In the late 1130s, the Augustinian canon Robert of Cricklade found cause to underscore his credentials as a reader of monastic works of devotion.

Robert goes on to praise William's miracles of the Virgin and his florilegium of Gregory the Great. This is, as far as I know, the only preserved reference to William of Malmesbury written in his own lifetime, and the focus and emphasis of Robert's portrayal offers a striking contrast to the prevailing image of William found in contemporary scholarship. Though in recent times William has been known and perceived mainly through his historical works, his monumental works on the deeds of the kings and bishops of the English are not even mentioned by Robert. Rather William the historian is overshadowed by William the cantor and monk, placed alongside no less a figure than Bernard of Clairvaux as a supreme exponent of monastic spirituality and devotion. The apparent tension between William the empirical, classicizing historian as we know him today and William the spiritual and liturgical master highlights the question I will address in what follows: to what extent did William's liturgical and other monastic practices and obligations influence, inform and direct his work as a historian and collector of classical literature? We know that William performed many of the tasks commonly associated with the office of cantor in this period, such as directing the library at Malmesbury. But what interests me is not the exact extent of his activities as cantor, but the extent to which these informed his historiographical works, that is to say, the extent to which the principles and aims inherent in the role of monachus et cantor are commensurate with the principles and aims of his writing of history.