Page:The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry the First.djvu/257

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

History of Maine under the Conqueror.

1063.

1073.

1083.

1086. when land and city could put forth their full strength back again under a leader worthy of them. But as yet the land of Maine has neither to deal with so mighty a foe nor to rejoice in the guardianship of so worthy a champion. In the stage of the tale which we have now reached, Rufus plays no part at all, and Helias plays only a secondary part. The general story of Le Mans and Maine has been elsewhere carried down to the last mention of them in the days of the Conqueror.[1] It has been told how the land passed under William's power in the days before he crossed the sea to win England[2]—how the city and land had revolted against the Norman—how, after trying the rule of a foreign branch of their own princely house, its people had risen as the first free commonwealth north of the Loire—how they had been again brought into William's hand, and that largely by the help of his English warriors[3]—and how, after the final submission of the city, isolated spots of the Cenomannian land had again risen against the Norman power. The last act of this earlier drama was when a single Cenomannian fortress successfully withstood the whole strength of Normandy and England.[4] We have seen how Hubert of Beaumont beheld the Conqueror baffled before his hill fortress of Sainte-Susanne, the shattered keep which still stands, sharing with Dol in the Breton land the honour of being the two spots from which William had to turn away, conqueror no longer.[5] But, if Hubert had beaten back William from his castle, he had found it expedient to return to his allegiance; and, at the death of the Conqueror, Maine seems to have been as thoroughly under William's power as Normandy and England. Things

  1. See N. C. vol. v. pp. 543-563, 652-655.
  2. Ib. vol. iii. pp. 182-215.
  3. Ib. vol. iv. pp. 483, 557, 827.
  4. Ib. vol. iv. p. 652.
  5. Ib. vol. iv. pp. 635, 657.