A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



Jarrow was at all events partially destroyed. The cathedral church at 

 Durham became a hospital for the sick and dying." About March the 

 deadly work was over, and once more the congregation of St. Cuthbert came 

 to Durham, and set in order their ravaged church. The bishop was not 

 allowed to rest. As in the case of his brother and predecessor i^thelric, there 

 were suspicions of peculation. These, joined to the doubtful character of 

 his loyalty, marked him out as an object of punishment. William was a son 

 of the Church, and desired to make proof of his intention to be no plunderer 

 or destroyer, and the bishop was made his scapegoat, being outlawed and 

 deprived." 



In 1 07 1 William placed a foreigner, as elsewhere, over the see of 

 Durham in the person of Walcher, who until now was a secular priest in 

 Lower Lorraine.^* Next year, after some delay, the king set out for Scotland, 

 where he received the submission of Malcolm at Abernethy. His return left 

 its mark on Northumbria. At Monk Chester he ordered the erection of the 

 castle which gave its name to Newcastle." At Durham, which he now 

 entered for the first time, he confirmed, as Athelstan and Canute had done, 

 all existing privileges.'' A strange tradition was handed down as to his 

 scepticism concerning the presence of St. Cuthbert's body. His unbelief was 

 dispelled, and the benefactions alluded to were bestowed as evidence of his 

 veneration for the saint. Before the year 1072 closed, William appointed 

 Waltheof, of the old Northumbrian house, to be earl in place of Gospatric. 

 Between the earl and the bishop a strong friendship sprang up, of which one 

 visible result is Durham Castle, which Waltheof built for the protection of 

 his friend." There was as yet, apparently, no thought of palatinate power 

 in connexion with this ecclesiastical fortress. The history of the last year 

 had shown how necessary some stable residence would be for the bishop and 

 the desirability of adequate protection for the congregation of St. Cuthbert. 



Walcher contemplated a great change at Durham. Hitherto the bishop 

 had been, as it were, the dean of a body of canons whose prebendal estates 

 were numerous and widely spread.'^ Walcher introduced into Northumbria 

 the revived Benedictine monasticism of the eleventh century. He began this 

 course at dismantled Jarrow, and endowed the restored monastery with the 

 lands adjacent, to which the bishop's title is not clear. From this house the 

 majority of the monks were transferred to Wearmouth, where similar endow- 

 ment was made, and the buildings were renewed which had lain waste since 

 the Danish inroads. The design of transplanting this restored monasticism 



" For the facts with reference to original authorities cf. Freeman, iv, 304. That Durham offered no 

 resistance at this time is due either to the fact that it was denuded of the bishopric men, who presumably did 

 some kind of military service, or else to the submission of Gospatric. 



" The fate of the bishop is told confusedly by Simeon. William could not depend on any one of the 

 northern magnates. He, doubdcss, designed to extrude the Englishman and adopted the means described in 

 the text. 



" Simeon, op. cit. i, 9-10 ; Freeman, op. cit. iv, 513 znd passim, has worked all the authorities. 



" Some authorities put this later in the reign ; Freeman, op. cit. iv, 5 18. 



" The order of events in the Durham visit is confused. It is probable that the grants were made after 

 leaving Durham, when he stopped at Darlington. For his scepticism cf. Freeman, op. cit. iv, 520. 



" This is the true reading of Simeon, op. cit. ii, 199-200, where the subject of the sentence must be 

 Waltheof, and not William, to whom the building of the castle has been wrongly ascribed. 



" This seems clear from what is a priori likely in regard to men who were not monks, though Simeon 

 threw over them the respectability conveyed by that word. See also note 39 above. Reginald of Durham 

 certainly regarded them as secular canons. Libellus, 29. 



10 



