Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 41.djvu/430

 him as the lover of churches, the friend of the poor and oppressed, and guardian of virginity. The ‘English Chronicle’ says ‘a good man he was, clean, and right noble.’ The ‘Pershore Chronicle’ relates that Odda restored the lands which Ælfhere had taken from the monks, and would not marry lest his heir should in his turn do evil. 

ODO (d. 1097), bishop of Bayeux and earl of Kent, was son of Herluin of Conteville by Herleva of Falaise, the concubine of Robert of Normandy, and mother of William the Conqueror. Guibert of Nogent actually calls Odo natural son of Duke Robert, and own brother to William the Conqueror (De Sanctorum Pignoribus, i. ch. 3). William of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum, p. 333) expressly states that Herluin and Herleva were married before Duke Robert's death in 1035; but Odo, who was their eldest son, was perhaps not born before 1036. Odo's younger brother was Robert of Mortain [q. v.], and he had also two sisters: Muriel, who married Odo cum Capello (, 6026), and another, who married the Sire de la Ferté (, Translation of Wace, p. 237;, Rot. Scacc. Norm. i. p. lxxix). Herluin had another son, Ralph, by a former marriage. Odo received the bishopric of Bayeux from his brother William about October 1049 (, iii. 263, note 2), and, as bishop, witnesses a charter of St. Evroul on 25 Sept. 1050 (ib. v. 180). He witnesses various charters during the subsequent years, and was present at ecclesiastical councils held at Rouen in 1055, 1061, and 1063. He was present at the council held at Lillebonne in 1066 to consider the projected invasion of England, and, according to one account, contributed one hundred ships to the fleet (, Hist. of Henry II, i. 523), though Wace (6186) assigns him forty only. Odo accompanied the Norman host, and not only exhorted the soldiers the night before the battle, but, despite his ecclesiastical character, fought in full armour at Hastings, though armed with a mace instead of a sword. When the Normans turned in flight, Odo was prominent in rallying the fugitives, and is so depicted in the Bayeux tapestry (, 8131).

After his coronation William bestowed on Odo the castle of Dover and earldom of Kent; and when, three months later, the king crossed over to Normandy, Odo and William FitzOsbern [q. v.] were left as viceroys in his absence. Odo's special care as Earl of Kent was to secure communication with the continent, and to guard against attack from that quarter. The rule of the viceroys was harsh in the extreme; ‘they wrought castles wide amongst the people, and poor folk oppressed’ (English Chronicle); they protected their plundering and licentious followers, and paid no heed to the complaints of the English; while their zeal for William's policy of castle-building served to increase their unpopularity ( ii. 1). While Odo was absent to the north of the Thames, the men of Kent called in Eustace of Boulogne; but, though Eustace was repulsed by the Norman garrison of Dover, the discontent with the rule of his viceroys compelled William to hurry back to England in December 1067. Odo did not again hold a position of equal authority; but for fifteen years he was second in power only to William himself. William of Malmesbury styles him ‘Totius Angliæ vicedominus sub rege;’ and Orderic says: ‘Veluti secundus rex passim jura dabat.’ There is, however, no sufficient reason to describe him as justiciar, though from time to time he discharged functions which were afterwards exercised by that officer (see, Constitutional History, § 120). Orderic also describes Odo as ‘palatinus Cantiæ consul;’ but it is uncertain whether he ever really possessed the regalia as a true palatine earl, or even bore the title of earl, though he certainly exercised the jurisdiction of the ealdorman (ib. § 124). Still he witnesses charters as ‘Comes Cantiæ,’ and in 1102 his nephew, William of Mortain, unsuccessfully claimed the earldom of Kent as his heir ( Gesta Regum, p. 473). Besides a great number of lordships in Kent, Odo received lands in twelve other counties (Domesday Book, esp. pp. 6–11), and acquired vast wealth, in part at least, by the spoliation of abbeys and churches. The most famous instance of such spoliation was his usurpation of certain rights and possessions of the see of Canterbury. Lanfranc claimed restitution, and by William's order the suit was heard before the shire-moot of Kent at Penenden Heath, with the result that Odo had to surrender his spoil (Anglia Sacra, i. 334–5). The abbeys of Ramsey and of Evesham, the latter of which lost a large part of its lands in a contention with Odo, were less fortunate (Chron. Ramsey, p. 154; Hist. Evesham, pp. 96–7, both in Rolls Ser.) On the other hand, Odo was a benefactor of St. Augustine's, Canterbury