* * * * *

Having now briefly explained on what documents the controversy turns,

I may mention that my own reason for joining in so fierce a dispute is

that I hope to be able to contribute towards its decision two facts

which, so far as I know, have as yet escaped notice.

Wishful to approach the subject from an independent standpoint, I

have not studied the German papers dealing with the subject, but have

contented myself with those of Cardinal Moran (1872), the Analecta

Juris Pontificii (1882), Father Gasquet (1883), Father Malone and

Father Morris (1892), with Miss Norgate’s _résumé_ of the case and

unhesitating defence of ‘Laudabiliter’ in the ‘English Historical

Review’ (1893).[372]

Miss Norgate, in her lengthy article,[373] defended the “Bull” with

some warmth, recapitulating and answering the arguments of its various

assailants. There are, however, involved two distinct questions, which,

to quote a phrase of her own, “have been somewhat mixed up”[374] by

her. For clearness’ sake, I give them thus:

(1) Did John of Salisbury obtain from Pope Adrian in 1155 a

document which “gave Ireland,” as he expressed it, “to

king Henry”?

(2) If so, was it the document set forth _verbatim_ by

Giraldus in his ‘Expugnatio Hibernica’?

I have read through, not once or twice, but time after time, with the

greatest care, Miss Norgate’s article defending the authenticity of the

“Bull,” and I cannot find that this distinction has even dawned upon

her mind. Yet, to adapt her closing words, “one who fully accepts the

first” of these propositions “may yet dare to say” of the other, _non

sequitur_.

To the first of the above questions I give no negative answer: I merely

quote the two passages on which the assertion rests:

Ad preces meas illustri regi (privilegium) quod idem rex

Anglorum Henrico secundo ab Adriano papa Alexandri

(Adrianus) concessit et dedit decessore antea perquisierat, per

Hiberniam jure hereditario Johannem Salesberiensem,

possidendam; sicut literæ ipsius postmodum episcopum Karnotensem,

testantur in hodiernum diem. Romam ad hoc destinatum. Per

Nam omnes insuæ, de jure quem etiam idem papa Anglorum

antiquo, ex donatione regi annulum aureum in

Constantini ... dicuntur ad investituræ signum præsentavit;

Romanam ecclesiam pertinere. qui statim, simul cum privilegio,

Annulum quoque per me transmisit in archivis Wintoniæ repositus

aureum, smaragdo optimo fuerat.[375]--GIRALDUS

decoratum, quo fieret CAMBRENSIS.

investitura juris in gerenda

Hibernia; idemque adhuc annulus

in curiali archivo publico

custodiri jussus est.--JOHN OF

SALISBURY.

As I only described, at the outset, the documents, I have not hitherto

touched on the passage in the ‘Metalogicus.’ But it should be observed

that just as Miss Norgate confuses two distinct questions, so Father

Gasquet attacks “Laudabiliter” for a statement found, not in that

document, but in this passage from the pen of John of Salisbury.[376]

It is with the second of the above two questions that I am immediately

concerned. Assuming for the present that a document was actually

granted by Adrian, what ground have we for believing that the text in

the ‘Expugnatio’ is authentic? Between the appearance of her ‘England

under the Angevin Kings’ and that of her article in the ‘Review,’ Miss

Norgate seems to have discovered from Pflugk-Harttung, that there was

no copy of it, as she had imagined, “in the Vatican archives.”[377] She

admitted, therefore, that “the letter actually rests upon the testimony

of Gerald of Wales and the writer of the last chapter of Metalogicus.”

But here we see that confusion of thought of which I have spoken above.

The authenticity of the letter given in the ‘Expugnatio’ rests on the

authority of Gerald, and on his alone.

Let us then enquire what credence we should give to those documents

he professes to quote _verbatim_. The two which naturally occur

to one for comparison with “Laudabiliter,” are the letter of Dermot

to “Strongbow” summoning him to Ireland,[378] and the “privilegium”

of Alexander III. confirming that of Adrian.[379] The former begins

with a normal address, and then--breaks at once into a quotation from

Ovid![380] This gives us a clear issue. Does Miss Norgate believe, or

does she not, that a warrior (and a savage) summoning a warrior, in the

days of Henry II., would parade his classical erudition by dragging in

tags from Ovid? And if she does not, how can she ask us to accept as

genuine a document because it is given by Giraldus. As to the other

test document, the “privilegium” of Alexander III., Miss Norgate is

curiously shy of touching it; I can only find an incidental allusion

to “the letter whereby Alexander III. is said to have confirmed the

favour granted by his predecessor to Henry,” and even this mention of

it is merely introduced to protest against arguments “which are only

appropriate to” that letter being used as fatal to the authenticity

of “Laudabiliter” also.[381] Indeed, by writing as she does of “the

silence of Alexander III.” as to Adrian’s letter,[382] she implies

that the document given by Giraldus as his is an absolute imposture;

and she uses, we shall find, in another place, an argument directly

fatal to the authenticity of its contents.[383] And yet Giraldus sets

forth these two “privilegia” together as jointly constituting the title

to Ireland derived by Henry from Rome. The two must stand or fall

together; if Gerald was capable of composing the one, he was certainly

capable of composing the other.

* * * * *

Having now shown that the fact of a document being found in the pages

of Giraldus Cambrensis is no proof of its authenticity, I turn to the

first of the two points that I hope to establish.

The publication, in Ireland, of “the Bull Laudabiliter” is thus dealt

with by Miss Norgate:

It is acknowledged on all hands that there is no sign of any

attempt on Henry’s part to publish the letter in Ireland ...

before 1175. In that year Gerald states that the letter was

read before a synod of bishops at Waterford (Opp. v. 315–6).

This statement, however, rests upon Gerald’s authority alone;

beyond this there is no direct evidence that the letter was ever

formally published in Ireland at all.[384]

In another passage she admits, I understand, that it does not appear

to have been published by Henry until 1175 at the earliest.[385]

Now it is true that this date is so generally accepted that Father

Gasquet in assailing, and Father Malone in defending, the authenticity

of the Bull, are both agreed upon this point. The former, indeed,

boldly writes: “It is a matter beyond dispute that no mention whatever

was made by Henry of this ‘grant’ of Ireland by the Pope till at

earliest A.D. 1175.”[386] Father Morris similarly adopts “1175” as

the date when “Henry is said to have exhibited it at a synod held

at Waterford.”[387] Yet, when we turn to the passage referred to by

Miss Norgate, we find that no year is named by Giraldus himself. Mr.

Dimock appended the marginal date “1174 or 1175,” and this was also the

date he adopted in his Introduction. It was doubtless from him that

Professor Tout adopted this date in his life of William Fitz Audelin:

Fitzaldhelm[388] was also sent in 1174 or 1175 ... to produce

the bull of Pope Adrian.... He soon left Ireland, for (_sic_)

he appears as a witness to the treaty of Falaise in October,

1174.[389]

If William was sent to Ireland, as alleged, in 1175, it is obvious

that he cannot have returned thence by October, 1174. It is clear, in

any case, that, on examination, the date accepted “on all hands,” as a

fixed point, is a guess. Let us then see if, from other sources, light

can be thrown on William’s mission. There is an entry on the Pipe Roll

of 1173, which reads thus:

In Passagio Willelmi filii Aldelini et sociorum suorum et

Hernesiorum suorum in Hyberniam xxvii sol. et vi den. per breve

Ricardi de Luci (p. 145).

Professor Tout oddly assigns it to an alleged despatch of William to

Ireland in 1171; for in that case it would duly have been entered on

the Pipe Roll of that year.[390] It must, in the absence of evidence

to the contrary, be held to refer to a mission of William between

Michaelmas, 1172, and Michaelmas, 1173. Is it then possible that this

was the date of the mission of which we are in search, and not 1175,

or even 1174? The answer, we shall find, involves more than a mere

question of chronology.

“Gerald,” Miss Norgate writes, “is certainly no chronologist.”[391] Mr.

Dimock was even more emphatic: “There can be no worse authority than

Giraldus wherever a date is concerned.”[392] In this case, however, as

I have said, Giraldus does not even commit himself to a date: he merely

uses the vague “interea.” We must therefore deduce the date from the

sequence as he gives it himself. And that sequence is perfectly clear.

He takes us straight back to the Council of Cashel,[393] and tells us

that the document despatched by William and his colleague to Ireland

had been sent by the Pope in reply to the report of the proceedings at

that Council. Here are his own words:

(COUNCIL OF CASHEL.)

Ubi, requisitis et auditis publice terræ illius et gentis tam

enormitatibus quam spurcitiis, et in scriptum etiam sub sigillo

legati Lismoriensis, qui ceteris ibidem dignitate tunc præerat,

ex industria redactis, etc. (v. 280).

(ALEXANDER’S ‘PRIVILEGIUM.’)

Cum, _prænotatis_ spurcitiarum literis in synodo

Cassiliensi per industriam quæsitis, directis ad curiam Romanam

nunciis, ab Alexandro tertio tunc præsidente privilegium

impetravit, etc. (v. 315).

Miss Norgate, both in her History and in her article, seems to have

overlooked this latter important passage, doubtless from its occurring

in another part of Gerald’s work. She has thus not only missed his

sequence, but has failed to adduce his direct testimony to the despatch

of documents to Rome after the Council of Cashel. Roger Hoveden is

the only chronicler she quotes as an authority for the statement that

“the bishops joined with Henry in sending to Rome a report of his

proceedings and their own.[394] Now the ‘Gesta Henrici’ is a better

authority to quote from here than Hoveden; and from it, therefore, I

take the following statements”:

(1) The Irish kings “seipsos ei et ejus dominio dederunt

et homines ejus devenerunt de omnibus tenementis suis, et

fidelitates ei juraverunt” (i. 25).

(2) The prelates “eum in regem et dominum susceperunt et

fidelitates eo juraverunt contra omnes homines. Et inde recepit

ab unoquoque Archiepiscopo et episcopo litteras suas in modum

cartæ, extra sigillum pendentes, et confirmantes ei et heredibus

suis regnum Hyberniæ, et testimonium perhibentes ipsos eum et

heredes suos sibi in reges et dominos constituisse imperpetuum”

(i. 26).

(3) “Cum autem hoc factum fuisset predictus rex Angliæ misit

nuncios suos ad Alexandrum summum pontificem cum litteris

archiepiscoporum et episcoporum Hyberniæ ad confirmandum sibi et

heredibus suis regnum Hyberniæ, sicque factum est. Nam summus

pontifex, auctoritate apostolica, confirmavit ei et heredibus

suis regnum illud, et eos imperpetuum reges constituit” (i. 28).

We have then the independent evidence of Gerald and of the ‘Gesta’--

(_A_) That Henry sent “nuncii” to Rome after going to

Ireland.

(_B_) That these “nuncii” took with them documentary

evidence, in the form, according to Gerald, of “letters” from

the Legate and prelates at Cashel, but according to the ‘Gesta’

of sealed recognitions, by the several Irish prelates of Henry

and his heirs as kings (of Ireland).

(_C_) That the Pope in reply, according to Gerald, sent a

“privilegium” empowering Henry to rule the Irish, and reform

their ecclesiastical condition,[395] but, according to the

‘Gesta,’ confirmed Henry in possession of the kingdom of

Ireland, and appointed him and his heirs kings thereof for ever.

Here we have sufficient discrepancy to mark the independence of the

writers, combined with a distinct agreement to the effect that Henry

sent “nuncii” to Rome, that they took something with them to support

the king’s petition, and that the Pope, in reply to it, sent something

back.

What was it?

Here we must turn to a third quarter, where the evidence is wholly

independent. This is the Black Book of the Exchequer in which are

entered the three letters from Pope Alexander, all of them dated

from Tusculum, 20th September, 1172. Miss Norgate, in her History,

referred to them as documents of undoubted authenticity;[396] but in

her article, though stoutly maintaining that their evidence was not

hostile to the genuineness of the “Bull,” she seems to have felt uneasy

on the subject, for she changes her tone, and writes that they “purport

to have been written by Pope Alexander III.,”[397] nay, even speaks of

them as Alexander’s letters, “if they indeed are his.”[398]

To these letters, which Cardinal Moran pronounced “certainly

authentic,” I now invite attention. The first, which is addressed

to Christian bishop of Lismore (the legate), the four archbishops

(by name), and their suffragans the bishops, speaks of the “vitiorum

enormitates” made known to the writer by their letters (“ex vestrarum

serie literarum,” “ex vestris literis”) and the “abominationis

spurcitiam.”[399] No more exact agreement could be found than this

document presents with the statement of Giraldus that the Legate’s

letters, on behalf of the assembled prelates, recited “tam enormitates

quam spurcitias” of the Irish. Again, the third letter, “to the kings

and princes of Ireland,” similarly charges the Irish with “enormitatem

et spurcitiam vitiorum”; and it confirms not only Giraldus but the

‘Gesta’ by its words: “in vestrum Regem et dominum suscepistis et

ei fidelitatem jurastis ... vos voluntate libera subdidistis ...

fidelitatem quam tanto Regi sub juramenti religione fecistis.” Their

“juramenti debitum et fidelitatem predicto Regi exhibitam” is spoken

of also in the letter to the prelates. Passing now to the second

letter, which is to Henry himself, it introduces a new element; for

while that to the prelates had referred to their letters and “aliorum

etiam veridica relatione,” a vague phrase which, in the letter to the

princes, reappears as “communi fama et certa relatione,” the Pope, in

writing to the king, gives as his sources of information, first, the

letters from the Legate and Prelates, and then the _viva voce_

statements of Ralf archdeacon of Llandaff.[400] Now we know from the

‘Gesta’ that this Ralf was sent by Henry to hold the Council of the

Irish Prelates at Cashel;[401] and we further know that the king had

sent him to Rome as an envoy in the Becket business some two years

before.[402] We have then, in this letter, confirmation of the fact

that Henry sent a mission, with the prelates’ letter, to Rome, while

the envoy it names is the very one whom he was specially likely to send.

So far, then, we find a most convincing agreement. Pope Alexander

relied mainly for information as to the state of Ireland and as to

the action of Henry on the written report of his Legate and the other

prelates of Ireland, and on the personal statements of the king’s envoy

who came with it. As to these points, there can really be no question.

But the best proof, to my mind, of the authenticity of these letters

is that neither Giraldus nor any of the chroniclers used them, and

that, so far at least as the ‘Gesta’ and Hoveden are concerned, they

must have been purposely kept back. For the points of discrepancy

are even more instructive than the points of agreement. It may have

been observed that the ‘Gesta’ speaks of the documentary evidence as

consisting of the prelates’ sealed letters appointing Henry and his

heirs kings of Ireland. Giraldus, on the contrary, makes it consist

of a report from the Council of Cashel on the State of Ireland. The

letters explicitly confirm the latter statement, and wholly ignore

the evidence described in the former. Moreover, the assertion in the

‘Gesta’ that the Pope made Henry and his heirs, in reply, kings of

Ireland for ever is at direct variance with the letters, which do

nothing of the kind. We must, then, it seems to me, conclude that the

‘Gesta’ and Roger Hoveden deliberately strove to represent the Pope as

doing what he did not do, and dared not, therefore, quote the letters,

knowing them to be not at all what was wanted.[403]

It seems to me a strong argument in favour of the letters to Henry

himself, and one which may have been overlooked, that Pope Alexander

pointedly speaks of Henry’s fresh expedition as undertaken, like a

crusade, by way of penance for his sins:

Rogamus itaque Regiam excellentiam, monemus et exhortamus

in Domino, atque in remissionem tibi peccatorum injungimus

quatinus, etc ... ut sicut pro tuorum venia peccatorum adversus

eam tantum laborem (ut credimus) assumpsisti, etc.

Even if the words do not imply that Henry himself had so represented

it, they afford an answer to those who urge that the Pope could not

have approved of such an enterprise by one who was himself at the time

under a grave cloud.

Broadly speaking, they express the Pope’s warm approval of Henry’s

expedition--as a missionary enterprise. It is as the champion of the

church, and especially of St. Peter and his rights, that they praise

him for what he has done. Specially significant is the fact that the

rights claimed by Rome, under the Donation of Constantine, over all

islands are not asserted (as by John of Salisbury) as justifying the

grant of Ireland to Henry, but as entitling the Papal see to claim

there rights for itself.[404]

Accepting, then, these letters as genuine, let me briefly recapitulate

how the case stands. Their contents agree, we have seen, independently,

in the most indisputable way, with the narrative of Giraldus. Moreover,

that narrative, when carefully examined, leads us to infer that the

Pope’s answer was despatched in reply to Henry’s mission; and with that

inference the date of these letters (20th Sept., 1172) agrees fairly

enough. Such a date as 1174 or 1175 would not agree with it at all.

Lastly, Giraldus tells us that the Pope’s confirmation was despatched

to Ireland with William Fitz Audelin; and, indeed, we should naturally

expect that Henry, when he had succeeded in getting it, would lose no

time in publishing the fact. Both the statement of Giraldus and that

expectation are confirmed by the Pipe Roll entry, which proves that

William Fitz Audelin did visit Ireland between Michaelmas, 1172, and

Michaelmas, 1173, which is just the time that he must have done so, if

he went there in charge of the Pope’s letter (or letters).

But now comes the hitch. If Giraldus had given us the text of the

letter which the Pope really sent, and which is entered in the Black

Book, it would have agreed with and confirmed his narrative in every

respect. Instead, however, of doing this, he gave a letter, which even

his champions do not venture to defend as authentic, a letter which

does not agree with his narrative--for it ignores the legate’s report

and the other information supplied--a letter which, for all we can find

in it, was written in complete ignorance, not only of Henry’s visit to

Ireland, but of every other fact in the case. In short, it is a mere

general confirmation of Adrian’s famous “Bull,” and might as well have

been issued before as after the king’s expedition. And so clumsily

is it introduced that Giraldus does not even make the king ask for

anything of the kind.

I have said that even his champions do not defend its authenticity.

Miss Norgate, who defends with equal fervour Giraldus and

“Laudabiliter,” admits that its critics are right in stating that the

Pope’s letters in the ‘Liber Niger’

make no mention of any papal grant, nor of the tribute of

Peter-pence, which “Laudabiliter” expressly states that Henry

had undertaken to establish in Ireland.[405]

But, she urges, it was most improbable that the Pope would refer to

Peter-pence in 1172:

It would have been much more surprising, because highly

derogatory to his tact, wisdom, and justice, if he had mentioned

it at that moment.... To expect that he should assail them with

an instant demand for money before they had time to settle

down in their new relations, would be to charge him with equal

recklessness and rapacity.[406]

I do not say that I agree with the argument: it could, I think,

scarcely be weaker. But the point is that Pope Alexander, in the letter

given by Giraldus, and asserted by him to have been sent in reply to

the letters from the Council of Cashel (1171–2), is represented as

confirming the “Bull of Adrian” “salva beato Petro ... de singulis

domibus annua unius denarii pensione.” That is to say that, if the

letter is genuine, he did exactly what Miss Norgate assures us he would

not have done. It follows then, from her own argument, that the letter

cannot be genuine.[407]

I must here again remind the reader of the cardinal point in my case,

namely, that Giraldus has been misunderstood as assigning to “1175” the

despatch of the Pope’s “privilegium,” whereas his narrative clearly

shows that he treats that “privilegium” as obtained by Henry in reply

to the report of the Council of Cashel (1171–2) and as the Papal

sanction of what he had done in Ireland. That the king was anxious to

obtain this sanction, and to publish it, when obtained, as soon as

possible, we may readily believe. But that he obtained it as soon as

possible, and, having done so, made no use of it till he suddenly,

in “1175,” despatched it to Ireland _à propos de bottes_, is an

unintelligible hypothesis. In any case, we are confronted with the fact

that both the “privilegium”[408] and the Black Book letter purport to

have been despatched from Rome in reply to Henry’s mission. But they

could not both be the Pope’s reply: one or the other must be false.

This being so, we need not hesitate to decide in favour of the Black

Book letter; for the “privilegium” given by Giraldus is virtually

abandoned, we have seen, even by Miss Norgate.

The conclusion, then, at which we arrive is that Giraldus substituted

for the true reply of the Pope a false one merely confirming the “Bull”

Laudabiliter. From this conclusion we advance to the question whether,

if he was capable of concocting (or giving it currency when concocted)

a spurious letter of Alexander, he was not also capable of concocting

(or giving it currency when concocted) that letter of Adrian, which he

published with it, in the ‘Expugnatio,’ and which, in fairness, must be

treated as inseparable from it.[409]

We saw clearly at the outset that he can have had no scruple as to

inserting in his narrative--I will not say a forged document, but

one of which the text was the work of his own pen. On this point,

therefore, we need not hesitate. We may proceed then to enquire whether

Henry II. was likely to keep silence as to Adrian’s “Bull” when he

entered Ireland--the very time when he might be expected to make use of

it--and then produce it at a subsequent time with no particular reason.

Two propositions are here involved. As to the first Father Gasquet has

observed:

It was of vital importance when he went over to receive the

homage of the Irish, and could never have been withheld or

concealed at the Council of Cashel in 1172, at which the Papal

legate presided.[410]

Father Burke, whom he quotes, has bluntly insisted on the fact; and

Father Morris has similarly dwelt on the king’s suspicious silence.

So great, indeed, is the difficulty of supposing that Henry made no

mention of the “Bull” at the very time when, if ever, he was likely to

make use of it, that Miss Norgate wrote as follows, in her ‘England

under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 115):

We hear not a word of Pope Adrian’s bull, but we can hardly

doubt that its existence and its contents were in some way or

other certified to the Irish prelates before ... they met in

council at Cashel in the first weeks of 1172.