therefore practically unknown, I here give it _in extenso_ from the
_Cartæ Antiquæ_ (K. 24). It will be observed that, of its six witnesses,
five attest the Westminster charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville. The sixth
is Humfrey de Bohun, a frequent witness to charters of the Empress. This
charter is preceded in the _Cartæ Antiquæ_ by enrolments of two charters
to the grantee's predecessors from William Rufus and Henry I. respectively.
The "service" of Albany de Hairon, a Herts tenant-in-capite, is an
addition made by the Empress to these grants of her predecessors. The
_cartæ_ of 1166 prove that it was subsequently ignored.
"M. Imperatrix regis H. filia archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus
comitibus baronibus justiciariis vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus
fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie salutem. Sciatis me
reddidisse et concessisse Rogero de Valoniis in feodo et hereditate sibi
et heredibus suis Esendonam et Begefordiam et molendina Heortfordie et
servitium Albani de Hairon et omnes alias terras et tenaturas patris sui
sicut pater suus eas tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus et preter hoc
quicquid modo tenet de quocunque teneat. Quare volo et firmiter precipio
quod bene et in pace et honorifice et libere et quiete teneat in bosco
et plano in pratis et pascuis in turbariis in via et semita in exitibus
in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et stagnis in foro et navium
applicationibus infra burgum et extra cum socha et saka et thol et theam
et infanenethef et cum omnibus libertatibus et consuetudinibus et
quietantiis cum quibus pater suus melius et quietius et liberius tenuit
tempore patris mei regis Henrici et ipse post patrem. T. R[oberto]
Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et M[ilone] Gloec[estrie] et Brientio fil[io]
Com[itis] et Rad[ulfo] Painel et Walchel[ino] Maminot et Humfr[ido] de
Buh[un] apud Westmonasterium."
APPENDIX H.
THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS."
(See p. 97.)
Special research has led me to discover that all our historians are in
error in their accounts of this institution.
The key to the enquiry will be found in the fact that the term "tertius
denarius" had two distinct denotations; that is to say, was used in two
different senses. Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman have both failed to grasp
this essential fact. The two varieties of the "tertius denarius" were
these:—
(1) The "tertius denarius placitorum comitatus." This is the recognized
"third penny" of which historians speak. Observe that this was not, as
it is sometimes loosely termed, and as, indeed, Gneist describes it,
"the customary third of the revenues of the county,"[848] but, as Dr.
Stubbs accurately terms it, "the third penny of the pleas."[849] So here
the Empress grants to Geoffrey de Mandeville "tertium denarium
vicecomitatus _de placitis_" (cf. p. 239). This distinction is
all-important, for "the pleas" only represented a small portion of the
total "revenues of the county" as compounded for in the sheriff's
_firma_.
(2) The "tertius denarius redditus burgi." This "third penny," which has
been strangely confused with the other, differs from it in these two
respects. Firstly, it is that, not of the pleas ("placitorum"), but of
the total revenues ("redditus"); secondly, it is that, not of the county
("comitatus"), but of a town alone ("burgi").
This distinction, which is absolutely certain from Domesday and from
record evidence, is fortunately shown, with singular clearness, in the
charter of the Empress to Miles of Gloucester, creating him Earl of
Hereford. In it she grants—
"Tertium denarium redditus burgi Hereford quicquid unquam reddat,[850]
et tertium denarium placitorum totius comitatus Hereford."
Nor is it less clear in the charter (1155), by which Henry II. creates
Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk "scilicet de tercio denario de Norwic et de
Norfolca."
Now, let us trace how the "tertius denarius redditus burgi" has been
erroneously taken for the "tertius denarius placitorum totius
comitatus," the only recognized "third penny."
Dr. Stubbs writes: "The third penny of the county which had been a part
of the profits of the English earls is occasionally referred to in
Domesday."[851] The passage on which this statement is based is found
earlier in the volume. Our great historian there writes:—
"Each shire was under an ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop
in the folkmoot, and received a third part of the profits of
jurisdiction. (The third penny of the county appears from Domesday [i.
1. 26, 203, 246, 252, 280, 298, 336] to have been paid to the earl in
the time of Edward the Confessor.—Ellis, _Introduction to Domesday_, i.
167)."[852]
The argument that the ealdorman, or earl, of the days before the
Conquest, received "a third part of the profits of jurisdiction" in the
county, rests here, it will be seen, wholly on the evidence of Domesday.
But in six of the eight passages on which Dr. Stubbs relies we are
distinctly dealing, not with the county ("comitatus"), but with a single
town ("burgus"). These are Dover, Lewes, Huntingdon, Stafford,
Shrewsbury, and Lincoln. In these, therefore, the third penny could only
be that of the _redditus burgi_, not of the _placita comitatus_.[853]
Huntingdon is specially a case in point, for there the earl received a
third of each of the items out of which the render ("redditus") of the
town was composed. The only cases of those mentioned which could
possibly concern the third penny "placitorum comitatus" are those of
Yorkshire (298), Lincolnshire (336), and Nottinghamshire with Derbyshire
(280). Even in these, however, "the third penny of the pleas" is only
vaguely implied, the passages referring to a peculiar system which has,
I believe, never obtained the attentive study it deserves. This system
was confined to the Danish district, to which these counties all
belonged.
The main point, however, which we have to keep in view is that "the
third penny" of the _revenues_ of the _town_ has nothing to do with "the
third penny" of the _pleas_ of the _county_, and that the passages in
Domesday concerning the former must not be quoted as evidence for the
latter. I do not find that Ellis (_Introduction_, i. 167, 168) is
responsible for so taking them, but Dr. Stubbs, as we have seen, clearly
confused the two kinds of _tertius denarius_, and we find that Mr.
Freeman does the same when he tells us that at Exeter "six pounds—that
is, the earl's third penny—went to the Sheriff Baldwin."[854]
We are reminded by this last instance that not only the earl, but the
sheriff, was concerned with "the third penny" of the _revenues_ of the
_town_. This—which (I would here again repeat) is not the earl's "third
penny" to which historians allude—sometimes, as for instance at
Shrewsbury and Exeter, fell to the sheriff's share. Dr. Stubbs mentions
the case of Shrewsbury only, and takes it as evidence that "the sheriff
as well as the ealdorman was entitled to a share of the profits of
administration."[855]
This third penny "redditus burgi" is in Domesday absolutely erratic. In
the Wiltshire and Somersetshire towns, it seems to have been held by the
king himself, though at Cricklade both he and Westminster Abbey are
credited with it (64 _b_, 67). At Leicester it was held by Hugh de
Grantmesnil, but we are not told by what right (i. 230). At Stafford it
had been held by the English earl, and had fallen with his estates to
the Crown. The Conqueror kept it, but, halving his own two-thirds share,
made a fresh "third," which he granted to Robert de Stafford.[856] At
Ipswich it had, with the "tertius denarius [_i.e._ placitorum] de duobus
hundret," been annexed to an estate held by the local earl. The whole of
this was granted by the Conqueror to his follower, Earl Alan.[857] At
Worcester, by a curious arrangement, the total render had been divided,
in unequal portions, between the king and the earl, while a third of the
whole was received by the bishop. At Fordwich "the third penny" fell to
Bishop Odo, and was bestowed by him, with the king's consent, on St.
Augustine's, Canterbury, to which the other two-thirds had been given
already by the Confessor. The case of Bristol has led Mr. Freeman into a
characteristic error. We read in Domesday:—
"Burgenses dicunt quod episcopus G. habet xxxiii marcas argenti et unam
marcam auri p[re]ter firmam regis" (i. 163).
Mr. Freeman, who is never weary of insisting on the value of Domesday,
is clearly not so familiar as one could wish with its normal
contractions, for he renders the closing words "p_rop_ter firmam regis."
On this he observes: "This looks like the earl's third penny; but
Geoffrey certainly had no formal earldom in Gloucestershire."[858] When
we substitute for the meaningless "propter" the right reading "preter"
("in addition to"), we see at once that the figures given no longer
suggest a "third penny."
Leaving now the third penny of the revenues of the country town, let us
turn our attention to that of the pleas of the whole county. Independent
of the system in the Danelaw to which I have referred above, we have two
references in Domesday to this "third penny." Firstly, the "tercius
denarius de totâ scirâ Dorsete" (i. 75); secondly (in the case of
Warwickshire) "tercio denario placitorum siræ" (i. 278), yet neither of
these is among the cases appealed to by Dr. Stubbs. Now, the curious
point about them is that in neither instance was the right annexed to
the dignity of earl, but to a certain manor, which manor was held by the
earl. That is to say, he was entitled to this "third penny of the pleas"
not _quâ_ earl, but _quâ_ lord of that estate. The distinction is vital.
Whether "the third penny of the pleas" be that of the whole shire or
only of a single hundred, it is always attached, under the Confessor, to
the possession of some manor. We find the "tercius denarius" of one, of
two, of three, of even six hundreds so annexed.[859] This peculiarity
would seem to have been an essential feature of the system, and I need
scarcely point out how opposed it is to the alleged tenure _ex officio_
in days before the Conquest, or to that granted to the earl _quâ_ earl
under the Norman and Angevin kings. Let us seek to learn when the latter
institution, the recognized "tertius denarius," became first annexed to
the dignity of earl.
The prevailing view would seem to be that it was so annexed from the
first; that its possession, in fact, was part of, or rather was connoted
by, the dignity of an earl. Madox held that the oldest mode of
conferring the dignity of earl, a mode "coeval to the Norman Conquest,"
was by charter; and he further held that "By the charter the king
granted to the earl the _tertius denarius comitatus_."[860] Dr. Stubbs
writes, of the investiture of earls in the Norman period:—
"The idea of official position is not lost sight of, although the third
penny of the pleas and the sword of the shire alone attest its original
character" (_Const. Hist._, i. 363).
Mr. Freeman puts the case thus:—
"Earldoms are now in their transitional stage. They have become
hereditary; but they carry with them the official perquisite of the
ancient official earls, the third penny of the king's revenues in the
shire."[861]
Here it may at once be pointed out that the mistake which I referred to
at the outset is again made, "the third penny" being described as that
not of the pleas, but "of the revenues" of the county. Then there is the
question whether this perquisite was indeed the right of "the ancient
official earls." Lastly, we must ask whether the earldoms granted in
this period did unquestionably "carry with them" this "official
perquisite."
To answer this last question, we must turn to our record evidence. Now,
the very first charter quoted by Madox himself, in support of his own
view, is the creation by Stephen of the earldom of Essex in favour of
Geoffrey de Mandeville. The formula there is quite vague. Geoffrey is to
hold "bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii
Comites mei de terrâ meâ melius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus
suos unde Comites sunt." Here there is nothing about the "third penny,"
and we must therefore ask whether its grant is included in the above
formula; that is to say, whether an earl received his "third penny" as a
mere matter of course. The contrary is, it would seem, implied by the
special way in which the "third penny" is granted him in the charter of
the Empress, together with the curious added phrase, "sicut comes habere
debet in comitatu suo." This phrase may, of course, be held to imply
that an earl had, as earl, a recognized right to the sum, but the fact
that in the other charters of the Empress (those of the earldoms of
Hereford and Oxford) the "tertius denarius" is made the subject of a
special grant, and that in her son's charters it is the same, would
suggest that, without such special grant, the right was not conveyed.
This is the view taken by Gneist (who founds, in the main, on Madox):—
"It is only a _donatio sub modo_, the grant of a permanent income 'for
the better support of the dignity of an earl;' it consists in a mere
order or precept addressed to the sheriff, and is therefore a right of
demand, but no feudal right, and is accompanied by no investiture."[862]
That the grant of "the third penny" (of the pleas of the county) was not
an innovation introduced in this reign, is proved by the solitary
surviving Pipe-Roll of Henry I., in which, however, there is but one
mention of this "third penny," namely, in the case of the Earl of
Gloucester. Indeed, with the exception of this entry, and of the special
arrangement which existed before the Conquest in the Danish districts
(_ut supra_), it may be said that the charters of the Empress, in 1141,
represent the first occurrence of this "third penny."
Again, if we turn to the succeeding reign, we find, though the fact
appears to have hitherto escaped notice, that, as far as the printed
Pipe-Rolls take us—that is, for the first few years—less than half the
existing earls were in receipt of the "third penny." Careful examination
of the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II. reveals this fact. The earls to whom was
paid "the third penny of the pleas" were these: Essex, Hertford,
Norfolk, Gloucester, Wiltshire (Salisbury), Devon, and Sussex. Those who
are not entered in the Rolls, and who, therefore, it would seem, cannot
have received it, are Warwick, Leicester, Huntingdon, Northampton, Derby
(Ferrers), Oxford, Surrey, Chester,[863] Lincoln, and Cornwall. Thus
seven received this sum, and ten did not. The inference, of course, from
this discovery is that the possession of the dignity of an earl did not
_per se_ carry with it "the third penny of the pleas," the right to
which could only be conferred by a special grant.[864] This, apparently
conclusive, evidence illustrates and confirms the words of the
_Dialogus_:—
"Comes autem est qui tertiam portionem eorum quæ de placitis proveniunt
in quolibet comitatu percipit. Summa namque illa quæ nomine firmæ
requiritur a vicecomite tota non exsurgit ex fundorum redditibus, sed
ex magna parte de placitis provenit; et horum tertiam partem comes
percipit, qui ideo sic dici dicitur, quia fisco socius est et comes in
percipiendis."
D. "Nunquid ex singulis comitatibus comites ista percipiunt."
M. "Nequaquam: sed hii tantum ista percipiunt, quibus regum
munificentia, obsequii præstiti vel eximiæ probitatis intuitu comites
sibi creat et ratione dignitatis illius hæc conferenda decernit,
quibusdam hæreditarie, quibusdam personaliter."[865]
This passage requires to be read as a whole, for the answer might easily
be differently understood, as indeed it has been in the Lords'
Reports,[866] where it is taken to apply to the earls as well as to "the
third penny." The point is of no small importance, for the conclusion
drawn is that "both [the dignity and the third penny] were either
hereditary or personal, at the pleasure of the Crown." Careful reading,
however, will show, I think, that, like the question, the reply deals
with "the third penny" alone. The "hæc conferenda decernit" of the
latter refers to the "ista" of the former.
Confirmed as they are by the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, the words of
the _Dialogus_ clearly prove that the view I take is right, and that
Professor Freeman is certainly wrong in stating that "earldoms," at this
stage, "carry with them the third penny."[867] Mr. Hunt, who, here as
elsewhere, seems to follow Dr. Stubbs, writes that:—
"The earl still received the third penny of all profits of jurisdiction
in his county. With this exception, however, the policy of the Norman
kings stripped the earls of their official character."[868]
This view must now be abandoned, and the total absence of any allusion,
in Stephen's creation of the earldom of Essex, to "the third penny of
the pleas," must be taken to imply that the charter in question did not
convey a right to that sum. Thus the charter of the Empress to Geoffrey
in 1141 remains the first record in which that perquisite is granted.
We should also note that the _Dialogus_ passage establishes the fact
that the only recognized "third penny" of the earl was "the third penny
of the pleas," and that the third penny "redditus burgi," which, we saw,
had been taken for it, is not alluded to at all.
Before leaving this subject it may be well to record the sums actually
received under this heading:—
£ _s._ _d._
Devon 18 6 8
Essex 40 10 10
Gloucestershire 20 0 0
Herts. 33 1 6
Norfolk 28 4 0
Sussex 13 6 8
Wilts. 22 16 7[869]
These figures are sufficient to disprove the view that the third penny
actually formed an endowment for the dignity of an earl, but their chief
interest is found in the light they throw on the farming of the "pleas,"
illustrating, as they do, the statement in the _Dialogus_ that the
sheriff's _firma_ "ex magna parte de placitis provenit." For multiplying
these sums by three we obtain the total for which the pleas were farmed
in their respective shires. It will be observed that "the third penny"
is stereotyped in amount, but an important passage bearing upon this
point is quoted by Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139) from the Roll of 27
Hen. II.:—
"Idem Vicecomes redd. comp. de £xxviii de tercio denario Comitatus de
Legercestria de vii annis præteritis, quos Comes Leg. accipere noluit,
nisi haberet similiter de cremento, sicut prædecessores sui recipere
consueverunt tempore Regis Henrici" (_sic_).
The meaning of this entry is that the earl demanded the "third penny,"
not only of the old composition for the "pleas," but also of the
increased sum now paid for them. The passage, of course, is puzzling in
its statement that the earl's predecessors had received "the third
penny," for, so far as the printed Rolls take us, they never did so. A
similar difficulty is caused, in the case of Oxfordshire, by the charter
of Henry II. (see p. 239) granting to Aubrey de Vere its "third penny"
"ut sit inde Comes;" for there is no trace in the printed Rolls of such
payment being made, and in 7 John the then earl actually owes "cc marcas
pro habendo tercio denario Comitatus Oxoniæ de placitis, et ut sit Comes
Oxoniæ."[870]
Passing from these perplexing cases, on which we need fuller knowledge,
we have a simple example in 12 Hen. III., when, on the death of the Earl
of Essex (February 15, 1228), his annual third penny, as £40 10_s._
10_d._, was allowed to count, for his heirs, towards the payment of his
debts to the Crown.[871] A much later and most important instance is
that of Devon, where Hugh de Courtenay, as the heir of the Earls of
Devon, is found receiving their "third penny" in 8 Edw. III., though not
an earl, a state of things which provoked a protest, a decision against
him, and, eventually, his elevation to comital rank.
[848] _Constitutional History_, i. 139.
[849] _Ibid._, i. 363.
[850] This insured him his participation _pro rata_ in any future
increase ("crementum") of the render.
[851] _Const. Hist._, i. 361.
[852] _Ibid._, p. 113.
[853] We must, further, observe that, of these six, Lewes, of which we
are not told if, or how, its _redditus_ was divided before the Conquest,
and Shrewsbury, of which we are told that the "third penny" of its
redditus went, not to the earl, but to the sheriff ("Tempore Regis E ...
duas partes habebat rex et _vicecomes_ tertiam") are not in point for
the earl's share.
[854] _Exeter_, p. 43 (cf. p. 55).
[855] This passage appears to imply that Dr. Stubbs, who sees in the
"third penny" of the county the perquisite of the earl, would look on
that of the borough as the perquisite of the sheriff. But the latter, as
we have seen, was held, as a rule, by the earl, though occasionally by
the sheriff.
[856] This has been strangely misunderstood by Mr. Eyton in his analysis
of the Staffordshire survey. See my paper in _Domesday Studies_.
[857] _Domesday_, ii. 280, 294. We read of Alan's heir, Conan, in 1156,
"Comiti Conano de tercio denario Comit' ix _li._ et x _sol_" (_Rot.
Pip_, 2 Hen. II., p. 8). It is a singular circumstance that Robert de
Torigny alludes to this under 1171, when, at the death of Conan, "tota
Britannia, et _comitatus de Gippewis_ [Ipswich], et honor Richemundie"
passed to the king,—and still more singular that his latest editor, Mr.
Howlett, identifies "Gippewis" with Guingamp (p. 391).
[858] _Will. Rufus_, i. 40.
[859] _Domesday_, i. 38 _b_, 101, 87 _b_, 186 _b_, 253; ii. 294 _b_.
[860] _Baronia Anglica_, pp. 137, 138.
[861] _Exeter_, p. 55.
[862] _Const. Hist._, i. 139.
[863] The Palatinate of Chester is, of course, anomalous, and does not,
strictly, tell either way.
[864] In the third and fifth years the Earl of Arundel is entered as
receiving the third penny "per breve regis."
[865] _Dialogus de Scaccario_, ii. 17.
[866] _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_, iii. 68.
[867] Gneist is right in insisting on the fact that an earl was only
entitled to the "tertius denarius" in virtue of a distinct grant, but he
fails to grasp the important point that such grant was not made to every
earl as a matter of course, but only as a special favour. He is also, as
we have seen, quite mistaken as to the extent of the third penny (see p.
287).
[868] _Norman Britain_, p. 168.
[869] These figures are taken from the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II., a range
sufficiently wide to establish their permanence. Occasionally, as in the
case of Wilts and Sussex, the "tertius denarius" seems to be omitted for
a year or two, but this does not affect the general result.
[870] Pipe-Roll of John, quoted by Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139).
[871] Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139).]
APPENDIX I.
"VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES."
(See pp. 107, 108.)
Dr. Stubbs writes: "A measure dictated still more distinctly by this
policy may be traced in the list of sheriffs for A.D. 1130. Richard
Basset and Aubrey de Vere, a judge and a royal chamberlain, act as joint
sheriffs in no less than eleven counties; Geoffrey de Clinton, Miles of
Gloucester, William of Pont l'Arche, the treasurer, are also sheriffs as
well as justices of the king's court" (i. 892). But this statement
requires a certain qualification. For though they appear as sheriffs
(_vicecomites_) on the Roll, and have been always so reckoned, we gather
from one passage in the record that they were, strictly speaking, not
_vicecomites_, but _custodes_. The difference is this. By the former a
county was held _ad firmam_; by the latter it was held _in custodia_. In
the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) the distinction is clearly recognized. We
there find the expressions used: "sive eos tenuerint ad firmam, sive in
custodia." By the true sheriff (_vicecomes_) the county was, in fact,
leased. He, as its farmer (_firmarius_), was responsible for its annual
rent (_firma_). It was thus, virtually, a speculation of his own, and
the profit, if any, was his. But by a process exactly analogous to that
of a modern landlord taking an estate into his own hands, and farming it
himself through a bailiff, the king could, under special circumstances,
take a county into his own hands, and farm it himself through a bailiff
(_custos_). Henry II., in his twentieth year, did this with London,
putting in his own _custodes_ in the place of the regular sheriffs, and,
in later days, Henry III. and Edward I. did the same. It was this, I
contend, that Henry I. had done with the counties in question. The proof
of it is found in this passage:—
"Ricardus basset et Albericus de Ver reddunt Compotum de M marcis
argenti de superplus Comitatuum, quas habent _in custodia_" (p. 63).
Here we have the very same phrase as that in the Inquest of Sheriffs,
while the enormous "superplus" of a thousand marcs must represent the
excess of receipts over the amount required for the _firmæ_, which
excess, the counties being "in custodia," fell to the share of the
Crown. Thus we obtain the right explanation of the employment in this
capacity of royal officers, and we further get a glimpse, which we would
not lose, of one of those administrative changes which, as under
Henry II., tell of a system of government as yet empirical and imperfect.
It is clear that this measure was no mere development, but a sudden and
unforeseen step. For in the case of Essex, the scene of our story,
William de Eynsford ("Æinesford"), a Kentish landowner, had leased the
county for five years, from Michaelmas, 1128, the consideration he paid
for his lease being a hundred marcs (£66 13_s._ 4_d._). Early in the
second year of his lease, that is between Michaelmas, 1129, and Easter,
1130, he must have been superseded by the royal _custodes_, on the king
taking the county into his own hands. He, however, received
"compensation for disturbance," four-fifths of his hundred marcs ("de
Gersoma") being remitted to him in consideration of his losing four out
of his five years' lease. All this we learn from the brief record in the
Roll (p. 63).
Another point that should be here noticed is the use of the term
"Gersoma." Retrospectively, its use in this Roll illustrates its use in
Domesday. In those cases, where a _firmarius_ was willing, as a
speculation, to give for an estate more than its fixed rental (_firma_),
he gave the excess "de Gersoma," either in the form of a lump sum, or in
that of an annual payment.
APPENDIX J.
THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS.
(See p. 116.)
There yet remains one point, in connection with this remarkable charter,
perhaps the most striking, certainly the most novel, of all. This is
that of the seal. According to the transcript in the Ashmole MSS., the
legend "in circumferentia sigillo" was this: "Matildis Imperatrix Rom'
et Regina Angliæ."
Now, that any such seal was designed for the Empress has never been
suspected by any historian. We cannot, on a question of royal seals,
appeal to a higher or more recognized authority than Mr. Walter de Gray
Birch. He has written as follows on the subject:—
"The type of seal of the empress which is invariably fixed to every
document among this collection that bears a seal is that used by her in
Germany as 'Queen of the Romans.'... From this date (1106) to that of
her death, which took place on the 16th of December, A.D. 1167, long
after the solution of the troubles of the years 1140-1142 in England,
she was accustomed to use this seal, and this only. It has never been
suggested by any writer upon the historic seals of England that
Mathildis employed any Great Seal as Queen of England, made after the
conventional characteristics which obtain in the Great Seals of
Stephen, her predecessor, or of her son, King Henry II. The troubled
state of this country, the uncertain movements of the lady, the
unsettled confidence of the people, and the consequent inability of
attending to such a matter as the engraving of a Great Seal—a work, it
must be borne in mind, involving some time and care—are, when taken
together, more than sufficient causes to account for the continued
usage of this type; although we may fairly presume that it was intended
to supersede this foreign seal with one more consentaneously in keeping
with English tradition."[872]
The seal to which Mr. Birch refers bore the legend "Mathildis dei Gratia
Romanorum regina."
The question, of course, at once arises as to the amount of reliance
that can be placed on the above transcriber's note. For my part, while
fully admitting the right to reject such evidence, I cannot believe that
any transcriber would for his own private gratification have forged such
a legend, which he could not hope to foist upon the world, if it were
indeed a forgery, since a reference to the original would at once expose
him.[873] And it is quite certain that we cannot account for it by any
misreading, however gross. A comparison of the two legends will put this
out of the question:—
MATHILDIS DEI GRATIA ROMANORUM REGINA.
MATILDIS IMPERATRIX ROM' ET REGINA ANGLIÆ.
If we accept the fact, and believe the legend genuine, the first point
to strike us is the substitution of "_Imperatrix_" for "_Regina_
Romanorum."
It is passing strange that Maud should have retained, indeed that she
should ever have possessed, a seal which gave her no higher style than
that of "Queen of the Romans." It is true that at the time of her actual
betrothal (1110), her husband was not, in strictness, "emperor," not
having yet been crowned at Rome; yet the performance of that ceremony a
few months later (April, 1111) made him fully "emperor." At the time
therefore of their marriage and joint coronation (1114), they were, one
would imagine, "emperor" and "empress;" and indeed we read in the
_Lüneburg Chronicle_, "dar makede he se to _keiserinne_." At the same
time, as has been well observed, "matters of phrase and title are never
unimportant, least of all in an age ignorant and superstitiously
antiquarian,"[874] and there must be some good reason for what appears
to be a singular contradiction, though the point is overlooked by Mr.
Birch. Two explanations suggest themselves. The one is that while Henry
was fully and strictly "emperor," having been duly crowned at Rome, his
wife, having only been crowned in Germany (1114), was not entitled to
the style of "empress," but only to that of "Queen of the Romans." As
against this, it would seem impossible that the wife of a crowned
emperor can have been anything but an empress. Moreover, from the
pleadings of her advocate at Rome, in 1136 (see p. 257 _n._), we learn
incidentally that she had duly been "anointed to empress." The only
other explanation is that her seal had been engraved in 1110—when the
emperor was, as I have shown, only "Rex Romanorum"—and had not been
altered since.
It is important to remember that a seal is evidence of formal style, and
not of current phraseology. In spite of the efforts of Messrs. Bryce and
Freeman to insist on accuracy in the matter, it is certain that at the
time of which I write a most loose usage prevailed. Thus William of
Malmesbury, although he specially records the solemn coronation of
Henry V. as "Imperator Romanorum," at Rome in 1111, speaks of him as
"Imperator Alemanniæ," or "Imperator Alemannorum," both before and after
that event. This circumstance is the more notable, because I cannot find
that style recognized in Mr. Bryce's work, where the terms
"German Emperor" and "Emperor of Germany" are treated as recent
corruptions.[875] Its common use in the twelfth century is shown by the
scene, in the next reign, between Herbert of Bosham and the king (May 1,
1166), when the latter takes the former to task for speaking of
Frederick as "King," not as "Emperor" _of the Germans_. Had Henry
enjoyed the advantage of sitting under our own professors, he would have
insisted on Frederick being styled Emperor _of the Romans_; but as he
lived in the twelfth century, he employed, to the annoyance of modern
pedants, the current language of his day.[876]
It was natural and fitting that, the legend on her seal being at
variance with her style, the Empress should embrace the opportunity
afforded, by the making of a wholly new seal, to bring the two into
harmony.
The next point is the adoption of the form "Angliæ," not "Anglorum."
This, at first sight, seemed suspicious. For though the abbreviation
found in charters ("Angl'") might stand for "Anglorum" or for "Angliæ,"
the legend on the seal of Stephen, as on that of Henry I., contains the
form "Anglorum;" and Matilda styled herself in her charters "Anglorum"
(not "Anglie) Domina." But the remarkable fact that both the queens of
Henry I. bore on their seals the legend "Sigillum ... Reginæ Ang_lie_"
led me to the conclusion that, so far from impugning, this form actually
confirmed the genuineness of the alleged legend.
It will doubtless be asked why this seal should have been affixed, so
far as we know, to this charter alone. But it is precisely this that
gives it so great an interest. For this is the only known instance of an
original charter, still surviving, belonging to the brief but eventful
period of the Empress's stay at Westminster on the eve of her intended
coronation.[877] It may safely be presumed that a Great Seal was made in
readiness for this event, and that its legend would necessarily include
the style of "Queen of England." The Empress, in at least two of her
charters, had already, though irregularly, assumed this style,[878] and
was clearly eager to adopt it. As to her retention of her foreign style
on her seal as an English sovereign, it might be suggested that she
clung to the loftiest style of all[879] from that haughty pride which
was to prove fatal to her claims; but it is more likely that she found
it needful to distinguish thus her style from that of her rival's queen.
For by a singular coincidence, they would both have had, in the ordinary
course, upon their seals precisely the same legend, viz. "Mathildis dei
gratia Regina Anglie."[880]
We may then, I think, thus account for the presence of this seal at
Westminster, and for its use, with characteristic eagerness, by the
Empress on this occasion. We may also no less satisfactorily account for
the fact that it was never used again. For this, indeed, the events that
followed the fall of the Empress from her high estate, and the virtual
collapse of her hopes, may be held sufficiently to account. But it is
quite possible that in the headlong flight of the Empress and her
followers from Westminster, the Great Seal may have fallen, with the
rest of her abandoned treasure, into the hands of her triumphant foes.
[872] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 381.
[873] This transcript was taken before the fire in which the charter was
so badly injured.
[874] Bryce's _Holy Roman Empire_.
[875] P. 317 (3rd edition).
[876] "_Rex._ Quare in nomine dignitatis derogas ei, non vocans eum
imperatorem Alemannorum? _Herbertus._ Rex est Alemannorum; sed ubi
scribit, scribit 'Imperator Romanorum, semper Augustus'" (_Becket
Memorials_, iii. 100, 101).
[877] The two other charters which belong (certainly) to this visit are
known to us only from transcripts.
[878] "M. Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Angl[ie] regina."
[879] We must remember the then supreme position and lofty pretensions
of "the Emperor."
[880] Original charters of Stephen's queen are so extremely rare, that
we know but little of her seal. Transcripts, however, of two fine
charters of hers, formerly in the Cottonian collection, will be found in
_Add. MS._ 22,641 (fols. 29, 31), and to one of them is appended a
sketch of the seal, the first half of the legend being "Matildis Dei
Gratia," and the second being lost.
APPENDIX K.
GERVASE DE CORNHILL.
(See p. 121.)
Few discoveries, in the course of these researches, have afforded me
more satisfaction and pleasure than that of the origin of Gervase de
Cornhill, the founder of an eminent and wealthy house, and himself a
great City magnate who played, we shall find, no small part in the
affairs of an eventful time.
The peculiar interest of the story lies in the light it throws on the
close amalgamation of the Normans and the English, even in the days of
Henry I., thereby affording a perfect illustration of the well-known
passage in the _Dialogus_:—
"Jam cohabitantibus Anglicis et Normannis, et alterutrum uxores
ducentibus vel nubentibus, sic permixtæ sunt nationes, ut vix discerni
possit hodie, de liberis loquor, quis Anglicus, quis Normannus sit
genere."[881]
It also affords us a welcome glimpse of the territorial aristocracy of
the City, as yet its ruling class.
It has hitherto been supposed, as in Foss's work, that Gervase de
Cornhill first appears in 1155-56 (2 Hen. II.), in which year he figures
on the Pipe-Roll as one of the sheriffs of London. I propose to show
that he first appears a quarter of a century before, and so to bridge
over Stephen's reign, and to connect the Pipe-Roll of Henry I. with the
earliest Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. The problem before us is this. We have
to identify the "Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti," who figures
prominently on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.), with "Gervase,
Justiciary of London," who meets us twice under Stephen, with "Gervase"
who was one of the sheriffs of London in 1155 and 1156, and with Gervase
de Cornhill, whose name occurs at least twice under Stephen, and
innumerable times under Henry II., both in a public and private capacity.
Let us first identify Gervase de Cornhill with Gervase, the Justiciary
of London. The latter personage occurs once in the legend on the seal
affixed to "a 'star' with Hebrew words," which reads, "Sigillum Gervas'
justitia' Londoniar';"[882] and once in a charter which confirms this
legend, dealing, as it does, with a grant: "Gervasio Justic' de
Lond'."[883] But the land (in Gamlingay) granted to "Gervase, Justiciary
of London," is entered in a survey of the reign of John as held by "the
heirs of Gervase _de Cornhill_" (see p. 121). Similarly, the land
mortgaged in the former transaction to "Gervase, Justiciary of London,"
is afterwards found in possession of Henry, son and heir of Gervase _de
Cornhill_. Thus is established the identity of the two.
The identity of the Gervase who thus flourished in the reigns of Stephen
and Henry II. with the Gervase fitz Roger of 1130 must next occupy our
attention. Here are the entries relating to the latter:—
"Radulfus filius Ebrardi debet cc marcas argenti pro placitis pecunie
Rogeri nepotis Huberti."
"Andreas bucca uncta reddit compotum de lxiiij libris et vii solidis et
viiij denariis pro xx libratis terre de terra Rogeri nepotis Huberti."
"Johannes filius Radulfi filii Ebrardi et Robertus frater suus reddunt
Compotum de DCCCC et ij marcis argenti iiij denarios minus de debitis
Gervasii filii Rogeri pro totâ terrâ patris sui exceptis xx libratis
terræ quas rex retinuit ad opus Andr' bucca uncta.... Et Idem debent
iij marcas auri pro concessione terrarum quas Gervasius eis dedit."
"Ingenolda uxor Rogeri Nepotis Huberti debet ij marcas auri ut habeat
maritagium et dotem et res suas."
"Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti debet vj libras et xii solidos
et vj denarios de debitis patris sui."
"Robertus filius Radufi et Johannes frater ejus reddunt Compotum de iij
marcis auri ut rex concederet eis vadimonium et terras quas Gervasius
eis concessit."[884]
These entries are explained by the charter subjoined, which shows how
John and Robert came to have charge of the estate:—
"H. rex Angl[orum] Vic' Lund' et omnibus Baronibus et Vicecomitibus in
quorum Bailiis Gervasius filius Rogeri terram habet salutem. Precipio
quod Gervasius filius Rogeri sit saisitus et tenens de omnibus terris
et rebus patris sui sicut pater ejus erat die quo movit ire ad
Jerosolimam.... Et ipse et tota terra sua interim sint in custodia et
saisina Johannis et Roberti filiorum Radulfi.... T. Comite Gloecestrie.
Apud West'."[885]
John fitz Ralph (fitz Ebrard) was another London magnate, who was more
or less connected with Gervase throughout his career. He is found with
him at St. Albans, late in Stephen's reign, witnessing a charter of the
king;[886] and the two men, as "Gervase and John," were joint sheriffs
of London in 2 Hen. II. He is also the first witness to one of Gervase's
charters after his brother Alan.[887]
We further find Gervase fitz Roger excused (in the Pipe-Roll of 1130)
the payment of two shillings "de veteri Danegeldo" (? 1127-28) in
Middlesex, and seven shillings "de preterito Danegeldo" (1128-29)
because his land is "waste."[888] The inference to be drawn from all
these passages is that Gervase had then (1130) recently succeeded his
father, a man of unusual wealth and considerable property in land. We
should therefore expect to find him, in his turn, a man of some
importance, as was our own Gervase the Justiciar (_alias_ Gervase de
Cornhill), the only Gervase who meets us as a man of any consequence.
Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on mere inference. The manor
of Chalk was granted by the Crown to Roger "nepos Huberti;"[889] it was
subsequently regranted to Gervase de Cornhill,[890] whom I identify with
Gervase his son. Moreover, the adoption by Gervase of the surname "de
Cornhill" can, as it happens, be accounted for. Among the records of the
duchy of Lancaster is a grant by William, Archbishop of Canterbury
(1123-1136), of land at "Eadintune" to Gervase and Agnes his wife, Agnes
being described as daughter of "Godeleve."[891] By the aid of another
document relating to the same property,[892] we identify this "Godeleve"
as the wife of Edward de Cornhill. To the eye of a trained genealogist
all is thus made clear.
But we now find ourselves in the midst of a most interesting family
connection. For these same records carry us back to the father of this
"Godeleve," namely, Edward of Southwark.[893] It is true that here he
figures merely as a "æ. desudwerc," but we have only to turn to another
quarter, and there we find "Edwardo de Suthwerke et Willelmo filio ejus"
among the leading witnesses to the invaluable document recording the
surrender by the English Cnihtengild of their soke to the priory of
Christchurch (1125).[894] I need scarcely lay stress on the interest and
importance of everything bearing on that remarkable and as yet
mysterious institution. We find ourselves now brought into actual
contact with the gild. For in one of its members, as named in that
document, "Edwardus Hupcornhill," we recognize no other than that
"Edward of Cornhill" who was son-in-law to "Edward of Southwark."[895]
Following up our man in yet another quarter, we find him witnessing a
London deed (_temp._ William the Dean),[896] and another one of about
the middle of the reign of Henry I.,[897] though wrongly assigned in the
(Hist. MSS.) Report to "about 1127."[898] Lastly, turning to still
another quarter, we find his name among those of the witnesses to an
agreement between Ramsey Abbey and the priory of Christchurch soon after
1125.[899]
We are now in a position to construct this remarkable pedigree:—
Edward of Southwark,
living 1125.
|
+---+---------+
| |
"Ingenolda," = Roger Edward = Godeleve. William,
living 1130. | "nepos de Cornhill,| living 1125.
| Huberti." living 1125.|
| |
| +----------+
| |
Gervase = Agnes
Fitz Roger de Cornhill,
(afterwards married
Gervase de before 1136.
Cornhill).
I say that this is a remarkable pedigree because, from the dates, Edward
of Southwark must have been born within a very few years of the
Conquest, and also because we can feel sure, in the case both of him and
of his son-in-law, that we are dealing with men of the old stock,
connected with the venerable gild of English "Cnihts." But it further
shows us how the elder of the two bestowed on his English son the name
of the Norman Conqueror, and how the Norman settlers intermarried with
the English stock.
Let us now return to the father of Gervase, Roger "nepos Huberti." Here,
again, there come to our help the records of the duchy of Lancaster.
Among them are two royal charters, the first of which grants to Roger
the manor of Chalk, in Kent,[900] while the second was consequent on his
death,[901] and should be read in connection with the above extracts
from the Pipe-Roll of 1130. This charter has a special interest from its
mention of the fact that Roger had gone "ad Jerosolima." We may infer
from this that he had died on pilgrimage.[902] As Gervase inherited from
his father so large an estate, Roger must have been, in his day, a man
of some consequence. It is, therefore, rather strange that his name does
not occur in the report on the muniments of St. Paul's, nor in any other
quarter to which I have been able to refer. Luckily, however, Stow has
preserved for us the gist of a document which he had seen, when he tells
us that on the grant of their soke, in 1125, by the Cnihtengild—
"The king sent also his sheriffs, to wit Aubrey de Vere and _Roger
nephew to Hubert_, which (upon his behalf) should invest this church
with the possessions thereof; which the said sheriffs accomplished,
coming upon the ground, Andrew Buchevite[903] and the forenamed
witnesses and others standing by."[904]
If we can trust to this passage, as I believe we certainly can, our
Roger was a sheriff of London in 1125. This makes it highly probable
that he was identical with the "Roger" named in a document addressed, a
few years earlier:—
"Hugoni de Bocheland, _Rogero_, Leofstano, Ordgaro, et omnibus aliis
baronibus Lundoniæ."[905]
I do not know of any other Roger who is likely to have been thus
addressed.
We are given by Gervase de Cornhill a further clue as to his parentage
in a charter of his, under Henry II., in which he mentions Ralph fitz
Herlwin as his uncle ("avunculus"). Ralph fitz Herlwin was in 1130
joint-Sheriff of London.[906] This clue, therefore, is worth following
up. Now, Ralph must either have been a brother of the father or of the
mother of Gervase. It is highly improbable that Ralph "filius Herlwini"
was a brother of Roger "nepos Huberti," each of the two being always
mentioned by the same distinctive suffix. It may, therefore, be presumed
that Ralph was brother to Roger's wife. Now, we happen to have two
documents which greatly concern this Ralph and his son, and which belong
to one transaction, although they figure widely apart in the report on
the muniments of St. Paul's.[907] Nicholas, son of Ælfgar, parish priest
of the church of St. Michael's, Cheap, a living which, like his father
before him, he held at lease from St. Paul's, exercised his right to the
next presentation in favour of a son of Ralph fitz Herlwin, who had
married his niece Mary. From the evidence now in our possession, we may
construct this pedigree:—
"Algar Colessune,"[908] "Herlwin."
priest of St.Michael's, |
Cheap. |
| |
+-------+------+ +-------------+-------+------+-----
| | | | |
Nicolas, [dau.] = Baldwin Ralph William Herlwin
priest of | de Arras. fitz fitz fitz
St. Michael's, | Herlwin, Herlwin,[909] Herlwin,
Cheap. | joint-sheriff living 1130. living 1130.
| in 1130. [909]
| |
| +------+----+------------+
| | | |
Mary = Robert William. Herlwin.
fitz Ralph,
inherited the
living of
St. Michael's
from his
wife's uncle.
"Herlwin."
|
|
|
---+------------+
|
"Ingenolda."[910] = Roger "nepos
| Huberti,"
| joint-sheriff,
| 1125.
+-+----------+
| |
Agnes = Gervase Alan,
de Cornhill, | (nephew to Ralph brother
dau. of Edward | fitz Herlwin), to
de Cornhill. | joint-Sheriff of Gervase.
| London, 1155-56. .
+--------------+--------------+ .
| | | .
Alice[911] = Henry de Reginald Ralph Roger
de Courci, | Cornhill, de Cornhill, de Cornhill. fitz
heiress of | Sheriff of Sheriff of Alan.
the English | London and Kent.
De Courcis, | of Kent and |
afterwards | of Surrey. |
wife of Warin | |
fitz Gerold. | +--------------+
| |
Joan de = Hugh de Nevill, Reginald de
Cornhill. Forester of England. Cornhill, junior.
It will have been noticed that in this pedigree I assign to Gervase a
brother Alan. I do so on the strength of a charter of Archbishop
Theobald, late in the reign of Stephen, to Holy Trinity, witnessed
_inter alios_ by "Gervasio de Cornhill et Alano fratre ejus,"[912] also
of a charter I have seen (Duchy of Lanc., _Cart. Misc._, ii. 57), in
which the first witness to a charter of Gervase is Alan, his brother.
The "Roger fitz Alan" for whom I suggest an affiliation to this Alan
occurs among the witnesses to a grant made by Ralph, and witnessed by
Reginald de Cornhill.[913] This suggests such paternity, and his name,
Roger, would then be derived from Roger, his paternal grandfather. We
have here, at least, another clue which ought to be followed up, for
Roger fitz Alan is repeatedly found among the leading witnesses to
London documents of the close of the twelfth and beginning of the
thirteenth centuries, his career culminating in his appointment as mayor
on the death of the well-known "Henry fitz Ailwin" in 1212.[914]
The fact that Gervase and Alan were brothers tempts one to recognize in
them the "Alanus juvenis et Gervasius fratres," who witness a grant to
(their cousin) Robert fitz Ralph fitz Herlwin,[915] and the "Alanus
juvenis" and "Gervasius frater Alani" of a similar document.[916] But,
unluckily, we find this same Alan elsewhere styled "Alanus filius
_Huberti_ juvenis."[917] Possibly they were sons of that Hubert to whom
his father was "nepos." But the question, for the present, must be left
in doubt.
Both Gervase de Cornhill and Henry his son appear, it may be added, from
the evidence of charters, to have lent money on mortgage, and to have
acquired landed property by foreclosing. A curious allusion to the
mercantile origin and the profitable money-lending transactions of
Geoffrey is found in a sneer of Becket's biographer, when, as Sheriff of
Kent, he opposed the primate's landing.[918] The contemporary allusion
to such pursuits, in the _Dialogus_, breathes the same scornful spirit
for the trader and all his works.[919] Gervase, I think, may have been
that "Gervase" who, at the head of the citizens of London, met Henry II.
in 1174 (_Fantosme_, l. 1941); he would seem to have lived on till 1183,
and was probably, at his death, between seventy and seventy-five years
old. Among his descendants were a Dean of St. Paul's (1243-1254) and a
Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1215-1223).
[881] _Dialogus_, i. 10.
[882] Such is the reading given by Anstis, who saw this star among the
duchy records. It is greatly to be hoped that it may still be found.
Anstis describes the device as "a Lyon."
[883] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 22.
[884] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., pp. 144, 145, 147-149. Compare the clause
in Henry's charter guaranteeing to the citizens "terras suas et
vadimonia." Here the possession has to be paid for.
[885] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 8.
[886] "Gervasio de Corn ..., Johanne filio Radulfi" (Madox's
_Formularium_, 293).
[887] Duchy of Lancaster: _Cart. Misc._, ii. 57.
[888] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., pp. 150, 151.
[889] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 3.
[890] _Ibid._, No. 26 (see Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient Charters_, p.
66).
[891] Grants in boxes, A., No. 156.
[892] _Ibid._, 154.
[893] "Ego Radulfus Archiepiscopus [1114-1122] concedo Æadwardo de
Cornhelle et uxori ejus Godelif et hæredibus suis terram de Eadintune
... quam æ. desudwerc dedit cum filia sua æ. de Cornhelle" (_ibid._,
154). We have here an instance of the caution with which official
calendars should be used. In the official abstract of the above record
(_Thirty-fifth Report of Dep. Keeper_, p. 15), the above words are
rendered, "with his daughter æ. de Cornhelle," the dative being taken
for an ablative, and the wife transformed into her husband!
[894] _London and Middlesex Arch. Journ._, v. 477.
[895] The curious form "Hupcornhill" should, of course, be noted. I have
met with a similar form at Colchester, where the name "Opethewalle,"
which has been supposed to have been connected with the town wall,
occurs earlier (under Edward I.) as "Opethehelle," _i.e._ up the hill.
The idiom still survives in such forms as "up town" and "up the street."
It probably accounts for the strange name, "Hoppeoverhumber," _i.e._ a
man who came from "up beyond the Humber" (cf. for aspirate "Huppelanda
de Berchamstede").
[896] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 61 _b_.
[897] _Ibid._, p. 66 _a_.
[898] _Ibid._, p. 31 _b_. It is certainly earlier than 1120, when Otuel
fitz Count (the leading witness) was drowned, and probably earlier than
the spring of 1116.
[899] Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient Charters_, p. 26 (Eadwardus de
Corhulle).
[900] Royal Charters, No. 3. This charter must belong to the years
1116-1120.
[901] _Ibid._, No. 8 (see p. 305).
[902] This has a curious bearing on the legend that Gilbert Becket, the
primate's father, had journeyed to Palestine, as showing that this was
actually done by a contemporary City magnate.
[903] This name should be Andrew Buccuinte (Bucca uncta).
[904] Strype's _Stow_, ii. 4.
[905] _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 130. The date there assigned is 1114-1130,
but Hugh de Bocland appears to have died several years before 1130.
[906] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, p. 149.
[907] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. pp. 20 _a_, 64 _a_.
[908] The form of this surname should be noted as illustrating the
practice of abbreviation. The name of Ælfgar's father must have been
Colswegen, or some other compound of "Col—"
[909] See Pipe-Roll of 1130.
[910] This involves a double supposition: (_a_) that "Ingenolda," who is
proved to have been the widow of Roger, was the mother of his son
Gervase; (_b_) that Ralph fitz Herlwin was brother to the mother, not
the father, of Gervase. These assumptions seem tolerably certain, but,
at present, they can only be provisionally accepted.
[911] For this descent see Stapleton's preface to the _Liber de Antiquis
Legibus_ (Cam. Soc.).
[912] From a MS. note of Dugdale (L. 41, dors.).
[913] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 52 _b_.
[914] This, it must be well understood, is thrown out merely as a
suggestion.
[915] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 64 _a_.
[916] _Ibid._, 66 _b_.
[917] _Ibid._, 20 _a_.
[918] "Cujus jurisdictioni Cantia subjiciebatur, plus besses et
centesimas usuras quam bonum et æquum attendens" (_Becket Memorials_,
iii. 100).
[919] "Quod si forte miles aliquis vel liber alius a sui status
dignitate, quod absit, degenerans, multiplicandis denariis per publica
mercimonia, vel per turpissimum genus quæstus, hoc est per fœnus
extiterit.... Hiis similis qui multiplicant quocunque modo rem." Compare
_Quadripartitus: ein Englisches Rechtsbuch von 1114_ (ed. Liebermann):
"qui, vera morum generositate carentes et honesta prosapia, longo
nummorum stemmate gloriantur, ... qui vetitum pecunie fenus exercent,
... miseram pecunie stipem, pauperum lacrimis et anxietatibus
cruentatam, omni veritatis et justicie sanctioni mentes perdite
prefecerunt et id solum sapientiam reputant quod eis obtatum pecunie
fenus quibuscunque machinationibus insusurrat" (Dedicatio, § 16, § 33).
Compare also with these Cicero (_De Officiis_, i. 42): "Jam de
artificiis et quæstibus, qui liberales habendi, qui sordidi sint, hæc
præaccepimus. Primum improbantur ii quæstus qui in odia hominum
incurrunt, ut portitorum, ut feneratorum.... Sordidi etiam putandi qui
mercantur a mercatoribus quod statim vendant. Nihil enim proficiunt nisi
admodum mentiantur."
APPENDIX L.
CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP.
(See p. 124.)
As this important charter has never, I believe, been printed, I have
taken the present opportunity of publishing it _in extenso_. The grantee
must, at first, have staunchly supported Stephen, for he received in
1139, from the king, a grant of that constableship which Miles of
Gloucester had forfeited on his defection.[920] It is evident, however,
from the terms of this charter that he was jealous of Stephen's
favourite, Gualeran, Count of Meulan, and of the power which the king
had given him at Worcester. The grant of Tamworth also should be
carefully noted, because that portion of the Despencer inheritance had
fallen to the share of Marmion, which suggests that the Beauchamps and
the Marmions were at strife, and that therefore, in this struggle, they
embraced opposite sides. An intermarriage between Robert Marmion and
Maud de Beauchamp was probably, as in other cases, a compromise of the
quarrel.
"M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia et Anglor[um] domina Archiepiscopis
Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justic[iariis] vicecomitibus
ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis tocius Angliæ
salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et reddidisse Willelmo de Bellocampo
hereditario jure Castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota sibi et heredibus
suis ad tenendum de me in capite et heredibus meis. Dedi ei et reddidi
vicecomitatum Wigorn[ie] et forestas cum omnibus appendiciis suis in
feodo et hereditarie per eandem firmam quam pater eius Walterus de
Bellocampo inde reddebat. Et de hoc devenit ipse Willelmus meus ligius
homo contra omnes mortales et nominatim contra Gualerann[um] Comitem de
Mellent et ita quod nec ipse Comes Gualeran[us] nec aliquis alius de
hiis predictis mecum finem faciet quin semper ipse Willelmus de me in
capite teneat nisi ipse bona voluntate et gratuita concessione de
predicto Comite tenere voluerit. Et præter hoc dedi ei et reddidi
castellum et honorem de Tamword ad tenend[um] ita bene et in pace et
quiete et plenarie et honorifice et libere sicut unquam melius et
quietius et plenarius et honorificentius et liberius Robertus
Dispensator frater Ursonis de Abbetot ipsum castellum et honorem
tenuerit. Et eciam dedi ei et reddidi Manerium de Cokeford cum omnibus
appendiciis suis ut rectum suum sine placito. Et cum hoc dedi ei et
reddidi Westonam et Luffenham in Roteland cum omnibus appendiciis suis
ut rectum suum similiter sine placito. Dedi eciam ei et concessi de
cremento lx libratas terræ de perquisitione Angl' pro servicio suo. Et
iterum dedi ei et reddidi conestabulatum quem Urso de Abetot tenuit et
dispensam ita hereditarie sicut Walterus pater ejus eam de patre meo H.
Rege tenuit. Et item dedi ei et concessi terras et hereditates suorum
proximorum parentum qui contra me fuerint in Werra mea et mecum finem
facere non poterunt nisi de sua parentela propinquiore michi in ipsa
Werra servierit. Quare volo et firmiter precipio quod de me et de
quocunque teneat bene et honorifice in pace et hereditarie et libere et
quiete teneat ipse Willelmus et heres suus post eum in bosco in plano
in pratis et pasturis in forestis et fugaciis in percursibus et
exitibus in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et piscariis in stagnis et
mariscis et salinis et viis et semitis in foris et in feriis infra
burgum et extra in civitate et extra et in omnibus locis cum saca et
soka et toll et team et Infangenthef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et
libertatibus et quietudinibus T[estibus] Ep'o Bern[ardo] de S'cto D.,
et Nigello Ep'o de Ely, et Rob[erto] Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et Milon[e]
Com[ite] He[re]ford et Brienc[io] fil[io] Com[itis] et Unfr[ido] de
Buh[un] et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Gilleb[erti] et Walkel[ino] Maminot et
Milon[e] de Belloc[ampo] et Gaufr[edo] de Walt[er]vyll[a] et Steph[ano]
de Belloc[ampo] et Rob[er]to de Colevill et Isnardo park[?ario]
Gaufr[edo] de Abbetot Gilleb[erto] Arch' Nich[olao] fil[io] Isnardi.
Apud Oxineford."
There can, I think, be little question that this charter passed at
Oxford just after that by which Miles of Gloucester was created Earl of
Hereford (July 25, 1141). It is certainly previous to the Earl of
Gloucester's departure from England in the summer of 1142, and I do not
know of any evidence for the presence of these bishops with the Empress
at Oxford after the rout of Winchester. The names of the eight first
witnesses to this charter are all found in Miles's charter (_Fœdera,
N.E._, i. 14). As to the others, Miles de Beauchamp had held his castle
of Bedford against Stephen (Christmas, 1137), and, though compelled to
surrender it, had regained it on the triumph of the Empress. Stephen de
Beauchamp heads the list of William de Beauchamp's under-tenants in his
_Carta_ (1166), and the Abetots—Heming's "Ursini"—also held of him.
"Isnardus" was a landowner in Worcestershire and witnessed a charter to
Evesham Abbey in 1130.
The text of this charter—which is taken from the Beauchamp Cartulary
(_Add. MSS._, 28,024, fol. 126 _b_), a most precious volume, of which
the existence is little known—is perhaps corrupt in places, but the
document affords several points of considerable interest. Among them are
the formula "dedi et reddidi" applied to the grantee's previous
possessions, as contrasted with the "dedi et concessi" of the new grant
(60 "librates" of land) and of the grant of his relatives' inheritance;
the reference to the hereditary shrievalty of Worcester; the allusion to
Tamworth Castle as the head of its "honour" (as at Arundel); and the
phrase "de hoc devenit ... meus ligius homo contra omnes mortales," to
be compared with "pro hiis ... devenit homo noster ligius contra omnes
homines" in the charter (1144) to Humfrey de Bohun (Pipe-Roll Society:
_Ancient Charters_, p. 46), and the "homagium suum fecit ligie contra
omnes homines" in the charter to Miles of Gloucester (see p. 56). The
statement that active opponents of the Empress were precluded from
compounding for their offence, except by special intervention, occurs, I
think, here alone. The facts that Urse de Abetot was a constable and
Walter de Beauchamp an hereditary "Dispenser" are also noteworthy, the
latter bearing on the question of the succession to Robert "Dispensator"
(see my remarks in _Ancient Charters_, p. 2).
[920] See Appendix F.
APPENDIX M.
THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL.
(See p. 146.)
It is difficult to overrate the importance of the Canterbury charter to
Geoffrey in its bearing on the origin and nature of this far-famed
earldom. For centuries, antiquaries and lawyers have wrangled over this
dignity, the premier earldom of England, but its true character and
history have remained an unsolved enigma.
The popular belief that the dignity is "an earldom by tenure" and is
annexed to the possession of Arundel Castle, is based on the petitions
of John fitz Alan in 11 Hen. IV. and of Thomas Howard in 3 Car. I. This
view would be strenuously upheld, of course, by the possessors of the
castle, but neither their own _ex parte_ statements, nor even the tacit
admission of them by the Crown, can override the facts of the case as
established by the evidence of history. The problem is for us, it should
be added, of merely historical interest, as the dignity is now, and has
been since 1627, held under a special parliamentary entail created in
that year.
Even the warmest advocates of the "earldom by tenure" theory would admit
that such an anomaly was absolutely unique of its kind. The _onus_ of
proving the fact must therefore rest on them, and the presumption, to
put it mildly, is completely against them, for I do not hesitate to say
that to a student of the dignity of an earl the proposition they ask us
to accept is more than impossible: it is ludicrous.
Tierney endeavoured, with some skill, to rebut the arguments of Lord
Redesdale in the _Reports of the Lords' Committee_, but the advance of
historical research leaves them both behind. The latest words on the
subject have been spoken by Mr. Pym Yeatman, the confidence of whose
assertions and the size of whose work[921] might convey the erroneous
impression that he had solved this ancient riddle. I shall therefore
here examine his arguments in some detail, and, having disposed of his
theories, shall then discuss the facts.
An enthusiastic champion of the "earldom by tenure" theory, Mr. Yeatman
has further advanced a view which is quite peculiar to himself. So far
as this view can be understood, it "dimidiates" the first earl (d.
1176), and converts him into two, viz. a father who died about 1156, and
a son who died in 1176. This is first described as "certain" (p.
281),[922] then as "probable" (p. 288),[923] lastly, as "possible" (p.
285).[924] But when we look for the foundation of the theory, and for
evidence that the first earl died in 1156, we only read, to our
confusion, that the doings of the Becket earl are "possibly" to be
attributed to "his [the first earl's] son, and we must come to that
conclusion, if we believe the only evidence we possess in relation to
the death of his father in 1156; at any rate, before it is rejected some
reason should be shown for doing so." Yet the only scrap of "evidence"
given us is the incidental remark (p. 283) that "the year 1156 is
usually assigned as that of the death of the first Earl of Arundel."
Now, this is directly contrary to fact. For Mr. Yeatman himself tells us
that Dugdale's is "the generally received account" (p. 282), and
Dugdale, like every one else, kills the first earl in 1176.[925] Again,
it is "very certain," we learn, that the Earl of Arundel "died the 3rd
(_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 281), while "Diceto is the authority for
the statement that William Albini, Earl of Arundel, died the 17th
(_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 285), the actual words of the chronicler
being given as "iv. die Octobus" (_sic_). Now, all three dates, as a
matter of fact, are wrong, though this is only introduced to show how
the laborious researches of the author are marred by a carelessness
which is fatal to his work.
Let us now turn to this argument:—
"The foundation charter of Bungay, in Suffolk, contains the first entry
known to the author of the title of Earl of Sussex. It was founded in
1160 by Roger de Glanville.... This charter seems to confirm the
statement that the first Earl of Arundel died about 1156. If not, he
too was styled Earl of Sussex. It disposes as well of the theory that
the first (_sic_) Earl of Arundel was so created[926] in 1176" (p. 284).
This argument is based on the fact that the house was "founded in 1160."
The _Monasticon_ editors indeed say that this was "about" the date, but,
unluckily, a moment's examination of the list of witnesses to the
charter shows that its date must be much later,[927] while Mr. Eyton
unhesitatingly assigns it to 1188. All the above argument, therefore,
falls to the ground.
Another point on which the author insists as of great importance is that
the first earl was never Earl of _Sussex_:—
"The first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he
bear that title.... His son was the first Earl of Sussex, and he would
certainly have given his father the higher title if he ever bore it.
Yet in confirming his charter to Wymondham, William, Earl of Sussex,
confirms the grants of his ... father, William, the venerable Earl of
Arundel.... An earl could not call himself the earl of a county unless
he had a grant of it, and of this, with respect to the husband of Queen
Adeliza, there is no evidence" (p. 282).
"That his son was called Earl of Sussex, and that he was the first
earl, is equally clear" (p. 282).
"The chartulary of the Abbey of Buckenham, which the first Earl of
Arundel founded, preserves the distinction in the titles of himself and
his son and successor already insisted upon. It was founded _tempe_
Stephen, and the founder is styled William, Count of Chichester.
William, Count of Sussex, confirms the charter" (p. 284).
But on the very next page he demolishes his own argument by quoting
Hoveden to the effect that "Willielmus (_sic_) de Albineio filio
Willielmi Comitis de _Arundel_ [Rex] dedit comitatum de _Southsex_." For
here his own rule would require that if the late earl was, as he admits,
Earl of _Sussex_, he would not be described as Earl of _Arundel_.[928]
But, in any case, the still existing charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville
(1141), which the earl attests as "Earl of Sussex" (evidence which does
not stand alone), is absolutely conclusive on the subject, and simply
annihilates Mr. Yeatman's attempts to deny to the husband of Queen
Adeliza the possession of that title.
With this there falls to the ground the argument based on that denial,
viz.:—
"There is another argument which appears to have been lost sight of,
which proves distinctly that there was (_sic_) at least five earls, and
probably six, of the name of William de Albini. The record of the 12
Henry III. which was made after the last earl of that name was dead
three years proves that there were four Earls of Sussex.... Now, the
first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he bear
that title," etc. (p. 282).
The above argument that the record in question proves the existence of
_five_, not of four, earls thus falls to the ground. But this is by no
means all. Mr. Yeatman first asserts (p. 281 _a_) that there were five
Albini Earls of Arundel in all, "if indeed there were not six of them."
Deducting the last earl, Hugh de Albini, this leaves us _four_ or _five_
Earl Williams in succession. Yet on the very next page he urges it (in
the above passage) as "distinctly proved" that "there was (_sic_) at
least _five_ earls, and probably _six_, of the name of William de
Albini." And, lastly, on p. 284, he announces that "there must have been
_six_"!
We will now dismiss from our minds all that has been written on the
point by Mr. Yeatman and other antiquaries, and turn to the facts of the
case, which are few and beyond dispute. It is absolutely certain, from
the evidence of contemporary chronicles and charters, that the first
Albini earl, the husband of Queen Adeliza, was indifferently styled at
the time (1) Earl of Sussex, (2) Earl of Chichester, (3) Earl of
Arundel, (4) Earl William de Albini. The proofs of user of these styles
are as follows. First, he attests as Earl of Sussex the Canterbury
charter to the Earl of Essex (Christmas, 1141);[929] he also attests as
Earl of Sussex Stephen's charter to Barking Abbey, which may have passed
about the same time. As this charter is of importance for the argument,
I append the full list of witnesses as extracted by me from the Patent
Rolls:—
"Matild[a] Regina & Will[elm]o Comite de Sudsexa, & Will[elm]o
Mart[el], & Adam de Belum, & Rog[ero] de Fraxin[eto] & Reinald[o]
fil[io] Comitis, & Henr[ico] de Novo Mercato, & Ric[ard]o de Valderi, &
Godefrid[o] de Petrivilla, & Warn[erio] de Lusoris, Apud
Berching[es].[930]
Secondly, it is as "Earl of Chichester" that he attests four
charters,[931] one of which is dated 1147, and is confirmed by King
Stephen as the grant "quod Comes Willelmus de _Arundel_ fecit;" it is
also as Earl of Chichester that he appears in the Buckenham foundation
charter,[932] and that he confirms the grants to Boxgrove.[933] As to
the two other styles no question arises.
Thus the case of the earldom of Arundel is one of special interest in
its bearing on the adoption of comital titles. For it affords, according
to the view I have advanced, an example of the use, in a single case, of
all the four possible varieties of an earl's title. These four possible
varieties are those in which the title is taken (1) from the county of
which the bearer is earl, (2) from the capital town of that county, (3)
from the earl's chief residence, (4) from his family name. Strictly
speaking, when an earl was created, it was always (whatever may be
pretended) as the earl of a particular county. The earl and his county
were essentially correlative; nor was it then possible to conceive an
earl unattached to a county. Titles, however, like surnames in that
period of transition, had not yet crystallized into a hard and fast
form, and it was deemed unnecessary, when speaking of an earl, that his
county should always be mentioned. Men spoke of "Earl Geoffrey," or of
"Geoffrey, Earl of Essex," just as they spoke of "King Henry," or of
"Henry, King of the English." If the simple "Earl Geoffrey" was not
sufficiently distinctive, they added his surname, or his residence, or
his county for the purpose of identification. The secondary importance
of this addition is the key to Norman polyonomy. The founder, for
instance, of the house of Clare was known as Richard "Fitz-Gilbert," or
"de Tunbridge," or "de Bienfaite," or "de Clare." The result of this
system, or rather want of system, was, as we might expect, in the case
of earls, that no fixed principle guided the adoption of their styles.
It was indeed a matter of haphazard which of their _cognomina_
prevailed, and survived to form the style by which their descendants
were known. Thus, the Earls of Herts and of Surrey, of Derby and of
Bucks, were usually spoken of by their family names of Clare and of
Warenne, of Ferrers and of Giffard; on the other hand the Earls of
Norfolk and of Essex, of Devon and of Cornwall, were more usually styled
by those of their counties. Where the name of the county was formed from
that of its chief town, the latter, rather than the county itself, was
adopted for the earl's style. Familiar instances are found in the
earldoms of Chester, Gloucester, and Hereford, of Lincoln, of Leicester,
and of Warwick. Rarest, perhaps, are those cases in which the earl took
his style from his chief residence, as the Earls of Pembroke(shire) from
Striguil (Chepstow), and, perhaps, of Wiltshire from Salisbury, though
here the case is a doubtful one, for "de Salisbury" was already the
surname of the family when the earldom was conferred upon it. The Earl
of Gloucester is spoken of by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester
as "Earl of Bristol" (see p. 284), and the Earls of Derby occasionally
as Earls "of Tutbury," but the most remarkable case, of course, is that
of Arundel itself. It was doubtful for a time by which style this
earldom would eventually be known, and "Sussex," under Henry II., seemed
likely to prevail. The eventual adoption of Arundel was, no doubt,
largely due to the importance of that "honour" and of the castle which
formed its "head."
Having now established that the earldom of "Arundel" was from the first
the earldom of a county, and thus similar to every other, one is led to
inquire on what ground there is claimed for it an absolutely unique and
wholly anomalous origin. I reply: on none whatever. There is nothing to
rebut the legitimate assumption that William de Albini was created an
earl in the ordinary course of things. Here, again, the facts of the
case, few and simple though they are, have been so overlaid by
assumption and by theory that it is necessary to state them anew. All
that has been hitherto really known is that Queen Adeliza married
William de Albini between King Henry's death (December, 1135) and the
landing of the Empress in the autumn of 1139, and that her husband
subsequently appears as an earl. The assertion that he became an earl on
his marriage, in virtue of his possession of Arundel Castle, is pure
assumption and nothing else.[934] I have already dwelt on the value of
the Canterbury charter to Geoffrey as evidence not only that William was
Earl "of Sussex," but also that he was already an earl at Christmas,
1141. In that charter I claim to have discovered the earliest
contemporary record mention of this famous earldom.[935] William,
therefore, became an earl between Christmas, 1135, and Christmas, 1141.
This much is certain.
The key to the problem, however, is found in another quarter. The
curious and valuable _Chronicle of the Holy Cross of Waltham_ (_Harl.
MS._, 3776) was the work of one who was acquainted—indeed, too well
acquainted—with the persons and the doings of those two nobles, Geoffrey
de Mandeville and William de Albini. His own neighbourhood became their
battleground, and when William harried Geoffrey's manors, and Geoffrey,
in revenge, fired Waltham, he was among the sufferers himself.[936] The
pictures he draws of these rival magnates are, therefore, of peculiar
interest, and his admiration for Geoffrey is so remarkable, in the face
of the earl's wild deeds, that no apology is needed for quoting the
description in full:—
"E contra Gaufridus iste præcellens multiformi gratia, præcipuus totius
Anglie, militia quidem præclivis, morum venustate præclarus, in
consiliis regis et regni moderamine cunctis præminens, agebat se inter
ceteros quasi unus ex illis, nullius probitatis suæ garrulus, nullius
probitatis sibi collatæ vel dignitatis nimius ostensator, rei suæ
familiaris providus dispensator, omnium virtutum communium quæ tantum
decerent virum affluentia exuberans, si Dei gratiam diligentius
acceptam et ceteris prelatam, diligens executor menti suæ sedulus
imprimeret; novit populus quod non mentior, quem si laudibus extulerim,
meritis ejus assignari potius quam gratiæ nostræ id debere credimus,
verumptamen gratiæ divinæ de cujus munere venit quicquid boni provenit
homini" (cap. 29).
"Tempore igitur incendii supra memorati, dum observaret comes ille
ecclesiam cum multis ne succenderetur, amicissimus ipse et devotus
ecclesiæ, afflictus multo dolore quod periclitarentur res ecclesiæ (non
tamen poterat manentibus illis injuriam sibi illatam vindicare)," etc.
(cap. 31).
As eager to denounce the character of William as to palliate the
excesses of Geoffrey, the chronicler thus sketches the husband of Queen
Adeliza:—
"Seditionis tempore, cum se inæqualiter agerent homines in terra
nostra, et de pari contenderet modicus cum magno, humilis cum summo, et
fide penitus subacta, nullo respectu habito servi ad dominum, sic
vacillaret regnum et regni status miserabili ductore premeretur fere
usque ad exanimationem, e vicino contendebant inter se duo de præcipuis
terræ baronibus, Gaufridus de Mandeville, et Comes de Harundel, quem
post discessum Regis Henrici conjugio Reginæ Adelidis contigit
honorari, unde et superbire et supra se extolli cœpit ultra modum, ut
[non] posset sibi pati parem, et vilesceret in oculis suis quicquid
præcipuum præter regem in se habebat noster mundus. Habebat tunc
temporis Willelmus ille, pincerna, nondum comes, dotem reginæ Waltham,
contiguam terris comitis Gaufridi de Mandeville, impatiens quidem
omnium comprovincialium terras suo dominio non mancipari.[937]
In the words "nondum comes" we find the clue we seek. If the writer had
merely abstained from giving William his title, the value of his
evidence would be slight; but when he goes, as it were, out of his way
to inform us that though William, in virtue of his marriage, was already
in possession of the queen's dower, he was "not yet an earl," he tells
us, in unmistakable language, the very thing that we want to know. It
was probably in order to accentuate his pride that his critic reminds us
that the future earl was as yet only a _pincerna_;[938] but, whatever
the motive, the fact remains, on first-hand evidence, that William was
"not yet an earl" at a time when he possessed his wife's dower, and
consequently Arundel Castle. This fact, hitherto overlooked, is
completely destructive of the time-honoured belief that he acquired the
earldom on, and by, obtaining possession of the castle.
So far, all is clear. But the question is further complicated by William
appearing in two distinct documents as earl, not of Arundel or
Chichester, but of Lincoln! That he held this title is a fact so utterly
unsuspected, and indeed so incredible, that Mr. Eyton, finding him so
styled in a cartulary of Lewes Priory, dismissed the title, without
hesitation, as an obvious error of the scribe.[939] But I have
identified in the Public Record Office the actual charter from which the
scribe worked, and the same style is there employed. Even so, error is
possible; but the evidence does not stand alone. In a cartulary of
Reading[940] we find William confirming, as Earl of Lincoln, a grant
from the queen, his wife, and here again the original charter is there
to prove that the cartulary is right.[941] The early history of the
earldom of Lincoln is already difficult enough without this additional
complication, of which I do not attempt to offer any solution.
But so far as the earldom of "Arundel" is concerned, I claim to have
established its true character, and to have shown that there is nothing
to distinguish it in its origin from the other earldoms of the day. The
erratic notion of "earldom by tenure," held when the strangest views
prevailed as to peerage dignities, was a fallacy of the _post hoc
propter hoc_ kind, based on the long connection of the castle with the
earls. Nor has Mr. Freeman's strange fancy that the holder of this
earldom is "the only one of his class left" any better foundation in
fact.
[921] _The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel_ (1882).
[922] "Very certain it is that William Earl of Arundel died the 3rd
(_sic_) of October, 1176, and equally certain is it that this was the
son of the first earl."
[923] Where the earl of the Becket quarrel is described as "probably his
[the first earl's] son."
[924] "It is possible that the new earl [son of the earl who died 1176]
was the grandson of the first Earl of Arundel."
[925] Weever similarly kills him in 1176, though he wrongly assigns the
death of his father (the founder of Wymondham) to 3 Hen. II.
[926] ? created Earl of Sussex.
[927] Bishop John of Norwich, for instance, was not elected till 1175.
[928] Mr. Yeatman attempts to get over this difficulty by suggesting
that "Henry's charter to William, Earl of Arundel, styling himself [?
him] incidentally Earl of Sussex, shows that these earls bore both
titles [_i.e._ Arundel and Sussex], just as the first earl was called of
Chichester as well as of Arundel" (p. 285). But this alternative use of
Arundel and Sussex is precisely what the author denies above, in the
case of the first earl, as impossible.
[929] _Supra_, p. 143.
[930] It is not safe from the concurrence of only three witnesses to
assign this charter positively to the same period as the Canterbury one.
The grant which it records is that of the hundred of Barstable, which
Stephen offered "super altare beatæ Mariæ et beatæ Athelburgæ in
ecclesia de Berching[es] per unum cultellum" (Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m.
18).
[931] _Monasticon_, vi. 1169.
[932] _Ibid._, vi. 419.
[933] _Ibid._, vi. 645.
[934] Robert of Torigny, a contemporary witness, speaks of him, in 1139,
as "Willelmus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz quondam reginam, quæ
habebat castellum et comitatum Harundel, quod rex Henricus dederat ei in
dote." The possession of Arundel by Queen Adeliza may probably be
accounted for by William of Malmesbury's statement that Henry I. had
settled Shropshire on her,—"uxori suæ ... comitatum Salopesberiæ dedit"
(ed. Stubbs, ii. 529),—for this would represent the forfeited
inheritance of the house of Montgomery, including Arundel and its rights
over Sussex. A curious incidental allusion in the _Dialogus_ (i. 7) to
"Salop, _Sudsex_, Northumberland, et Cumberland" having only come to pay
their _firmæ_ to the Crown "per incidentes aliquos casus," suggests
that, like his neighbour in Cheshire, Roger de Montgomery had palatine
rights, including the _firmæ_ of both his counties, Shropshire and
Sussex, which escheated to the Crown on the forfeiture of his heir.
[935] See p. 146.
[936] "Intra se igitur tanti viri pacis et tranquillitatis metas
excedentes et seditiose alter alterius predia vastantes contigit
Gaufridum furore exagitatum, quia succenderat Willelmus domos suas et
universam predam terræ suæ abigi fecerat villam Walthamensem succendere
nec posse domibus canonicorum parcere quia reliquis domibus erant
contigue, testimonium prohibemus qui et dampna cum ceteris sustinuimus"
(_Harl. MS._, 3776). Compare p. 222, _supra_.
[937] There is a curious incidental allusion to the possession of
Waltham by the Earl of Arundel (jure uxoris) in the _Testa de Nevill_
(p. 270 _b_). In an inquisition of John's reign we have the entry:
"Menigarus le Napier dicit quod Rex Henricus, avus [_lege_ proavus]
domini Regis feodavit antecessores suos per serjantiam de Naperie et
dicit quod _quando comes de Arundel duxit Reginam Aliciam in uxorem_
removit illud servicium et fecit inde reddere xx sol. per annum et
predictus Menigarus tenet," etc. That is, that while Waltham was in
Henry's hands, he had enfeoffed this man's predecessor by serjeanty, but
that, this tenure becoming inept when the manor passed to a private
owner, the earl substituted for it an annual money rent. Note here how
Henry provided for his widow from escheats rather than Crown demesne,
and observe the origin of the name "Napier," comparing _Testa_, p. 115:
"Robertus Napparius habet feodum unius militis de hereditate uxoris suæ
... dominus Rex perdonavit predicto Roberto et heredibus ejus per cartam
suam predictum servicium militare per unam nappam de precio iii sol. vel
per tres solidos reddendo pro precio illius nappæ." And p. 118: "Thomas
Napar tenet terram suam ... per serjantiam reddendo singulis annis unam
nappam ... et debet esse naparius domini Regis."
[938] This proves, incidentally, the fact that he had succeeded his
father in this office at the time.
[939] Speaking of the earl's confirmation of a grant by Alan de
Dunstanville to Lewes Priory, of lands at Newtimber, he writes: "This
confirmation purports to be that of William, Earl of _Lincoln_, but is
addressed to his barons and men of the honour of Arundel. The mistake of
the transcriber is obvious" (_History of Shropshire_, ii. 273).
[940] _Harl. MS._, 1708, fol. 97.
[941] _Add. Cart._, 19,586: "Ego Willelmus, Comes Lincolnie."
APPENDIX N.
ROBERT DE VERE.
(See p. 128.)
This personage, who, as charters show, was in constant attendance on
Stephen, is usually, and very naturally, taken by genealogists, from Mr.
Eyton downwards, for a younger brother of Aubrey de Vere (the
chamberlain) and uncle of the first Earl of Oxford. He was, however,
quite distinct, being a son of Bernard de Vere. He owed his position to
a marriage with Adeline, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, as recorded on
the Pipe-Roll of 1130. By this marriage he became possessed of the
honour of Haughley ("Haganet"), and with it (it is important to observe)
of the office of constable, in which capacity he figures among the
witnesses to Stephen's Charter of Liberties (1136). In conjunction with
his wife he founded, on her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory of Monks
Horton. They were succeeded, in their tenure of the honour, by the
well-known Henry of Essex, who thus became constable in his turn. As
supporting this view that the honour carried the constableship,
attention may be drawn to its _compotus_ as "Honor Constabularie" in
1189-90 (_Rot. Pip._, 1 Ric. I., pp. 14, 15), just before that of the
"Terra que fuit Henrici de Essex." It is therefore worth consideration
whether Robert de Montfort, general to William Rufus—"strator Normannici
exercitus hereditario jure"—may not have really held the post of
constable.
The history of the Montfort fief in Kent is of interest from the
Conquest downwards owing to its inclusion of Saltwood and other estates
claimed by the Archbishops of Canterbury.[942] Dugdale is terribly at
sea in his account of the Montfort descent, wrongly affiliating the
Warwickshire Thurstan (ancestor of the Lords Montfort) to the Kentish
house, and confusing his generations wholesale (especially in the case
of Adeline, wife of William de Breteuil).
The fact that Henry of Essex was appealed of treason and defeated in the
trial by battle by a Robert de Montfort (1163), suggests that a grudge
on the part of a descendant of the dispossessed line against himself as
possessor of their fief may have been at the bottom of this somewhat
mysterious affair.
* * * * *
NOTE.—Since the above was in type, there has appeared (_Rot. Pip._, 15
Hen. II., p. 111) a most valuable _compotus_ of the 'Honor
Constabularie' (with a misleading head-line) for 1169, proving that
Gilbert de Gant had held it, at one time, under Stephen, and had
alienated nearly a third of it.
[942] Saltwood was granted by the Conqueror to Hugh de Montfort, was
recovered by Lanfranc in the great _placitum_ on Pennenden Heath, was
thereafter held by the Montforts from the archbishop as two knights'
fees, was so held by Henry of Essex as their successor, was seized by
the Crown upon his forfeiture, was persistently claimed by Becket, and
was finally restored to the see by Richard I.
APPENDIX O.
"TOWER AND CASTLE."
(See p. 149.)
The description of the Tower by the Empress, in her charter, as "turris
Londonie cum parvo castello quod fuit Ravengeri," and its similar
description in Stephen's charter as "turris Lond[oniæ] cum castello quod
ei subest," though at first sight singular and obscure, are fraught,
when explained, with interest and importance in their bearing on
military architecture.
It will be found, on reference to the charter granted to Aubrey de Vere
(p. 180), that the Empress gives him Colchester Castle as "turrim et
castellum de Colcestr[a]," a grant confirmed by her son as that of
"turrim de Colcestr[a] et castellum" (p. 185 _n._), and, in later days,
by Henry VIII., as "Castrum et turrim de Colcestr[a]."[943] Further, in
the charter to William de Beauchamp (p. 313), we find Worcester Castle
described as "castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota," Hereford Castle being
similarly described in the charter granted at the same time to Miles de
Gloucester as "motam Hereford cum toto castello." Before proceeding to
the inferences to be drawn from these expressions, it may be as well to
strengthen them by other parallel examples. Taking first the case of
Colchester, we turn to a charter of Henry I., granted to his favourite,
Eudo Dapifer, at the Christmas court of 1101,[944] in which Colchester
Castle is similarly described:—
"Henricus Rex Angliæ Mauricio Lond. Episcopo et Hugoni de Bochelanda et
omnibus baronibus suis Anglis et Francis de Essex salutem. Sciatis me
dedisse benigne et ad amorem concessisse Eudoni Dapifero meo Civitatem
de Colecestrâ et _turrim et castellum_ et omnes ejusdem civitatis
firmitates Cum omnibus quæ ad illam pertinent sicut pater meus et
frater et ego eam melius habuimus et cum omnibus consuetudinibus illis
quas pater meus et frater et ego in eâ unquam habuimus. Et hæc
concessio facta fuit apud Westmonaster in primo natali post concordiam
Roberti comitis fratris mei de me et de illo.
"T. Rob. Ep. Lincoln et W. Gifardo Wintoniensi electo et Rob. Com. de
Mellent. et Henr. Com. fr. ejus et Roger Bigoto et Gisleberti fil.
Richard et Rob. fil. Baldwin et Ric. fratr. ejus."[945]
Turning to Hereford, we find its description as "mota cum toto castello"
recurring in the confirmation by Henry II. and the recital of that
confirmation by John.[946] There is another example sufficiently
important to deserve separate treatment. This is that of Gloucester.
We find that, in 1137, "Milo constabularius Glocestrie" granted to the
canons of "Llanthony the Second"
"Tota oblatio custodum _turris et castelli_ et Baronum ibi
commorantium."[947]
Here again the correctness of the description is fortunately confirmed
by subsequent evidence; for John recites (April 28, 1200) a charter of
his father, Henry II. (which is assigned by Mr. Eyton to the spring of
1155), granting to Miles's son, Roger, Earl of Hereford,
"custodiam _turris Gloc' cum toto castello_," etc., etc.... "per eandem
firmam quam reddere solebat comes Milo pater ejus tempore H. R. avi
mei;"[948]
while Robert of Torigny speaks, independently, of "discordia quæ erat
inter regem Anglorum Henricum et Rogerium, filium Milonis de
Gloecestria, propter _turrim_ Gloecestrie."[949] The "tower" of
Gloucester is also referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156,[950] and in the
Cartulary of Gloucester Abbey.[951] The importance of its mention lies
in the fact that it establishes the character of Gloucester Castle, and
proves that what the leading authority has written on the subject is
entirely erroneous. Mr. G. T. Clark, in his great work on our castles,
refers thus to Gloucester:—
"The castle of Gloucester ... was the base of all extended operations
in South Wales. Here the kings of England often held their court, and
here their troops were mustered. Brichtric had a castle at Gloucester,
_but his mound has long been removed, and with it all traces of the
Norman building_."[952]
In another place he goes further still:—
"Gloucester, a royal castle, stood on the Severn bank, at one angle of
the Roman city. _It had a mound and a shell-keep, now utterly
levelled_, and the site partially built over. It was the muster-place
and starting-point for expeditions against South Wales, and the not
infrequent residence of the Norman sovereigns."[953]
It may seem rash, in the teeth of these assertions, to maintain that
this mound and its shell-keep are alike imaginary, but the word "turris"
proves the fact. For, as Mr. Clark himself observes with perfect truth,
"in the convention between Stephen and Henry of Anjou (1153) the
distinction is drawn between '_Turris_ Londinensis et _Mota_ de
Windesorâ,' London having a square keep or tower, and Windsor a
shell-keep upon a mound."[954]
So the keep of Gloucester, being a "turris" and not a "mota," was
clearly "a square tower" and not "a shell-keep upon a mound." The fact
is that Mr. Clark's assertions would seem to be a guess based on the
hypothesis, itself (as could be shown) untenable, that "Brichtric had a
castle at Gloucester." Assuming from this the existence of a mound, he
must further have assumed that the Normans had crowned it, as elsewhere,
with a shell-keep. But the true character of this great fortress is now
determined.
Two examples of the double style shall now be adduced from castles
outside England. In Normandy we have an entry, in 1180, referring to
expenditure "in operationibus domorum _turris et castri_," etc., at
Caen;[955] in Ireland the grant of Dublin Castle to Hugh de Laci (1172)
is thus related in the so-called poem of Matthew Regan (ll. 2713-2716):—
"Li riche rei ad dune baillé
Dyvelin en garde la cité
_E la chastel e le dongun_
A Huge de Laci le barun."
The phrase, it will be seen, corresponds exactly with those
employed to describe the castles of Carlisle and Appleby, at the
same period:—
"Mès voist au rei Henri, si face sa clamur
Que jo tieng Carduil, _le chastel e la tur_."
"Li reis out ubblié par itant sa dolur
Quant avait Appelbi, _le chastel e la tur_."[956]
Having thus established the use of the phrase, let us now pass to its
origin.
I would urge that it possesses the peculiar value of a genuine
transition form. It preserves for us, as such, the essential fact that
there went to the making of the mediæval "castle" two distinct factors,
two factors which coalesced so early that the original distinction
between them was already being rapidly forgotten, and is only to be
detected in the faint echoes of this "transition form."
The two factors to which I refer were the Roman _castrum_ or _castellum_
and the mediæval "motte" or "tour." The former survived in the
_fortified enclosure_; the latter, in the _central keep_. The Latin word
_castellum_ (corresponding with the Welsh _caer_) continued to be
regularly used as descriptive of a fortified enclosure, whether
surrounded by walls or earthworks.[957] It is singular how much
confusion has resulted from the overlooking of this simple fact and the
retrospective application of the denotation of the later "castle." Thus
Theodore, in the seventh century, styles the Bishop of Rochester,
"Episcopus _Castelli_ Cantuariorum, _quod dicitur Hrofesceaster_"
(_Bæda_, iv. 5); and Mr. Clark gives several instances, from the eighth
and ninth centuries, in which Rochester is alternatively styled a
"civitas" and a "castellum."[958] So again, in the ninth century, where
the chroniclers, in 876 A.D., describe how "bestæl se here into Werham,"
etc., Asser and Florence paraphrase the statement by saying that the
host "_castellum quod dicitur Werham_ intravit." Now, it is obvious that
there could be no "castle" at Wareham in 876, and that even if there had
been, an "army" could not have entered it. But when we bear in mind the
true meaning of "castellum," at once all is clear. As Professor Freeman
observes, "Wareham is a fortified town."[959] Its famous and ancient
defences are thus described by Mr. Clark:—
"In figure the town is nearly square, the west face about 600 yards,
the north face 650 yards.... The outline of this rectangular figure is
an earthwork, within which the town was built."[960]
Such then was the nature of the "castellum," within which the host took
shelter.[961] Passing now to a different instance, we find the Greek
κώμη ("a village") represented by "castellum" in the Latin Gospels
(Matt. xxi. 2), and this actually Englished as "castel" in the English
Gospels of 1000 A.D.[962] Here again, confusion has resulted from a
misunderstanding.
As against the _castellum_, the fortified enclosure, we have a new and
distinct type of fortress, the outcome of a different state of society,
in the single "motte" or "tour." I shall not here enter into the
controversy as to the relation between these two forms, my space being
too limited. For the present, we need only consider the "motte" (_mota_)
as a mound (_agger_) crowned by a stronghold (whether of timber or
masonry), but _not_, as Mr. Clark has clearly shown, "crowned with the
square donjon," as so strangely imagined by Mr. Freeman.[963] In the
"tour" (_turris_) we have, of course, the familiar keep of masonry,
rectangular in form, and independent of a mound.
The process, then, that we are about to trace is that by which the
"motte" or "tour" coalesced with the _castellum_, and by which, from
this combination, there was evolved the later "castle." For my theory
amounts to this: in the mediæval fortress, the keep and the _castellum_
were elements different in origin, and, for a time, looked upon as
distinct. It was impossible that the compound fortress, the result of
their combination, should long retain a compound name: there must be one
name for the entire fortress, either "tour" (_turris_) or "chastel"
(_castellum_). Which was to prevail?
This question may have been decided by either of two considerations. On
the one hand, the relative importance of the two factors in the fortress
may have determined the ultimate form of its style; on the other—and
this, perhaps, is the more probable explanation—the older of the two
factors may have given its name to the whole. For sometimes the keep was
added to the "castle," and sometimes the "castle" to the keep. The
former development is the more familiar, and three striking instances in
point will occur below. For the present I will only quote a passage from
Robert de Torigny, to whom we are specially indebted for evidence on
military architecture:—
(1123) "Henricus rex ... turrem nihilominus excelsam fecit in castello
Cadomensi, et murum ipsius castelli, quem pater suus fecerat, in altum
crevit.... Item castellum quod vocatur Archas, turre et mœnibus
mirabiliter firmavit.... Turrem Vernonis similiter fecit."[964]
More interesting for us is the other case, that in which the "castle"
was added to the keep, because it is that of the respective strongholds
in the capitals of Normandy and of England. The "Tower of Rouen" and the
"Tower of London"—for such were their well-known names—were both older
than their surrounding wards (_castra_ or _castella_). William Rufus
built a wall "circa turrim Londoniæ" (_Henry of Huntingdon_):[965] his
brother and successor built a wall "circa turrim Rothomagi."[966] The
former enclosed what is now known as "the Inner Ward" of the Tower,[967]
the "parvum castellum" of Maud's charter.[968]
Of "the Tower of Rouen" I could say much. Perhaps its earliest undoubted
mention is in or about 1078 (the exact date is doubtful), when Robert
"Courthose," revolting from his father "Rotomagum expetiit, et _arcem
regiam_ furtim præoccupare sategit. Verum Rogerius de Iberico ... qui
turrim custodiebat ... diligenter arcem præmunivit," Ordericus here, as
often, using _turris_ and _arx_ interchangeably.[969] Passing over other
notices of this stronghold, we come in 1090 to one of those tragic deeds
by which its history was destined to be stained.[970] Mr. Freeman has
told the tale of Conan's attempt and doom.[971] The duke, who was
occupying the Tower, left it at the height of the struggle,[972] but on
the triumph of his party, and the capture of Conan, the prisoner was
claimed by Henry for his prey and was led by him to an upper story of
the Tower.[973] At this point I pause to discuss the actual scene of the
tragedy. Mr. Freeman writes as follows:—
"Conan himself was led into the castle, and there Henry took him....
The Ætheling led his victim up through the several stages of the
loftiest tower of the castle," etc., etc.[974]
Here the writer misses the whole point of the topography. The scene of
Conan's death was no mere "tower of the castle," but "_the_ Tower," the
Tower of Rouen—_Rotomagensis turris_, as William here terms it. He fails
to realize that the Tower of Rouen held a similar position to the Tower
of London. Thus, in 1098, when Helias of Le Mans was taken prisoner, we
read that "Rotomagum usque productus, in arce ipsius civitatis in
vincula conjectus est" (_Vetera Analecta_), which Wace renders:—
"Li reis à Roem l'enveia
E garder le recomenda
En la tour le rova garder."
Again, even in the next reign, a royal charter, assigned by Mr. Eyton to
1114-15, is tested, not at the "castle" of Rouen, but "in _turre_
Rothomagensi."[975] And so, two reigns after that, a century later than
Conan's death, we find the _custodes_ of "the Tower of Rouen" entered in
the Exchequer Rolls, where it is repeatedly styled "turris."
Thus at Rouen, as at London, the "Tower" not only preserved its name,
but ultimately imposed it on the whole fortress. And precisely as the
Tower of London is mentioned in 1141 by the transition style of "turris
Londoniæ cum castello," so in 1146 we find Duke Geoffrey repairing
"sartatecta turris Rothomagensis et castelli," after it fell into his
hands.[976]
Here then we have at length the explanation of a difficulty often
raised. Why is "the Tower of London" so styled?[977] And although, in
England, the style may now be unique, men spoke in the days of which I
write of the "Tower" of Bristol or of Rochester as of the Tower of
Gloucester.[978] Abroad, the form was more persistent, and
special attention may be drawn to the Tower of Le Mans ("Turris
Cenomannica),"[979] because the expression "regia turris" which
Ordericus applies to it is precisely that which Florence of Worcester
applies, in 1114, to the Tower of London, to which it bore an affinity
in its relation to the Roman Wall.[980]
All that I have said of the "turris" keep is applicable to the "mota"
also, _mutatis mutandis_, for the _motte_, though its name was
occasionally extended to the whole fortress, was essentially the actual
keep, the crowned mound, as is well brought out in the passages quoted
by Mr. Clark from French charters:—
"Le motte _et les fossez d'entour_ ... le motte de Maiex ... le motte
de mon manoir de Caieux _et les fossez d'entour_."[981]
Here the "fossez d'entour" represent the surrounding works, the
"castellum" referred to in the charters of the Empress. But between "the
right to hold a moot there," "the moat (_sic_) and castle" as Mr. Hallam
rendered it, "the moat (_sic_) probably the _motte_" of Mr. Clark (ii.
112), and the clever evasion "mote" in the _Reports on the Dignity of a
Peer_ (_Third Report_, p. 163), the unfortunate "mota" of Hereford has
had a singular fate.
* * * * *
And now for the results of those conclusions that I have here
endeavoured to set forth. The three castles to which I shall apply them
are those of Rochester, of Newcastle, and of Arques.
In an elaborate article on the keep of Rochester, Mr. Hartshorne showed
that it was erected, not as was believed by Gundulf, but by Archbishop
William of Corbeuil,[982] between 1126 and 1139. But he did not attempt
to explain what was the "castle of stone" which Gundulf is recorded to
have there constructed. As everything turns on the exact wording, I here
give the relevant portions of the document in point: —
"Quomodo Willelmus Rex filius Willelmi Regis rogatu Lanfranci
Archiepiscopi concessit et confirmavit Rofensi ecclesiæ S. Andreæ
Apostoli ad victum Monachorum manerium nomine Hedenham; quare Gundulfus
Episcopus _Castrum_ Rofense _lapideum_ totum de suo proprio Regi
construxit.
"Gundulfus ... illis contulit beneficium ... _castrum_ etenim, quod
situm est in pulchriore parte Hrovecestræ.... Regi consuluerunt [duo
amici] quatinus ... Gundulfus, quia in opere cæmentarii plurimum sciens
et efficax erat, _castrum_ sibi Hrofense _lapideum_ de suo
construeret.... Dixerunt [Archiepiscopus et Episcopus] ...
quotiescunque quidlibet ex infortunio aliquo casu in _castro_ illo
contingeret aut infractione muri aut fissura maceriei, id protinus ...
exigeretur.... Hoc pacto coram Rege inito fecit _castrum_ Gundulfus
Episcopus de suo ex integro totum, costamine, ut reor, lx
librarum."[983]
Though _castrum_ is the term used throughout, Mr. Parker in his essay on
_The Buildings of Gundulph_, 1863, assumed that a _tower_ must be meant,
and wrote of "Gundulf's tower" in the Cathedral: "This is probably the
tower which Gundulph is recorded to have built at the cost of £60."[984]
So too, Mr. Clark wrote:—
"As to his architectural skill and his work at Rochester Castle, ...
the bishop [was] to employ his skill, and spend £60 in building a
castle, _that is, a tower_ of some sort. What Gundulf certainly built
is the tower which still bears his name.... It may be that Gundulf's
tower was removed to make way for the new keep, but in this case its
materials would have been made use of, and some trace of them would be
almost certain to be detected. But there is no such trace, so that
probably the new keep did not supersede the other tower."[985]
Mr. Freeman guardedly observes:—
"The noble tower raised in the next age by Archbishop Walter (_sic_) of
Corbeuil ... had perhaps not even a forerunner of its own class.
"Mr. Hartshorne showed distinctly that the present tower of Rochester
was not built by Gundulf, but by William of Corbeuil.... But we have
seen (see _N. C._, vol. iv. p. 366) that Gundulf did build a stone
castle at Rochester for William Rufus ('castrum Hrofense lapidum'
[_sic_]), and we should most naturally look for it on the site of the
later one. On the other hand, there is a tower seemingly of Gundulf's
building and of a military rather than an ecclesiastical look, which is
now almost swallowed up between the transepts of the cathedral. But it
would be strange if a tower built for the king stood in the middle of
the monastic precinct."[986]
Thus the problem is left unsolved by all four writers. But the true
interpretation of _castrum_, as established by me above, solves it at
once. For just as William of Corbeuil is recorded to have built the
"turris" or rectangular keep,[987] so Gundulf is described as
constructing the _castrum_ or fortified enclosure.[988] We must look,
therefore, for his work in the wall that girt it round. And there we
find it. Mr. Clark himself is witness to the fact:—
"Part of the curtain of the _enceinte_ of Rochester Castle may also be
Gundulph's work. The south wall looks very early, as does the east
wall."[989]
But Mr. Irvine had already, in 1874, pointed out, in a brief but
valuable communication, that a distinctive peculiarity of Gundulf's
work—the absence of plinth to his buttresses—is found "in the castle
wall at Rochester (also his)."[990] Thus, it will be seen, the character
of the work independently confirms my own conclusion.
Some confusion, it may be well to add, has been caused by such forms as
"castellum Hrofi" and "castrum quod nominatur Hrofesceaster." In these
early forms (as in some other cases), "castrum" denotes the whole of
Rochester, girt by its Roman wall, and not (as Mr. Hartshorne assumed
throughout) the castle enclosure. Mr. Clark leaves the point in
doubt.[991]
Before leaving Rochester, I would point out that, unlike the rest of
Gundulf's work, this _castrum_ can be closely dated. The conjunction of
Lanfranc and William Rufus, in the story of its building, limits it to
September, 1087-March, 1089, while Odo's rebellion would probably
postpone its construction till his surrender. It is most unfortunate,
therefore, that Mr. Clark should write, "This transaction between the
bishop and the king occurred about 1076,"[992] when neither Gundulf was
bishop nor William king.
* * * * *
To the case of Newcastle and its keep, I invite special attention,
because we have here the tacit admission of Mr. Clark himself that he
has antedated, incredible though it may seem, by more than ninety years
the erection of this famous keep. To prove this, it is only necessary to
print his own conclusions side by side:—
(1080.)
"Of this masonry there is but little which can be referred to the reign
of the Conqueror or William Rufus,—that is, to the eleventh century. Of
that period are certainly (_sic_) ... the keeps of Chester, ... and
Newcastle, though this last looks later than its recorded (_sic_)
date.... Carlisle ... received from Rufus a castle and a keep, now
standing; and Newcastle, similarly provided in 1080, also retains its
keep.... The castle of Newcastle ... was built by Robert Curthose in
1080, and is a very perfect example of a rectangular Norman keep.
Newcastle, built in 1080, has very many chambers" (_Mediæval Military
Architecture_, 1884, i. 40, 49, 94, 128).
(1172-74.)
"Newcastle is an excellent example of a rectangular Norman keep.
"Its condition is perfect, its date known (_sic_), and being late
(1172-74) in its style, it is more ornate than is usual in its details,
and is furnished with all the peculiarities of a late (_sic_) Norman
work.
"The present castle is an excellent example of the later (_sic_) form
of the rectangular Norman keep.... Newcastle has its fellow in the keep
of Dover, known to have been the work of Henry the Second"
(_Archæological Journal_, 1884).
The origin, of course, of the astounding error by which "the great
master of military architecture" misdated this keep by nearly a
century,[993] and took an essentially late work for one of the earliest
in existence, was the same fatal delusion that _castrum_ or _castellum_
meant precisely what it did not mean, namely, a tower. "Castellum novum
super flumen Tyne condidit" is the expression applied to Robert's work
in 1080, and the absence of a "tower" explains the fact that Fantosme
makes no mention of a "tur" when describing "Le Noef Chasteau sur Tyne,"
the existing keep not being available at the time of which he wrote.
* * * * *
We now come to our last case, that of the Château d'Arques.
"Arques," writes Mr. Clark, "is one of the earliest examples of a Norman
castle."[994] It is, Mr. Freeman holds, "a fortress which is undoubtedly
one of the earliest and most important in the history of Norman military
architecture."[995] No apology, therefore, is needed for discussing the
date of this celebrated structure, so long a subject of interest and of
study both to English and to French archæologists.
As at Colchester and in other places, the very wildest theories have
been generally advanced, and archæologists have only gradually sobered
down till they have virtually agreed upon a date for this keep which is
actually, I venture to think, less than a century wrong.
In his noble monograph upon the fortress, the basis of all subsequent
accounts,[996] M. Deville enumerates, with contemptuous amusement (pp.
49, 268-272), the rival theories that it was built (1) by the Romans;
(2) by "Clotaire I." in 553—the date 1553 on one of the additions for
the structure having actually been so read; (3) by "Charles Martel" in
745, 747, or 749 (on the strength of another reading of the same date,
confirmed by a carving of his coat-of-arms)—these being the dates given
by Houard and Toussaint-Duplessis. At the time when Deville himself
wrote the study of castles was still in its infancy, and of the two
sources of evidence now open to us, the internal (that of the structure
itself) and the external (that of chronicles and records), the latter
alone was ripe for use. Now, at Arques, precisely as at our own
Rochester, the written evidence has hitherto appeared conflicting to
archæologists, but only because the language employed has never yet been
rightly understood. On the one hand we read in William of Jumièges, an
excellent authority in the matter, that "Hic Willelmus [the Conqueror's
uncle] castrum Archarum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit;" and in the
_Chronicle of Fontenelle_, that this same William "Arcas castrum in pago
Tellau primus statuit;" also, in William of Poitiers, that "id
munimentum ... ipse primus fundavit:" on the other, we read in Robert du
Mont, a first-rate and contemporary authority, who may indeed be termed
a specialist on the subject, that "Anno MCXXIII. castellum quod vocatur
Archas turre et mœnibus mirabiliter firmavit [Rex Henricus]."[997]
M. de Caumont, that industrious pioneer, whose work appeared four years
before that of M. Deville, boldly followed Robert du Mont, and
confidently assigned the existing keep to 1123.[998] Guided, however, by
M. Le Prévost (1824), he held that the original structure was raised by
the Conqueror's uncle, and that Henry I. merely "fit _re_construire en
entier le donjon et une partie des murs d'enceinte." M. Deville, on the
contrary, in his eager zeal for the honour and glory of the castle,
stoutly maintained that, keep and all, it was clearly Count William's
work. He admitted that his Norman brother-antiquaries assigned it to
Henry I., but urged that they had overlooked the evidence of the
structure, and its resemblance to English keeps assigned (but, as we now
know, wrongly) to the eleventh century, or earlier;[999] and that they
had misunderstood the passage in Robert du Mont, which must have
referred to mere alterations. In order thus to explain it away, he
contends (and this contention Mr. Clark strangely accepts) that Robert
says the same—which he does not—of "Gisors, Falaise, and other castles
known"—which they are not[1000]—"to be of earlier date" (_M. M. A._, i.
194). Lastly, he appeals, though with an apology for doing so ("s'il
nous était permis d'invoquer à l'appui de notre opinion"), to the far
later "Chronique de Normandie" for actual evidence, elsewhere wanting,
that the keep itself (_turris_) was built by William of Arques,[1001]
that is, in 1039-1043.[1002]
"I went over the castle minutely," Professor Freeman writes, "in May,
1868, with M. Deville's book in hand, and can bear witness to the
accuracy of his description, though I cannot always accept his
inferences" (_N. C._, iii. 124, _note_). He accordingly doubts M.
Deville's date for the gateway and walls of the inner ward, but sees "no
reason to doubt that the ruined keep is part of the original work"
(_ibid._). We must remember, however, that the Professor is at direct
variance with Mr. Clark on the Norman rectangular keeps, for which he
claims an earlier origin than the latter can concede.
Turning now to Mr. Clark himself, we learn from him that—
"it seems probable that the keep is the oldest part of the masonry, and
the work of the Conqueror's uncle, Guillaume d'Arques, and it is
supposed to be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the
rectangular keeps known" (_M. M. A._, i. 194).
He adds that the passage in Robert du Mont
"has been held to show that the whole structure was the work of Henry,
who reigned from 1105 (_sic_) to 1135, and the extreme boldness of the
buttresses and superincumbent constructions of the keep no doubt favour
this view; but, as M. Deville remarks in the same passage, similar
reference is made to Gisors, Falaise, and other castles, known to be of
earlier date" (_ibid._).
To resume. The external or written evidence is as follows. On the one
hand, we have the clear and positive statement of a contemporary writer,
Robert du Mont, that Henry I. built this keep in 1123. On the other, we
have no statement from any contemporary that it was built by William of
Arques (in 1039-1043). He is merely credited with founding the
_castellum_, and in none of the contemporary accounts of its blockade
and capture by his nephew is there any mention of a _turris_. The
distinction between a _castellum_ and a _turris_, with their respective
independence, has not, as I have shown, hitherto been realized, and it
is quite in the spirit of older students that M. Deville confidently
exclaims—
"Or, conçoit-on un château-fort sans murailles? Un château-fort sans
donjon, dans le cours du XIᵉ siècle, en Normandie, n'est guère plus
rationnel" (p. 310).
As to the "murailles," Mr. Clark has taught us that palisades were not
replaced by walls till a good deal later than has been usually supposed;
and as to the "donjon," if, as I have established, so important a
fortress as Rochester was without a keep in the eleventh, and indeed
well into the twelfth century, other _castella_ must have been similarly
destitute—probably, for instance, Newcastle, as we have seen, and
certainly Exeter, of which Mr. Clark writes: "There is no evidence of a
keep, nor, at so great a height, was any needed" (_M. M. A._, ii. 47).
The same argument from strength of position would _à fortiori_ apply to
Arques, and there is, in short, no reason for doubting that the
_castrum_ of William of Arques need not have included a _turris_.[1003]
On what, then, rests the assertion that the keep was the work of the
Conqueror's uncle? Strange as it may seem, it rests solely on the
so-called _Chronique de Normandie_, an anonymous production, not of the
eleventh, but of the fourteenth century! "Si fist faire une tour moult
forte audessus du chastel d'Arques," runs the passage, which is quoted
by Mr. Clark (i. 194), from Deville (pp. 311, 312), who, however,
apologized for appealing to that authority. This "Chronique" is admitted
to have been based on the poetical histories of Wace and Benoit de St.
More, themselves written several generations later than the alleged
erection of this keep. Of the former, Mr. Freeman holds that, except
where repeating contemporary authorities, "his statements need to be
very carefully weighed" (_N. C._, ii. 162); and of the latter, that he
is "of much smaller historical authority" (_ibid._). To this I may add
that, in my opinion, Wace, writing as he did in the reign of Henry II.,
at the close of the great tower-building epoch, spoke loosely of towers,
when mentioning castles, as if they had been equally common in the reign
of the Conqueror. A careful inspection of his poem will be found to
verify this statement. "La tur d'Arques" was standing when he wrote:
consequently he talks of "La tur d'Arques" when describing the
Conqueror's blockade of the castle in 1053. There is no contemporary
authority for its existence at that date.[1004]
And now let us pass from documentary evidence to that of the structure
itself. We may call Mr. Clark himself to witness that the presumption is
against so early a date as 1039-1043. He tells us, of the rectangular
keep in general, that—
"not above half a dozen examples can be shown with certainty to have
been constructed in Normandy before the latter part of the eleventh
century, and but very few, if any, before the English conquest" (i. 35).
Therefore, on Mr. Clark's own showing, we ought to ask for conclusive
evidence before admitting that any rectangular keep is as old as
1039-1043. But what was the impression produced on him by an inspection
of the structure itself? This is a most significant fact. While
rejecting, apparently on what he believed to be documentary evidence,
the theory that the keep (_turris_) was the work of Henry I., he
confessed that the features of the building "no doubt favour this view"
(i. 194, _ut supra_).
But leaving, for the present, Mr. Clark's views, to which I shall return
below, I take my stand without hesitation on certain features in this
keep. It is not needful to visit Arques—I have myself never done so—to
appreciate their true significance and their bearing on the question of
the date. The first of these is the forebuilding. Mr. Clark tells us
that Arques possesses "the usual square appendage or forebuilding common
in these keeps" (_M. M. A._, i. 198). But this unscientific treatment of
the forebuilding, ignoring so completely its origin and development,
cannot too strongly be resisted. Restricting ourselves to the case
before us, we at once observe the peculiarity of an external staircase,
not only leading up to a forebuilding, through which the keep is
entered, but actually carried, through a massive buttress, round an
angle of the keep.[1005] Rochester being believed to be the work of
Gundulf, in the days when M. Deville wrote, it was natural that he
should have supposed "cette savante combinaison" to have been familiar
to Gundulf (p. 299). But now that, on these points, we are better
informed, let us ask where can Mr. Clark produce an instance of this
elaborate and striking device as old even as the days of Gundulf, to say
nothing of those of Count William (1039-1043)? Where we do find it is in
such keeps as Dover, the work of Henry II., or Rochester, where the
resemblance is even more remarkable. Now, Rochester, as we know, was
actually built within a few years of the date given by Robert du Mont,
and upheld by me, as that of the construction of Arques. Oddly enough,
it is Mr. Clark himself who thus points out another resemblance:—
"In the basement of the forebuilding ... was a vaulted chamber, opening
into the basement of the keep, _as at Rochester_, either a store or
prison" (_M. M. A._, p. 188).
Lastly, both at Arques and at Rochester, we find on the first floor,
near the entrance, the very peculiar feature of a smaller doorway
communicating with the rampart of the curtain.[1006] This parallel,
which is not alluded to by Mr. Clark, is the more remarkable, as such a
device is foreign to the earlier rectangular keeps, and also implies
that the keep must have been built certainly no earlier, and possibly
later, than the curtain, which curtain, Mr. Clark, as we shall find,
admits, cannot be so old as the days of Count William.
No one, in short, unbiassed by supposed documentary evidence, could
study this keep, with its "petites galeries avec d'autres petites
chambres ou prisons pratiquées dans l'épaisseur des murs"[1007] (as at
Rochester), with the elaborate defences of its entrance, and with those
other special features which made even Mr. Clark uneasy, without
rejecting as incredible the accepted view that it was built by Count
William of Arques (1039-1043). And this being so, there is, admittedly,
no alternative left but to assign it to Henry I. (1123), the date
specifically given by Robert du Mont himself.
But, it may be urged, though there is nothing improbable in Mr. Freeman
being wrong, is it conceivable that so unrivalled an expert as Mr. Clark
himself can have mistaken a keep of 1123 for one of 1039-1043, when we
remember the wonderful development of these structures in the course of
those eighty years? To this objection, I fear, there is a singularly
complete answer in the case of Newcastle, where, as we have seen, he was
led by the same misconception into no less amazing an error.[1008]
In short, the view I have brought forward as to the separate existence
of "tower" and "castle" may be said, from these examples, to
revolutionize the study of Norman military architecture.
[943] _Fœdera_ (O.E.), xiii. 251. See p. 179.
[944] The internal evidence determines its date.