Descendants of Hughes I de Cavalcamp Seigneur ... - Davidkfaux.org

Generation 4 (con't)
himself may have been son of a seigneur of Pirou-unpublished sources are cited,
but it appears to rely mainly on common use of the not-uncommon name
Bigot/Bigod, and in part on the conjecture that Roger was a royal steward by
shared inheritance with William of Pirou. Both men subscribed a charter of William
II for Bath priory, along with three others who held the same office, Cartul S Petri
Bath 41-42, dated 27 Jan 1090 (but written in 1091, Reg Regum Anglo-Norm i 81
no 315): Ego Eudo dapifer.+. Ego Ivo dapifer.+. Ego Hamo dapifer.+. Ego
Rogerus dapifer.+. Ego Willelmus dapifer.+.
There is no direct evidence adduced in the COEL database for such a family
connection, although the office may well have been hereditary in each case.
Roger´s son William was serving with three of the same men twenty-five years
later, Matth Paris Chron vi 37 Additamenta no 22, witnesses to charter of Henry I
dated 28 Dec 1116 (but written in 1115, Reg Regum Anglo-Norm ii 127 no 1102):
Eudo dapifer, Haimo daipifer [sic], Willelmus Bigot daipifer [sic], Willelmus de Piron
alius dapifer. Wace stated that the ancestor of Roger´s son Hugo had served Duke
William II as steward by tenure in fee, Wace ii 370:
L´ancestre Hue le Bigot ...
Le duc soleit en sa maison
Seruir d´une seneschaucie ...
En fieu esteit sis seneschals.
8 Sep-Carte Thetford 153 no 9, fragment of the history of Thetford priory written
early in the 15th century: Hæc omnia facta sunt octavo die ante Nativitatem
beatæ Mariæ, fundamentum scilicet inceptum ... Nam præfatus Rogerus
[Bigotus] octavo die a fundamento incepto vitam terminavit apud Ercsam, novo
nunc castro nominato-this refers to the subjection of the priory to Cluny on
Sunday 1 Sep 1107, see n 4 above, originally as a dependency of Lewes; Roger
died on the octave (or eighth day inclusive) of his charter, 8 Sep, the feast of the
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of
the tradition on this important point, when nothing is made of the coincidence
between Roger´s death and the dedicatee´s liturgical birthday. It is unlikely that
the ceremonial occasion with the king and three bishops present at Thetford took
place not on a Sunday but on the following Tuesday, 3 Sep, as results from
ascribing Roger´s death on the octave to 10 Sep. Ord Vit Hist vi 144-146, after
reporting the death of Maurice, bishop of London, in Sep 1107: Tunc optimates
Angliæ Ricardus de Raduariis et Rogerius cognomento Bigotus mortui sunt ...
Super Rogerium Cluniacenses alonaxdi tale scripserunt epitaphium:
Clauderis exiguo Rogere Bigote sepulchro
Et rerum cedit portio parua tibi ...
Soli nubebat uirgo ter noctibus octo
Cum solis morti debita morte tua.
Chibnall noted, ibid 147 n 4, `the epitaph implies 10 September, since the sun
entered Virgo on 18 August according to the table used in western Europe at this
date´. However, ter noctibus octo here more probably meant an overlapping
series of three liturgical octaves from Sunday to Sunday (18-25 Aug, 25 Aug-1
Sep, 1-8 Sep) rather than the twenty-fourth consecutive night of the astrological
episode, so that 8 Sep is indicated-cf a mid-12th century occurrence of the same
phrase, in the speech of a physician trying to persuade a monk to lend his fur
coat for the sake of an ailing king, Nivard Ysengr 338:
Dixeris hec contra quicquam, ter noctibus octo
Non repetes punctum commoditatis idem!
These lines were translated by the editor, ibid 339, `Say what you like against
this, you won´t find such a degree of complaisance for a month to come!´-but a
calendar month had no more relevance to a monk´s life than the number twentyfour,
and it appears instead to be a poetic way of saying three octaves of nightly
prayer (when the coat would be especially needed), fitting metrically as the literal
`tribus hebdomadibus noctium´ does not.