Page:The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry the First.djvu/46

 p. 326, note. In strictness Anselm did not appeal to the Pope at all. See below, p. 598.

p. 335, l. 15, for "unrighteousness" read "unrighteousnesses."

p. 353, l. 6 from bottom. I ought not to have forgotten the character of Ralph Luffa given by William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 205); "Radulfus proceritate corporis insignis, sed et animi efficacia famosus, qui contuitu sacerdotalis officii Willelmo juniori in faciem pro Anselmo archiepiscopo, quem immerito exagitabat, restiterit. Cumque ille, conscientia potestatis elatus, minas ingeminaret, nihil alter reveritus baculum protendit, annulum exuit, ut, si vellet, acciperet. Nec vero vel tunc vel postea austeritatem inflecteret si assertorem haberet. Sed quia discessu suo spem ejus et ceterorum, si qui boni essent, Anselmus enervavit, et tunc causa decidit et postmodum damno succubuit." This seems at first sight to stand in contradiction to Eadmer's picture of all the bishops, except possibly Gundulf (see below, pp. 497, 513, 516), forsaking and renouncing Anselm. We can understand that Eadmer would be inclined to make the worst of the bishops as a body, while William of Malmesbury would be inclined to make the best of the particular bishop of whom he was writing. This is one of the passages in which William of Malmesbury in his second edition watered down the vigorous language of the first. As he first wrote it, the King appeared as "leo ferocissimus Willelmus dico minor." On second thoughts the comparison with the wild beast was left out.

p. 355, l. 15. I have sent Herbert to Rome at this time, in order to bring him back for the meeting at Hastings in 1094. See below, pp. 429, 448. I find that some difficulty has arisen on account of the words of Eadmer (see p. 429), which have been taken as implying that Herbert joined in the consecration of Anselm. Dr. Stubbs puts him on the list in the Registrum. But surely the words might be used if all the bishops came who were in England and able to come.

p. 355, side-note, for "1091-1093" read "1091-1098." See vol. ii. p. 267.

p. 375, note 6, for "perversitatam" read "perversitatem."

p. 385, l. 2, for "undoubtedly" read "by himself."

p. 408, l. 15. There must however have been some exceptions. See the Additions and Corrections to vol. ii. p. 508.

p. 450, l. 3 from bottom. Yet the guarantors, even on William's own side, held him to be in the wrong. See p. 461.

p. 469, note 1. The reference is to the passage of Orderic, quoted in vol. ii. p. 537. But it is hard to understand how Henry can have been at war with William in 1094. Yet there is the passage from Sigebert quoted in p. 471, note 3, where the date must be wrong, but which seems to hang together both with this passage of Orderic and with the suspicions on the Kings part implied in the narrative in the Chronicle.

p. 469, l. 10, and note 3, for "son" read "grandson."

p. 485, l. 3, for "of" read "to."

p. 492, l. 2, put semicolon after "within."

p. 506, note 2. This passage is very singular, especially the words "nec ipsum advertere posse putaverunt." On this last point the bishops seem to have been right, as Anselm himself nowhere puts forward any such claim to exemption.