Sample “A” Paper
Why is this an “A” paper?
- The thesis is strong and original.
- The argument is complex, clear, and carefully arranged.
- The writer is critical of the sources, aware of their biases, and careful to distinguish
between “facts” and authorial assertions (what the authors say happened).
- The writer has really dug into the primary sources and made copious use of them,
has provided evidence from the primary sources to support all of his/her assertions,
and provided analysis of each piece of evidence presented.
- The writer does not rely upon Clanchy’s analysis or analysis given in lecture, but
provides his/her own analysis.
- The writer has paraphrased a great deal from the sources (being careful to cite
sources even when paraphrasing material) and used direct quotes sparingly. When
they are used, the direct quotes are brief and integrated into sentences.
- Each paragraph has a specific purpose/topic and supports the larger argument of
the paper.
- The conclusion is strong and compelling, reiterating the writer’s argument.
- The paper has been carefully proofread and spell-checked. The grammar, spelling,
and punctuation are impeccable, as are the footnotes.
Paper Prompt
Compare William of Poitiers’ representation of William the Conqueror in The Deeds of William
(Week 1) with William of Malmesbury’s depiction of Robert of Gloucester in the Historia
Novella (Week 3). How does each author attempt to persuade the reader of their hero’s virtues?
Which account do you think is more reliable? Why?
1
John Doe
HSTAM 365
Fall 2012
First Paper
William, William, Robert, and William
William of Poitiers’ Gesta Guillelmi and William of Malmesbury’s Historia Novella both
feature definite heroes –William the Conqueror and Robert of Gloucester, respectively. The two
works compare William and Robert to great men of antiquity, recount their piety and their brave
deeds in battle, describe their character, and contrast them with their nemeses in order to
convince others of their virtues. The chronicler’s depictions of these men vary slightly because
William of Poitiers was writing after the successful conquest of England trying to convince
people that William the Conqueror is a great and legitimate leader worthy of respect, whereas
William of Malmesbury is praising the character of a leader in an ongoing war in order to
convince the audience that he will inevitably achieve victory.
One method by which William of Poitiers and William of Malmesbury both sought to
convey the greatness of their heroes was through favorable comparisons to the ancients. As the
preservation and study of ancient works of literature were central to medieval learning, great
men of the ancient world were widely known among the educated elite and could serve as readily
recognizable bases for comparison. William of Poitiers (hereafter referred to as Guillaume de
Poitiers for simplicity’s sake) makes considerable use of this tactic in his depictions of William
the Conqueror. Referring to The Iliad, he describes William’s fleet as greater than
Agamemnon’s1, and his victories swifter.2 He goes so far as to say that “The authors of the
1
2
William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi, pg. 111
WP, pg. 143
2
Thebaid or the Aeneid, who in their books sing of great events and exaggerate them according to
the law of poetry, could make an equally great and more worthy work by singing truthfully about
the actions of this man.”3 By this, Guillaume is asserting that William the Conqueror’s deeds
equal or surpass even the inflated deeds of ancient heroes. In identifying him with these great
men of antiquity, he is presenting William the Conqueror as a larger-than-life figure whose deeds
and character deserve at least as much recognition and respect as the revered ancients.
Although William of Malmesbury uses this ‘classicizing’ method to a lesser extent than
Guillaume de Poitiers, they both draw comparisons between their heroes and Julius Caesar.
Caesar would have been an ideal subject for comparison because of his acknowledged greatness
as a general, his role in the beginning of the Roman Empire, and his status as an important
Roman figure in the history of both France and England, especially in the context of his
expeditions into Britain. The authors could thus make favorable comparisons between their
heroes’ invasions of England and the great Caesar’s deeds. Guillaume mentions that compared
with William, Caesar did not have such success on his two expeditions to England.4 Through
further examples he asserts: that Caesar had an easier fight but achieved less success than
William; that William excelled where Caesar struggled; that Caesar looted the countryside but
William preserved the lands5; that William showed greater valor; and that Caesar looked to luck
for victory, whereas William planned everything with great foresight.6 These examples put
forward by Guillaume seem to indicate that, at least in the context of the invasion of England,
William exceeded Caesar in every respect.
3
WP, pg. 137
WP, pg. 169
5
WP, pg. 171
6
WP, pg. 173
4
3
William of Malmesbury is less extensive in his comparisons between Robert of
Gloucester and Julius Caesar, but he does make a point of it. Robert fought against greater odds
than Caesar, landing in England to make civil war on Stephen with only one hundred and forty
knights, whereas Caesar had five cohorts of soldiers when he began the civil war.7 In fact,
William of Malmesbury even says that it is unfair to Caesar to compare him with Robert,
because Caesar was a pagan and had to rely on luck “and the valour of his legions,” but “Robert,
distinguished for his Christian piety, entirely relied on the aid of [God].”8 Guillaume had used
Caesar’s comparatively unsuccessful British expeditions as points of comparison with William
the Conquer, allowing him to show William’s superiority in deeds and portray him as a great
King. William of Malmesbury, however, used as comparison the Roman Civil War in which
Caesar was ultimately victorious. As he was writing while the civil war in England was still
going on, this allowed William to argue that Robert exceeded Julius Caesar in greatness and
would thus be the inevitable victor in the war against King Stephen.
Another way in which Guillaume de Poitiers emphasizes the greatness of William the
Conqueror is through contrast with his rival, Harold Godwinson, with special emphasis on
Harold’s illegitimacy and his perjury. Guillaume takes every opportunity to remind the reader of
Harold’s illegitimacy. He describes how King Edward made William his heir and sent Harold to
Normandy to strengthen and renew that oath.9 When Edward dies, Guillaume tells how Harold
went against Edward’s wishes, seized the crown, and was consecrated illegitimately by
Archbishop Stigand.10 Guillaume does acknowledge the claim that Edward chose Harold as his
successor on his deathbed, a claim which would override previous oaths by Anglo-Saxon
7
William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, pg. 34
WM, pg. 35
9
WP, pg. 69
10
WP, pg. 101
8
4
tradition.11 However, he also describes how William offered to put the matter up to a trial in
order to avoid bloodshed12, showing William’s magnanimity and his faith in his righteousness,
and he makes a case against Harold with such Ciceronian precision that Harold’s case is utterly
“destroyed.”13 Guillaume emphasizes that Harold swore fealty to William, saying “as the most
truthful and distinguished men who were there as witnesses have told… he clearly and of his
own free will pronounced… that as long as he lived he would be the vicar of Duke William in
the court of his lord King Edward” and that he would uphold the succession of William to the
throne.14 This also serves to counter any claim that Harold’s oath was invalid because he swore it
under duress. Great effort is also taken to show that Harold is guilty of the sin of perjury, and
furthermore acted with great dishonor in opposing William’s ascension to the throne. Guillaume
states that after the oaths had been confirmed, William sent Harold away with lavish gifts, but
after all this generosity Harold still perjured his oath and stole William’s inheritance.15 Thus,
Harold comes across in Guillaume’s account as an illegitimate ruler and ungracious perjurer,
making William not only look better by comparison, but making his cause undeniably just.
Guillaume de Poitiers attempts to convince the reader of William the Conqueror’s
greatness by telling of the justness of his cause and his reign. Of the men who joined him in his
voyage of conquest, Guillaume says they did so “all fully confident of the justice of his cause.”16
Even Harold’s sister, the widow of King Edward, recognized his justness and prayed for
William’s victory.17 Guillaume argues that William’s overthrow of Harold was an undertaking of
justice, because Harold’s illegitimate rise to power made him a tyrant, and it is “just and glorious
11
WP, pg. 119
WP, pg. 121
13
WP, pg. 123
14
WP, pg. 71
15
WP, pg. 77
16
WP, pg. 103
17
WP, pg. 115
12
5
and praiseworthy to kill a tyrant.”18 William, by contrast, did not proceed immediately to seize
the crown, desiring to show patience and to piously await the arrival of his wife, only agreeing to
a coronation when the bishops, the Londoners, and his knights begged him.19 The English and
Normans as one acclaimed William their king on coronation day.20 These accounts serve the
purpose of asserting that William’s rise to power was just and legitimate, unlike Harold’s.
William of Malmesbury uses King Stephen as Robert’s converse, emphasizing his
illegitimacy, weakness of character, and habitual perjury. As with Harold Godwinson before
him, Stephen seized the throne in defiance of his oath to uphold the Empress Matilda’s
succession. In fact, William of Malmesbury describes how Stephen and Robert contended with
each other for the honor of swearing that oath first.21 This emphasizes both Stephen’s
illegitimacy and the duplicitous and disloyal nature of his perjury. This is not to say that Stephen
is the uncomplicated villain of the story as Harold was in the Gesta Guillelmi. Much of what was
wrong with Stephen’s rule William blamed on the bad associations Stephen kept. His violations
against the church were blamed on his bad councilors22, and the terror of The Anarchy was
caused by the bad knights who flocked to Stephen’s service because he was easily manipulated
and free with the royal treasury.23 William even says that, had he come to power legally and not
listened to his bad advisors, Stephen would have made an able king.24 He describes Stephen as
energetic but unwise, “active in war… lenient to his enemies and easily appeased, courteous to
all,” but “his words lacked truth and his promises fulfillment.”25 Thus, Stephen is set up as a
18
WP, pg. 139
WP, pg. 143, 147, 149
20
WP, pg. 151
21
WM, pg. 4
22
WM, pg. 20
23
WM, pg. 17
24
WM, pg. 20
25
WM, pg. 16
19
6
weak character, contrasting with Robert of Gloucester’s honesty, loyalty, and wisdom and
making Robert look more likely to triumph.
William of Malmesbury’s depiction of Robert of Gloucester is intended to show his
loyalty, justness, and good character. In the midst of the rampaging, pillaging, and chaos of The
Anarchy, Robert is said to have “behaved with restraint and avoided nothing more carefully than
even a slight loss of men to gain a battle.”26 In fact, the avoidance of bloodshed was one of
Robert’s primary motivations according to William. Robert was so eager to end the deaths of his
countrymen that he marched on Lincoln hoping either to capture Stephen or be captured or killed
himself and thus bring the civil war to a close.27 When he captured Stephen, Robert showed him
mercy and regard.28 When Robert himself was captured, he showed his good character by never
being “broken in spirit” and not assenting to any negotiations for his release without the consent
of Matilda.29 His captors made many promises and threats to get Robert to switch sides, but he
remained resolute and unwavering.30 Loyalty is another theme of Robert’s character in the
Historia Novella, especially in the context of Robert’s contradictory oaths to Stephen and
Matilda. When Stephen seized the throne, Robert struggled with what to do, and decided to
swear an oath to Stephen only because resisting at this time would do no good for the Empress or
himself.31 In order to maintain his true loyalties to Matilda, Robert swore fealty to Stephen
conditionally, knowing the King would go back on his word.32 In 1138, Robert formally
retracted his oath to the King, citing Stephen’s failure to uphold the conditions upon which
Robert had sworn, his illegal ascension to the throne, and the prior oath they had both sworn to
26
WM, pg. 4
WM, pg. 47-8
28
WM, pg. 49
29
WM, pg. 61
30
WM, pg. 68
31
WM, pg. 17
32
WM, pg. 18
27
7
Matilda.33 William carefully explains this process and the conditions of the oath to make it clear
to the reader that, although Robert had gone back on his oath to Stephen, he had not committed
perjury, and had always maintained loyalty to Matilda. Thus Robert shows firm moral character,
which puts him at an advantage over Stephen.
Another trait emphasized in William and Robert by these chroniclers is piety, to the point
of framing their battles as trials through which God shows his divine favor. Guillaume de
Poitiers implies that William’s decision to invade England against the odds was divinely
inspired.34 He emphasizes that, upon his victory, William became a major patron of the church,
citing one example where he brought back to the basilica of Caen such treasures as would
overwhelm one accustomed to seeing great wealth. He says that when William invaded England,
he was more concerned with reforming the English church than in building his own power35,
adding that when he gained power, “He devoted himself with equal energy to both secular and
divine business, but his heart was more inclined to the service of the King of Kings.”36
Guillaume frames the invasion of England as a trial-by-battle between William and Harold,
saying that William knew God would not let so just a cause fail.37 By this, Guillaume was
asserting that William’s victory over Harold was divine judgment, reinforcing the idea that
William is the rightful king and Harold was a usurper. Similarly, when Robert of Gloucester set
out to either capture King Stephen or be captured himself at Lincoln, William of Malmesbury
frames this as a trial by battle, saying that Robert “also hoped for divine approval in his
enterprise.”38 In other words, he was surrendering the fate of the battle –and the country –to
33
WM, pg. 23
WM, pg. 103
35
WP, pg. 109
36
WP, pg. 153
37
WP, pg. 109
38
WM, pg. 47
34
8
God’s judgment, thus making Stephen’s subsequent capture at Lincoln a measure of divine
certainty that Robert will be the victor in the civil war.
Guillaume de Poitiers characterizes William the Conqueror as generous and wise in his
rule and deeds. One of the most frequent ways in which William displays his wisdom is in
having the foresight to provide for his army so that they do not pillage the countryside for
provisions. In one case in Brittany, he offers to make reparations for any damage done by his
troops but, Guillaume maintains, his orders were obeyed so fully that “a single sheaf of corn
would have amply sufficed as compensation for all damage.”39 William repeated this feat several
times throughout Guillaume’s account.40 He also reportedly paid for repair and compensation
when some Norman squires set fire to Castle Dover while William was parlaying with the
inhabitants.41 William’s generosity is important to Guillaume’s account of his character. The
wealth which “Harold had avariciously shut up in the royal store” and would have been
“squandered shamefully on English luxury,” William distributed generously to his men and
especially “to the needy and to the monasteries.” He also sent an incredible amount of gold and
treasure to the Pope.42 This reinforces Guillaume’s assertions of William’s piety and his pure
motivations. He also restored lands to Edwin and Morcar, granted lands to the Ætheling, and
gave generously to other English nobles43, showing that William did not intend to subjugate the
English, but to rule them fairly. By Guillaume’s account, William ruled with justice and
generosity, and he counseled his men to behave well, keeping England safe and unmolested in
his conquest.44
39
WP, pg. 77
WP, pg. 103, 181
41
WP, pg. 145
42
WP, pg. 153
43
WP, pg. 163
44
WP, pg. 159
40
9
Accounts of bravery and great deeds in battle also serve to enhance the chroniclers’
depictions of William the Conqueror and Robert of Gloucester. Guillaume de Poitiers shows
William’s bravery in a number of situations. When Geoffrey of Anjou and Conan fitz Allen
joined forces against the Normans, William, who had been on the verge of returning home, felt
compelled to fight them both for honor and glory.45 Upon landing in England, he personally led a
scouting party of only twenty-five knights into hostile territory.46 In the Battle of Hastings itself,
Guillaume says, many Normans showed their valor, but William “surpassed them in courage as
well as in wisdom.”47 As the English fell back to defensive positions, Guillaume describes how
William, thinking the entrenched English to be a fresh relief force, still charged them with a
broken lance and won the day.48 William of Malmesbury also praises Robert of Gloucester’s
brave deeds. At Lincoln, Robert was so eager “to make an end of the troubles that he would
sooner face the final danger [death] than have the kingdom’s misfortune prolonged.”49 At
Winchester, facing capture, he rode slowly, bravely letting himself be captured to allow Matilda
and her supporters to escape.50 In order to break Stephen’s siege on Matilda at Oxford, Robert
was willing to bring open battle on himself with less than four-hundred knights while Stephen
supposedly had over one thousand.51 In general, the examples of William’s bravery show him to
be a great and worthy commander, while examples of Robert’s bravery are focused on his loyalty
and devotion to Matilda’s cause.
Both Guillaume de Poitiers and William of Malmesbury show bias in their accounts, but
William of Malmesbury is the more reliable source. Both works were written while their subjects
45
WP, pg. 77
WP, pg. 115
47
WP, pg. 135
48
WP, pg. 139
49
WM, pg. 48
50
WM, pg. 66
51
WM, pg. 75-6
46
10
were still alive, and both make use of excessive praise of their hero. Both authors have close ties
to their heroes and good reasons to be biased towards them. Guillaume was a Norman52 and
would therefore likely have more sympathy with the Norman conquerors. Additionally, he had
served as one of William the Conqueror’s chaplains.53 The Historia Novella, on the other hand,
was actually commissioned by Robert of Gloucester54, and William of Malmesbury begins it by
wishing that Robert “may triumph in heaven when he has ended his victories on earth.”55
William thus may seem the most overtly biased, but an examination of the two works reveals
otherwise. Guillaume depicts Harold in a completely negative light, making him out to be a
tyrant and justifying his death and William’s rise. Although William of Malmesbury has every
incentive to treat Stephen in the same way, he does not. William depicts Stephen as a human
being with positive and negative traits, and blames many of the faults of his reign on those
around him. This relatively even-handed treatment of Robert’s opponent lends credibility to
William’s account over Guillaume’s. Additionally, Guillaume’s depiction of William the
Conqueror’s just rule over England, protecting the people and the land, conflicts with such
events as the Harrowing of the North. Guillaume was writing sometime between 1071 and
107756, after the Harrowing, and although the scope of his account stops just short of that event,
the fact that he maintains that William’s conquest preserved the land and kept England safe and
unmolested shows a very selective bias in his writing. Thus, although both chroniclers praise
their subjects to the point of hyperbole, William of Malmesbury’s account is more reliable than
Guillaume de Poitiers’.
52
Introduction to Gesta Guillelmi, pg. xv
Introduction to Gesta Guillelmi, pg. xvi
54
Introduction to Historia Novella, pg. xxiii
55
WM, pg. 1
56
Introduction to Gesta Guillelmi, pg. xx
53
11
Despite Guillaume de Poitiers and William of Malmesbury choosing to depict similar
aspects of the characters of William the Conqueror and Robert of Gloucester, the tenor of their
accounts differs based on the goal of their work. The Gesta Guillelmi sought to persuade the
reader that William was a great leader worthy of resect and obedience and that his conquest of
England was legitimate and righteous. The Historia Novella, on the other hand, was not
concerned with justifying Robert’s kingship because that was not his goal. Instead, it focuses on
his loyalty and personal character in pursuit of his righteous cause. In effect, one argues that
William won, therefore God is on his side, and the other argues that God is on Robert’s side,
therefore he will win –a slight distinction that carries over into the chroniclers’ depictions.
12