Quedam Exceptiones De Historia Normannorum et Anglorum

The 'Quedam Exceptiones de Historia Normannorum' is the most crucial document which came into our possession relatively re-cently. It was edited by Elisabeth Van Houts (Cambridge) but published long ago without translation. As a result, the new translation by Ms Tyson into English has recently been published, which confirms the detail. It is not usually of interest to those outside academia, because Latin is not a language that inspires modern translation. The document's background confirms that it originally came from the Fitz Osbern family. Wiki states:

‘William FitzOsbern was probably raised at the court of his cousin William, Duke of Normandy, and like his father, became one of the ducal stewards. He married Adeliza de Tosny, probably in about 1049. Together they founded Lyre Abbey (La Vieille-Lyre) and later Cormeilles Abbey. FitzOsbern also founded Saint-Evroul Abbey.

He was one of the earliest and most vigorous advocates of the invasion of England, and tradition holds that, at the Council of Lillebonne, he convinced the doubters amongst the Norman barons of the feasibility of the invasion. FitzOsbern's younger brother Osbern FitzOsbern was one of Edward the Confessor's chaplains, and possessed the rich church of Bosham in Sussex, where King Harold went to in the first scene of the Bayeux Tapestry, and was well placed to pass along intelligence’.

Having established that the document has a valid provenance it is necessary then to look at the translation of the Latin because it too states that the Normans landed at Pevensey. However this is shown to be like most of the other documents incorrect. It was used by most of those who wrote upon the subject. The most important being William de Jumieges, in the ‘Gesta Normannorum Ducum’ and by Orderic Vitalis and Robert Torigni in ‘Historia Ecclesiastica Normannorum’. Over forty copies where made and form the basic bundle of documents read by any academic reader, believing the translation reflects what was written by the original author. Details are covered in the book 1066 the Battlefield by Nick Austin (2024).

Ms Tyson who translated this work, like Ms Van Houts she noticed that there was an issue with the first translation of the C version when Ms. van Houts had done her work on the manuscript. The landing site had been written by Jumieges as naming the landing site as ‘Pebesellum’. All later documents changed the name of the landing site to versions of the then current name for Pevensey.

It may be impossible to recall, but it was not in the days of photocopiers. If a copy of a document was required it would need to be ordered from a monk or you would do it yourself. It could take years to be delivered and was usually only available to people with access to the court or church. As a consequence no correction was ever issued and naming Pevensey became impossible to verify, other than by looking at the original document. It is a fatal flaw in historical research that eventually gets eliminated, as notes are compared. It may take ten years and sometimes a hundred. In this case it has taken nearly a thousand for the error to come to light.

Upon checking with the UK naming authority it is not possible for a ‘Peb’ to become a ‘Pev’ in English language naming tradition. The original name must therefore have been the one William de Jumieges wrote down. Further research has established that Hastings port was one and a half miles upstream on the Combe Haven at the time and therefore must have been close to Wylting Farm (Hastings on the other side of the river).

Further research undertaken in the recent book 1066 The Battlefield confirms that ‘Pebesellum’ is in fact ‘Pebsham Manor’ on the Combe Haven river opposite Hastings old port, where boats have recently been identified. In consequence Hastings was correctly named in the Jumieges document and all those who named Pevensey as the landing site, after William de Jumieges was translated using the the wrong name - Pevensey.

Whilst it may answer the question “Where did the Norman land"? it now confirms Hastings as the landing site of the Norman army. However, it does not explain the issue of why after twenty or so years the Bayeux Tapestry was hung in Bayeux Cathedral. It is considered wholly authentic, because it was viewed by those who took part in the battle, featuring the words ‘Ad Pevensey’ embroydered on the central section crossing the Channel.