EXCURSUS.THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER.
Oneof the problems in English history as yet, it would seem, unsolved, is that of the date at which Henry I. conferred on his natural son Robert the earldom of Gloucester. The great part which Robert played in the eventful struggles of his time, the fact that this was, in all probability, almost the only earldom created in the course of this reign (1100-1135), and the importance of ascertaining the date of its creation as fixing that of many an otherwise doubtful record, all combine to cause surprise that the problem remains unsolved.
Brooke wrote that the earldom of Gloucester was conferred on Robert "in the eleventh year of his father's reign," and his critic, the argus-eyed Vincent, in hisDiscoverie of Errours, did not question the statement. As to Dugdale, he evaded the problem. Ignorance on the point is frankly confessed in theReports on the Dignity of a Peer; while Mr. Freeman, so far as I can find, has also deemed discretion the better part of valour.
Three dates, however, have been suggested for this creation.
The first is 1109. This may be traced to Sandford (1707) and Rapin (1724), who took it from the rhyming chronicle assigned to Robert of Gloucester:—
"And of the kynges crownement in the [ninthe][1206]yere, The vorst Erle of Gloucestre thus was mayd there."
This date was revived by Courthope in his well-known edition (1857) of theHistoric Peerageof Sir Harris Nicolas (by whom no date had been assigned to the creation). It may be said, by inference, to have received the sanction of the authorities at the British Museum.
The second is 1119. This suspiciously resembles an adaptation of the preceding date, but may have been suggested, and in the case of Mr. Clark (vide infra) probably was, by reading Dugdale wrong.[1207]It seems to have first appeared in a footnote to William of Malmesbury (1840), as edited for the English Historical Society by the late Sir Thomas Duffus (then Mr.) Hardy. It is there stated that Robert "was created Earl of Gloucester in 1119" (vol. ii. p. 692). No authority whatever is given for this statement, but the same date is adopted by Mr. Clark (1878), who asserts that "Robert certainly bore it [the title] 1119, 20th Henry I." (Arch. Journ., xxxv. 5); by Mr. Doyle (1886) in his valuableOfficial Baronage(ii. 9); and lastly (1887) by Mr. Hunt in hisBristol(p. 17). In none of these cases, however, is the source of the statement given.[1208]
In the mean while, a third date, viz. shortly before Easter (April 2), 1116, was advanced with much assurance. In his essay on theSurvey of Lindsey(1882), Mr. Chester Waters wrote:
"We know that the earldom was conferred on him before Easter, 1116, for he attested as earl the royal charter in favour of Tewkesbury Abbey, which was executed at Winchester on the eve of the king's embarkation for Normandy" (p. 3).
The date attributed to this charter having aroused the curiosity of antiquaries, the somewhat singular discovery was made that it could also be found in the MSS. of Mr. Eyton, then lately deceased.[1209]For the time, however, Mr. Waters enjoyed the credit of having solved an ancient problem, and "the ennobling of Robert fitz Roy in 1116" was accepted by no less an authority than Mr. Elton.[1210]
I propose to show that these three dates are all alike erroneous, and that the Tewkesbury charter is spurious.
Let us first observe that there is no evidence for the belief that Robert received his earldom at the time of his marriage to the heiress of Robert fitz Hamon. There is, on the contrary, a probability that he did not. I do not insist on the Tewkesbury charter (Mon. Ang., ii. 66), in which the king speaks of the demesne of Robert fitz Hamon as being now "Dominium Roberti filii mei," for we have more direct evidence in a charter of Robert to the church of Rochester, in which he confirmed the gifts made by his wife and father, not as Robert Earl of Gloucester, but merely as "Ego Rodbertus Henrici Regis filius."
We must further dismiss late authorities, in which, as we might expect, we find a tendency to throw back the creation of a title to an early period of the grantee's life. We cannot accept as valid evidence the rhymes of Robert of Gloucester (circa1300), the confusion of later writers, or the assumptions of the fourteenth-centuryChronicque de Normandie, in which last work Robert is represented as already "Earl of Gloucester" at the battle of Tinchebrai (1106).
The only chronicle that we can safely consult is that of the Continuator of William of Jumièges, and this, unfortunately, tells us nothing as to the date of the creation, which, however, it seems to place some time after the marriage. It is worth mentioning that the writer's words—
"Præterea, quia parum erat filium Regis ingentia prædia possidere absque nomine et honore alicujus publicæ dignitatis, dedit illi pater pius comitatum Gloecestre" (Lib. viii. cap. 29, ed. Duchesne, p. 306).
are suspiciously suggestive of Robert of Gloucester's famous story that Robert's bride refused to marry him "bote he adde an tuo name." It would be very satisfactory if we could thus trace the story to its source, the more so as the chronicle is not among those from which Robert is supposed to have drawn.
We are, therefore, left dependent on the evidence of charters alone. That is to say, we must look to the styles given to Robert the king's son, to learn when he first became Earl of Gloucester.
His earliest attestation is, to all appearance, that which occurs in a charter of 1113. This charter is printed in the appendix to the edition of Ordericus Vitalis by the Société del'Histoire de France,[1211]and as all the circumstances connected with its grant, together with the names of the chief witnesses, are given by Ordericus in the body of his work,[1212]there cannot be the slightest doubt, or even hesitation, as to its date.[1213]In the text he is styled "Rodbertus regis filius," and in the charter "Rodbertus filius regis," his name being given, it should be noticed, last but one. The next attestation, in order, it would seem, is found in a writ of Henry I. tested at Reading, some time before Easter, 1116, to judge from the presence of "Rannulfus Meschinus."[1214]For Randulf became Earl of Chester by the death of his cousin Richard, when returning to England with the king in November, 1120.[1215]
We next find Robert in Normandy with his father. He there attests a charter to Savigny, his name ("Robertus filius regis") coming immediately after those of the earls (in this case Stephen, Count of Mortain, and Richard, Earl of Chester), that being the position in which, till his creation, it henceforth always figures. This charter passed in 1118, probably in the autumn of the year.[1216]Robert's next appearance is at the battle of Brémulé (or Noyon), August 20, 1119. Ordericus refers to his presence thus:—
"Ibi fuerunt duo filii ejus Rodbertus et Ricardus, milites egregii, et tres consules," etc., etc. (iv. 357).
This is certainly opposed to the view that Robert was already an earl, for he is carefully distinguished from the three earls ("tres consules") who were present, and is classed with his brother Richard, who never became an earl. We must assign to about the same date the confirmation charter of Colchester Abbey, which is known to us only from the unpublishedcartulary now in the possession of Lord Cowper. Robert's name here comes immediately after those of the earls, and his style is "Robertus filius henrici regis Anglorum."
This charter suggests a very important question. That its form, in the cartulary, is that in which it was originally granted we may confidently deny. At the same time, the circumstances by which its grant was accompanied are told by the monks in great detail and in the form of a separate narrative. Indeed, on that narrative is based the belief, so dear to Mr. Freeman's heart, that Henry I. was, more or less, familiar with the English tongue. Moreover, it is suggested by internal evidence that the charter, as we have it, is based on an originally genuine record. Now, the accepted practice is to class charters as genuine, doubtful, or spurious, "doubtful" meaning only that they are either genuine or spurious, but that it is not quite certain to which of these classes they belong. For my part I see no reason why there should not be an indefinite number of stages between an absolutely genuine record and one that is a sheer forgery. It was often, whether truly or falsely, alleged (we may have our own suspicions) that the charter originally granted had been lost, stolen, or burnt. In the case of this particular charter, its predecessor was said to have been lost; at Leicester, a riot was made accountable; at Carlisle a fire. In these last two cases, those who were affected were allowed to depose to the tenor of the lost charter. In the case of that which we are now considering, I have recorded in another place[1217]my belief that the story was probably a plot of the monks anxious to secure an enlarged charter. Of course, where a charter was really lost, and it was thought necessary to supply its place either by a pseudo-original document, or merely in a cartulary, deliberate invention was the only resource. But, in such cases, it was almost certain that, in the days when the means of historical information were, compared with our own, non-existent, the forger would betray himself at once by the names in his list of witnesses. There was, however, as I imagine, another class of forged charters. This comprised those cases in which the original had not been lost, but in which it was desired tosubstitute for that original a charter with more extensive grants. Here the genuine list of witnesses might, of course, be copied, and with a little skill the interpolations or alterations might be so made as to render detection difficult, if not impossible. I speak, of course, of a cartulary transcript; in an actual charter, the document and seal would greatly assist detection. But I would suggest that there might be another class to be considered. This Colchester charter is a case in point. The impression it conveys to my mind is that of a genuine charter, adapted by a systematic process of florid and grandiloquent adornment to a depraved monkish taste. In short, I look on this charter as not, of necessity, a "forgery," that is, intended to deceive, but as possibly representing the results of a process resembling that of illumination. Such an hypothesis may appear daring, but it is based, we must remember, on a mental attitude, on, so to speak, an historic conscience, radically different from our own. After all, it is but in the present generation that the sacredness of an original record has been recognized as it should. Such a conception was wholly foreign to the men of the Middle Ages. I had occasion to allude to this essential fact in a study on "The Book of Howth," when calling attention to the strange liberties allowed themselves by the early translators of theExpugnatio Hiberniæ. Geoffrey of Monmouth illustrates the point. Looking not only at him but his contemporaries in the twelfth century, we cannot but compare the impertinent obtrusion of their pseudo-classical and, still more, their incorrigible Biblical erudition, with the same peculiar features in such charters as those of which I speak. Another remarkable parallel, I think, may be found in theDialogus de Scaccario. Observe there the opening passage, together with the persistent obtrusion of texts, and compare them with the general type of forged, spurious, or "doctored" charters. The resemblance is very striking. It was, one might say, the systematic practice of the monkish forger or adapter to make the royal or other grantor in such charters as these indulge in a homily from the monkish standpoint on the obligation to make such grants, and to quote texts in support of that thesis. Once viewed in this light, such passages are as intelligible as they are absurd.
But, in addition to, and distinct from, these stilted moralizations, is the process which I have ventured to compare with illumination or even embroidery. This was, in most cases, so overdone, as to bury the simple phraseology of the original, if genuine, instrument beneath a pile of grandiloquence. Take for instance this clause from the Colchester charter in question:
"Data Rothomagi deo gratias solemniter et feliciter Anno ab incarn' dom'MCXIX. Quo nimirum anno prætaxatus filius regis Henrici Will's rex designatus puellam nobilissimam filiam Fulconis Andegavorum comitis Mathildam nomine Luxouii duxit uxorem."
Now, if we compare this clause with that appended to an original charter of some ten years later, we there read thus:—
"Apud Wintoniam eodem anno, inter Pascham et Pentecostem, quo Rex duxit in uxorem filiam ducis de Luvain."[1218]
This peculiar method of dating charters which is found in this reign suggests that the genuine charter to Colchester would contain a similar clause (if any),[1219]beginning "Apud Rothomagum eodem anno quo," etc., etc. As it stands in the cartulary, the original clause has been treated by the monkish scribe much as an original passage in a chronicle might be worked into his text, in the present day, by an historian of the "popular" school.[1220]But wide and interesting though the conclusions are to which such an hypothesis might lead, I must confine myself here to pointing out that the list of witnesses,in its minutest details, is apparently beyond impeachment. Specially would I refer to four names, those of the clerks of the king's chapel. It is rare, indeed, to find so complete and careful a list. The four "capellani regis," as they are here styled, are (1) John de Bayeux;[1221](2) Nigel de Caine;[1222](3) Robert "Pechet;"[1223](4) Richard "custos sigilli regis."[1224]The remarkable and, we may fairly assume, undesigned coincidence between the list of witnesses attesting this charter, and that of the king's followers at the battle of Brémulé (fought, there is reason to believe, within a few weeks of its grant), as given by Ordericus Vitalis, ought to be carefully noted, confirming, as it obviously does, the authority of both the lists, and consequently my hypothesis that the charter in the Colchester cartulary represents a genuine original record belonging to the date alleged.[1225]
It is also, perhaps, worth notice that Eadmer applies to William "the Ætheling" the very same term as that which meets us in this charter, namely, "designatus."[1226]
Approaching now the question of date, we note that the charter must have been subsequent to the marriage at Lisieux (June, 1119) to which it refers, and previous to the Council of Rheims (October 20, 1119), which Archbishop Thurstan attended, and from which he did not return.[1227]We know that between these dates Henry was in Rouen at least once, viz. at the end of September (1119),[1228]so that we can determine the date of the charter within exceedingly narrow limits.
The remaining charters which we have now to examine are all subsequent to the king's return and the disaster of the White Ship (November 25, 1120).
The desolate king had spent his Christmas (1120) in comparative seclusion at Brampton, attended by his nephew, Theobald of Blois.[1229]In January (1121) he came south to attend a great council before his approaching marriage. By Eadmer and the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, the assembling of the council is assigned to the Epiphany (January 6, 1121). Richard "de Sigillo" was on the following day (January 7) elected to the see of Hereford, and was consecrated nine days later (January 16, 1121) at Lambeth.[1230]
To this council we may safely assign a charter in the British Museum (Harley, 111, B. 46),[1231]of value for its list of witnesses, twenty-six in number. It gives us the names of no fewer than thirteen bishops, by whom, in addition to the primate, this council was attended.[1232]Mr. Walter de Gray Birch, by whom so much has been done to encourage the study of charters and of seals, has edited this record in one of his instructive sphragistic monographs.[1233]He has, however, by an unfortunate inadvertence, omitted about half a dozen witnesses,[1234]while his two limits of date are not quite correct; for Richard was consecrated Bishop of Hereford, not on "the 16th of January, 1120," but on the 16th of January, 1121 (N.S.), and Archbishop Ralph died, not "19th September," but 19th October (xiv. kal. Novembris), 1122. Thus the limit for this charter would be, not "from April, 1120, to September, 1122," but from January, 1121, to October, 1122. Mr. Birch further observes that "thedate may be taken very shortly after the consecration of Richard." Here again, I must reluctantly differ, for by the practice of the time, the grant of the temporalities did not come after, but before, the consecration. The charter, in short, as I observed above, can be safely assigned to the council of January, 1121.
In it the subject of this paper attests as "Roberto filio Regis." His name occurs in its right place immediately after those of the earls, who, oddly enough, are in this charter the same two, at least in title,[1235]after whom he had attested the Savigny charter in 1118.[1236]
The next charters in my chain of evidence are two which passed at Windsor. We are told by Simeon of Durham that at the time of the king's marriage (January 29-30, 1121) there was gathered together at Windsor a council of the whole realm.[1237]To this council I assign a charter printed by Madox from the original among the archives of Westminster Abbey.[1238]I am led to do so because, firstly, the names of the witnesses are all found, with three exceptions, in charters belonging to this date; second, the said three exceptions are those of Count Theobald of Blois, who had, we know, joined the king not long before, of Earl David, from Scotland, whose visit would be due to the occasion of his brother-in-law's wedding, and of the Archbishop of Rouen, whose presence may be also thus accounted for;[1239]third, the attestation of two archbishops with four bishops suggests the presence of a "concilium," as described by Simeon of Durham.
If this is the date of the charter in question, it may also be that of another charter, also to Westminster Abbey,[1240]for itseleven witnesses are all found among those of the preceding charter. In both these cases "Robert, the king's son," attests in his regular place immediately after the earls.[1241]
We now come to an original charter in every way of the highest importance.[1242]I have already quoted its dating clause,[1243]which proves it to have been executed at Winchester, between Easter (April 10) and Pentecost (May 29), 1121. Moreover, as the king spent his Easter at Berkeley and his Whitsuntide at Westminster,[1244]the limit of date, as a matter of fact, is somewhat narrower still. Here again Robert attests ("Rob[erto] fil[io] Regis") at the head of all the laity beneath the rank of earl.
The last charter which I propose to adduce, as attested by "Robert, the king's son," is one which, in all probability, may be assigned to this same occasion, for the whole of its thirteen witnesses had attested the previous charter, with the exception of two bishops, whose presence can be otherwise accounted for,[1245]and of William de Warenne (Earl of Surrey).
The importance of this charter is not so great as that of those adduced above, for it is known to us only from the Rymer Collectanea (Add. MSS., 4573), of which an abstract is appended to the Fœdera.[1246]Moreover, in one minute detail its accuracy may be fairly impugned, for "Willielmo de Warennâ" clearly stands for "WillielmoComitede Warennâ," Nor, indeed, is its evidence needed, the proof being complete without it. Yet, as the charter (quantum valeat) has been assigned, I think, to a wrong date, the point may be worth glancing at. In the Rymer Collectanea the date is fixed as "1115" (or "16 Henry I.") on the ground that it belongs to the same date as a charter of Henry I. to Bardney, which was granted "Apud Wynton' xvj. anno postquam rex recepit regnum Angliæ."[1247]Mr. Eyton also, in alate addition to his MS. Itinerary of Henry I.,[1248]wrote that the presence of three of the bishops (Lincoln, Salisbury, and St David's) suggested "the latter part of 1115." But we must remember that the Bardney charter is known to us only from a late Inspeximus,[1249]and that the dating clause is somewhat suspicious. Yet even if the version were entirely genuine, the fact remains that the list of witnesses has only four names[1250]in common with that in the charter I am discussing, which has, on the contrary, no less than ten in common with those in the original charter of 1121.[1251]I cannot, therefore, but fix on 1121 as a far more probable date for its grant than 1115-1116.
This, however, as I said, is but a small matter. The really important fact is this: that we have a continuous chain of evidence, proving that "Robert, the king's son," was not yet Earl of Gloucester, at least as late as April-May, 1121.
Against this weight of accumulated evidence what is there? Absolutely nothing but that Tewkesbury charter, which is quoted from Dugdale'sMonasticon, where it is quoted from a mereInspeximusof the 10th Henry IV. (1408-9), some three centuries after its alleged date![1252]I need scarcely say that this miserable evidence for the assertion that Robert was Earl of Gloucester, at Easter, 1116, is simply annihilated and crumpled up by the proof afforded by original charters that he had not yet received the earldom even five years later on (1121).
It is, however, satisfactory to be able to add that, even independent of this rebutting evidence, the charter itself, on its own face, bears witness of its spurious character. Mr. Eyton, indeed, was slightly uneasy about two of the witnesses, it being, he thought, as unusually early for an attestation of Brian fitz Count, as it was late for that of Hamo Dapifer.[1253]Yet he was not, on that account, led to reject it; indeed, he not only accepted, but unfortunately built upon its evidence. He never, however, we must remember, committed his conclusions to print, so that it may be urged with perfect justice that he might have reconsidered and changed his views before he made thempublic. Not so with Mr. Chester Waters. Announcing the discovery which Mr. Eyton had so strangely anticipated, he wrote—
"We know that the earldom [of Gloucester] was conferred on him [Robert] before Easter, 1116, for he attested as earl the royal charter in favour of Tewkesbury Abbey which was executed at Winchester, on the eve of the king's embarkation for Normandy (Monasticon, vol. ii. p. 66)."[1254]
When Mr. Waters thus wrote, had he observed that in this charter the king's style appears as "Henr' dei gratia Rex Angl'et dux Norm'"? And if he had done so, if he had glanced at the charter on which he based his case, is it possible that he was so unfamiliar with the charters and the writs of Henry I., as not to be aware that such a style, of itself, throws doubt upon the charter?[1255]To those who remember that he confessed (in reply to certain criticisms of my own) to having "carelessly repeated a statement which comes from a discredited authority,"[1256]and that he announced a discovery as to the meeting of Henry I. and Robert of Normandy, in 1101,[1257]which, as I proved, was based only on his own failure to read a charter of this reign aright,[1258]such a correction as this will come as no surprise.
Having now shown that Robert fitz Roy was not yet Earl of Gloucester in April-May, 1121, I proceed to show that he was earl in June, 1123.
The charter by which I prove this is granted "apud Portesmudam in transfretatione meâ."[1259]It is dated in the thirty-first Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (in the calendar of these charters drawn up by the late Sir William Hardy) as "1115-1123." Its exact date can, however, be determined, and is 3-10 June, 1123. This I prove thus. The parties addressed are Theowulf, Bishop of Worcester (who died October 20, 1123), and Robert, Earl of Gloucester (who was not yet earl in April-May, 1121). These being the limits of date, the only occasion within these limits on which the king"transfretavit" was in June, 1123. And we learn from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the king, on that occasion, was at Portsmouth, waiting to cross, all Pentecost week (June 3-10). This is conclusive.
It is certain, therefore, that Robert fitz Roy received the earldom of Gloucester between April-May, 1121, and June, 1123. We may even reduce this limit if we can trust a charter in the Register of St. Osmund (i. 382) which is absurdly assigned in the Rolls edition to circ. 1109. The occurrence of Robert, Earl of Leicester, proves that it must be subsequent to his father's death in 1118, and consequently (as the charter is tested at Westminster) to the king's return in 1120. Again, as Bishop Robert of Lincoln witnesses the charter, it must be previous to his death, January 10, 1123, But as the king had not been at Westminster for some time before that, it cannot be placed later than 1122. Now, we have seen that in April-May, 1121, Robert was not yet Earl of Gloucester; consequently, this charter must belong to the period between that date and the close of 1122. It is, therefore, the earliest mention, as yet known to me, of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. As we increase our knowledge of the charters of this reign we shall doubtless be able to narrow further the limit I have thus ascertained.
There is, indeed, a charter which, if we could trust it, would greatly reduce the limit. This is Henry I.'s great charter to Merton,[1260]which is attested by Robert, as Earl of Gloucester, and which purports to have passed August 5-December 31, 1121 (? 24th March, 1122).[1261]But it is quite certain that, in the form we have it, this charter is spurious. It is true that the names given in the long list of witnesses are, apparently, consistent with the date,[1262]but all else is fatally bad. Both the charter itself, and the attestations thereto, are in the worst and most turgid style; the precedence of the witnesses is distinctly wrong,[1263]and the mention of the year-date would alone rousesuspicion. Whether, and, if so, to what extent, the charter is based on a genuine document, it is not easy to decide. A reference to the newMonasticonwill show that there is a difficulty, a conflict of testimony, about the facts of the foundation. This increases the doubt as to the authenticity of the charter, from the evidence of which, if not confirmed, we are certainly not entitled to draw any authoritative conclusion as to the date of Robert's creation.
Adhering then, for the present, to the limits I have given above (1121-1122) I may point out that Robert's promotion may possibly have been due to his increased importance, consequent on the loss in the White Ship of the king's only legitimate son, and of his natural son Richard. Of Henry's three adult sons he now alone remained.[1264]It is certain that he henceforth continued to improve his position and power till, as we know, he contested with his future rival, Stephen, the honour of being first among the magnates to swear allegiance to the Empress.
Before passing to a corollary of the conclusion arrived at in this paper it may be well to glance at Robert's younger brother and namesake. This was a son of Henry by another mother, Edith, whose parentage, by the way, suggests a genealogical problem.[1265]He was quite a nonentity in the history of thetime as compared with the elder Robert; nor does his name, so far as I know, occur before 1130, when it is entered in the Pipe-Roll for that year. He is found as a witness to one of his royal father's charters, which is only known to us from theCartæ Antiquæ, and which belongs to the end of the reign.[1266]There is no possibility of confusion between his brother and himself, for his earliest attestations are, as we have seen, several years later than his brother's elevation to the earldom, so that they cannot both have been attesting, at any one period, as "Robert, the king's son." It is, moreover, self-evident that such a style could only be used when there was but one person whom it could be held to denote.
As illustrating the value of such researches as these, and the importance of securing a "fixed point" as a help for other inquiries, I shall now give an instance of the results consequent on ascertaining the date of this creation. Let us turn to that remarkable record among the muniments of St. Paul's, which the present Deputy Keeper of the Records first made public,[1267]and which has since been publishedin extensoand in fac-simile by the Corporation of London in their valuableHistory of the Guildhall. The importance of this record lies in its mention of the wards of the City, with their respective rulers, at an exceptionally early date. What that date was it is most desirable to learn. Mr. Loftie has rightly, in his later work,[1268]made the greatest use of this list, which he describes (p. 93) as "the document I have so often quoted as containing a list of the lands of the dean and chapter before 1115." Indeed, he invariably treats this document as one "which must have been written before 1115" (p. 82). But the only reason to be found for his conclusion is that—
"Coleman Street appears in the St. Paul's list as 'Warda Reimundi,' and this is the more interesting as we know that Reimund, or Reinmund, was dead before 1115, which helps us to date the document. Azo, his son, succeeded him" (p. 89).[1269]
This is a most astounding statement, considering that all "we know," from these documents, of Reimund or Reinmund is that both he and his son Azo were living in 1132, when they attested a charter![1270]Turning from this strange blunder to the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is among those mentioned in this list,[1271]we learn at once that, so far from beingearlierthan 1115, it islaterthan the earl's creation in 1121-1122. And this conclusion accords well with the fact that other names which it contains, such as those of John fitz Ralf (fitz Evrard),[1272]William Malet, etc., belong to the close of the reign.[1273]
Before taking leave of this record, I would glance at the curious entry:—
"Terra Gialle [reddit] ii sol[idos] et est latitudinisLIIpedum longitudinisCXXXIIpedum."
Mr. Price, the editor of the work, renders this "The land of Gialla;" but what possible proper name can "Gialla" represent? When we find that the list is followed by a reference to the Jews being "incarcerati apud Gyhalam,"temp.Edward I., and when Mr. Price admits that "Gyaula" is among the early forms of "Guildhall," is it too rash a conjecture that we have in the above "Gialla" a mention of the Guildhall of London earlier, by far, than he, or any one else, has ever yet discovered?
[1206]This, the important word, is unfortunately doubtful.[1207]"He was advanced to the earldom of Gloucester by the king (his father). After which, in Anno 1119 (20 Hen. I.), he attended him in that famous battle at Brennevill," etc., etc. (Baronage, i. 534).[1208]A paper on the earldom was read by the late Mr. J. G. Nichols, at the Gloucester Congress of the Institute (1851), but I do not find that it was ever printed, so that I cannot give the date which he assigned.[1209]Athenæum, May 9 and June 27, 1885.[1210]Academy, September 29, 1883 (p. 207).[1211]v. 199.[1212]iv. 302.[1213]The king promised the charter on the occasion of his visit (February 3, 1113), and when it had been drawn up, it received his formal approval at Rouen, "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit et Cenomanniam de me, meus homo factus, recepit."[1214]Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 77.[1215]Henry remained abroad between the above dates.[1216]Gallia Christiana, xi. (Instrumenta), pp. 111-112. The charter is there assigned, but without any reason being given, to 1118. A collation, however, of this record with the names given by Ordericus Vitalis (iv. 329) of those present at the Council of Rouen, October 7, 1118, makes it all but certain that it passed on that occasion.[1217]Academy, No. 645.[1218]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.[1219]Compare the Rouen charter (1113) to St. Evroul, where the clause is "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit," etc., etc. (see p. 423).[1220]This is specially applicable to the insertion of the year in numerals. Such date would be, though actually an addition, yet a legitimate inference from the event alluded to in the charter. It may be worth alluding to another case, though it stands on somewhat a different footing, to illustrate the infinite variety of treatment to which such charters were subjected, even when there were neither occasion nor intention to deceive. This is that of the final agreement between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, of which the record is preserved at Canterbury. It has been discovered that the document from which historians have quoted (A. 1) is not really the original, but a copy "which was plainly intended for public exhibition" (Fifth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 452). Moreover, the real original (A. 2) was found not to contain the final clause (narrating the place and circumstances of the agreement), which is hence supposed to have been subsequently added, for the sake of convenience, by the clerk. (See my letter inAthenæum, December 19, 1891.)[1221]Natural son of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the Conqueror's half-brother.[1222]"Nigellus de Calna reddit compotum de j marca argenti pro Willelmo nepote suo" (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I., p. 18).[1223]Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry early in 1121.[1224]Alias"de Sigillo." He was made Bishop of Hereford in January, 1121, as "Ricardus qui regii sigilli sub cancellario custos erat" (Eadmer).[1225]In both we have the same three earls, neither more nor less; in both we have the same twofilii regis, Robert and Richard; in both we have Richard de Tankerville and Nigel de Albini and Roger fitz Richard.[1226]"Willelmum jam olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Compare the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, who, speaking of the very event (1119) by which this charter is dated, describes him as William "quem jam [i.e. 1116] hæredem totius regni sui constituerat" (ii. 72).[1227]Florence of Worcester, ii. 72.[1228]Ordericus Vitalis(ed. Société de l'Histoire de France), iv. 371.[1229]Henry of Huntingdon.[1230]Cont. Flor. Wig., ii. 75;Eadmer, 290.[1231]"Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Ricardo episcopo episcopatum de Hereford," etc., etc.[1232]Five of them joined the primate in the consecration of the Bishop of Hereford (January 16). The Archbishop of York was not at the council, being still in disgrace with the king for his conduct at the Council of Rheims (October, 1119).[1233]Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxix. 258, 259.[1234]Reading "Willelmo, & Ricardo filiis Baldewini," where the charter has:—"(1) William de Tankerville, (2) William de Albini, (3) Walter de Gloucester, (4) Adam de Port, (5) William de Pirou, (6) Walter de Gant, (7) Richard fitz Baldwin.[1235]The Count of Mortain, and the Earl of Chester. The latter was, of course, now Randolf, who had succeeded his cousin Richard, drowned in the White Ship.[1236]Vide supra, p. 423.[1237]"AnnoMCXXIConcilio totius Angliæ ante purificationem ... apud Winderesoram adunato, Henricus rex ... Adelinam matrimonio sibi junxit" (ii. 219).[1238]Formularium Anglicanum, No. lxv. (p 39).[1239]This would give us, as the principal guests assembled at the king's wedding, his brother-in-law, Earl David, his nephews Theobald, Count of Blois, and Stephen, Count of Mortain, with the primates of England and of Normandy.[1240]Madox'sFormularium Anglicanum, No. ccccxcvi. (p. 292).[1241]Earl David and the Count of Blois.[1242]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.[1243]Supra, p. 426.[1244]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[1245]Winchester, who had attested the Windsor charters, and who here attests in his own city; and St. David's, who is constantly found at Court, and who had attested, in January, the charter at Westminster, to the Bishop of Hereford (supra, p. 428).[1246]"Concessio Manerii de clara Archiepiscopo Rothomagensi."[1247]Mon. Ang., i. 629.[1248]Add. MSS., 31,937, fol. 130.[1249]Cart., 5 Edw. III., n. 10.[1250]The chancellor and three bishops.[1251]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.[1252]Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. 66.[1253]Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 68,b.[1254]Survey of Lindsey, p. 3. See my paper on "The spurious Tewkesbury Charter" inGenealogist, October, 1891.[1255]"Rex Anglorum" was the normal style employed in the English charters of Henry I.: "Dux Normannorum," etc., was added by Henry II.[1256]Academy, June 27, 1885.[1257]Notes and Queries, 6th series, i. 6.[1258]Athenæum, Dec. 19, 1885.[1259]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 5.[1260]Cartæ Antiquæ, R. 5.[1261]It is dated 1121, and in the twenty-second year of the reign.[1262]That is, if Archbishop Thurstan was yet restored to favour.[1263]The chancellor, for instance, instead of attesting after the bishops and before the laity, actually follows immediately after the archbishops, and precedes the whole "bench of bishops." I have been amazed to find antiquaries who thought nothing of this matter of precedence.[1264]Robert and Richard are the two of Henry's natural sons, who are mentioned as with him in Normandy, and fighting beneath his standard at Noyon (1119).[1265]If, as suggested by the narrative in theMonasticonof the foundation of Osney Abbey, her father's name was "Forne," one is tempted to ask if the bearer of so uncommon a name was identical with the Forn Ligulfson ("Forne filius Ligulfi"), who is mentioned by Simeon of Durham, in 1121, as one of the magnates of Northumbria, and if so, whether the latter was son of the wealthy but ill-fated Ligulf, murdered near Durham in 1080. Should both these queries be answered in the affirmative, Edith would have been named after her grandmother "Eadgyth," the highly born wife of Ligulf. Writing at a distance from works of reference I cannot tell whether such a descent has been suggested before, but it would certainly, could it be proved, be of quite exceptional interest. Edith, as is tolerably well known, was first the mistress of Henry, and then the wife of Robert D'Oilli. Thus her son by the former, Robert fitz Edith (see p. 94,n.4), was (half)-brother to Henry D'Oilli, and is so described by the latter in one of his grants to Osney (Dugdale'sBaronage, i. 460). It should be added that an "Ivo fil' Forn" appears in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 25). Was he brother to Edith?[1266]Charter to the church of Durham, printed in Rymer'sFœdera(Record edition), i. 13, and assigned by Sir T. D. Hardy (Syllabus) to "1134." It was, in any case, subsequent to Flambard's death (September 5, 1128).[1267]Ninth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 56.[1268]Historic Towns: London.[1269]Mr. Loftie elsewhere tells us (p. 27) that Reinmund "was succeeded by his more eminent son Azo, the goldsmith, whom it would be interesting to identify with one of the Azors of Domesday." How does Mr. Loftie know that Azo was "more eminent" than his father, or that he was a "goldsmith"? On one point we can certainly agree with him. Itwouldbe most "interesting" to identify a Domesday tenant in a man whose father was living in 1132![1270]Ninth Report(ut supra), p. 67b. For similar instances of eccentric statements on the City fathers in Mr. Loftie's book, see p. 355, and my paper on "The First Mayor of London" (Antiquary, March, 1887). They throw, it will be found, a strange light on Mr. Elton's unfortunate remark that "Mr. Loftie makes good use of the documents discovered at St. Paul's" (Academy, April 30, 1887, p. 301).[1271]"Socce Comitis Gloecestrie."[1272]Cf. pp. 305, 306.[1273]Ralf fitz "Algod," Robert fitz Gosbert, and Robert d'Ou occur in a deed of 1132 (Ninth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 67b), and Osbert Masculus in one of 1142 (ibid., p. 40b).
[1206]This, the important word, is unfortunately doubtful.
[1207]"He was advanced to the earldom of Gloucester by the king (his father). After which, in Anno 1119 (20 Hen. I.), he attended him in that famous battle at Brennevill," etc., etc. (Baronage, i. 534).
[1208]A paper on the earldom was read by the late Mr. J. G. Nichols, at the Gloucester Congress of the Institute (1851), but I do not find that it was ever printed, so that I cannot give the date which he assigned.
[1209]Athenæum, May 9 and June 27, 1885.
[1210]Academy, September 29, 1883 (p. 207).
[1211]v. 199.
[1212]iv. 302.
[1213]The king promised the charter on the occasion of his visit (February 3, 1113), and when it had been drawn up, it received his formal approval at Rouen, "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit et Cenomanniam de me, meus homo factus, recepit."
[1214]Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 77.
[1215]Henry remained abroad between the above dates.
[1216]Gallia Christiana, xi. (Instrumenta), pp. 111-112. The charter is there assigned, but without any reason being given, to 1118. A collation, however, of this record with the names given by Ordericus Vitalis (iv. 329) of those present at the Council of Rouen, October 7, 1118, makes it all but certain that it passed on that occasion.
[1217]Academy, No. 645.
[1218]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.
[1219]Compare the Rouen charter (1113) to St. Evroul, where the clause is "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit," etc., etc. (see p. 423).
[1220]This is specially applicable to the insertion of the year in numerals. Such date would be, though actually an addition, yet a legitimate inference from the event alluded to in the charter. It may be worth alluding to another case, though it stands on somewhat a different footing, to illustrate the infinite variety of treatment to which such charters were subjected, even when there were neither occasion nor intention to deceive. This is that of the final agreement between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, of which the record is preserved at Canterbury. It has been discovered that the document from which historians have quoted (A. 1) is not really the original, but a copy "which was plainly intended for public exhibition" (Fifth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 452). Moreover, the real original (A. 2) was found not to contain the final clause (narrating the place and circumstances of the agreement), which is hence supposed to have been subsequently added, for the sake of convenience, by the clerk. (See my letter inAthenæum, December 19, 1891.)
[1221]Natural son of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the Conqueror's half-brother.
[1222]"Nigellus de Calna reddit compotum de j marca argenti pro Willelmo nepote suo" (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I., p. 18).
[1223]Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry early in 1121.
[1224]Alias"de Sigillo." He was made Bishop of Hereford in January, 1121, as "Ricardus qui regii sigilli sub cancellario custos erat" (Eadmer).
[1225]In both we have the same three earls, neither more nor less; in both we have the same twofilii regis, Robert and Richard; in both we have Richard de Tankerville and Nigel de Albini and Roger fitz Richard.
[1226]"Willelmum jam olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Compare the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, who, speaking of the very event (1119) by which this charter is dated, describes him as William "quem jam [i.e. 1116] hæredem totius regni sui constituerat" (ii. 72).
[1227]Florence of Worcester, ii. 72.
[1228]Ordericus Vitalis(ed. Société de l'Histoire de France), iv. 371.
[1229]Henry of Huntingdon.
[1230]Cont. Flor. Wig., ii. 75;Eadmer, 290.
[1231]"Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Ricardo episcopo episcopatum de Hereford," etc., etc.
[1232]Five of them joined the primate in the consecration of the Bishop of Hereford (January 16). The Archbishop of York was not at the council, being still in disgrace with the king for his conduct at the Council of Rheims (October, 1119).
[1233]Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxix. 258, 259.
[1234]Reading "Willelmo, & Ricardo filiis Baldewini," where the charter has:—"(1) William de Tankerville, (2) William de Albini, (3) Walter de Gloucester, (4) Adam de Port, (5) William de Pirou, (6) Walter de Gant, (7) Richard fitz Baldwin.
[1235]The Count of Mortain, and the Earl of Chester. The latter was, of course, now Randolf, who had succeeded his cousin Richard, drowned in the White Ship.
[1236]Vide supra, p. 423.
[1237]"AnnoMCXXIConcilio totius Angliæ ante purificationem ... apud Winderesoram adunato, Henricus rex ... Adelinam matrimonio sibi junxit" (ii. 219).
[1238]Formularium Anglicanum, No. lxv. (p 39).
[1239]This would give us, as the principal guests assembled at the king's wedding, his brother-in-law, Earl David, his nephews Theobald, Count of Blois, and Stephen, Count of Mortain, with the primates of England and of Normandy.
[1240]Madox'sFormularium Anglicanum, No. ccccxcvi. (p. 292).
[1241]Earl David and the Count of Blois.
[1242]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.
[1243]Supra, p. 426.
[1244]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
[1245]Winchester, who had attested the Windsor charters, and who here attests in his own city; and St. David's, who is constantly found at Court, and who had attested, in January, the charter at Westminster, to the Bishop of Hereford (supra, p. 428).
[1246]"Concessio Manerii de clara Archiepiscopo Rothomagensi."
[1247]Mon. Ang., i. 629.
[1248]Add. MSS., 31,937, fol. 130.
[1249]Cart., 5 Edw. III., n. 10.
[1250]The chancellor and three bishops.
[1251]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.
[1252]Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. 66.
[1253]Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 68,b.
[1254]Survey of Lindsey, p. 3. See my paper on "The spurious Tewkesbury Charter" inGenealogist, October, 1891.
[1255]"Rex Anglorum" was the normal style employed in the English charters of Henry I.: "Dux Normannorum," etc., was added by Henry II.
[1256]Academy, June 27, 1885.
[1257]Notes and Queries, 6th series, i. 6.
[1258]Athenæum, Dec. 19, 1885.
[1259]Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 5.
[1260]Cartæ Antiquæ, R. 5.
[1261]It is dated 1121, and in the twenty-second year of the reign.
[1262]That is, if Archbishop Thurstan was yet restored to favour.
[1263]The chancellor, for instance, instead of attesting after the bishops and before the laity, actually follows immediately after the archbishops, and precedes the whole "bench of bishops." I have been amazed to find antiquaries who thought nothing of this matter of precedence.
[1264]Robert and Richard are the two of Henry's natural sons, who are mentioned as with him in Normandy, and fighting beneath his standard at Noyon (1119).
[1265]If, as suggested by the narrative in theMonasticonof the foundation of Osney Abbey, her father's name was "Forne," one is tempted to ask if the bearer of so uncommon a name was identical with the Forn Ligulfson ("Forne filius Ligulfi"), who is mentioned by Simeon of Durham, in 1121, as one of the magnates of Northumbria, and if so, whether the latter was son of the wealthy but ill-fated Ligulf, murdered near Durham in 1080. Should both these queries be answered in the affirmative, Edith would have been named after her grandmother "Eadgyth," the highly born wife of Ligulf. Writing at a distance from works of reference I cannot tell whether such a descent has been suggested before, but it would certainly, could it be proved, be of quite exceptional interest. Edith, as is tolerably well known, was first the mistress of Henry, and then the wife of Robert D'Oilli. Thus her son by the former, Robert fitz Edith (see p. 94,n.4), was (half)-brother to Henry D'Oilli, and is so described by the latter in one of his grants to Osney (Dugdale'sBaronage, i. 460). It should be added that an "Ivo fil' Forn" appears in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 25). Was he brother to Edith?
[1266]Charter to the church of Durham, printed in Rymer'sFœdera(Record edition), i. 13, and assigned by Sir T. D. Hardy (Syllabus) to "1134." It was, in any case, subsequent to Flambard's death (September 5, 1128).
[1267]Ninth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 56.
[1268]Historic Towns: London.
[1269]Mr. Loftie elsewhere tells us (p. 27) that Reinmund "was succeeded by his more eminent son Azo, the goldsmith, whom it would be interesting to identify with one of the Azors of Domesday." How does Mr. Loftie know that Azo was "more eminent" than his father, or that he was a "goldsmith"? On one point we can certainly agree with him. Itwouldbe most "interesting" to identify a Domesday tenant in a man whose father was living in 1132!
[1270]Ninth Report(ut supra), p. 67b. For similar instances of eccentric statements on the City fathers in Mr. Loftie's book, see p. 355, and my paper on "The First Mayor of London" (Antiquary, March, 1887). They throw, it will be found, a strange light on Mr. Elton's unfortunate remark that "Mr. Loftie makes good use of the documents discovered at St. Paul's" (Academy, April 30, 1887, p. 301).
[1271]"Socce Comitis Gloecestrie."
[1272]Cf. pp. 305, 306.
[1273]Ralf fitz "Algod," Robert fitz Gosbert, and Robert d'Ou occur in a deed of 1132 (Ninth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 67b), and Osbert Masculus in one of 1142 (ibid., p. 40b).