Henry’s “conquest won with Adrian’s bull in his hand.” And yet, when
afterwards, in her article, she wished to deny the difficulty, she
could turn round and confidently urge that “Henry said nothing about
the Pope’s letter, because it was a matter of no practical consequence
whatever.”[411] Such a _volte-face_ as this does not tend to inspire
confidence in her arguments. But even if we accept this, her later
conclusion, it only increases the difficulty of explaining why Henry
II. formally made the “Bull” public a year or two later (and still
more, why he should have done so, as she holds he did, in “1175”). And
this difficulty, so far as I can find, she does not attempt to meet.
Everything then, it seems to me, points to the clear conclusion that
Giraldus substituted for the genuine letters from the Pope, in the
‘Liber Niger,’ a concocted confirmation of an equally concocted “Bull”
from his predecessor Adrian.
Having arrived at this conclusion, I propose to ask three questions:
(1) Why did Giraldus do this?
(2) How were his documents concocted?
(3) Was there a conspiracy, in which Giraldus
joined?
As to the Welshman’s motive, it has been urged by his critics that he
wished to gratify the king. Miss Norgate retorts:
At no period of his life is it likely that Gerald would have
had any personal interest in putting in circulation, for King
Henry’s benefit, a document which he knew or suspected to be
forged; least of all would he have cared to do it for the sake
of bolstering up Henry’s claims upon Ireland.[412]
But whatever may have been his personal feelings towards Henry II. his
eagerness to prove the right of the English Crown to Ireland is one of
the leading features of his ‘Expugnatio Hiberniæ.’ He sets forth more
than once the arguments on which he bases it, and he treats the Papal
action as the crowning argument of all:
Et quod solum sufficere posset ad perfectionis cumulum et
absolutæ consummationis augmentum, summorum pontificum, qui
insulas omnes sibi speciali quadam jure respiciunt, totiusque
christianitatis principum et primatum confirmans accessit
auctoritas (v. 320).
The reference, in this passage, to the Donation of Constantine, and
therefore to “Laudabiliter,” is clear.
I pass to my second question: ‘How were the documents concocted?’
The unfortunate theory was advanced by the ‘Analecta’ writer that
“Laudabiliter” was adapted from a genuine letter of Adrian written, in
1158, to Henry of England and Louis of France, forbidding them to enter
Ireland, as they proposed to do, in conjunction. It was urged that this
genuine letter had been altered into the ‘Bull’ Laudabiliter, and thus
made to bear the very reverse of its meaning. It was necessary, for
this solution, to hold that the genuine letter did not refer, as had
been supposed, to Spain (_H[ispania]_) but to Ireland (_H[ibernia]_).
Although this bold theory was adopted by Father Gasquet,[413] he seems
to have been conscious of its weakness; for he leaves it with the
words: “Whether this theory as to the origin of the Bull be correct
or not,” etc., etc. The words “pagani” in the genuine letter are of
themselves fatal to the theory, and Father Malone had no difficulty in
showing that it was preposterous.[414] It is true that, as Miss Norgate
admits,[415] “between the introductory sentences of the two letters
there is certainly a close verbal similarity,” but even if this letter,
relating to the Spanish crusade was placed under contribution by the
concocter of our document, I should none the less advance as my own
theory the view that Gerald employed, largely at any rate, the genuine
letters of Alexander III., entered in the ‘Liber Niger.’ In support of
this theory I might adduce certain suggestive parallels:
THE LETTER. THE “BULL.”
sicut ... comperimus, ... ad Significasti ... nobis ... te
subjugandum tuo Dominio gentem Hiberniæ insulam ad subdendum
illam et ad extirpandum tantæ illum populum legibus et vitiorum
abominationis spurcitiam ... plantaria exstirpanda velle,
tuum animum erexisti. intrare.
Christianæ religionis suscipiat crescat fidei Christianæ religio,
disciplinam ... ita etiam et quæ ad honorem Dei et salutem
de suæ salutis perfectu coronam pertinent animarum taliter
merearis suscipere sempiternam. ordinentur, ut a Deo sempiternum
mercedis cumulum consequi
merearis.
quia, sicut tuæ magnitudinis sane Hiberniam et omnes insulas
excellentia [? cognoscit], ... ad jus beati Petri et
Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet sacrosanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ,
in Insula quam in terra magna quod tua etiam nobilitas
et continua, etc. recognoscit, non est dubium
pertinere.
The very fact that these coincidences are rather suggestive than
verbal, favours, I think, the theory of concoction. But I am chiefly
influenced by the fact that “Laudabiliter” does little more than
paraphrase and adapt the contents of Alexander’s letter. Even its
clause as to Peter’s pence might be based on Alexander’s insistence
that Henry was not only to guard “jura beati Petri,” but “si etiam ibi
non habet (jura)”--as was the case with Peter’s pence--to establish
them himself.
And now as to my third question: ‘Was there a conspiracy?’ I doubt
if sufficient attention has been paid to the remarkable words of the
‘Gesta Henrici,’ followed as they were by Hoveden.[416] That they were
introduced of set purpose is evident from their repetition.[417] It
should be observed that the story told in the ‘Metalogicus’ of Adrian
and in the ‘Gesta’ of Alexander is to the same effect:
METALOGICUS. GESTA HENRICI.
regi Anglorum Henrico secundo summus pontifex ... confirmavit
(Papa) concessit et dedit ei et heredibus suis regnum
Hiberniam jure hæreditario illud, et eos imperpetuum
possidendam. reges constituit.
Neither the letters in the ‘Liber Niger’ nor even the documents given
by Giraldus can justify these expressions. Yet this must have been what
we may term the view officially adopted. As the Black Book letters of
Alexander III. could not be made to support this view, its upholders
preferred to fall back on the alleged grant by Adrian, as the source of
Henry’s title, and to pretend that his successor Alexander had merely
confirmed it. “Laudabiliter” did not, it is true, go so far as was
required, but it carried back the title to Adrian’s action, and, so
far, supported the story.
* * * * *
The subsequent attitude of Rome towards the English story is a matter
of obvious interest, but, as yet, of much obscurity. Cardinal Moran
relied on the personal information of Theiner for the statement that
nowhere in the private archives, or among the private papers of
the Vatican, or in the ‘Regesta’ which Jaffé’s researches have
made so famous, or in the various indices of the Pontifical
letters, can a single trace be found of the supposed Bulls of
Adrian and Alexander.[418]
In the strict sense of the words, no doubt the above statement may
be absolutely true. But in the document below, from Theiner’s own
work,[419] we have, surely, in the words “de voluntatis sedis ipsius,”
a most distinct reference, at least, to Adrian’s alleged action. In the
preamble to a Papal dispensation of the 13th century, we find these
words:
Exposita siquidem nobis dilecti filii nobilis viri Galfridi de
Ianvilla patris tui, fili Symon, petitio continebat quod cum
terra Ybernie ac eius incole, ut tenentur, nec sedi eidem, nec
Regi Anglie obedirent, sed velut effrenes per campum licentie
ducerentur, clare memorie Henricus olim Rex Anglorum de
voluntate sedis ipsius armata manu terram predictam intravit, et
eam ac habitatores ipsius ad ejusdem sedis obedientiam suaque
(_sic_) pro posse reduxit, et tam idem Rex quam ejus successores
in regno prefato probos viros nationis alterius studuerunt
successu temporis in terra memorata Ybernie ad continuandam
inibi sedis ejusdem obedientiam collocare.
The words of this preamble should be most carefully studied; for
though, as I have said, it clearly refers to the action of Pope Adrian,
in its statement that Henry invaded Ireland “at the wish of the Papal
see,” yet the words “velut effrenes per campum licentie ducerentur”
must, surely, be derived from the “tanquam effrenis passim per abrupta
deviat viciorum” of Alexander’s letter to Henry entered in the ‘Liber
Niger.’ If so, they are evidence, even though they stand alone, that
the existence and contents of this letter were known in Ireland at the
time.
There is another and far later reference to ‘Laudabiliter’ in a Papal
document, which I have not seen mentioned, although the document is one
of great consequence for Irish history. When Innocent X. despatched
Rinuccini as Papal Nuncio to Ireland (1645) he gave him formal
instructions, in which was comprised a brief outline of past events. In
it we find this definite and most striking passage:
For a long period the true faith maintained itself, till the
country, invaded by the Danes, an idolatrous people, fell for
the most part into impious superstition. This state of darkness
lasted till the reigns of Adrian IV. and of Henry II., king of
England. Henry, desiring to strengthen his empire, and to secure
the provinces which he possessed beyond sea in France, wished to
subdue the island of Ireland; and, to compass this design, had
recourse to Adrian, who, himself an Englishman, with a liberal
hand granted all he coveted.
The zeal manifested by Henry to convert all Ireland to the faith
moved the soul of Adrian to invest him with the sovereignty of
that island. Three important conditions were annexed to the
gift. 1st. That the king should do all in his power to propagate
the Christian religion throughout Ireland. 2nd. That each of his
subjects should pay an annual tribute of one penny to the Holy
See, commonly called Peter’s pence. And 3rd. That civil liberty
should be guaranteed, and the privileges and immunities of the
Church be held inviolate.[420]
This clear testimony to the Pope’s belief, in 1645, that Adrian had, by
‘Laudabiliter,’ invested Henry II. with the sovereignty of Ireland can
hardly be agreeable reading to Father Gasquet and his friends.
IX
The Coronation of Richard I
The first coronation of an English king of which we possess a detailed
account is that of Richard I. (3rd Sept., 1189). It was carried out,
says Dr. Stubbs, “in such splendour and minute formality as to form a
precedent for all subsequent ceremonies of the sort.”[421] As a more
recent writer has observed:
The order of the procession and the details of the ceremonial
were arranged with unusual care and minuteness; it was the
most splendid and elaborate coronation-ceremony that had ever
been seen in England, and it served as a precedent for all
after-time.[422]
It is consequently of some interest to learn on what authority the
narrative of this coronation rests.
The original authority is that of the writer formerly described as
“Benedictus abbas,” but now virtually known to have been Richard ‘Fitz
Nigel,’[423] who was not only a contemporary writer, but, as the king’s
Treasurer, would probably have been an actual spectator of the ceremony
he describes. His account is repeated by Hoveden,[424] who was also a
contemporary, and possibly present, but “adds only matter of extremely
small importance.”[425] We then come to Matthew Paris, writing some two
generations later, who gives, says Dr. Stubbs--
a similar account of the coronation, more closely resembling
that of Benedict ... in the few and unimportant places where
the two differ. He indicates the common source of information,
the Rolls (ed. Wats, p. 154) or Consuetudines (Abbreviatio, Ed.
Madden, iii. 209) of the Exchequer.[426]
This view was accepted by Dr. Luard (1874), who says of the narrative
given by Matthew in his Chronica Majora (ii. 348–350):
This account is taken from Benedict. The original source (the
Consuetudines Scaccarii) is referred to in the Hist. Angl., ii.
p. 8, and the Abbreviatio Chronicorum, iii. 209. See Madden’s
note, iii. 209.[427]
We are thus referred to Sir Frederic Madden, who, as keeper of the MSS.
at the British Museum, possessed special knowledge, and who wrote thus
(1869):
The details of Richard’s coronation do not appear either in
the Red or Black Books of the Exchequer, but they are given by
Benedict Abbas, pp. 557–560, and copied by Hoveden, from whom
Wendover somewhat abridges them, and thence repeated in the
greater Chronicle of Matt. Paris, ed. Wats, p. 153, and Hist.
Ang., ii. 6.[428]
This, it will be seen, hardly commits the writer to the view that some
Exchequer record was, as alleged above, the original authority. But
such, no doubt, might be the inference from this comment on the text.
As important inferences have now been drawn from this error, as I
venture to deem it, we must glance at the actual passage on which the
theory is based.
Unconnected with the narrative of the coronation, which is complete
without it, there is found, in the ‘Historia Anglorum’ (ii. 9) this
marginal note:
Officia prelatorum et magnatum quæ ab antiquo jure et
consuetudine in regum coronationibus sibi vindicant et facere
debent, in rotulis Scaccarii poterunt reperiri.
This obviously refers, not to the narrative in the text, which is that
of the coronation ceremony alone, but to the services performed “by
ancient right and custom” in the king’s house on that occasion. Of
these there is no description in the text. In another work ascribed,
but doubtfully, to Matthew Paris, the so-called “Abbreviatio,” the
coronation is mentioned, but not described; and there is added a
similar note;
Et quia exigit plenitudo historiæ officia quorundam magnatum
qui in coronationibus habent implere, de antiqua consuetudine,
lectorem hujus libelli abbreviati ad historiam transmitto
prolixiorem quæ in consuetudinibus Scaccarii poterit
reperiri.[429]
In both cases, it will be observed, an exchequer record is referred
to solely for the customary offices or services rendered by
certain magnates; and in both cases the present tense and the word
“coronation_ibus_” imply that the reference is general, and is not
merely a description of what happened at Richard’s coronation. Now my
contention is that the record referred to is that of Queen Eleanor’s
coronation in 1236, which is preserved, at the present day, in the
Red Book of the Exchequer, and which was known to Matthew Paris,
who appends to his narrative of the services at that coronation the
marginal note: “Hæc omnia in consuetudinario Scaccarii melius et
plenius reperiuntur.”[430] We actually find in that record the words:
“de prædictis autem officiis nullus sibi jus vendicavit,” etc.,[431]
which at once remind us of the marginal note found in the ‘Historia
Anglorum.’
* * * * *
The solution, therefore, which I propound is that the narrative of the
coronation, which is admittedly derived from the ‘Gesta,’ was written
by its author from his own knowledge, and certainly not derived by him
from an Exchequer record. In the first place, it is nowhere said that
he did so; in the second, it is little less than absurd to assume that
Richard would refer to a record in his own Exchequer for a ceremony
which must have taken place while he was writing his chronicle, and at
which he was probably present. The idea arose, as I have shown, from
a simple misunderstanding, and has led those who adopt it to direct
self-contradiction, for if Matthew derived, as admitted, his narrative
from the ‘Gesta,’ he could not also have derived it, as Dr. Luard
writes, from some Exchequer record.
As Richard had not described the coronation _services_, Matthew,
for these, refers us to that precedent preserved at the Exchequer
(Eleanor’s coronation), which was, we shall find, the recognised
precedent for coronation services so late as 1377.[432]
We may now pass to Mr. Hall’s theory that the non-appearance in the
Red Book of “the order of Richard I.’s Coronation, referred to (as he
holds) by Matthew Paris, is a third instance of palpable omission”[433]
of transcripts it formerly contained. His only reason for denying that
the above marginal notes refer (as I hold) to Eleanor’s coronation
(1236) is that “Hoveden, Bromton, and other authorities give an
abbreviated narrative” which implies the existence of such a record as
is supposed to have been lost. But Hoveden, as we have seen, copies
his narrative from the ‘Gesta,’ which he does not abbreviate, but
expands--and does not describe the “services,” which is what we want.
Mr. Hall’s meaning, however, is, as usual, obscure; for, having cited
the supposed narrative as at one time existing in our Red Book (p.
xviii.), he next tells us: “It can scarcely be doubted that Matthew
Paris’ reference was to some Exchequer Precedent Book which no longer
exists” (p. xix.), although, we read, it was certainly from our
existing Red Book that he took his “description of the pageant of 1236”
(pp. xix., xxxii.). He calls it the “custumal” (_consuetudinarium_) of
the Exchequer. And yet on page xxix. we read of Matthew referring to the
‘custumal’ of the Exchequer wherein a certain document of the
reign of Richard I. is said to have been entered, which no
longer exists in the Red Book or in any other Exchequer MS.
So also we learn, on page lxii., that Swereford compiled a lost work
“which was the custumal known to Matthew Paris, and the probable
exemplar of the Red Book of the Exchequer.” So Matthew’s ‘custumal’
(_consuetudinarium_) was not the Red Book itself, but its now lost
“exemplar.” Yet on page xix. we are told that this, the only ‘custumal’
mentioned by Matthew, was, beyond doubt, the Red Book of the Exchequer.
It is here, with Mr. Hall, the same as elsewhere. His work is marred,
throughout, by that confusion of thought which makes it almost
impossible to learn what he really means.
In any case my own position is clear. I assert that the note by Matthew
Paris refers, not to the narrative of the coronation, which he derived
from the ‘Gesta,’ but to a description of the “services”; and I hold
that he found this description, not in a lost Exchequer record, but in
the Red Book’s account of Queen Eleanor’s coronation.
X
The Struggle of John and Longchamp
(1191)
It is needless to insist on the critical character of the year 1191 in
England. From the moment when the watchers on the coast of Sicily had
seen the passing of Richard, this country found itself, for the first
time, cut off, for all purposes, from communication with its king. The
sovereign had gone, and his seal with him; and ministerial government,
a government by officials, was thrown on its own resources. If Henry
and his grandfather had taught their subjects faithfully to obey the
ministers of the Crown, with the king ever at their back, the case
was altered when the king had left them for a distant land. And men’s
thoughts turned to John, not only as the visible representative, in his
brother’s absence, of his house, but as not improbably their future
king, and that, it might be, before long. John, traitor at heart, saw
the strength of his position, and Longchamp was far too clever to
ignore the danger of his own.
To the tale of their inevitable strife for power, the acknowledged
master of that age’s history has devoted special care. In his edition
of the ‘Gesta Regis Ricardi’ (1867), and again in that of Hoveden
(1870), he has given the conclusions at which he arrived concerning
the order of events in 1191. We have, in the former, the footnote to
vol. ii., pp. 208–9, and in the latter, pp. lvi.-lxiv. of the preface
to vol. iii., and the “long note” on pp. 134–5 of the text. The last of
these is perhaps the one which sets forth most fully and clearly the
final conclusions of the bishop. These conclusions, I may add at once,
have been accepted without question by Mr. Howlett, in his ‘William of
Newburgh’ (1884)[434] and his ‘Richard of Devizes’ (1886),[435] by Miss
Norgate in her ‘England under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 298–301) and her
Life of Longchamp,[436] and by Mr. Hunt in his Life of John.[437]
Summing up the narratives found in the ‘Gesta,’ Hoveden, Richard
of Devizes, and William of Newburgh, Dr. Stubbs holds that their
“divergency arises from the fact of the struggle falling into two
campaigns, in which certain details are repeated. There were three
conferences at Winchester, two attempts on the chancellor’s part to
seize the castle of Lincoln, and two settlements.” He then gives “the
harmonized dates, on this hypothesis, in detail.”
As to the first of these dates, the conference at Winchester on
Mid-Lent Sunday (March 24), recorded by Richard of Devizes, no question
arises. And I am in a position to adduce documentary evidence in its
confirmation; for Longchamp occurs as present at Winchester on March
28 in two separate documents.[438] It is when we come to the “two
campaigns,” one in the spring and the other in the summer, that the
difficulties begin. I propose, therefore, to append a sketch of the
sequence of events as recorded by William of Newburgh, the ‘Gesta,’ and
Richard of Devizes. Hoveden practically repeats the Gesta narrative,
and may therefore, for convenience, be omitted.
WILLIAM RICHARD GESTA.
OF NEWBURGH. OF DEVIZES.
The archbishop of The archbishop of
Rouen arrives (April Rouen arrives (April
27).[439] 27).
Longchamp refuses to Richard having left
recognise his Sicily for the East
authority. John plots (April 10), John
against Longchamp. hearing this begins
to plot against
Longchamp.
Matters are brought At length matters are
to a crisis by Gerard brought to a crisis by
de Camville being Gerard de Camville
summoned by Longchamp doing homage to John
to give up Lincoln for Lincoln Castle,
castle to him, and by which is declared to be
his refusing and treason.
joining John.
Longchamp sends Longchamps hastily Longchamp collects
abroad for collects troops, forces _after
mercenaries, but compels Roger Mortimer Midsummer_, and
hastens to besiege to surrender Wigmore, besieges Lincoln
Lincoln castle. and then besieges castle depriving
Lincoln castle. Gerard of his
shrievalty.
John surprises and John is enabbled to Nottingham and
seizes Nottingham and seize Nottingham and Tickhill are
Tickhill. Tickhill. surrendered to John.
Thereupon he orders He orders Longchamp He orders Longchamp
Longchamp to raise to raise the siege of to raise the siege
the siege of Lincoln. Lincoln. of Lincoln.
Longchamp knowing Longchamp is quite Longchamp,
many of those with taken aback, but terrified, withdraws
him were for John, recovering himself, with his army.
withdraws “confusus.” sends the archbishop of
Rouen to summon John to
A few days later he restore the castles he
“learns that his has taken.
office of legate had
expired by the Pope’s
death.”
Friends mediate. The archbishop arranges (Many bishops and
with John a conference other of the king’s
for July 28. lieges mediate.)
Longchamp consents, [440]
and withdraws.
Longchamp makes Description of agreement Brief summary
peace as best he between John and of agreement (which
could. Longchamp (wrongly Hovenden recites in
dated April 25). full).
Soon after, Longchamp
hears that his
mercenaries have
landed, and repudiates
the agreement. At
length, however, they
come to terms on a
fresh footing.
It is the contention of Dr. Stubbs that William of Newburgh, in the
first of these columns, describes the first, or spring “campaign,”
and that Richard and the ‘Gesta’ describe, in the other two, the
second “campaign” later in the year. The difficulty I always felt, in
accepting this conclusion, is the almost incredible coincidence of the
sequence of events here described occurring twice over, in exactly
the same order. But one would not be justified in questioning a view
confidently enunciated by Dr. Stubbs, and accepted, it would seem, by
every one else, on the ground merely of improbability, however extreme.
Let us see, therefore, on what evidence the accepted view is based.
In the first place, we are told that the above sequence was repeated
twice over. The authorities, however, are all agreed in mentioning one
such sequence, and one only.[441] Why, then, are we to convert it into
two, in the face of all probability? The only definite reason I can
find for so doing is that, according to William of Newburgh--