his general policy; but his natural disposition was averse to unnecessary bloodshed or cruelty. His one act of wanton devastation, the clearing of the New Forest, has been grossly exaggerated. He was avaricious, but his church policy (see article English History) shows a disinterestedness as rare as it was honourable. In personal appearance he was tall and corpulent, of a dignified presence and extremely powerful physique, with a bald forehead, close-cropped hair and short moustaches.
By Matilda, who died in Normandy on the 3rd of November 1083, William had four sons, Robert, duke of Normandy, Richard, who was killed whilst hunting, and the future kings, William II. and Henry I., and five or six daughters, including Adela, who married Stephen, count of Blois.
Of the original authorities the most important are the Gesta Willelmi, by William of Poitiers (ed. A. Duchesne in Historiae Normannorum scriptores, Paris, 1619); the Winchester, Worcester and Peterborough texts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ed. B. Thorpe, “Rolls” series, 2 vols., 1861, and also C. Plummer, 2 vols., Oxford, 1892-1899); William of Malmesbury's De gestis regum (ed. W. Stubbs, “Rolls” series, 2 vols., 1887-1889); William of Jumièges' Historia Normannorum (ed. A. Duchesne, op. cit.); Ordericus Vitalis' Historia ecclesiastica (ed. A. le Prévost, Soc. de l'historie de France, 5 vols., Paris, 1838-1855). Of modern works the most elaborate is E. A. Freeman's History of the Norman Conquest, vols. iii.-v. (Oxford, 1870-1876). Domesday Book was edited in 1783-1816 by H. Farley and Sir H. Ellis in four volumes. Of commentaries the following are important: Domesday Studies (ed. P. E. Dove, 2 vols., London, 1888-1891); Feudal England, by J. H. Round (London, 1895); Domesday Book and Beyond, by F. W. Maitland (Cambridge, 1897); English Society in the Eleventh Century, by P. Vinogradoff (Oxford, 1908). See also F. M. Stenton, William the Conqueror (1908). (H. W. C. D.)
WILLIAM II. (c. 1056-1100), king of England, surnamed
Rufus, was the third son of William I. by his queen Matilda of
Flanders. Rufus was born some years before the conquest
of England, but the exact date is uncertain. He seems to have
been his father's favourite son, and constantly appears in the
Conqueror's company, although like his brothers he was carefully
excluded from any share in the government either of England
or Normandy. A squabble with Rufus was the immediate cause
of Robert's first rupture with the Conqueror; in the ensuing
civil war we find Rufus bearing arms on the royal side (1077-1080).
On this death-bed the Conqueror was inclined to
disinherit his eldest son in favour of Rufus, who, by the early death
of Prince Richard, was now left second in the order of succession.
The king's advisers, however, used their influence to obtain a
partition; Normandy was accordingly bequeathed to Robert,
while Rufus was designated as the son on whom the Conqueror
desired that the kingdom of England should devolve. With
the help of Lanfranc the English were easily induced to accept
this arrangement. Rufus was crowned at Westminster on the
26th of September 1087, fifteen days after the death of his father.
It may be in part the fault of our authorities that the reign of Rufus presents itself to us as a series of episodes between which the connexion is often of the slightest. In his domestic administration we can trace a certain continuity of purpose, and in his dealings with the Welsh and Scots he proceeded, though intermittently, along the broad lines of policy which his father had marked out. Beyond the Channel he busied himself with schemes, first for the reunion of England and Normandy, then for the aggrandisement of Normandy at the expense of France. But his attention was perpetually distracted by the exigencies of the moment. He threw himself into each particular design with unreflecting impetuosity, but never completed what had been well begun. The violence, the irregularity, the shamelessness of his private life are faithfully reflected in his public career. Even in cases where his general purpose could be justified, his methods of execution were crudely conceived, brutal and shortsighted. Rufus may well stand as the typical product of early feudalism. He was not without valour or glimmerings of chivalry, but perfidious to his equals, oppressive to his subjects, contemptuous of religion; with no sense of his responsibilities, and possessed by a fixed determination to exact the last farthing of his rights. The first year of his reign was troubled by a general conspiracy among the baronage, who took up arms for Robert in the name of the hereditary principle, but with the secret design of substituting a weak and indolent for a ruthless and energetic sovereign. Local risings in Norfolk, Somerset and the Welsh marches were easily repressed by the king's lieutenants. The castles of Kent and Sussex offered a more formidable resistance, since their lords were in direct communication with Robert of Normandy, and were led by the able Odo of Bayeux (q.v.), the king's uncle, who had been released from prison at the opening of the reign. Rufus, however, made an earnest appeal to the native English, promising good laws, the abolition of unjust taxes and redress for those who had suffered by the afforestments of the late king. These promises, which he never attempted to fulfil, served the purpose of the moment. Followed by large contingents of the national militia he successfully laid siege to the strongholds of the rebels. They were leniently treated, and the arch-conspirator, Odo of Bayeux, left England under a safe-conduct to sow fresh seeds of discord in Normandy. But Rufus resolved to take vengeance on his brother, and two years later invaded eastern Normandy. Encountering little resistance—for under Robert's rule the duchy had relapsed into a state of anarchy—he might have expelled the duke with no great trouble. But in 1091 a treaty was hastily patched up. Rufus retained the eastern marches of the duchy, and also received certain seaports. In return he undertook to aid Robert in reducing the rebellious county of Maine, and in recovering the Cotentin from their younger brother, Henry Beauclerk, to whom it had been pledged by the impecunious duke. The last part of the agreement was duly executed. But Rufus then recrossed the Channel to chastise the Scots who in his absence had raided the north country. By a march to the Firth of Forth he vindicated English honour; Malcolm III. of Scotland prudently purchased his withdrawal, by doing homage (Aug. 1091) on the same terms which William I. had imposed in 1072. Next year Rufus broke the treaty by seizing the stronghold of Carlisle and the other lands held or claimed by Malcolm in Cumberland and Westmorland. Malcolm in vain demanded satisfaction; while attempting reprisals on Northumberland he was slain in an obscure skirmish (1093). Rufus immediately put forward a candidate for the vacant throne; and this policy, though at first unsuccessful, finally resulted in the accession of Edgar (1097), a son of Malcolm, who had acknowledged the English overlordship. Carlisle remained an English possession; in the next reign Cumberland and Westmorland appear as shires in the accounts of the Exchequer. The Scottish policy of Rufus, though legally unjustifiable, was thus comparatively successful. In dealing with the Welsh he was less fortunate. Three campaigns which he conducted in North Wales, during 1095 and 1097, yielded no tangible result. The expansion of the Welsh marches in this reign was due to the enterprise of individual adventurers.
The affairs of Wales and Scotland did not prevent Rufus from resuming his designs on Normandy at the first opportunity. Robert was rash enough to reproach his brother with nonfulfilment of the terms arranged in 1091; and Rufus seized the excuse for a second invasion of the duchy (1094). Less prosperous than the first, and interrupted by a baronial conspiracy, which kept Rufus in England for the whole of 1095, this enterprise found an unexpected termination. Robert resolved to go upon Crusade and, to obtain the necessary funds, gave Normandy in pledge to his brother (1096). There can be no doubt that Rufus intended to remain in lasting possession of this rich security. The interests of Normandy at once became the first consideration of his policy. In 1098-1099 he recovered Maine at the cost of a vast expenditure on mercenaries, and commenced operations for the recovery of the Vexin. Early in 1100 he accepted a proposal, made by William IX. of Aquitaine, that he should take over that duchy on terms similar to those arranged in the case of Normandy. Contemporaries were startled at the rapid progress of the king's ambitions, and saw the direct interposition of heaven in the fate which cut them short. On the 2nd of August 1100 Rufus fell, in the New
