly authentic document. However as recently as 1944 its authenticity was attacked by G.H.White (34)contributing to its virtual removal from bookshelves and from current thinking in relation to the events of that time. It is my view that all the objections raised by White have now been studiously discredited, as a result of the detailed work (35) by Catherine Morton and Hope Muntz , thus reinstating its legitimate standing as one of the most thorough accounts available of the Norman conquest.
NEXT CHAPTER
RETURN TO INDEX