THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX.
The death of Geoffrey was a fatal blow to the power of the fenland
rebels. According, indeed, to one authority, his brother-in-law, William
de Say, met his death on the same occasion,[700] but it was the decease
of the great earl which filled the king's supporters with exultant joy
and hope.[701] For a time Ernulf, his son and heir, clung to the abbey
fortress, but at length, sorely against his will, he gave up possession
to the monks.[702] Before the year was out, he was himself made prisoner
and straightway banished from the realm.[703] Nor was the vengeance of
Heaven even yet complete. The chief officer of the wicked earl was
thrown from his horse and killed,[704] and the captain of his foot, who
had made himself conspicuous in the violating and burning of churches,
met, as he fled beyond the sea, with the fate of Jonah, and worse.[705]
Chroniclers and genealogists have found it easiest to ignore the
subsequent fate of Ernulf (or Ernald) de Mandeville.[706] He has even
been conveniently disposed of by the statement that he died
childless.[707] It may therefore fairly be described as a genealogical
surprise to establish the fact, beyond a shadow of doubt, not only that
he left issue, but that his descendants flourished for generations,
heirs in the direct male line of this once mighty house. Ernulf himself
first reappears, early in the following reign, as a witness to a royal
charter confirming Ernald _de Bosco's_ foundation at Betlesdene.[708] He
also occurs as a principal witness in a family charter, about the same
time.[709] This document,[710] which is addressed by Earl Geoffrey
"baronibus suis," is a confirmation of a grant of lands in
Sawbridgeworth, by his tenant Warine fitz Gerold "Camerarius Regis" and
his brother Henry, to Robert Blund of London, who is to hold them "de
predictis baronibus meis." The witnesses are: "Roesia Com[itissa] matre
mea, Eust[achia] Com[itissa], Ernulfo de Mannavilla fratre meo, Willelmo
filio Otuwel patruo meo, Mauricio vicecomite, Willelmo de Moch'
capellano meo, Otuwel de bouile, Ricardo filio Osberti, Radulfo de
Bernires, Willelmo et Ranulfo fil' Ernaldi, Gaufrido de Gerp[en]villa,
Hugone de Augo, Waltero de Mannavilla, Willelmo filio Alfredi, Gaufredo
filio Walteri, Willelmo de Plaisiz, Gaufrido pincerna." He is,
doubtless, also the "Ernald de Mandevill" who holds a knight's fee, in
Yorkshire, of Ranulf fitz Walter in 1166.[711] But in the earliest
Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. he is already found as a grantee of _terræ datæ_
in Wilts., to the amount of £11 10_s._ 0_d._ (blanch) "in Wurda." This
grant was not among those repudiated by Henry II., and Geoffrey de
Mandeville, Ernulf's heir, was still in receipt of the same sum in
1189[712] and 1201-2.[713] Later on, in a list of knights' fees in
Wilts., which must belong, from the mention of Earl William de
Longespée, to 1196-1226, and is probably _circ._ 1212, we read:
"Galfridus de Mandevill tenet in Wurth duas partes unius militis de
Rege."[714] That Ernulf should have received a grant in Wilts., a county
with which his family was not connected, is probably accounted for by
the fact that he obtained it in the time of the Empress, who, as in the
case of Humfrey de Bohun, found the revenues of Wilts. convenient as a
means of rewarding her partisans.[715] But we now come to a series of
charters of the highest importance for this discovery. These were
preserved among the muniments of Henry Beaufoe of Edmondescote, county
Warwick, Esq., when they were seen by Dugdale, who does not, however, in
his _Baronage_, allude to their evidence. By the first of these Earl
Geoffrey (died 1166) grants to his brother Ernulf one knight's fee in
Kingham, county Oxon.:—
"Sciatis me dedisse et firmiter concessisse Ernulfo de Mandavilla
fratri meo terram de Caingeham, ... pro servitio unius militis in
excambitione terre Radulfi de Nuer.... Et si Caingeham illi garantizare
non potero dabo illi excambium ad valorem de Caingeham antequam inde
sit dissaisitus.... T. Com[ite] Albrico auunculo meo, Henry (_sic_)
fil[io] Ger[oldi], Galfr[ido] Arsic, Rad[ulf]o de Berner[iis], Waltero
de Mandavilla, Will[elm]o de Aino, Galfrido de Jarpeuill, Will[elmo] de
Plais', Jurdan[o] de Taid', Hug[one] de Auc[o], Willelm[o] fil[io]
Alured[i] Rad[ulfo] Magn[?avilla], Audoenus (_sic_) Pincerna, Rad[ulfo]
frater (_sic_) eius, Aluredus (_sic_) Predevilain."[716]
Ralph "de Nuers," is entered in 1166 as a former holder of four fees
from Earl Geoffrey (II.).[717] Of the witnesses to the charter,[718]
Henry fitz Gerold (probably the chamberlain) held four fees (_de novo_)
of the earl in 1166, Ralph de Berners four (_de veteri_), Walter de
Mandeville four (_de veteri_), Geoffrey de Jarpe[n]ville one (_de
novo_), Hugh de Ou and William fitz Alfred one each (_de novo_),
"Audoenus Pincerna" and Ralph his brother the fifth of a fee (_de novo_)
jointly. The relative precedence, according to holding, is not unworthy
of notice. The second charter is from Earl William, confirming his
brother's gift:—
"Willelmus de Mandavilla comes Essexie Omnibus hominibus, etc. Sciatis
me concessisse Ernulfo de Mandauilla fratri meo donationem quam Comes
Galfridus illi fecit de villa de Kahingeham.... T. Comite Albrico,
Simone de Bellocampo, Gaufrido de Say, Will[elm]o de Bouilla, Radu[lfo]
de Berneres, Seawal' de Osonuilla, Ric[ard]o de Rochellâ, Osberto
fil[io] Ric[ard]i, Dauid de Gerponuilla, Wiscardo Leidet, Waltero de
Bareuilla, Albot Fulcino, Hugone clerico," etc.[719]
Here Earl "Alberic" was uncle both to the grantor and the grantee; Simon
de Beauchamp was their uterine brother; Geoffrey de Say their first
cousin. William de Boville would be related to Otuel de Boville, the
chief tenant of Mandeville in 1166.[720] "Sewalus de Osevill" then
(1166) held four fees (_de veteri_) of the earl. Richard "de Rochellâ"
held three-quarters of a fee (_de novo_). Osbert fitz Richard was
probably a son of Richard fitz Osbert, who held four fees (_de veteri_)
in 1166. Wiscard Ledet was a tenant _in capite_ in Oxfordshire (_Testa_,
p. 103).[721]
The third charter transfers the fee from the grantee himself to his son:—
"Notum sit ... quod ego Arnulfus de Mandeuilla concessi et dedi Radulfo
de Mandeuilla filio meo pro suo servicio et homagio villam de
Chaingeham ... et hospitium meum Oxenfordie ad prædictam villam
pertinens[722] ... T. Henrico Danuers," etc.[723]
From another quarter we are enabled to continue the chain of evidence.
We have first a charter to Osney:—
"Ego Gaufridus de Mandeuile ... confirmavi mercatam terre quam Aaliz
mater mea eis diuisit in Hugato, sic[?ut] Ernulfus de Mandeuile pater
meus eis assignavit."[724]
Then we have a charter which thus carries us a step further:—
"Ego Galfridus de Mandeuilla filius Galfridi de Mandeuillâ concessi
Domino Galfrido patri meo, filio Arnulfi de Mandeuillâ," etc., etc.[725]
Among the witnesses to this last charter are Robert de Mandeville, and
Ralph his brother, and Hugh de Mandeville. Lastly, we have a charter of
Ralph de Mandeville, to which the first witness is "Galfridus de
Mandauilla frater meus."[726]
We have now established this pedigree:—
GEOFFREY, = Roese
EARL OF ESSEX, | de Vere.
d. 1144. |
+--------+
|
Ernulf = Aaliz.
de Mandeville, |
son and heir |
(disinherited). |
|
+-------------+---------+
| |
Geoffrey Ralph
de Mandeville. de Mandeville.
|
Geoffrey
de Mandeville.
A further charter (_Harl. Cart._, 54, I. 44) can now be fitted into this
pedigree. It is a notification by Adam de Port, to the Bishop of
Lincoln, etc., of his grant of the church of "Hattele." The witnesses
are: "Hernaldo de Mandeville et domina Alicia uxore sua, domina
Matiltide uxore dicti Adæ de Port, Henrico de Port, fratre ejusdem,
Galfrido de Mandeville," etc.[727] Here we have a clue to the parentage
of Ernulf's wife.
Passing to the reign of Henry III., we find Kingham then still in
possession of the family.[728] In Wiltshire they are found yet later,
Worth being still held by them in 1292-93 (21 Edw. I).[729]
The importance of the existence of Ernulf and his heirs is seen when we
come to deal with the fate of the earldom of Essex. That Ernulf was
"exiled" even for a time becomes a remarkable fact, when we remember
that he might have found shelter from the king among the followers of
the Empress in the west. But he and his father had offended a power
greater than the king. The Empress could not shield him from the
vengeance of the outraged Church. It is, I think, in his doings at
Ramsey, and in the penalties he had thus incurred, that we must seek the
reason of his being, as we shall find, so strangely passed over, in
favour of his younger brother Geoffrey, who had not partaken of his
guilt.
To another charter, hitherto unknown, we owe our knowledge of the fact
that Geoffrey was recognized as his father's heir, by the Empress, on
his death. Instructive as its contents would doubtless be, it is known
to us only from the following note, made by one who had inspected its
transcript in the lost volume of the Great Coucher:—
"Carta M. Imperatricis per quam dat Gaufredo de Mannevill filio
Gaufredi Comitis Essexie totam hereditatem suam et omnes tenuras quas
concessit patri suo. Testes R. Com. Gloec., Rag. Com. Cornub., Rog.
Com. Hereford, R. Regis filio, Umfridus de Bohun Dap., Johannes filius
Gisleberti, W. de Pontlarch' Camerario. Apud Divisas.[730]
The names of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Roger, Earl of Hereford,
limit the date of this charter to 1144-1147, and the father of the
grantee died, as we have seen, in August, 1144. It should be noted that
nothing is said here of the earldom of Essex, and that only an
absolutely new creation could confer the dignity on Geoffrey, as he was
not his father's heir.
Here, however, yet another charter, also at present unknown, comes to
our assistance with its unique evidence that Geoffrey must have held his
father's title before 1147.[731] He then disappears from view for the
time.
We must now skip some twelve years, and pass to that most important
charter in which the earldom was conferred anew on Geoffrey by Henry II.
Only those who have made a special study of these subjects can realize
the value of this charter, a record hitherto unknown. The attitude of
Henry II. to the creations of Stephen and Matilda, the extent to which
he recognized them, and the method in which he did so, are subjects on
which the historian is peculiarly anxious for information, but on which
our existing evidence is singularly and lamentably slight. Of the four
charters quoted in the _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_, only two can
be said to have a real bearing on the question, and of these one is of
uncertain date, while the meaning of the other is doubtful. But the
charter I am about to deal with is remarkably clear in its meaning, and
possesses the advantage that its contents enable us to date it with
precision.
The original charter was formerly preserved in the Cottonian collection,
but was doubtless among those which perished in the disastrous
fire.[732] The copy of it made by Dugdale, and now among his MSS. at
Oxford, is unfortunately imperfect, but the discovery of an independent
copy among the Rawlinson MSS. has enabled me not only to fill the gaps
in Dugdale's copy (which I have here placed within brackets), but also
to establish by collation the accuracy of the text.
CHARTER OF HENRY II. TO GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE THE YOUNGER (Jan. 1156).
H. Rex Angl[orum] (et) Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie
Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Justiciariis Baronibus
Vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis
Anglie et Normannie salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa
Comitem de Essexa et dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et
heredibus suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis Tertium Denarium de
placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. Et volo et concedo et firmiter precipio
quod ipse Comes et heredes sui[733] post eum [habeant] et teneant
comitatum suum ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et plene et
honorifice sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ vel Normanniâ melius, liberius,
quietius, plenius, et honorificentius tenet Comitatum suum. Præterea
reddidi ei et concessi totam terram Gaufridi de MagnaVilla proavi sui,
et avi sui, et patris sui, et omnia tenementa illorum, tam in dominiis
quam in feodis militum, tam in Anglia quam in Normannia, que de me tenet
in capite, et de quocunque teneat et de cujuscunque feodo sint, et
nominatim Waledenam et Sabrichteswordam[734] et Walteham. Et vadium quod
Rex Henricus avus meus habuit super predicta tria maneria sua
imperpetuum ei clamavi quietum sibi et heredibus suis de me et de meis
heredibus. Quare volo (et firmiter precipio) quod ipse et heredes sui
habeant et teneant (de me et de meis heredibus) comitatum suum predictum
ita libere (et quiete et plene) sicut aliquis Comes in Anglia (vel
Normannia) melius, (liberius quietius et plenius comitatum suum) tenet.
Et habeant et teneant ipse et heredes sui omnia predicta tenementa
antecessorum suorum predictorum et nominatim predicta tria maneria ita
bene (et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plene, in bosco et
plano et pratis et pascuis in Aquis et molendinis in viis et semitis in
forestis et warrennis in rivariis et piscariis infra Burgum et extra et
in omnibus locis et nominatim infra Civitatem London[ie], cum Soco et
Saca et Toll et Team et Infangtheof et cum omnibus Libertatibus et
liberis consuetudinibus et quietanciis suis) sicut Gaufridus de
MagnaVilla proavus suus et avus suus et pater suus unquam melius,
(liberius, quietius, et honorificentius et plenius) tenuerunt, tempore
Regis Willelmi et Regis Henrici avi mei. Testibus T[heobaldo]
Archiepiscopo Cantuar' (Rog[er]o Archiep[iscop]o Eborac' Ric[ardo]
Ep[iscop]o London', Rob[erto] Ep[iscop]o Lincoln', Nigello Ep[iscop]o
Eliensi, Tom[a] Canc[ellario], Rag[inaldo] Com[ite] Cornub', R[oberto]
Com[ite] Legrec', Rog[ero] Com[ite] de Clara, H[enrico] de Essex
Conesta[bulo], Ric[ardo] de Hum[ez] Conest[abulo], Ric[ardo] de Lucy,
War[ino] fil[io] Ger[oldi] Cam[er]ario, Man[assero] Bisset dap[ifero],
Rob[er]to de Dunest[anvilla] et Jos[celino] de Baillolio) Apud
Cantuariam.
The first point to be considered is that of the date. It is obvious at
once from the names of the primate and the chancellor that the charter
must be previous to the king's departure from England in 1158. But the
only occasion within this limit on which the charter can have passed is
that of the king's visit to Canterbury on his way to Dover and the
Continent in January, 1156 (115⅚). On no other occasion within this
limit did he land at or depart from Dover. Now, it is quite certain that
the charter to Earl Aubrey (de Vere), which is tested "Apud Dover in
transitu Regis," passed at the time of this departure from Dover
(January 10, 1156).[735] We find, then, that as in 1142 the charters to
Earl Geoffrey and Earl Aubrey were part of one transaction and passed on
the same occasion, so now, the charters to Earl Geoffrey the second and
Earl Aubrey, his uncle, passed almost on the same day. The long list of
witnesses to the former, for which we are indebted to the Rawlinson MS.,
enables us to compare it closely with those of the four other charters
which passed, according to Mr. Eyton, about the same time.[736] The
proportions of their witnesses found among the witnesses to this charter
are respectively: seven out of ten in the first; nine out of eighteen in
the second; the whole ten in the third; and seven out of fourteen in the
fourth. As the king had spent his Christmas at Westminster, we can thus
fix the date almost to a day, viz. _circ._ January 2, 1156. And this
harmonizes well enough with the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, which show
that Earl Geoffrey was in receipt of the _tertius denarius_ in 1157, as
from Michaelmas, 1155.
On looking at the terms of this instrument, we are struck at once by the
fact that it is a charter of actual creation. This is in perfect
accordance with the view advanced above, namely, that the charter
granted at Devizes to this Geoffrey, as his father's son, has no bearing
on the earldom of Essex, "and that only an absolutely new creation could
confer the earldom on Geoffrey, as he was not his father's heir." It is
thus that the existence of his brother Ernulf became a factor in the
problem of no small consequence.[737]
Being thus an undoubted new creation, its terms should be examined most
carefully. It will then be found that the precedent they follow is not
the charter of the Empress (1141), but the original charter of the king
(1140).
STEPHEN
(1140).
Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essexe
hereditarie.
MAUD
(1141).
Sciatis omnes ... quod ego ... do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavilla ...
ut sit Comes de Essexâ.
HENRY
(1156).
Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magnauillâ Comitem de Essexâ.
The explanation is, of course, that the first and third are new
creations, while the second is virtually but a confirmation of the
previous creation by Stephen. So again, comparing this creation with
that of Hugh Bigod, the only instance in point—
(1155.)
Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot Comitem de Norfolca, scilicet de
tercio denario de Nordwic et de Norfolca.
(1156.)
Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Mandavillâ Comitem de Essexa, et
dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus suis.... Tertium
denarium de placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus.
Here the absolute identity of the actual formula of creation accentuates
the difference between the clauses relating to the "Tertius Denarius."
It will therefore be desirable to compare the clauses as they stand in
the Mandeville and the Vere charters (January, 1156):—
MANDEVILLE
Sciatis me ... dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus
suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis tertium denarium de placitis
meis ejusdem Comitatus.
VERE
Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico in feodo et
hereditate tertium denarium de placitis Oxenfordscyre ut sit inde Comes.
It is said with truth in the Lords' Reports that "inde" is an ambiguous
word, as it might refer either to the county or to the "third penny"
itself. And, indeed, the above extract from the charter to Hugh Bigod
would lend support to the latter view. But the case of Earl Aubrey was,
we must remember, peculiar. As we saw in the charter of the empress
(1142), she recognized him as already a "comes" in virtue of his rank as
Count of Guisnes (p. 188). It is my belief that in the present charter
he is styled "comes" by Henry on precisely the same ground. For if Henry
had recognized him as Earl of Oxford in virtue of his mother's charter
(1142), he must also have recognized his right to "the third penny" of
the shire which was granted by that same charter.[738] But he clearly
did not recognize that right, for he here makes a fresh grant. Therefore
he did not recognize the validity of his mother's charter. Consequently,
he styled Aubrey "comes" in virtue only of the comital rank he enjoyed
as Count of Guisnes. And as he could not _make_ a "comes" of a man who
was a "comes" already (p. 187), he merely grants him "the third penny of
the pleas" of Oxfordshire, "that he may be earl of that county" ("ut sit
inde Comes"). Hence the anomalous form in which the charter is
drawn.[739]
Different, again, yet no less instructive, is the case of the Earl of
Sussex. There the grant runs—
"Sciatis me dedisse Willelmo Comiti Arundel castellum de Arundel cum
toto honore Arundel ... et tercium denarium de placitis de Suthsex unde
comes est."
This charter has been looked upon as relating to the earldom itself,
whereas it is clearly nothing but a grant of the castle and honour of
Arundel and of the "Tertius Denarius" of Sussex, "of which county he is
earl."[740] When these two phrases are compared—"ut sit inde Comes" and
"unde Comes est"—their meaning is, surely, clear. William was _already_
Earl of Sussex (_alias_ Arundel _alias_ Chichester), but his right to
the "Tertius Denarius" of the county was not recognized by the king. The
fact that this right required to be granted _nominatim_ confirms my view
that it was not conveyed by Stephen's charter to Geoffrey.[741]
The distinction between the "dedi et concessi" of the "Tertius Denarius"
clause and the "reddidi" and "concessi" of those by which the king
confirms to Geoffrey his ancestral estates is one always to be noted.
The terms of what one may call this general confirmation are remarkably
comprehensive, going back as they do to the days of King William and of
the grantee's great-grandfather; and the profusion of legal verbiage in
which they are enwrapped is worthy of later times. The charter also
illustrates the adaptation in Latin of the old Anglo-Saxon _formulæ_,
themselves the relics of those quaint jingles which must bear witness to
oral transmission in an archaic state of society.[742]
The release of the lien (upon three manors) which Henry I. had held is a
very curious feature. One of these manors, Sawbridgeworth in Herts., is
surveyed in Domesday at great length. Its value had then sunk from £60
to £50; but early in the reign of Henry II., Earl Geoffrey gave it in
fee to Warine fitz Gerold, the chamberlain, "per (_sic_) LXXIIII
libratas terræ, singulas XX libratas pro servitio unius militis."[743]
Under this charter Earl Geoffrey held the dignity till his death, at
which time we find him lord of more than a hundred and fifty knights'
fees. The earldom then (1166) passed to his younger brother William, and
did so, as far as we know, without a fresh creation. For the limitation,
it is important to observe, in this as in other early creations, is not
restricted to heirs _of the body_—a much later addition. As this point
is of considerable importance it may be as well here to compare the
essential words of inheritance in the three successive charters:—
STEPHEN
(1140).
Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnavillâ de Comitatu Essexe
_hereditarie_. Quare volo ... quod ipse _et heredes sui post eum
hereditario jure_ teneant de me et de heredibus meis ... sicut alii
Comites mei de terra meâ, etc.
MAUD.
(1141).
Sciatis ... quod ego do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavillâ ... _et
heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter_ ut sit Comes de Essexâ.
HENRY II.
(1156).
Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa Comitem de Essexa.... Et
volo ... quod ipse Comes _et heredes sui post eum_ habeant et teneant
Comitatum suum ... sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ, etc.
It is noteworthy that the earliest of these three—the earliest of all
our creation-charters—has the most intensely hereditary ring, a fact at
variance with the favourite doctrine that the hereditary principle was a
late innovation, and ousted but slowly the official position. It is
further to be observed that the term "Comitatus," of which the
denotation in Scottish charters has been so long and fiercely debated,
has here the abstract signification which it possesses in our own day,
namely, that of the dignity of an earl.
* * * * *
When we think of their father's stormy career, it is not a little
strange to find these two successive Earls of Essex high in favour with
the order-loving king, throughout whose reign, for more than thirty
years (1156-1189), we find them honoured and trusted in his councils, in
his courts, and in his host. Of Earl William Miss Norgate writes: "The
son was as loyal as his father was faithless; he seems, indeed, to have
been a close personal friend of the king, and to have well deserved his
friendship."[744] His fidelity was rewarded by the hand of the heiress
of the house of Aumâle, so that, already an earl in England, he thus
became, also, a count beyond the sea.
Yet well might men believe that the awful curse of Heaven rested on this
great and able house. At the very moment when Earl William seemed to
have attained the pinnacle of power, when he had reached the point which
his father had reached some half a century before, then, as in his
father's case, the prize was snatched from his grasp. King Richard,
rightly prizing the earl's loyalty and worth, announced his intention,
at the Council of Pipewell (September, 1189), of leaving him, with the
Bishop of Durham as his assessor, in charge of the kingdom, as
Justiciar, during his own absence in the East. Such an office would have
made the earl the foremost layman in the realm. But before the time had
come for entering on his exalted duties, indeed within a few weeks of
his appointment, he was dead (November 14, 1189).
Like his brother Geoffrey before him, the earl died childless; the vast
estates of the house of Mandeville passed to the descendants of his
aunt; to his earldom there was no heir.[745] Such was the end that
awaited the ambition of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The earldom for which he
had schemed and striven, the strongholds on which his power was based,
the broad lands which owned his sway—all were lost to his house. And as
if by the very irony of fate, Ernulf, his disinherited son, alone
continued the race, that there might not be wanting in his hapless heirs
an ever-standing monument to the greatness at once of the guilt and of
the fall of the man whose story I have told.
[700] "Willelmi de Say et Galfridi de Mandeville, qui apud Borewelle
interfecti fuerunt" (_Chron. Ram._, App. p. 347).
[701] "Isto itaque tali modo ad extrema deducto, nox quædam et horror
omnes regis adversarios implevit, quique ex dissensione a Galfrido
exorta regis annisum maxime infirmari putabant, nunc, eo interfecto,
liberiorem et ad se perturbandum, ut res se habebat, expediorem fore
æstimabant" (_Gesta_, p. 104). "Sicque Dei judicio patriæ vastatore
sublato, virtus bellatorum qui secum manum ad perniciem miserorum
firmaverunt plurimum labefacta est, cognoscentes Dominum Christum fideli
suo Regi de hostibus dare triumphum, et adversantes ei potenter elidere,
ad hoc expavit cor inimicorum illius" (_Historia Eliensis_, p. 628).
[702] "Quod post dilationes, non sine difficultate, tandem invitus
fecit; locum enim illum et vicinas ejus partes multum dilexerat.
Prophani milites recedunt cum iniquo satellite" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 332).
[703] "Eodem quoque anno, Ernulfus filius comitis, qui post mortem
patris ecclesiam incastellatam retinebat, captus est et in exilium
fugatus" (_Gervase_, i. 129. Cf. _Hen. Hunt._).
[704] "Cujus princeps militum ab equo corruens effuso cerebro spiritum
exhalavit" (_ibid._).
[705] "Magister autem peditum suorum, qui plus cæteris solitus erat
ecclesias concremare et frangere, dum mare transiret cum uxore sua, ut
multi perhibuerant, navis immobilis facta est. Quod monstrum nautis
stupentibus et sorte data rei causam inquirentibus, sors cecidit super
eum. Quod cum ille totis viribus, nec mirum, contradiceret, secundo et
tertio sors jacta in eum devenit: formidantibus igitur nautis positus
est in cymbam parvulam ipse et uxor ejus et eorum pecunia nequiter
adquisita, ut cum illis esset in perditione; quo facto, navis ut prius
maria libera sulcavit, cymba vero in voragine subsistens circumducta et
absorpta est" (_Hen. Hunt._).
[706] There is abundant evidence that the two names are used
indifferently.
[707] Burke's _Extinct Peerage_. So also Dr. Stubbs.
[708] _Harl. Cart._, 84. C. 4. The charter being attested by Thomas the
Chancellor must be previous to August, 1158, as it passed at
Westminster. It has a rather unusual set of witnesses.
[709] This charter may fairly be dated 1157-1158, on the following
grounds. It speaks of Warine fitz Gerold as the king's chamberlain, and
as living. But he died in the summer of 1158. It is, however, subsequent
to Henry's accession, because it was not till after that event that Fitz
Gerold was enfeoffed in Sawbridgeworth (_Liber Niger_), and also
subsequent to 1155, because Geoffrey occurs as earl. But as Maurice (de
Tiretei) was not sheriff, within these limits, till Michaelmas, 1157, we
obtain the date 1157-1158.
[710] _Sloane Cart._, xxxii. 64.
[711] _Liber Niger_ (ed. 1774), p. 326. The return of the Barony of
Helion (p. 242), in which an Ernulf de Mandeville appears as holding
half a knight's fee in Bumsted (Helion), is of later date.
[712] _Rot. Pip._, 1 Ric. I. The "Ernald de Magneville" who was among
the Crusaders that reached Acre in June, 1191, may have been a younger
son of the disinherited Ernald, if the latter was then dead. An Ernulf
de Mandeville is found among the witnesses to a star of Abraham fitz
Muriel (1214), granting a house in Westcheap to Geoffrey "de
Mandeville," Earl of Essex and Gloucester.
[713] _Rot. Pip._, 3 John.
[714] _Testa_, p. 142 _b_.
[715] See, for the exceptionally heavy alienations in this county (some
£440 a year), the Pipe-Roll of 2 Henry II., p. 57.
[716] _Dugdale MS._, 15 (H) fol. 129.
[717] "Feod[um] Rad[ulfi] de Nuers iiii. milites" (_Liber Niger_).
[718] Compare them with the preceding charter of Earl Geoffrey.
[719] _Dugdale MS._, _ut supra_.
[720] William's succession to Otwel suggests that they were somehow
related to William fitz Otuel (p. 169).
[721] With this charter of Earl William may be compared another (_Cart.
Cott._, x. 1), in which he confirms to Westminster Abbey the church of
Sawbridgeworth. The witnesses are "Willielmo de Ver, Asculfo Capellano,
Ricardo de Vercorol, Willelmo de Lisoris, David de Jarpouilla, Symone
fratre eius, Osberto filio Ricardi, Osberto de sancto Claro, Willelmo de
Norhala, Johanne de Rochella, Eustachio Camerario, Rogero et Simone
clericis Abbatis West'." The second and third witnesses are also found
attesting the earl's charter to the nuns of Greenfield (see p. 169).
Compare further "A charter of William, Earl of Essex" (_Eng. Hist.
Review_, April, 1891). "Asculfus (or Hasculfus) Capellanus" was the hero
of the adventure, on the earl's death, thus related by Dugdale: "A
chaplain of the earl's, called Hasculf, took out his best saddle-horse
in the night, and rode to Chicksand, where the Countess Rohese then
resided," etc., etc.
[722] This is a good instance of the custom, so constantly met with in
Domesday, by which a house in a county town was attached to a manor.
[723] _Dugdale MS._, _ut supra_.
[724] _Dodsworth MS._, vii. fol. 299.
[725] _Ibid._
[726] _Ibid._, xxx. fol. 104.
[727] "Alano de Matem" is among them (cf. p. 89).
[728] "Willelmus de Mandevill tenet in Kaingham feodum unius militis de
feod[o] Comitis Hereford[ie]" (_Testa_, pp. 102 _a_, 106 _a_).
[729] _Lansdowne MS._, 865, fol. 118 _dors._; _Harl. MS._, 154, fol. 45.
[730] _Lansdowne MS._, 229, fol. 123 _b_. This note is followed by one
of the charter by which the Empress confirmed Humfrey de Bohun in his
post of _Dapifer_, and of which the original is still extant among the
Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters (Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient
Charters_, p. 45).
[731] See Appendix BB.
[732] It was, I believe, duly entered in the lost volume of the Great
Coucher.
[733] "Sui" omitted in Rawlinson MS.
[734] "Dabrichteswordam" (Rawlinson).
[735] _R. Diceto_, p. 531.
[736] (1) To the church of St. Jean d'Angely (Canterbury); (2) to
Christchurch, Canterbury (Dover); (3) to St. Mary's Abbey, Leicester
(Dover); (4) to Earl Aubrey (Dover) (_Court and Itinerary of Henry II._,
pp. 15, 16).
[737] It is true that the charter to Geoffrey Ridel (Appendix BB) proves
that Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger enjoyed, at the court of the
Empress, the title of Earl of Essex. But the same charter proves that
Henry did not hold himself bound by his mother's charters or deeds.
[738] "Do et concedo quod sit Comes de ... et habeat inde tertium
denarium sicut comes debet habere."
[739] It is one of the mysteries of the Pipe-Rolls that no such payment
to the earl is to be traced on them, though the grant is quite
unmistakable in its terms. See Appendix H.
[740] The "unde" of this charter answers to the "inde" in the charters
to Earl Aubrey.
[741] See Appendix H.
[742] See, for instance, survivals of them in the charters of Henry I.
to Christchurch, Canterbury, and of Henry II. to Oxford. The former
runs, "on strande and on stream, on wudan and on feldan" (Campbell
Charter, xxix. 5); the latter, "by water and by stronde, by Gode (_sic_)
and by londe" (Hearne's _Liber Niger_, Appendix).
The formula "cum omnibus ad hoc rebus rite pertinentibus, sive
_litorum_, sive camporum, agrorum, saltuumve" (Kemble, _Cod. Dipl._, No.
425; Earle, _Land Charters_, p. 186), suggested to Prof. Maitland
(_Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_) a connection with the "leet" through
the "litus" of early Teutonic law, but Mr. W. H. Stevenson, correcting
him, observed (_Academy_, June 29, 1889) that _litorum_ referred to the
seashore at Reculver (with which this grant deals). Both these
distinguished scholars are mistaken, for the words only render the
general formula: "by lande and by strande ('litorum'), by wode and by
felde." So for instance—
"bi water and bi lande
mid inlade and mid utlade
wit inne burghe and wit outen
bi lande and by strande
bi wode and by felde" (_Ramsey Cart._, ii. 80, 81).
Thus we have "in bosco et plano ... infra burgum et extra" (_supra_, p.
236). See also pp. 286, 314, 381.
[743] _Liber Niger_ (1774), i. 239.
[744] _Angevin Kings_, ii. 144.
[745] The inheritance was in dispute for some time between his aunt's
younger son and the two daughters and co-heirs of her elder son
deceased. As the latter were eventually successful in their claim, there
was no one heir to whom the earldom could pass, as of right, under the
charter of 1156 (accepting it as representing a limitation to heirs
whatsoever). I have, however, elsewhere suggested (Pipe-Roll Society:
_Ancient Charters_, p. 99) that the _salvo_ to the elder of the two
daughters of her _antenatio_ may have been connected with a claim to the
dignity by her husband, in her right.
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX A.
STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS.
(See p. 3.)
There are few more suggestive passages in the chronicles of Stephen's
reign than that which describes, in the _Gesta_, his "pactio" with the
citizens of London. This, because of the striking resemblance between
the "pactio ... mutuo juramento" there described and the similar
practice in those foreign towns which enjoyed the rights of a "communa."
Thus at Bazas, in Aquitaine, "quum dominus rex venit apud Vasatum, omnes
cives Vasatenses jurant ei fidelitatem et obedientiam ... similiter et
rex et senescallus jurant dictis civibus Vasatensibus quod sit bonus
dominus eis et teneat consuetudines, et custodiat eos de omni injuria de
se et aliis pro posse suo." At Issigeac, in the Perigord, it was (as was
usual) the lord who had to swear first before the citizens would do so:
"en aital manieira que'l seinher reis ... cant requerra et queste
sagrament ...; deu jurar a lor premeirament qu'il los defendra de si et
d'autrui de tot domnage, et las bonas custumas que il ont et que il
auront lor gardet et lor amelhoret, à bona fe, ... et que las males lor
oste et lor tolha de tot. Et en après, li prohome deven li far lo
sagrament sobredich, que'l garderon son corps et sas gentz qui par lui
esseron et sas dreituras de tort et de forsa," etc., etc. At
Bourg-sur-Mer, in Gascony, the clause runs: "Dum dominus rex venit primo
in Vasconia, juratur ab eo, dum est sistens et coram senescallo suo (vel
a senescallo suo, dum ipse non est præsens, qui pro tempore veniet) quod
villam et jus custodiet et defendet et de se et de alio ab omni injuria,
et quod servabit foros et consuetudines suas. Nos juramus ei et
senescallo fidelitatem." So too at Bayonne, when the Great Seneschal of
Aquitaine, as representing the king, first arrived, he was called upon
to swear by all the saints that he would be a good and loyal lord; that
he would protect the citizens from all wrong and violence, either from
himself or from others; that he would preserve all their rights,
customs, and privileges, as granted them by the Kings of England and
Dukes of Guyenne, to the utmost of his power, so long as he held the
office, saving his fealty to the king.[746] When he had done so, the
mayor and jurats swore in their turn to him:— "By those saints, will we
be good, faithful, loyal, and obedient to you; your life and limbs we
will guard; good and loyal counsel will we give you to the best of our
power, and your secrets will we keep."[747] These examples, which could
be widely paralleled, not only in municipalities, but also in the rural
commonwealths of the Pyrenean valleys, illustrate the principle and
uniform character of this "mutuum juramentum."
We are tempted then to ask whether it was not by some such transaction
as this that Stephen secured the adhesion of the citizens. We shall find
the Empress securing the city in 1141, after a formal "tractatus" at St.
Albans with its authorized representatives, and we know that the
Conqueror himself made some terms with the citizens before he entered
London. Comparing these facts with the reception at Winchester of
Stephen and the Empress in turn, it may fairly be questioned whether we
should accept the startling assertion in the _Gesta_ as literally
correct. It would seem at least highly probable that what the Londoners
really claimed in 1135 was not the right to elect a king of all England,
but to choose their own lord independently of the rest of the kingdom,
and to do so by a _separate negotiation_ between himself and them. They
were not, in any case, prepared to receive the king as their lord unless
he would first guarantee them the possession of all their liberties.
This semi-independent attitude, which was virtually that assumed by
Exeter when it attempted to treat with the Conqueror, was distinctly
foreign to the English polity so far as our knowledge goes. There are
faint hints, however, in Domesday that such towns as London, York,
Winchester, and Exeter may have possessed a greater independence than it
has hitherto been the custom to believe.
[746] "Lo senescaut de Guiayne deu jurar en sa nabere vengude au mayre
juratz et cent partz et a laut poble et comunautat de Baione ... en
queste forme: Per aques sentz Job serey bon seinhor et leyau, de tort et
de force vos guoarderey de mi medichs et dautruy; a mon leyau poder
vostres fors vostres costumes et vostres priviledges sa en rer per los
reys Dangleterre et dux de Guiayne autreyatz vos sauberey, tant quoant
serey en lodit offici, sauban le fideutat de nostre seinhor lo Rey."
[747] "Et losditz maire et juratz deben jurar en le maneyre seguent
disent assi: Per aques sentz nos vos seram bons, fideus, leyaus, et
hobediens; vite et menbres vos guarderam; bon cosseilh et leyau vos
deram, a nostre leyau poder; et segretz vos thieram."
APPENDIX B.
THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136.
(See p. 8.)
One of the most interesting and curious discoveries that I have made in
the course of my researches has been the true story of the appeal to
Rome as arbiter between Stephen and Maud. Considering the exceptional
importance of this episode, in many ways, it has received strangely
little attention, with the result that it has been imperfectly
understood and almost incredibly misdated.
Mr. Freeman, working, in the _Norman Conquest_, from the _Historia
Pontificalis_,[748] writes of this episode as taking place on and in
consequence of Stephen's attempt to secure the coronation of Eustace in
1152.[749] Miss Norgate has gone into the matter far more fully than Mr.
Freeman, but at first assigned the debate described in the _Historia
Pontificalis_ to "1151."[750]
In so doing, she was guided merely by the _Historia_ passage itself,
which she did not connect, as did Mr. Freeman, with the episode of the
proposed coronation in 1152. But on investigating the matter more
closely, she was clearly led to reject the date she had first given:—
"From the way in which the trial is brought into the _Historia
Pontificalis_, it would at first sight seem to have taken place in
1151. But the presence of Bishop Ulger of Angers and Roger of Chester,
both of whom died in 1149, and the account of the proceedings written
by Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count, clearly prove the true date to
be 1148."[751]
As to the time of the bishop's death, Roger died, not in 1149, but in
April, 1148, and at Antioch, so that the chronology is no less fatal to
Miss Norgate's date than to Mr. Freeman's own. But the additional
evidence she obtains from Gilbert Foliot's letter requires a special
examination.
The sequence of events at which she arrives is this:—
(1) Theobald goes, in defiance of Stephen, to the council convened at
Rheims by Eugenius III. for Mid-Lent Sunday, (March) 1148 (N.S.).
(2) Stephen forfeits Theobald, and is threatened in consequence by the
Pope.
(3) Geoffrey of Anjou, thereupon, challenges Stephen "to an
investigation of his claims before the papal court." Stephen, in reply,
calls on Geoffrey to surrender Normandy "before he would agree to any
further proceeding in the matter."
(4) Geoffrey surrenders Normandy—but to his son Henry, and Stephen
"appears to have consented, as if in desperation, to the proposed trial
at Rome."
(5) "The trial" takes place, as recorded in the _Historia Pontificalis_,
and is attended, _inter alios_, by Gilbert Foliot, Abbot of Gloucester,
who had obtained "the succession to the vacant see" of Hereford at the
Council of Rheims, and had added, in consequence, to his style the words
"et Herefordiensis ecclesiæ mandato Domini Papæ vicarius."
(6) Gilbert Foliot writes the letter to Brian fitz Count, reviewing the
treatise which Brian had just composed in support of the claims of the
Empress, and alluding to the above "trial" at Rome which he (Gilbert)
had attended.
(7) Gilbert Foliot is consecrated Bishop of Hereford by Theobald, at St.
Omer, in September (1148).[752]
Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his son Henry
belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or
1151.[753] This, however, scarcely affects Miss Norgate's sequence of
events. It is when we turn to Foliot's letter that our suspicions begin
to be aroused. Although Dr. Giles has placed it at the end of those
letters which belong to the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we
must be struck by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was
written just before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style
would have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the Diocese
(_ut supra_)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. Moreover, as Henry
was _ex hypothesi_ now Duke of Normandy, the "trial" would have been,
surely, of his own claims, not of those of his mother, who had virtually
retired in his favour. Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her
to this "trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by any
direct evidence.
But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the _Historia
Pontificalis_ to see that they must have been perused with almost
incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions (_a_)
that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,[754] (_b_) that the
"trial" took place under Pope Innocent.[755] Now, Celestine died in
March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in September, 1143.
The letter, therefore, must have been written within these six months,
and the "trial" at Rome must have taken place before September 24, 1143.
This being clear, we naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the
case argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the very
beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at the outset, how
could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it were, _de novo_?
Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by the _Historia_ writer as
Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss
Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see
as 1141.[756] A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon
must, on her own showing, be not later than this.[757] Lastly, now that
we know the council to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the
writer—"Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate
Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that it was,
further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester in 1139? Turning
again to the passage in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (41), we find that,
in the light of the above evidence, its meaning is beyond dispute. So,
indeed, it should be of itself, but for a most incomprehensible blunder
by which two passages of the _narrative_ are printed in Pertz as part of
the arguments advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the
_Historia_, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is anxious
to show us how the matter stood by tracing the attitude of the Papacy to
Stephen since the beginning of his reign. He, therefore, takes us right
back to the year of the king's accession, and tells us how, and to what
extent, his claim came to be confirmed.
This discovery at once explains Gilbert Foliot's expression. For, the
trial at Rome taking place, as I shall show, early in 1136, he attended
it, not as Abbot of Gloucester, but merely as "minimus Cluniacensium,"
in attendance on his famous abbot, Peter the Venerable (1122-1158). It
may have been as prior ("claustral" prior?) of the abbey that he thus
attended him, for we know from himself that he had held that office.
Everything now fits into place. We find that, following in her
grandfather's footsteps, Maud at once appealed to Rome against Stephen's
usurpation, charging him, precisely as William, in his day, had charged
Harold, (1) with defrauding her of her rightful inheritance, (2) with
breach of his oath. Stephen, when he had overcome the scruples of
William of Corbeuil, and had secured coronation at his hands, hastened
to take his next step by despatching to Rome three envoys to plead his
cause before the pope. These envoys were Roger, Bishop of Chester,
Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez (the spokesman of the party), and "Lovel," a
clerk of Archbishop William.[758] This last was, of course, intended to
represent his master in the matter, and to justify his action in
crowning Stephen by explaining the grounds on which his scruples had
been overruled. The envoys were abundantly supplied with the requisite
motive power—or, shall we say, the oil for lubricating the wheels of the
Curia?—from the hoarded treasure of the dead king, which was now in his
successor's hands. The pope resolved that so important a cause required
no ordinary tribunal: he convoked for the purpose a great council, and
among those by whom it was attended was Peter, Abbot of Cluny, with
Gilbert Foliot in his train.[759]
The name of Cluny leads me to break the thread for a moment for the
purpose of insisting on the important fact that the sympathies of the
house, under its then abbot, must have been with the Angevin cause. This
is certain from the documents printed by Sir George Duckett,[760]
especially from the Mandatory Epistle of this same Abbot Peter relating
to the Empress.[761] We have here, I think, the probable explanation of
the energy with which that cause was espoused by Gilbert Foliot.
To return to the council. The case for the prosecution, as we might term
it, was opened by the Bishop of Angers, who charged Stephen both with
perjury, that is, with breaking the oath he had sworn to Henry I., and
with usurpation in seizing the throne to the detriment of the rightful
heir.[762] Stephen's supporters, with Arnulf at their head, met these
charges by a defence, the two reports of which are not in absolute
harmony. It is quite certain that to the charge of usurpation they
retorted that the Empress was the offspring of an unlawful alliance, and
had, therefore, suffered no wrong.[763] But how they disposed of the
oath is not so clear. According to Gilbert Foliot, whose account we may
safely follow, they advanced the subtle and ingenious plea that fidelity
had only been sworn to the Empress as heir ("sicut heredi") to the
throne, and since (they urged) she was not such heir (for the reason
given above), the oath was _ipso facto_ void, and the charge fell to the
ground.[764] The other writer asserts that the defence was based, first,
on the plea that the oath had been forcibly extorted, and, second, on
the cunning pretence that the king had reserved to himself the right of
appointing another heir, and had exercised that right on his deathbed,
to the extent of disinheriting the Empress and nominating Stephen in her
stead.[765]
A careful study of the two versions has led me to believe that both
writers were, probably, right in their facts. Gilbert Foliot would be
the last man to invent an argument in favour of Stephen, nor would the
other writer have any inducement to do so, writing (as he did) long
after that king's death. Moreover, the pleas that (1) the oath had been
extorted, (2) Henry I. had released his barons from its obligation, are
precisely those which the author of the _Gesta_ and William of
Malmesbury[766] respectively mention as being advanced on Stephen's
behalf. Lastly, we have yet another plea advanced by Bishop Roger of
Salisbury, namely, that, so far as he was himself concerned, he looked
on the re-marriage of the Empress, without the consent of the Great
Council, as absolving him from his oath. Now, all this points to one
conclusion. The thorn in the side of Stephen and of his friends was,
clearly, this unlucky oath. Their various attempts to excuse its breach
betray their consciousness of the fact. More especially was this the
case before a spiritual court. Hence their ingenious endeavour,
described by Gilbert Foliot, to keep the oath in the background as the
lesser of the two points. Hence, too, their accumulated pleas. First,
they urge that the oath was void because the Empress was not the heir;
then, that it was void, because extorted; lastly, that it was void
because the dying king had released them from their obligation. Such an
argument as this speaks for itself.
The only point on which the two witnesses do, at first sight, differ, is
the attitude taken by the Bishop of Angers with regard to the plea that
the Empress was not of legitimate birth. Did he contravene this plea?
The _Historia_ asserts that when Stephen's advocates had stated the case
for the defence, the bishop rose and traversed their pleadings,
rejecting them one by one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count,
admits that the attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument
which he discusses) had not been replied to.[767] Now, the version found
in the _Historia_, though composed much later, is a more detailed
account, and bears the stamp of truth. Yet Gilbert's admission to his
friend and ally betrays an uneasy consciousness that the charge had not
been disposed of. For he asks him to suggest an effectual reply, and
proceeds to suggest one himself.[768] He relies on St. Anselm's consent
to her parents' marriage. We have here possibly the clue we seek. For
the Bishop of Angers, in his speech, as given by the writer of the
_Historia_, had not alluded to St. Anselm's consent.[769] Perhaps he was
taken by surprise, and had not expected the plea.
Stephen's advocates seem, from a hint of Gilbert Foliot,[770] to have
simply "stampeded the convention" (_conventus_), and the wrath of the
Angevin champion rose to a white heat.[771] The pope commanded that the
wrangling should cease, and announced that he would neither pass
sentence nor allow the trial to be adjourned. This was equivalent to a
verdict that the king was not guilty, and was duly followed by a letter
to Stephen confirming him in his possession of the kingdom and the
duchy.[772]
Seeing that he had lost his case, the aged Bishop of Angers relieved his
feelings by a bitter jest at the cost of the heir of St. Peter.[773]
But we are more immediately concerned with that letter by which the pope
(the writer tells us) confirmed Stephen in possession. For this
connecting link is no other than the letter which meets us in the pages
of Richard of Hexham.[774]
Its relevant portion runs thus:—
"Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, præeunte
divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe etiam certa,[775] et [quia] beato
Petro in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die obedientiam et reverentiam
promisisse, et quia de præfati regis prosapia prope posito gradu
originem traxisse dinosceris, quod de te factum est gratum habentes, te
in specialem beati Petri et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesie filium affectione
paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris et familiaritatis prærogativa,
qua predecessor tuus egregiæ recordationis Henricus a nobis
coronabatur, te propensius volumus retinere."
The chronicler, observing that Stephen was "his et aliis modis in regno
Angliæ confirmatus," passes straight from this letter to the King's
Oxford charter, in which he describes himself as "ab Innocentio sanctæ
Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus." Of this "confirmation," as we find
it styled by the author of the _Historia_, by Richard of Hexham, by John
of Hexham, and lastly, by Stephen himself, I speak more fully in the
text. For the present the point to be grasped is that (1) the
"conventus" at Rome was previous to (2) this letter of the pope, which
was previous itself to (3) Stephen's charter, which is assigned to the
spring (after Easter) of 1136. Thus we arrive at the fact that the
council and debate at Rome belong to the early months of 1136.
To complete while we are about it the explanation of the _Historia_
narrative, we will now take the second passage which has been
erroneously printed in Pertz—
"Postea, cum prefatus Guido cardinalis promoveretur in papam
Celestinum, favore imperatricis scripsit domno Theobaldo Cantuarensi
archiepiscopo inhibens ne qua fieret innovatio in regno Anglie circa
coronam, quia res erat litigiosa cujus translatio jure reprobata est.
Successores eius papæ Lucius et Eugenius eandem prohibitionem
innovaverunt."
This passage is absurdly given as part of Bishop Ulger's sneer.
The above cardinal is Guy, cardinal priest of St. Mark, referred to in
the previous misplaced passage as opposing the confirmation of Stephen.
Observe here that three writers allude quite independently to his
sympathy with the Angevin cause. These are—(1) the writer (_ut supra_)
of the _Historia Pontificalis_; (2) Gilbert Foliot, who speaks of him,
when pope, as "favente parti huic domino papa Celestino," and (3) John
of Hexham, who describes him as "Alumpnus Andegavensium." A coincidence
of testimony, so striking as this, strengthens the authority of all
three, including that of the writer of the _Historia Pontificalis_.
The step taken by Pope Celestine was based on the alleged doubt in which
his predecessor had left the question. It was, he held, still "res
litigiosa," and, therefore, without reversing the action of Innocent in
the matter, he felt free to forbid any further step in advance. His
instructions to that effect, to the primate, were duly renewed by his
successors, and covered, when the time arrived, the case of the
coronation of Eustace as being an "innovatio in regno Anglie circa
coronam." Stephen had, indeed, been confirmed as king, and this could
not be undone. But that confirmation did not extend to the son of the
"perjured" king.[776]
With the character and meaning of the "confirmation" obtained by Stephen
from the pope, I have dealt in the body of this work. There are,
however, a few minor points which had better be disposed of here. Of
these the first is Miss Norgate's contention that when, in 1148, Stephen
met Geoffrey's challenge to submit his claims to Rome, "by a counter
challenge calling upon Geoffrey to give up his equally ill-gotten duchy
before he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter,"
"Geoffrey took him at his word, but in a way which he was far from
desiring. He did give up the duchy of Normandy, by making it over to
his own son, Henry Fitz-Empress."[777]
A reference to the passage in the _Historia_[778] on which Miss Norgate
relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving the
counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the matter
further.[779] It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had refused
admission to his dominions to either pope or legate. This is a fact of
interest.
This was not the only occasion on which Stephen's "recognition" by the
pope stood him in good stead. At the crisis of 1141, the sensitive
conscience of Archbishop Theobald had prevented his transferring his
allegiance to the Empress, badly though Stephen had treated him, till he
received permission from the Lord's anointed to follow in the footsteps
of his brother prelates.[780]
The loyal primate explained the position when Gilbert Foliot had enraged
the Angevins by doing homage to Stephen for the see of Hereford. Wholly
Angevin though they were in their sympathies, the prelates maintained
that they were bound as Churchmen to follow the pope's ruling, and that
the Papacy had "received" Stephen as king.[781]
Another point deserving notice is the choice of Arnulf, afterwards the
well-known Bishop of Lisieux, as Stephen's chief envoy in 1136. For Miss
Norgate, oddly enough, misses this point in her sketch of this
distinguished man's career.[782] She has nothing to say of his doings
between his _Tractatus de Schismate_, "about 1130," and his appointment
to the see of Lisieux in 1141, from which date "for the next forty years
there was hardly a diplomatic transaction of any kind, ecclesiastical or
secular, in England or in Gaul, in which he was not at some moment or in
some way or other concerned."[783] This, therefore, constitutes a
welcome addition to his career, and, moreover, gives us the reason of
Geoffrey's aversion to him, when duke, and of the "heavy price" with
which his favour had to be bought by Arnulf.[784]
The last point concerns the "most interesting and valuable"[785] letter
from Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count. A careful perusal of this
composition has led me to believe, from internal evidence, that it
refers not (as Miss Norgate puts it) to a "book" by Brian fitz Count, or
"a defence of his Lady's rights in the shape of a little treatise,"[786]
but to a justification of his own conduct in reply to hostile criticism.
And I venture to think that so far from this composition being
"unhappily lost,"[787] it may be, and probably is, no other than that
lengthy epistle from Brian to the Bishop of Winchester, of which a copy
was entered in Richard de Bury's _Liber Epistolaris_. And there,
happily, it is still preserved.[788] This can only be decided when the
contents of that epistle are made accessible to the public, as they
should have been before now.
* * * * *
To resume. I have now established these facts. The "trial" at Rome took
place, not, as Mr. Freeman assumes, in 1152, nor, as Miss Norgate
argues, in 1148, but early in 1136. The letter of Gilbert Foliot, in
which he refers to it, was written, not in 1148, but late in 1143 or
early in 1144. The whole of Miss Norgate's sequence of events (i. 369,
370) breaks down entirely. The great debate before the pope at Rome was
not the result of Stephen's attempt to get Eustace crowned, nor of
Geoffrey's challenge to Stephen by the mouth of Bishop Miles, but of the
charge brought against Stephen at the very outset of his reign. The true
story of this debate and of Stephen's "confirmation," by the pope, as
king is here set forth for the first time, and throws on the whole chain
of events a light entirely new.
[748] Pertz's _Monumenta Historica_, vol. xx.
[749] "The application to Rome and the debate which followed it there
are to be found in the _Historia Pontificalis_, 41 (Pertz, xx. 543).
Bishop (_sic_) Henry 'promisit se daturum operam et diligentiam ut
apostolicus Eustachium filium regis coronaret. Quod utique fieri non
licebat, nisi Romani pontificis veniâ impetratâ.' I have already (see
above, p. 251) had to refer to some of the points urged in this debate"
(_Norm. Conq._, v. 325, note). On turning to "p. 251," we similarly find
the debate spoken of as belonging to "later years," and at p. 354 also,
while at p. 857 we read: "At a later time, in the argument before Pope
Innocent (_sic_), when Stephen is trying to get the pontiff's consent to
the coronation of his son Eustace (p. 325)," etc., etc. How an argument
could be held before Innocent, many years after his death, Mr. Freeman
does not explain.
[750] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 278, _note_.
[751] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 370, _note_.
[752] _Ibid._, i. 370, 371, 495, 496.
[753] _Academy_, November 12, 1887.
[754] "Sed jam nunc Deo propitio et favente parti huic domino papa
Celestino."
[755] "Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ
conventum celebrem habuisse."
[756] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 500.
[757] Perhaps she did not recognize his name (see below).
[758] "Ex adverso steterunt a rege missi Rogerus Cestrensis episcopus
Lupellus clericus Guillelmi bone memorie Cantuarensis archiepiscopi, et
qui eis in causa patrocinabatur Ernulfus archidiaconus Sagiensis"
(_Hist. Pontif._, 41).
[759] "Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ
conventum celebrem habuisse. Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre
nostro domino abbato Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus.
Ibi causa hæc in medium deducta est, et aliquandiu ventilata" (Foliot's
letter, lxxix., ed. Giles, i. 100).
[760] _Charters and Records of the Ancient Abbey of Cluni_ (1888).
[761] "Felicis memoriæ rex Anglorum et Dux Normannorum, Henricus,
Willelmi primo ducis dein regis filius, speciali eam [Cluniacensem
ecclesiam] amore coluit et veneratus est. Donis autem multiplicibus et
magnis omnes jam dictos exsuperans, etiam majorem ecclesiam ... miro et
singulari opere inter universas pene tocius orbis ecclesias consummavit.
Ea de causa, specialis apud universos Cluniacensis ordinis fratres ejus
memoria habetur et in perpetuum per Dei gratiam habebitur. Cui in
paterna hereditate succedens Matildis, ejus filia, Henrici magni
Romanorum imperatoris conjux ... paternæ imaginis et prudentiæ formam
velut sigillo impressam representavit, et præter alia digna relatu,
Cluniacensem ecclesiam more patris sincere dilexit" (_ibid._, ii. 104).
[762] "Stabat ab Imperatrice dominus Andegavensis episcopus, qui ... duo
inducebat precipue, jus scilicet hereditarium et factum imperatrici
juramentum" (Foliot's letter, _ut supra_). "Querimoniam imperatricis ad
papam Innocentium Ulgerius Andegavorum venerandus antistes detulit,
arguens regem periurii et illicité presumptionis regni" (_Hist.
Pontif._, 41).
[763] "Hic [Ernulfus] adversus episcopum allegavit publice, quod
imperatrix patris erat indigna successione, eo quod de incestis nupciis
procreata et filia fuerat monialis, quam Rex Henricus de monasterio
Romeseiensi extraxerat eique velum abstulerat" (_Hist. Pontif._).
"Imperatricem, de qua loquitur, non de legitimo matrimonio ortam
denuntiamus. Deviavit a legitimo tramite Henricus rex, et quam non
licebat sibi junxit matrimonio, unde istius sunt natalitia propagata:
quare illam patri in heredem non debere succedere et sacra denuntiant"
(Foliot's letter).
[764] "Sublato enim jure principali, necessario tollitur et secundarium.
In hac igitur causâ principale est, quod dominus Andegavensis de
hereditate inducit et ab hoc totum illud dependet, quod de juramento
subjungitur. Imperatrici namque sicut heredi juramentum factum fuisse
pronunciat. Totum igitur quod de juramento inducitur, exinaniri necesse
est, si de ipso hereditario jure non constiterit" (_ibid._).
[765] "Juramentum confessus est [Ernulfus], sed adjecit violentur
extortum, et sub conditione scilicet imperatrici successionem patris se
pro viribus servaturum, nisi patrem voluntatem mutare contingeret et
heredem alium instituere; poterat enim esse ut ei de uxore filius
nasceretur. Postremo subjecit quod rex Henricus mutaverat voluntatem et
in extremis agens filium sororis suæ Stephanum designavit heredem"
(_Hist. Pontif._).
[766] So also Gervase of Canterbury.
[767] "Hoc in communi audientiâ multum vociferatione declamatum est, et
nihil omnino ab altera parte responsum."
[768] "Rogo, mihi in parte ista respondeas. Interim dicam ipse quod
sentio. Majores natu, personas religiosas et sanctas, sæpius de re ista
conveni. Audio illius matrimonii copulam sancto Anselmo archiepiscopo
ministrante celebratam.... Manus autem sibi præcidi permississet
[Anselmus], quam eas ad opus illicitum extendisset."
[769] His reply was: "Ipsa [Romana ecclesia] enim confirmavit
matrimonium quod accusas, filiamque ex eo susceptam domnus Pascalis
Romanus pontifex inunxit in imperatricem. Quod utique non fecisset de
filia monialis. Nec eum veritas latere poterat, quia non fuit obscurum
matrimonium aut contractum in tenebris."
[770] "Multorum vociferatione declamatum est."
[771] "In Archidiaconum excandescens" (_Hist. Pontif._).
[772] "Non tulit ulterius contentiones eorum domnus Innocentius nec
sententiam ferre voluit aut causam in aliud differre tempus, sed contra
consilium quorundam cardinalium et maxime Guidonis presbiteri sancti
Marci, receptis muneribus regis Stephani, ei familiaribus litteris
regnum Angliæ confirmavit et ducatum Normanniæ." This is the passage so
inexplicably printed in Pertz as part of the bishop's speech, which
immediately precedes it.
[773] "Ulgerius vero cum cognitioni cause supersederi videret, verbo
comico utebatur dicens: 'De causa sua querentibus intus despondebitur;'
et adjiciebat: 'Petrus enim peregre profectus est, nummulariis relicta
domo'" (_Hist. Pontif._).
[774] Ed. Howlett, p. 147.
[775] Compare the description of Henry of Winchester, shortly before
this, as "spe scilicet captus amplissima" that Stephen would do his duty
by the Church.
[776] "Ne filium regis, qui contra jusjurandum regnum obtinuisse
videbatur in regem sublimaret" (_Gervase_).
[777] Vol. i. p. 369.
[778] Pertz, xx. p. 531. Bishop Miles is sent to England, "ad petitionem
Gaufridi comitis Andegavorum, ut regem super perjurio et regni
occupatione conveniret et ducatu Normanniæ, quem invaserat."
[779] Mr. Howlett has duly pointed out that Geoffrey did not, as Miss
Norgate imagines, hand over Normandy to his son in consequence of this
challenge; but I would point out further that Stephen demanded not
merely the surrender of Normandy, but also that of the _English_
districts then under Angevin sway ("Hoc retulit responsum: quod rex
_utrumque_ honorem et jure suo _et ecclesie Romane auctoritate_ adeptus
erat, _nec refugerat stare judicio apostolicæ sedis_, quando eum comes
violenter ducatu spoliavit et parte regni. _Quibus_ non restitutis non
debebat subire judicium" (p. 531)).
[780] "Confiscata sunt (1148) bona ejus et secundo proscriptus pro
obediencia Romane ecclesie. Nam et alia vice propter obedienciam sedis
Apostolicæ proscriptus fuerat, quando, urgente mandato domini Henrici
Wintoniensis episcopi tunc legatione fungentis in Anglia post alios
episcopos omnes receperat imperatricem ... licet inimicissimos habuerit
regem et consiliarios suos" (_Hist. Pontif._).
[781] [Stephen] "quem tota Anglicana ecclesia sequebatur ex
constitutione ecclesie Romane. Licet proceres divisi diversos principes
sequerentur, unum tamen habebat ecclesia ... quod episcopo non licuerat
ecclesiam scindere ei subtrahendo fidelitatem quem ecclesia Romana
recipiebat ut principem" (_Ibid._, pp. 532, 533).
[782] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 500-502.
[783] _Ibid._
[784] The stinging taunts of the Bishop of Angers on Arnulf's humble
origin, as given in the _Hist. Pontif._, are of great importance in
their bearing on Henry I.'s policy of raising men to power "from the
dust." They should be compared with the well-known sneer of Ordericus
(see p. 111).
[785] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. p. 496, _note_.
[786] _Ibid._, p. 369.
[787] _Ibid._, p. 496, _note_.
[788] I called attention to this letter in a communication to the
_Athenæum_, pointing out that in Mr. Horwood's report on the _Liber
Epistolaris_ in an Historical MSS. Commission Report on Lord Harlech's
MSS. (1874), mention was made, among its contents, of a letter from the
Bishop of Winchester to Brian fitz Count, and of Brian's reply, which is
merely described as "a long reply to the above" (it extends over three
folios), and of which a _précis_ should certainly have been given.
APPENDIX C.
THE EASTER COURT OF 1136.
(See p. 19.)
I here give in parallel columns the witnesses to (I.) Stephen's
grant to Winchester; (II.) his grant of the bishopric of Bath;
(III.) his great charter of liberties subsequently issued at
Oxford.
I.
King Stephen.
Queen Matilda.
William, Earl Warenne.
Ranulf, Earl of Chester.
Henry, son of the King of Scotland [Scotie].
Roger, Earl of Warwick.
Waleran, Count of Meulan.
William de Albemarla.
Simon de Silvanecta.
Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius.
William de Albini, Pincerna.
Robert de Ver, Conestabularius.
Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius.
Brian fitz Count, Conestabularius.
Robert fitz Richard, Dapifer.
Robert Malet, Dapifer.
[William] Martel, Dapifer.
Simon de Beauchamp, Dapifer.
William, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thurstan, Archbishop of York.
Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.
Nigel, Bishop of Ely.
Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester.
Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.
Simon, Bishop of Worcester.
Robert, Bishop of Bath.
Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.
Robert, Bishop of Hereford.
John, Bishop of Rochester.
Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.
John, Bishop of Séez.
Richard, Bishop of Avranches.
"Algarus," Bishop of Coutances.
Roger the Chancellor.
Roger de Fecamp, Capellanus.
Henry, nephew of King Stephen.
Reginald, son of King Henry.
Robert de Ferrers. }
William Peverel de Nottingham.}
Ilbert de Lacy. }
Walter Espec. }
Payn fitz John. }
Eustace fitz John. }
Walter de Salisbury. }
Robert Arundel. }
Geoffrey de Mandeville. }
Hamo de St. Clare. }
Roger de Valoines. } Barones.
Henry de Port. }
Walter fitz Richard. }
Walter de Gant. }
Walter de Bolebec. }
Walchelin Maminot. }
William de Percy.[789] }
II.
William, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thurstan, Archbishop of York.
Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.
Henry, Bishop of Winchester.
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.
Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln.
Nigel, Bishop of Ely.
Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester.
Robert, Bishop of Hereford.
John, Bishop of Rochester.
Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.
Simon, Bishop of Worcester.
Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.
Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.
John, Bishop of Séez.
"Algarus," Bishop of Coutances.
Richard, Bishop of Avranches.
Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle.
Roger the Chancellor.
Henry, the nephew of the king.
Henry, son of the King of Scotland.
William, Earl Warenne.
Waleran, Count of Meulan.
Roger, Earl of Warwick.
Robert de Ver, Conestabularius.
Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius.
Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius.
William de Pont de l'arche, Camerarius.
Robert fitz Richard, Camerarius.
William de Albini, Pincerna.
Robert de Ferrars.
Robert Arundel.
Geoffrey de Mandeville.
Ilbert de Lacy.
William Peverel.
Geoffrey Talbot.
III.
William, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.
Henry, Bishop of Winchester.
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.
Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln.
Nigel, Bishop of Ely.
Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.
Simon, Bishop of Worcester.
Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.
Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.
Richard, Bishop of Avranches.
Robert, Bishop of Hereford.
John, Bishop of Rochester.
Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle.
Roger the Chancellor.
Henry, the nephew of the king.
Robert, Earl of Gloucester.
William, Earl Warenne.
Ranulf, Earl of Chester.
Roger, Earl of Warwick.
Robert de Ver. }
Miles de Gloucester. } Conestabuli.
Brian fitz Count. }
Robert de Oilli. }
William Martel. }
Hugh Bigot. } Dapiferi.
Humphrey de Bohun. }
Simon de Beauchamp. }
William de Albini. } Pincernæ
Eudo Martel. }
Robert de Ferrers.
William Peverel de Nottingham.
Simon de Saintliz.
William de Albamarla.
Payn fitz John.
Hamo de St. Clare.
Ilbert de Lacy.[790]
There were thus assembled at the Easter court of 1136 the two primates
of England and twelve of their suffragans, and the primate of Normandy,
with four of his—nineteen prelates in all. Next to these, in order of
precedence, were Henry, the king's nephew,[791] Henry, son of the King
of Scots, and Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall, whose presence, as
a son of the late king, was of importance in the absence of the Earl of
Gloucester. The names in all three lists repay careful study. Among them
we find all those of the leading supporters of the Empress in the
future, while in Robert de Ferrers, William de Aumale, and Geoffrey de
Mandeville, we recognize three of those who were to receive earldoms
from Stephen. The style and place of William de Aumale deserves special
notice, because they prove that he did not, as is supposed, enjoy
comital rank at the time.[792] This fact, further on, will have an
important bearing. So, too, Simon de St. Liz ("de Silva Necta") was
clearly not an earl at the time of these charters. It is believed indeed
that he was Earl of Northampton, while Henry of Scotland was Earl of
Huntingdon. But it is clear that when Henry received from Stephen, as he
had just done, Waltheof's earldom, that grant must have comprised
Northampton as well as Huntingdon; and I have seen other evidence
pointing to the same conclusion. In after years, when Simon was as loyal
as the Scotch court was hostile to Stephen, he may well have received
the earldom of Northampton from the king he served so well. But for the
present, Henry of Scotland was in high favour with Stephen, so high that
the jealousy of the Earl of Chester, stirred by the alienation of
Carlisle, blazed forth at this very court.[793] Their mention of
Ranulf's presence, as of Henry's, confirms the authenticity of our
charters.
The document with which they should be compared is the charter granted
to the church of Salisbury by Henry I. at his Northampton council in
1131 (September 8).[794] Its witnesses are the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York, ten bishops (Gilbert of London, Henry of Winchester, Alexander
of Lincoln, John of Rochester, Seffrid of Chichester, William of Exeter,
Robert of Hereford, Symon of Worcester, Roger of "Chester," and Ebrard
of Norwich), seven abbots (Anscher of Reading, Ingulf of Abingdon,
Walter of Gloucester, Geoffrey of St. Albans, Herbert of Westminster,
Warner of Battle, and Hugh of St. Augustine's), Geoffrey the
chancellor,[795] with Robert "de Sigillo,"[796] and Nigel the Bishop of
Salisbury's nephew,[797] five earls (Robert of Gloucester, William of
Warenne, Randulf of Chester, Robert of Leicester, and Roger of Warwick),
nineteen barons (Brian fitz Count, Miles de Gloucester, Hugh Bigod,
Humfrey de Bohun, Payne fitz John, Geoffrey de Clinton, William de Pont
de l'Arche, Richard Basset, Aubrey de Ver, Richard fitz Gilbert, Roger
fitz Richard, Walter fitz Richard, Walter de Gant, Robert de Ferrers,
William Peverel of Nottingham, Baldwin de Redvers, Walter de Salisbury,
William de Moion, Robert de Arundel), forty-six in all. In many ways a
very noteworthy list, and not least in its likeness to the future House
of Lords, with its strong clerical element. It is impossible to comment
on all the magnates here assembled at Henry's court, many of whom we
meet with again, but attention may be called to the significant fact
that nine of the earldoms created under Stephen were bestowed on houses
represented among the nineteen barons named above.[798]
[789] This list is here printed as it is given by Hearne, but the order
of the names, of course, is wholly erroneous, the prelates being placed
low down instead of at the head. The right order would be prelates,
chancellor (and chaplain), the "royalties," the earls, the household
officers, and the "barones." But it would not be safe to rearrange the
names in the absence of the original charter, in which they probably
stood in parallel columns.
[790] This list is taken from that in Stubbs' _Select Charters_, which
is derived, through the _Statutes of the Realm_, from a copy at Exeter
Cathedral. There is another version in Richard of Hexham (ed. Howlett,
pp. 149, 150), in which Payn fitz John is omitted and _Hugh_ de St.
Clare entered in error for _Hamon_. But the reading "Silvanecta" (for
"Saint liz") is confirmed by Charter No. I., as well as by a charter in
_Cott. MSS._, Nero, C. iii. (fol. 177). Both versions of this list are
questionable as to the second "pincerna," the statutes reading "Eudone
Mart'," while Richard gives "Martel de Alb'."
[791] Henry de Soilli (or Sully), son of Stephen's brother William. I
find him attesting a charter of Stephen abroad, subsequently, as "H. de
Soilli, nepote regis." He was a monk, and failing to obtain the
bishopric of Salisbury or the archbishopric of York, in 1140, was
consoled with the Abbey of Fécamp.
[792] For if he had even been then a count over sea, he would have
ranked, like the Count of Meulan, among English earls.
[793] "Fuit quoque Henricus filius regis Scottiæ ad curiam Stephani
regis Angliæ in proxima Pascha, quam apud Londoniam festive tenuit, cum
maximo honore susceptus, atque ad mensam ad dexteram ipsius regis sedit.
Unde et Willelmus archiepiscopus Cantuarensis se a rege subtraxit, et
quidam proceres Angliæ erga regem indignati coram ipso Henrico
calumpnias intulerant" (_Ric. Hexham_). Among these "proceres" was the
Earl of Chester.
[794] _Sarum Charters and Documents_ (Rolls Series), pp. 6, 7.
[795] Afterwards Bishop of Durham.
[796] Afterwards Bishop of London.
[797] Afterwards the celebrated Bishop of Ely.
[798] See Appendix D: "The 'Fiscal' Earls."
APPENDIX D.
THE "FISCAL" EARLS.
(See p. 53.)
"Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance."
Such are the words of the supreme authority on the constitutional
history of the time. I propose, therefore, to deal with this subject in
detail and at some length, and to test the statements of the
chroniclers—too readily, as I think, accepted—by the actual facts of the
case, so far as they can now be recovered.
The two main propositions advanced by our historians on this subject
are: (1) that Stephen created many new earls, who were deposed by
Henry II. on his accession;[799] (2) that these new earls, having no
means of their own, had to be provided for "by pensions on the
Exchequer."[800] That these propositions are fairly warranted by the
statements of one or two chroniclers may be at once frankly conceded;
that they are true in fact, we shall now find, may be denied without
hesitation.
Let us first examine Dr. Stubbs's view as set forth in his own words:—
"Not satisfied with putting this weapon into the hands of his enemies,
he provoked their pride and jealousy by conferring the title of earl
upon some of those whom he trusted most implicitly, irrespective of the
means which they might have of supporting their new dignity. Their
poverty was relieved by pensions drawn from the Exchequer.... Stephen,
almost before the struggle for the crown had begun, attempted to
strengthen his party by a creation of new earls. To these the third
penny of the county was given, and their connection with the district
from which the title was taken was generally confined to this
comparatively small endowment, the rest of their provision being
furnished by pensions on the Exchequer" (_Const. Hist._, i. 324, 362).
"Stephen also would have a court of great earls, but in trying to make
himself friends he raised up persistent enemies. He raised new men to
new earldoms, but as he had no spare domains to bestow, he endowed them
with pensions charged on the Exchequer ... the new and unsubstantial
earldoms provoked the real earls to further hostility; and the newly
created lords demanded of the king new privileges as the reward and
security for their continued services" (_Early Plants._, p. 19).[801]
Now, these "pensions on the Exchequer" must, I fear, be dismissed at
once as having an existence only in a misapprehension of the writer.
Indeed, if the Exchequer machinery had broken down, as he holds, it is
difficult to see of what value these pensions would be. But in any case,
it is absolutely certain that such grants as were made were alienations
of lands and rents, and not "pensions" at all.[802] The passages bearing
on these grants are as follows. Robert de Torigny (_alias_ "De Monte")
states that Stephen "omnia pene ad fiscum pertinentia minus caute
distribuerat," and that Henry, on his accession, "cœpit revocare
in jus proprium urbes, castella, villas, quæ ad coronam regni
pertinebant."[803] William of Newburgh writes:—
"Considerans autem Rex [Henricus] quod regii redditus breves essent,
qui avito tempore uberes fuerant, eo quod regia dominica per mollitiem
regis Stephani ad alia multosque dominos majori ex parte migrassent,
præcepit ea cum omni integritate a quibuscunque detentioribus
resignari, et in jus statumque pristinum revocari."
In the vigorous words of William of Malmesbury:—
"Multi siquidem ... a rege, hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcumque
semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur; ... Denique multos etiam
comites, qui ante non fuerant, instituit, applicitis possessionibus et
redditibus quæ proprio jure regi competebant."
It is on this last passage that Dr. Stubbs specially relies; but a
careful comparison of this with the two preceding extracts will show
that in none of them are "pensions" spoken of. The grants, as indeed
charters prove, always consisted of actual estates.
The next point is that these alienations were, for the most part, made
in favour not of "fiscal earls," but, on the contrary, in favour of
those who were not created earls.[804] There is reason to believe, from
such evidence as we have, that, in this matter, the Empress was a worse
offender than the king, while their immaculate successor, as his
Pipe-Rolls show, was perhaps the worst of the three. It is, at any rate,
a remarkable fact that the only known charter by which Stephen creates
an earldom—being that to Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140)—does not grant a
pennyworth of land, while the largest grantee of lands known to us,
namely, William d'Ypres, was never created an earl.[805] Then, again, as
to "the third penny." It is not even mentioned in the above
creation-charter, and there is no evidence that "the third penny of the
county was given" to all Stephen's earls; indeed, as I have elsewhere
shown, it was probably limited to a few (see Appendix H).
The fact is that the whole view is based on the radically false
assumption of the "poverty" of Stephen's earls. The idea that his earls
were taken from the ranks is a most extraordinary delusion. They
belonged, in the main, to that class of magnates from whom, both before
and after his time, the earls were usually drawn. Dr. Stubbs's own words
are in themselves destructive of his view:—
"Stephen made Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk, Aubrey de Vere Earl of
Oxford, Geoffrey de Mandeville Earl of Essex, Richard de Clare Earl of
Hertford, William of Aumâle Earl of Yorkshire, Gilbert de Clare Earl of
Pembroke, Robert de Ferrers Earl of Derby, and Hugh de Beaumont Earl of
Bedford."[806]
Were such nobles as these "new men"? Had _their_ "poverty" to be
"relieved"? Why, their very names are enough; they are those of the
noblest and wealthiest houses in the baronage of Stephen's realm. Even
the last, Hugh de Beaumont, though not the head of his house, had two
elder brothers earls at the time, nor was it proposed to create him an
earl till, by possession of the Beauchamp fief, he should be qualified
to take his place among the great landowners of the day.
Having thus, I hope, completely disposed of this strange delusion, and
shown that Stephen selected his earls from the same class as other
kings, I now approach the alleged deposition of the earls created by the
Empress and himself, on the accession of Henry II.
I would venture, on the strength of special research, to make several
alterations in the lists given by Dr. Stubbs.[807]
The earldoms he assigns to Stephen are these:—
NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before 1153).
OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (_questionable_).
ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (before 1143).
HERTFORD. Richard de Clare (uncertain).
YORKSHIRE. William of Aumâle (1138).
PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138).
DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138).
BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont.
KENT. William of Ypres (_questionable_).
From these we must at once deduct the two admitted to be "questionable:"
William of Ypres, because I am enabled to state absolutely, from my own
knowledge of charters, that he never received an English earldom,[808]
and Aubrey de Vere, because there is no evidence whatever that Stephen
created him an earl. On the other hand, we must add the earldoms of
Arundel (or Chichester or Sussex) and of Lincoln.[809] When thus
corrected, the list will run:—
DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138).
YORKSHIRE. William of Aumâle (1138).
PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138).
ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140).
LINCOLN. William de Roumare (? 1139-1140).
NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before February, 1141).
ARUNDEL. William de Albini (before Christmas, 1141).
HERTFORD. Gilbert de Clare[810] (before Christmas, 1141).
BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont (? 1138).
A glance at this list will show how familiar are these titles to our
ears, and how powerful were the houses on which they were bestowed. With
the exception of the last, which had a transitory existence, the names
of these great earldoms became household words.
Turning now to the earldoms of the Empress, and confining ourselves to
new creations, we obtain the following list:—
CORNWALL. Reginald fitz Roy (? 1141).
DEVON. Baldwin de Redvers (before June, 1141).
DORSET (or SOMERSET). William de Mohun (before June, 1141).
HEREFORD. Miles of Gloucester (July, 1141).
OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (1142).
WILTSHIRE ("SALISBURY"). Patrick of Salisbury (in or before 1149).[811]
This varies from Dr. Stubbs's list in omitting ESSEX (Geoffrey de
Mandeville) as only a confirmation, and adding DEVON (Baldwin de
Redvers), an earldom which is always, but erroneously, stated to have
been conferred upon Baldwin's father _temp._ Henry I.[812] Of these
creations, Hereford is the one of which the facts are best ascertained,
while Dorset or Somerset is that of which least is known.[813]
The merest glance at these two lists is sufficient to show that the
titles conferred by the rival competitors for the crown were chosen from
those portions of the realm in which their strength respectively lay.
Nor do they seem to have encroached upon the sphere of one another by
assigning to the same county rival earls. This is an important fact to
note, and it leads us to this further observation, that, contrary to the
view advanced by Dr. Stubbs, the earls created in this reign took their
title, wherever possible, from the counties in which lay their chief
territorial strength. Of the earldoms existing at the death of Henry
(Chester, Leicester, Warwick, Gloucester, Surrey, [Northampton?],
Huntingdon, and Buckingham[814]), Surrey was the one glaring exception
to this important rule. Under Stephen and Matilda, in these two lists,
we have fifteen new earls, of whom almost all take their titles in
accordance with this same rule. Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrers, William
of Aumâle, Geoffrey de Mandeville, William de Albini, William de
Roumare, William de Mohun, Baldwin de Redvers, Patrick of Salisbury, are
all instances in point. The only exceptions suggest the conclusion that
where a newly created earl could not take for his title the county in
which his chief possessions lay, he chose the nearest county remaining
vacant at the time. Thus the head of the house of Clare must have taken
Hertford for his title, because Essex had already been given to
Geoffrey, while Suffolk was included in the earldom of Hugh, as "Earl of
the East Angles." So, too, Miles of Gloucester must have selected
Hereford, because Gloucester was already the title of his lord. Aubrey
de Vere, coming, as he did, among the later of these creations, could
not obtain Essex, in which lay his chief seat, but sought for Cambridge,
in which county he held an extensive fief. But here, too, he had been
forestalled. He had, therefore, to go further afield, receiving his
choice of the counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts, or Dorset. And of these
he chose the nearest, Oxford to wit. Here then we have, I think, a
definite principle at work, which has never, so far as I know, been
enunciated before.
It may have been observed that I assume throughout that each earl is the
earl of a county. It would not be possible here to discuss this point in
detail, so I will merely give it as my own conviction that while comital
rank was at this period so far a personal dignity that men spoke of Earl
Hugh, Earl Gilbert, or Earl Geoffrey, yet that an earl without a county
was a conception that had not yet entered into the minds of men.[815] In
this, of course, we have a relic of the earl's _official_ character. To
me, therefore, the struggles of antiquaries to solve puzzles of their
own creation as to the correct names of earldoms are but waste of paper
and ink, and occasionally, even, of brain-power. "Earl William" might be
spoken of by that style only, or he might be further distinguished by
adding "of Arundel," "of Chichester," or "of Sussex." But his earldom
was not affected or altered by any such distinctive addition to his
style. A firm grasp of the broad principle which I have set forth above
should avoid any possibility of trouble or doubt on the question.
But, keeping close to the "fiscal earls," let us now see whether, as
alleged, they were deposed by Henry II., and, if so, to what extent.
According to Dr. Stubbs, "amongst the terms of pacification which were
intended to bind both Stephen and Henry ... the new earldoms [were] to
be extinguished."[816] Consequently, on his accession as king, "Henry
was bound to annul the titular creations of Stephen, and it was by no
means certain within what limits the promise would be construed."[817]
But I cannot find in any account of the said terms of pacification any
allusion whatever to the supposed "fiscal earls." Nor indeed does Dr.
Stubbs himself, in his careful analysis of these terms,[818] include
anything of the kind. The statement is therefore, I presume, a
retrospective induction.
The fact from which must have been inferred the existence of the above
promise is that "cashiering of the supposititious earls" which rests, so
far as I can see, on the statement of a single chronicler.[819] Yet that
statement, for what it is worth, is sufficiently precise to warrant Dr.
Stubbs in saying that "to abolish the 'fiscal' earldoms" was among the
first of Henry's reforms.[820] The actual words of our great historian
should, in justice, be here quoted:—
"Another measure which must have been taken at the coronation [December
19, 1154], when all the recognized earls did their homage and paid
their ceremonial services, seems to have been the degrading or
cashiering of the supposititious earls created by Stephen and Matilda.
Some of these may have obtained recognition by getting new grants; but
those who lost endowment and dignity at once, like William of Ypres,
the leader of the Flemish mercenaries, could make no terms. They sank
to the rank from which they had been so incautiously raised" (_Early
Plantagenets_, pp. 41, 42).
"We have no record of actual displacement; some, at least, of the
fiscal earls retained their dignity: the earldoms of Bedford, Somerset,
York, and perhaps a few others, drop out of the list; those of Essex
and Wilts remain. Some had already made their peace with the king;
some, like Aubrey de Vere, obtained a new charter for their dignity:
this part of the social reconstruction was despatched without much
complaint or difficulty" (_Const. Hist._, i. 451).
Before examining these statements, I must deal with the assertion that
William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lost endowment and dignity at
once." That he ever obtained an English earldom I have already ventured
to deny; that he lost his "endowment" at Henry's accession I shall now
proceed to disprove. It is a further illustration of the danger
attendant on a blind following of the chroniclers that the expulsion of
the Flemings, and the fall of their leader, are events which are always
confidently assigned to the earliest days of Henry's reign.[821] For
though Stephen died in October, 1154, it can be absolutely proved by
record evidence that William of Ypres continued to enjoy his rich
"endowment" down to Easter, 1157.[822] Stephen had, indeed, provided
well for his great and faithful follower, quartering him on the county
of Kent, where he held ancient demesne of the Crown to the annual value
of £261 "blanch," _plus_ £178 8_s._ 7_d._ "numero" of Crown escheats
formerly belonging to the Bishop of Bayeux. Such a provision was
enormous for the time at which it was made.
Returning now to the "cashiering" of the earls, it will be noticed that
Dr. Stubbs has great difficulty in producing instances in point, and can
find nothing answering to any general measure of the kind. But I am
prepared to take firm ground, and boldly to deny that a single man, who
enjoyed comital rank at the death of Stephen, can be shown to have lost
that rank under Henry II.
Rash though it may seem thus to impugn the conclusions of Dr. Stubbs _in
toto_, the facts are inexorably clear. Indeed, the weakness of his
position is manifest when he seeks evidence for its support from a
passage in the _Polycraticus_:—
"The following passage of the _Polycraticus_ probably refers to the
transient character of the new dignities, although some of the persons
mentioned in it were not of Stephen's promoting: "Ubi sunt, ut de
domesticis loquar, Gaufridus, Milo, Ranulfus, Alanus, Simon,
Gillibertus, non tam comites regni quam hostes publici? Ubi Willelmus
Sarisberiensis?" (_Const. Hist._, i. 451 note).
For this passage has nothing to do with "the transient character of the
new dignities": it alludes to a totally different subject, the _death_
of certain magnates, and is written in the spirit of Henry of
Huntingdon's _De Contemptu Mundi_.[823] The magnates referred to are
Geoffrey, Earl of Essex (d. 1144); Miles, Earl of Hereford (d. 1143);
Randulf, Earl of Chester (d. 1153); Count Alan of Richmond (d. 1146?);
Simon, Earl of Northampton (d. 1153); and Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke (d.
1148).[824] Their names alone are sufficient to show that the passage
has been misunderstood, for no one could suggest that the Earl of
Chester or Earl Simon, Waltheof's heir, enjoyed "new dignities," or that
their earldoms proved of a "transient character."[825]
Of the three cases of actual displacement tentatively selected by Dr.
Stubbs, Bedford may be at once rejected; for Hugh de Beaumont had lost
the dignity (so far as he ever possessed it[826]), together with the
fief itself, in 1141.[827] York requires separate treatment: William of
Aumâle sometimes, but rarely, styled himself, under Stephen, Earl of
York; he did not, however, under Henry II., lose his comital rank,[828]
and that is sufficient for my purpose. The earldom of Dorset (or
Somerset) is again a special case. Its existence is based—(1) on "Earl
William de Mohun" appearing as a witness in June, 1141; (2) on the
statement in the _Gesta_ that he was made Earl of Dorset in 1141; (3) on
his founding Bruton Priory, as "William de Mohun, Earl of Somerset," in
1142. The terms of the charter to Earl Aubrey may imply a doubt as to
the _status_ of this earldom, even in 1142, but, in any case, it does
not subsequently occur, so far as is at present known, and there is
nothing to connect the disappearance of the title with the accession of
Henry II.[829]
Such slight evidence as we have on the dealings of Henry with the earls
is opposed to the view that anything was done, as suggested, "at the
coronation" (December 19, 1154). It was not, we have seen, till January,
1156, that charters were granted dealing with the earldoms of Essex and
of Oxford. And it can only have been when some time had elapsed since
the coronation that Hugh Bigod obtained a charter creating him anew Earl
of Norfolk.[830]
To sum up the result of this inquiry, we have now seen that no such
beings as "fiscal" earls ever existed. No chronicler mentions the name,
and their existence is based on nothing but a false assumption. Stephen
did not "incautiously" confer on men in a state of "poverty" the dignity
of earl; he did not make provision for them by Exchequer pensions; no
promise was made, in the terms between Henry and himself, to degrade or
cashier any such earls; and no proof exists that any were so cashiered
when Henry came to the throne. Indeed, we may go further and say that
Stephen's earldoms all continued, and that their alleged abolition, as a
general measure, has been here absolutely disproved.
[799] So also Gneist: "Under Stephen, new comites appear to be created
in great numbers, and with extended powers; but these pseudo-earls were
deposed under Henry II." (_Const. Hist._, i. 140, _note_).
[800] Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 362. Hence the name of "fiscal earls,"
invented, I believe, by Dr. Stubbs. See also Addenda.
[801] See also _Select Charters_, p. 20.
[802] The error arises from a not unnatural, but mistaken, rendering of
the Latin. The term "fiscus" was used at the time in the sense of Crown
demesne. Thus Stephen claimed the treasures of Roger of Salisbury "quia
eas tempore regis Henrici, avunculi et antecessoris sui, _ex fisci regii
redditibus_ Rogerius episcopus collegisset" (_Will. Malms._). So, too,
in the same reign, the Earl of Chester is suspected of treason, "quia
_regalium fiscorum redditus_ et castella, quæ violentur possederat
reddere negligebat" (_Gesta_). This latter passage has been
misunderstood, Miss Norgate, for instance, rendering it: "to pay his
dues to the royal treasury." It means that the earl refused to surrender
the Crown castles and estates which he had seized. Again, speaking of
the accession of Henry of Essex's fief to the Crown demesne, William of
Newburgh writes: "amplissimo autem patrimonio ejus _fiscum_ auxit."
[803] Anno 1155. Under the year 1171 he records a searching
investigation by Henry into the alienated demesnes in Normandy.
[804] The erroneous view is also found in a valuable essay on "The Crown
Lands," by Mr. S. R. Bird, who writes: "It is true that extensive
alienations of those lands [the demesne lands of the Crown] took place
during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch
to endow the new earldoms" (_Antiquary_, xiii. 160).
[805] The king's "second charter" to Geoffrey de Mandeville is not in
point, for it was unconnected with his creation as earl, and was
necessitated by the grants of the Empress.
[806] _Const. Hist._, i. 362.
[807] "As Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional
importance, it is as well to give the dates and authorities" (_Ibid._,
i. 362).
[808] There is a curious allusion to him in John of Salisbury's letters
(ed. Giles, i. 174, 175) as "famosissimus ille tyrannus et ecclesiæ
nostræ gravissimus persecutor, Willelmus de Ypra" (cf. pp. 129, 206
_n._, 213 _n._, 275 _n._).
[809] A shadowy earldom of Cambridge, known to us only from an
Inspeximus _temp._ Edward III., and a doubtful earldom of Worcestershire
bestowed on the Count of Meulan, need not be considered here.
[810] Son of Richard de Clare, who, in Dr. Stubbs's list and elsewhere,
is erroneously supposed to have been the first earl.
[811] The earliest mention of Patrick, as an earl, that I have yet found
is in the Devizes charter of Henry (1149).
[812] In an interesting charter (transcribed in _Lansdowne MS._, 229,
fol. 116_b_) of this Earl Baldwin as "Comes Exonie," granted at
Carisbrooke, he speaks, "Ricardi de Redvers patris mei."
[813] I have shown (p. 95 _n._) that William de Mohun was already an
earl in June, 1141, though the _Gesta_ assigns his creation to the siege
of Winchester, later in the year.
[814] Buckingham is a most difficult and obscure title, and is only
inserted here _cavendi causa_. Northampton, also, and Huntingdon are
most troublesome titles, owing to the double set of earls with their
conflicting claims, and the doubt as to their correct title.
[815] This view is not affected by the fact that two or even more
counties (as in the case of Waltheof's earldom) might be, officially,
linked together, for where this arrangement had lingered on, the group
might (or might not) be treated as one county, as regarded the earl.
Warwick and Leicester are an instance one way; Norfolk and Suffolk the
other.
[816] _Select Charters_, pp. 20, 21. Cf. _Early Plants._, p. 37: "All
property alienated from the Crown was to be resumed, especially the
pensions on the Exchequer with which Stephen endowed his newly created
earls."
[817] _Const. Hist._, i. 451.
[818] _Ibid._, i. 333, 334.
[819] Robert de Monte.
[820] _Select Charters_, p. 21.
[821] The chroniclers are positive on the point. At the opening of 1155,
writes Gervase (i. 161), "Guillelmus de Ypre et omnes fere Flandrenses
qui in Angliam confluxerant, indignationem et magnanimitatem novi regis
metuentes, ab Anglia recesserunt." So, too, Fitz Stephen asserts that
"infra tres primos menses coronationis regis Willelmus de Ypra violentus
incubator Cantiæ cum lachrymis emigravit."
[822] Pipe-Rolls, 2 and 3 Hen. II. (published 1844).
[823] Compare also the moralizing of Ordericus on the death of William
fitz Osbern (1071): "Ubi est Guillelmus Osberni filius, Herfordensis
comes et Regis vicarius," etc.
[824] This is the date given for his death in the _Tintern Chronicle_
(_Monasticon_, O.E., i. 725).
[825] "William of Salisbury" was a deceased magnate, but is mentioned by
himself in the above passage because he was not an earl. As he is
overlooked by genealogists, it may be well to explain who he was. He
fought for the Empress at the siege of Winchester, where he was taken
prisoner by the Earl of Hertford (_Will. Malms._, ed. Stubbs, ii. 587).
He was also the "Willelmus ... civitatis Saresbiriæ præceptor ... et
municeps" (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 96), who took part in the attack on
Wilton nunnery in 1143, and "lento tandem cruciatu tortus interiit."
This brings us to a document in the register of St. Osmund (i. 237), in
which "Walterus, Edwardi vicecomitis filius, et Sibilla uxor mea et
heres noster Comes Patricius" make a grant to the church of Salisbury
"nominatim pro anima Willelmi filii nostri fratris comitis Patricii in
restauramentum dampnorum quæ prænominatus filius noster Willelmus Sarum
ecclesie fecerit." The paternity of William is thus established.
[826] I have never found him attesting any charter as an earl, though
this does not, of course, prove that he never did so.
[827] _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), pp. 32, 73.
[828] Aumâle ("Albemarle") is notoriously a difficult title, as one of
those of which the bearer enjoyed comital rank, though whether as a
Norman count or as an English earl, it is, at first, difficult to
decide. Eventually, of course, the dignity became an English earldom.
[829] Nor was it an earldom of Stephen's creation.
[830] It was granted at Northampton. Its date is of importance as
proving that the charter to the Earl of Arundel, being attested by Hugh
as earl, must be of later date. Mr. Eyton, however, oddly enough,
reverses the order of the two (_Itinerary of Henry II._, pp. 2, 3). He
was thus misled by an error in the witnesses to the Earl of Arundel's
charter, which Foss had acutely detected and explained long before.
APPENDIX E.
THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS.
(See p. 55.)
The true date of this event is involved in considerable obscurity. The
two most detailed versions are those of William of Malmesbury and of the
Continuator of Florence of Worcester. The former states precisely that
the Ecclesiastical Council lasted from August 29 to September 1 (1139),
and that the Empress landed, at Arundel, on September 30; the latter
gives no date for the council, but asserts that the Empress landed, at
Portsmouth, before August 1—that is, two months earlier. These grave
discrepancies have been carefully discussed by Mr. Howlett,[831] though
he fails to note that the Continuator is thoroughly consistent in his
narrative, for he subsequently makes the Empress remove from Bristol,
after spending "more than two months" there, to Gloucester in the middle
of October. He is, however, almost certainly wrong in placing the
landing at Portsmouth,[832] and no less mistaken in placing it so early
in the year. The "in autumno" of Ordericus clearly favours William
rather than the Continuator.
Mr. Howlett, in his detailed investigation of this "exceedingly complex
chronological difficulty," endeavours to exalt the value of the _Gesta_
by laying peculiar stress on its mention of Baldwin de Bedvers' landing,
as suggestive of a fresh conjecture. Urging that "Baldwin's was in very
truth the main army of invasion," he advances the
"theory that the expedition came in two sections, for the _Gesta
Stephani_ say that Baldwin de Bedvers arrived 'forti militum catervâ,'
as no doubt he did, for it was only his presence in force that could
render the coming of Maud and her brother with twenty or thirty
retainers anything else than an act of madness."
Here we see the danger of catching at a phrase. For if the _Gesta_ says
that Baldwin landed "forti militum catervâ" (p. 53), it also asserts
that the Empress came "cum robustâ militum manu" (p. 55)—a phrase which
Mr. Howlett ignores—while it speaks of her son, in later years, arriving
"cum florida militum catervâ," when, according to Mr. Howlett, "his
following was small" (p. xvii.), and when, indeed, the _Gesta_ itself
(p. 129) explains that this "florida militum catervâ" was in truth
"militum globum exiguum." But this is not all. Mr. Howlett speaks, we
have seen, of "twenty or thirty retainers," and asserts that "Malmesbury
and Robert of Torigny agree that he [Earl Robert] had but a handful of
men—twenty, or even twelve as the former has it" (p. xxiv.). It is
difficult to see how he came to do so, for William of Malmesbury
distinctly states that he brought with him, not twelve, but a hundred
and forty knights,[833] and, in his recapitulation of the earl's
conduct, repeats the same number. Now, if the _Gesta_ admits that the
little band of knights who accompanied, in later years, the young Henry
to England, was swollen by rumour to many thousands,[834] surely it is
easy to understand how the hundred and forty knights, who accompanied
the earl to England, were swollen by rumour (when it reached the
Continuator of Florence of Worcester) to a "grandis exercitus,"—without
resorting to Mr. Howlett's far-fetched explanation that the Continuator
confused the two landings and imagined that the Empress had arrived with
Baldwin, who "landed at Wareham ... about August 1." But if he was so
ill informed, what is the value of his evidence? And indeed, his
statement that she landed "at Portsmouth" (not, be it observed, at
Wareham, nor with Baldwin) places him out of court, for it is accepted
by no one. Mr. Howlett offers the desperate explanation, which he terms
"no strained conjecture," that "Earl Robert went on by sea to
Portsmouth," a guess for which there is no basis or, indeed,
probability, and which, even if admitted, would be no explanation; for
the Continuator takes the Empress and her brother to Portsmouth first
and to Arundel afterwards.
The real point to strike one in the matter is that the Empress should
have landed in Sussex when her friends were awaiting her in the west—for
Mr. Howlett fails to realize that she trusted to them and not to an
"army" of her own.[835] The most probable explanation, doubtless, is
that she hoped to evade Stephen, while he was carefully guarding the
roads leading from the south-western coast to Gloucester and Bristol.
Robert of Torigny distinctly implies that Stephen had effectually closed
the other ports ("Appulerunt itaque apud Harundel, quia tunc alium
portum non habebant").
In any case Mr. Howlett's endeavour to harmonize the two conflicting
dates—the end of July and the end of September—by suggesting as a
compromise the end of August, cannot be pronounced a success.[836]
It may afford, perhaps, some fresh light if we trace the king's
movements after the arrival of the Empress.
Though the narratives of the chroniclers for the period between the
landing of the Empress and the close of 1139 are at first sight
difficult to reconcile, and, in any case, hard to understand, it is
possible to unravel the sequence of events by a careful collation of
their respective versions, aided by study of the topography and of other
relative considerations.
On the landing of the Empress, the Earl of Gloucester, leaving her at
Arundel, proceeded to Bristol (_Will. Malms._, p. 725). Stephen, who,
says Florence's Continuator (p. 117), was then besieging Marlborough,
endeavoured to intercept him (_Gesta_, p. 56), but, failing in this,
returned to besiege the Empress at Arundel (_ibid._; _Cont. Flor. Wig._,
p. 117; _Gervase_, i. 110). Desisting, however, from this siege, he
allowed her to set out for Bristol.[837] Meanwhile, her brother, on his
way to Bristol, had held a meeting with Brian fitz Count (_Will.
Malms._, p. 725), and had evidently arranged with him a concerted plan
of action (it must be remembered that they intended immediate revolt,
for they had promised the Empress possession of her realm within a few
months[838]). Brian had, accordingly, returned to Wallingford, and
declared at once for the Empress (_Gesta_, p. 58). Stephen now marched
against him, but either by the advice of his followers (_ibid._) or from
impatience at the tedium of the siege,[839] again abandoned his
undertaking, and leaving a detachment to blockade Brian (_Cont. Flor.
Wig._, p. 118), marched west, himself, to strike at the centre of the
revolt. He first attacked and captured Cerney (near Cirencester), a
small fortress of Miles of Gloucester (_Gesta_, p. 59; _Will. Malms._,
p. 726), and was then called south to Malmesbury by the news that Robert
fitz Hubert had surprised it (on the 7th of October) and expelled his
garrison (_Will. Malms._, p. 726; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 119; _Gesta_,
p. 59). Recovering the castle, within a fortnight of its capture (_Will.
Malms._, p. 726), after besieging it eight days (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p.
125), he was then decoyed still further south by the news that Humphrey
de Bohun, at the instigation of Miles, had garrisoned Trowbridge against
him. Here, however, he was not so fortunate (_Will. Malms._, p. 726;
_Gesta_, p. 59). In the meanwhile Miles of Gloucester, with the instinct
of a born warrior, had seized the opportunity thus afforded him, and,
striking out boldly from his stronghold at Gloucester, marched to the
relief of Brian fitz Count. Bursting by night on the blockading force,
he scattered them in all directions, and returned in triumph to
Gloucester (_Gesta_, p. 60). It was probably the tidings of this
disaster (though the fact is not so stated) that induced Stephen to
abandon his unsuccessful siege of Trowbridge, and retrace his steps to
the Thames valley (_ibid._, pp. 61, 62). This must have been early in
November.[840]
Seizing his chance, the active Miles again sallied forth from
Gloucester, but this time toward the north, and, on the 7th of November,
sacked and burnt Worcester (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, pp. 118-120). About the
same time he made himself master of Hereford and its county for the
Empress (_Will. Malms._, p. 727; _Gesta_, p. 61). Stephen was probably
in the Thames valley when he received news of this fresh disaster, which
led him once more to march west. Advancing from Oxford, he entered
Worcester, and beheld the traces of the enemy's attack (_Cont. Flor.
Wig._, p. 121). After a stay there of a few days, he heard that the
enemy had seized Hereford and were besieging his garrison in the castle
(_ibid._).[841] He therefore advanced to Leominster by way of Little
Hereford,[842] but Advent Sunday (December 3) having brought about a
cessation of hostilities, he retraced his steps to Worcester (_ibid._).
Thence, after another brief stay, he marched back to Oxford, probably
making for Wallingford and London. Evidently, however, on reaching
Oxford, he received news of the death of Roger, Bishop of
Salisbury.[843] It was probably this which led him to keep his Christmas
at Salisbury. Thither, therefore, he proceeded from Oxford, returning at
the close of the year to Reading (_ibid._).
The question, then, it will be seen, is this. Assuming, as we must do,
that William of Malmesbury is right in the date he assigns to Stephen's
visit to Malmesbury and recovery of Malmesbury Castle, is it consistent
with the date he assigns to the landing of the Empress and her brother?
That is to say, is it possible that the events which, we have seen, must
have occurred between the above landing and Stephen's visit to
Malmesbury can have been all comprised within the space of a fortnight?
This is a matter of opinion on which I do not pronounce.
[831] Introduction to _Gesta Stephani_, pp. xxi.-xxv.
[832] The _Gesta_ and Robert "De Monte" concur with William that it was
at Arundel.
[833] "Centum et quadraginta milites tunc secum adduxit."
[834] "Ut fama adventus ejus se latius, sicut solet, diffunderet, multa
scilicet millia secum adduxisse ... postquam certum fuit ... militum eum
globum exiguum, non autem exercitum adduxisse" (p. 130).
[835] William of Malmesbury, who was well informed, lays stress on this,
describing the earl as "fretus pietate Dei et fide legitimi sacramenti;
ceterum multo minore armorum apparatu quam quis alius tam periculosum
bellum aggredi temptaret ... in sancti spiritus et dominæ sanctæ Mariæ
patrocinio totus pendulus erat."
[836] Mr. Freeman (_Norm. Conq._, v. 291) takes the place of landing
(Portsmouth) from the one account, and the date (September 30) from the
other, without saying so. I notice this because it is characteristic.
Thus Mr. James Parker (_Early History of Oxford_, p. 191) observes of
Mr. Freeman's account of the Conqueror's advance on London: "Though by
leaving out here and there the discrepancies, the residue may be worked
up into a consecutive and consistent series of events, such a process
amounts to making history, not writing it. Amidst a mass of
contradictory evidence it is impossible to arrive at any sure
conclusion.... It is, however, comparatively easy to piece together such
details as will fit out of the various stories; and more easy still to
discover reasons for the results which such mosaic work produces."
[837] See p. 55.
[838] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 115.
[839] "Obsidionis diutinæ pertæsus" (_ibid._, p. 118).
[840] It is an instance of the extraordinary confusion, at this point,
in the chroniclers that the author of the _Gesta_ makes him go from
Trowbridge to London, and thence to Ely, omitting all the intervening
events, which will be found set forth above.
[841] "Fama volante regiæ majestati nunciatur inimicos suos, juratæ
quidem pacis violatores Herefordiam invasisse, monasterium S. Æthelberti
regis et martyris, velut in castellinum munimen penetrasse." It seems
absolutely certain, especially if we add the testimony of the other
MSS., that this passage refers to the attack on the royal garrison in
the castle so graphically described by the author of the _Gesta_, but
(apparently) placed by him among the events of the summer of the
following year. As, however, his narrative breaks off just at this
point, his sequence of events is left uncertain, and in any case the
chronology of the local chronicler, who here writes as an eyewitness,
must be preferred to his.
[842] This passage (p. 121) should be compared with that on pp. 123, 124
("Rex et comes ... Oxenefordiam"), which looks extremely like a
repetition of it (as the passage on pp. 110, 111 is an anticipation of
that on pp. 116, 117).
[843] Assigned to December 11 by William of Malmesbury (p. 727), and to
December 4 by the Continuator (p. 113). The above facts are rather in
favour of the former of the two dates.
APPENDIX F.
THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER.
(See p. 55.)
Miss Norgate assigns this event to the early summer of the year
1138,[844] on the authority of Gervase of Canterbury (i. 104). The
statement of that writer is clear enough, but it is also clear that he
made it on the authority of the Continuator of Florence. Now, the
Continuator muddled in inextricable confusion the events of 1138 and
1139. In this he was duly followed by Gervase, who gives us, under 1138,
first the arrest of the bishops at Oxford (June, 1139), then the
_diffidatio_ of the Earl of Gloucester, next the revolt of 1138 and the
defection of Miles, next the invitation to the Empress (1139), followed
by the Battle of the Standard (1138), and lastly the death of the Bishop
of Salisbury (December, 1139). This can be clearly traced to the
Continuator,[845] and conclusive evidence, if required, is afforded by
the fact that Gervase, like the Continuator, travels again over the same
ground under 1139. Thus the defection of Miles is told twice over, as
will be seen from these parallel extracts:—
CONT. FLOR. WIG.
(1138.)
"Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per predictum Brycstowensem
comitem et conestabularium Milonem, abnegata fidelitate quam illi
juraverant, missis nuntiis ad Andegavensem civitatem accersunt
ex-imperatricem," etc., etc.
(1139.)
"Milo constabularius, regiæ majestati redditis fidei sacramentis, ad
dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu militum se
contulit, illi spondens in fide auxilium contra regem exhibiturum."
GERV. CANT.
(1138.)
"Qui [Comes Glaornensis] ... fidei et sacramentis quibus regi tenebatur
renuntiavit.... Milo quoque princeps militiæ regis avertit se a
rege, ... Interea conjuratio in regem facta per comitem Glaornensem et
Milonem summum regis constabularium invaluit, nam missis nuntiis ...
asciverunt ex-imperatricem," etc., etc.
(1139.)
"Milo regis constabularius multique procerum cum multa militum manu ab
obsequio regis recesserunt, et pristinis fidei sacramentis innovatis ad
partem imperatricis tuendam conversi sunt."
It is obvious from these extracts that the Continuator tells the tale of
the constable's _diffidatio_ and defection twice over; it is further
obvious, from his own evidence, that the second of the two dates (1139)
is the right one, for he tells us that so late as February, 1139,
Stephen gave Gloucester Abbey to Gilbert Foliot "petente constabulario
suo Milone."[846] When we find that this event is assigned by the author
of the _Gesta_ to 1139, that the constableship of Miles was not
transferred to William de Beauchamp till the latter part of 1139, and
that Miles is not mentioned among the rebels in 1138 (though his
importance would preclude his omission), nor is any attack on Gloucester
assigned to Stephen in that year, we may safely decide that the
defection of Miles did not take place till the arrival of the Empress in
1139.
Since writing the above I have noted the presence of Miles of Gloucester
among the followers of Stephen at the siege of Shrewsbury (August,
1138).[847] This is absolutely conclusive, proving as it does that Miles
was still on the king's side in the revolt of 1138.
[844] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 295.
[845] Ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., ii. 107-113.
[846] ii. 114. Miss Norgate, having accepted the date of 1138 for the
defection of Miles, finds it difficult to explain this passage. She
writes (i. 494): "Stephen's consent to his appointment can hardly have
been prompted by favour to Miles, who had openly defied the king a year
ago."
[847] Charter dated in third year of Stephen, "Apud Salopesbiriam in
obsidione" (Nero, C. iii. fol. 177).
APPENDIX G.
CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES.
(See p. 87.)