Part 14

The original authority is that of the writer formerly described as “Benedictus abbas,” but now virtually known to have been Richard ‘Fitz Nigel,’[423] who was not only a contemporary writer, but, as the king’s Treasurer, would probably have been an actual spectator of the ceremony he describes. His account is repeated by Hoveden,[424] who was also a contemporary, and possibly present, but “adds only matter of extremely small importance.”[425] We then come to Matthew Paris, writing some two generations later, who gives, says Dr. Stubbs--

a similar account of the coronation, more closely resembling that of Benedict ... in the few and unimportant places where the two differ. He indicates the common source of information, the Rolls (ed. Wats, p. 154) or Consuetudines (Abbreviatio, Ed. Madden, iii. 209) of the Exchequer.[426]

This view was accepted by Dr. Luard (1874), who says of the narrative given by Matthew in his Chronica Majora (ii. 348–350):

This account is taken from Benedict. The original source (the Consuetudines Scaccarii) is referred to in the Hist. Angl., ii. p. 8, and the Abbreviatio Chronicorum, iii. 209. See Madden’s note, iii. 209.[427]

We are thus referred to Sir Frederic Madden, who, as keeper of the MSS. at the British Museum, possessed special knowledge, and who wrote thus (1869):

The details of Richard’s coronation do not appear either in the Red or Black Books of the Exchequer, but they are given by Benedict Abbas, pp. 557–560, and copied by Hoveden, from whom Wendover somewhat abridges them, and thence repeated in the greater Chronicle of Matt. Paris, ed. Wats, p. 153, and Hist. Ang., ii. 6.[428]

This, it will be seen, hardly commits the writer to the view that some Exchequer record was, as alleged above, the original authority. But such, no doubt, might be the inference from this comment on the text. As important inferences have now been drawn from this error, as I venture to deem it, we must glance at the actual passage on which the theory is based.

Unconnected with the narrative of the coronation, which is complete without it, there is found, in the ‘Historia Anglorum’ (ii. 9) this marginal note:

Officia prelatorum et magnatum quæ ab antiquo jure et consuetudine in regum coronationibus sibi vindicant et facere debent, in rotulis Scaccarii poterunt reperiri.

This obviously refers, not to the narrative in the text, which is that of the coronation ceremony alone, but to the services performed “by ancient right and custom” in the king’s house on that occasion. Of these there is no description in the text. In another work ascribed, but doubtfully, to Matthew Paris, the so-called “Abbreviatio,” the coronation is mentioned, but not described; and there is added a similar note;

Et quia exigit plenitudo historiæ officia quorundam magnatum qui in coronationibus habent implere, de antiqua consuetudine, lectorem hujus libelli abbreviati ad historiam transmitto prolixiorem quæ in consuetudinibus Scaccarii poterit reperiri.[429]

In both cases, it will be observed, an exchequer record is referred to solely for the customary offices or services rendered by certain magnates; and in both cases the present tense and the word “coronation_ibus_” imply that the reference is general, and is not merely a description of what happened at Richard’s coronation. Now my contention is that the record referred to is that of Queen Eleanor’s coronation in 1236, which is preserved, at the present day, in the Red Book of the Exchequer, and which was known to Matthew Paris, who appends to his narrative of the services at that coronation the marginal note: “Hæc omnia in consuetudinario Scaccarii melius et plenius reperiuntur.”[430] We actually find in that record the words: “de prædictis autem officiis nullus sibi jus vendicavit,” etc.,[431] which at once remind us of the marginal note found in the ‘Historia Anglorum.’

* * * * *

The solution, therefore, which I propound is that the narrative of the coronation, which is admittedly derived from the ‘Gesta,’ was written by its author from his own knowledge, and certainly not derived by him from an Exchequer record. In the first place, it is nowhere said that he did so; in the second, it is little less than absurd to assume that Richard would refer to a record in his own Exchequer for a ceremony which must have taken place while he was writing his chronicle, and at which he was probably present. The idea arose, as I have shown, from a simple misunderstanding, and has led those who adopt it to direct self-contradiction, for if Matthew derived, as admitted, his narrative from the ‘Gesta,’ he could not also have derived it, as Dr. Luard writes, from some Exchequer record.

As Richard had not described the coronation _services_, Matthew, for these, refers us to that precedent preserved at the Exchequer (Eleanor’s coronation), which was, we shall find, the recognised precedent for coronation services so late as 1377.[432]

We may now pass to Mr. Hall’s theory that the non-appearance in the Red Book of “the order of Richard I.’s Coronation, referred to (as he holds) by Matthew Paris, is a third instance of palpable omission”[433] of transcripts it formerly contained. His only reason for denying that the above marginal notes refer (as I hold) to Eleanor’s coronation (1236) is that “Hoveden, Bromton, and other authorities give an abbreviated narrative” which implies the existence of such a record as is supposed to have been lost. But Hoveden, as we have seen, copies his narrative from the ‘Gesta,’ which he does not abbreviate, but expands--and does not describe the “services,” which is what we want.

Mr. Hall’s meaning, however, is, as usual, obscure; for, having cited the supposed narrative as at one time existing in our Red Book (p. xviii.), he next tells us: “It can scarcely be doubted that Matthew Paris’ reference was to some Exchequer Precedent Book which no longer exists” (p. xix.), although, we read, it was certainly from our existing Red Book that he took his “description of the pageant of 1236” (pp. xix., xxxii.). He calls it the “custumal” (_consuetudinarium_) of the Exchequer. And yet on page xxix. we read of Matthew referring to the

‘custumal’ of the Exchequer wherein a certain document of the reign of Richard I. is said to have been entered, which no longer exists in the Red Book or in any other Exchequer MS.

So also we learn, on page lxii., that Swereford compiled a lost work “which was the custumal known to Matthew Paris, and the probable exemplar of the Red Book of the Exchequer.” So Matthew’s ‘custumal’ (_consuetudinarium_) was not the Red Book itself, but its now lost “exemplar.” Yet on page xix. we are told that this, the only ‘custumal’ mentioned by Matthew, was, beyond doubt, the Red Book of the Exchequer.

It is here, with Mr. Hall, the same as elsewhere. His work is marred, throughout, by that confusion of thought which makes it almost impossible to learn what he really means.

In any case my own position is clear. I assert that the note by Matthew Paris refers, not to the narrative of the coronation, which he derived from the ‘Gesta,’ but to a description of the “services”; and I hold that he found this description, not in a lost Exchequer record, but in the Red Book’s account of Queen Eleanor’s coronation.

X

The Struggle of John and Longchamp

(1191)

It is needless to insist on the critical character of the year 1191 in England. From the moment when the watchers on the coast of Sicily had seen the passing of Richard, this country found itself, for the first time, cut off, for all purposes, from communication with its king. The sovereign had gone, and his seal with him; and ministerial government, a government by officials, was thrown on its own resources. If Henry and his grandfather had taught their subjects faithfully to obey the ministers of the Crown, with the king ever at their back, the case was altered when the king had left them for a distant land. And men’s thoughts turned to John, not only as the visible representative, in his brother’s absence, of his house, but as not improbably their future king, and that, it might be, before long. John, traitor at heart, saw the strength of his position, and Longchamp was far too clever to ignore the danger of his own.

To the tale of their inevitable strife for power, the acknowledged master of that age’s history has devoted special care. In his edition of the ‘Gesta Regis Ricardi’ (1867), and again in that of Hoveden (1870), he has given the conclusions at which he arrived concerning the order of events in 1191. We have, in the former, the footnote to vol. ii., pp. 208–9, and in the latter, pp. lvi.-lxiv. of the preface to vol. iii., and the “long note” on pp. 134–5 of the text. The last of these is perhaps the one which sets forth most fully and clearly the final conclusions of the bishop. These conclusions, I may add at once, have been accepted without question by Mr. Howlett, in his ‘William of Newburgh’ (1884)[434] and his ‘Richard of Devizes’ (1886),[435] by Miss Norgate in her ‘England under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 298–301) and her Life of Longchamp,[436] and by Mr. Hunt in his Life of John.[437]

Summing up the narratives found in the ‘Gesta,’ Hoveden, Richard of Devizes, and William of Newburgh, Dr. Stubbs holds that their “divergency arises from the fact of the struggle falling into two campaigns, in which certain details are repeated. There were three conferences at Winchester, two attempts on the chancellor’s part to seize the castle of Lincoln, and two settlements.” He then gives “the harmonized dates, on this hypothesis, in detail.”

As to the first of these dates, the conference at Winchester on Mid-Lent Sunday (March 24), recorded by Richard of Devizes, no question arises. And I am in a position to adduce documentary evidence in its confirmation; for Longchamp occurs as present at Winchester on March 28 in two separate documents.[438] It is when we come to the “two campaigns,” one in the spring and the other in the summer, that the difficulties begin. I propose, therefore, to append a sketch of the sequence of events as recorded by William of Newburgh, the ‘Gesta,’ and Richard of Devizes. Hoveden practically repeats the Gesta narrative, and may therefore, for convenience, be omitted.

WILLIAM RICHARD GESTA. OF NEWBURGH. OF DEVIZES.

The archbishop of The archbishop of Rouen arrives (April Rouen arrives (April 27).[439] 27).

Longchamp refuses to Richard having left recognise his Sicily for the East authority. John plots (April 10), John against Longchamp. hearing this begins to plot against Longchamp.

Matters are brought At length matters are to a crisis by Gerard brought to a crisis by de Camville being Gerard de Camville summoned by Longchamp doing homage to John to give up Lincoln for Lincoln Castle, castle to him, and by which is declared to be his refusing and treason. joining John.

Longchamp sends Longchamps hastily Longchamp collects abroad for collects troops, forces _after mercenaries, but compels Roger Mortimer Midsummer_, and hastens to besiege to surrender Wigmore, besieges Lincoln Lincoln castle. and then besieges castle depriving Lincoln castle. Gerard of his shrievalty.

John surprises and John is enabbled to Nottingham and seizes Nottingham and seize Nottingham and Tickhill are Tickhill. Tickhill. surrendered to John.

Thereupon he orders He orders Longchamp He orders Longchamp Longchamp to raise to raise the siege of to raise the siege the siege of Lincoln. Lincoln. of Lincoln.

Longchamp knowing Longchamp is quite Longchamp, many of those with taken aback, but terrified, withdraws him were for John, recovering himself, with his army. withdraws “confusus.” sends the archbishop of Rouen to summon John to A few days later he restore the castles he “learns that his has taken. office of legate had expired by the Pope’s death.”

Friends mediate. The archbishop arranges (Many bishops and with John a conference other of the king’s for July 28. lieges mediate.) Longchamp consents, [440] and withdraws.

Longchamp makes Description of agreement Brief summary peace as best he between John and of agreement (which could. Longchamp (wrongly Hovenden recites in dated April 25). full).

Soon after, Longchamp hears that his mercenaries have landed, and repudiates the agreement. At length, however, they come to terms on a fresh footing.

It is the contention of Dr. Stubbs that William of Newburgh, in the first of these columns, describes the first, or spring “campaign,” and that Richard and the ‘Gesta’ describe, in the other two, the second “campaign” later in the year. The difficulty I always felt, in accepting this conclusion, is the almost incredible coincidence of the sequence of events here described occurring twice over, in exactly the same order. But one would not be justified in questioning a view confidently enunciated by Dr. Stubbs, and accepted, it would seem, by every one else, on the ground merely of improbability, however extreme. Let us see, therefore, on what evidence the accepted view is based.

In the first place, we are told that the above sequence was repeated twice over. The authorities, however, are all agreed in mentioning one such sequence, and one only.[441] Why, then, are we to convert it into two, in the face of all probability? The only definite reason I can find for so doing is that, according to William of Newburgh--

Longchamp’s proceedings against Lincoln took place early in the spring, before the death of pope Clement III. was known, _or the archbishop of Rouen landed_ [April 27];--[442]

while the ‘Gesta’ distinctly state that Longchamp only set out against Lincoln “after Midsummer.” If this were so, the discrepancy would be obvious. But leaving aside, for the moment, the question of the Pope’s death, we find, on reference, that William of Newburgh, so far from placing the campaign, etc., _before_ the archbishop’s arrival, actually places it _after_ that event.[443] The one real discrepancy, therefore, is found to have no existence.[444]

As to the date of Longchamp receiving the news of the Pope’s death, it must first be observed that William of Newburgh does not assert categorically that it reached him shortly after the fall of Lincoln. What he says is that the chancellor “learned that his office of legate had expired through the death of the pope.”[445] If this merely meant that he heard of the Pope’s death, it would be irreconcilable with William’s own statement that all this happened after, and some time after, the archbishop’s arrival (April 27). Those, therefore, who would take the words in this sense, must admit that William has blundered, for he contradicts himself. This would be sufficient for my argument; but I think we may hold, in fairness to William, that what Longchamp heard, after withdrawing from Lincoln, was that Pope Cœlestine had not renewed his legation, and, therefore, that it had expired with the death of the late Pope.[446] Great mystery surrounds, it is admitted, the date of the eventual renewal; and one point, it seems to me, may have escaped notice. According to the envoys’ report in Hoveden, Pope Cœlestine himself had been earnestly entreated by Richard to make Longchamp legate. But Cœlestine was not elected Pope till four days after Richard had left Sicily for the East. If, therefore, the renewal was granted at Richard’s instance, there must have been considerable delay before the grant was obtained.

Moreover, those who uphold the view at present accepted have to explain a difficulty they hardly seem to have realized. The ‘Gesta’ assigns the Pope’s death to April 10 (1191), but so uncertain is the date that we find Dr. Stubbs writing:

Clement III. died about the Pope Clement dies April 10: end of March, and the news of the news would reach England his death would reach England in a fortnight or perhaps less. about three weeks later The chancellor, trembling for his (‘Gesta,’ p. 208 note). legation, makes a hasty peace (Rog. Hov., iii. 135 note).

If Clement died April 10--the date adopted by Mr. Howlett and Miss Norgate[447]--the difficulty is that the news must have reached not merely England, but Lincoln (_ex hypothesi_) in time to allow of preliminary negotiations between John and Longchamp, of a conference at Winchester being agreed to, and of their both reaching Winchester in time for that conference on April 25. For this the news must have reached Lincoln hardly later than April 20. Could it possibly have done so?

Those who have thus far followed my argument will have seen that I hold there to have been only one “campaign,” followed by a conference at Winchester, which “campaign” did not begin till after midsummer. The spring campaign, with the alleged conference of April 25 at Winchester, I hold to be wholly imaginary.

In case any one should still be in doubt, I now bring up my reserves. The undisputed statement that Longchamp was at Winchester on March 24 was supported, we saw, by record evidence that he was there on March 28. Of more importance is the record evidence that he was at Lincoln on July 8,[448] for it strongly confirms the statement in the Gesta that he set out “after midsummer,” and, having rapidly reduced Wigmore, laid siege to Lincoln Castle. Although I have been trying for years to collect evidence of Longchamp’s movements in this eventful year, I have not been able to secure many fixed points. It is certain, however, that he was at Cambridge on April 21.[449] This affords welcome support to the crowning discovery I made, in a document preserved in France, that he was there on April 24.[450] It will, I presume, not be disputed that if the chancellor was at Cambridge on April 24, he cannot have devoted the following day to a conference with John at Winchester.

* * * * *

I have purposely refrained as yet from discussing a distinct question, namely, the terms of the agreement, or agreements, between Longchamp and John. For they do not affect the question of the sequence of historical events. We have (_a_) in Hoveden what purports to be an actual recital of the agreement made after the chancellor’s enforced withdrawal from Lincoln; (_b_) in Richard of Devizes a _résumé_ of such an agreement effected, according to him, at a conference on July 28, also, it would seem, consequent on the chancellor’s retreat.[451] Dr. Stubbs has argued as against Palgrave, and apparently with complete success, that two distinct agreements are in question. But this does not establish their date (or respective dates), nor even their right sequence. I have already disposed of the alleged conference on April 25, and both agreements, therefore, must be later than the Lincoln business in July. Now, it is singular that William of Newburgh distinctly speaks of two agreements, and implies that the second was the less unfavourable to the chancellor’s claims. This is, at first sight, in striking harmony with Dr. Stubbs’ conclusion that the agreement recited by Hoveden is the later of the two, and that in it “the chancellor gave way somewhat more than was wise, but less than he had done in April”[452] (_i.e._ in the agreement described by Richard of Devizes). But a more minute examination than Dr. Stubbs could give reveals a serious difficulty. According to him, the earlier agreement “engages the chancellor to support John’s claim to the crown in case of Richard’s death”;[453] while the later one contains no such provision. On this distinction he lays stress because “the succession of Arthur,” he holds, was a “main point” of Longchamp’s policy;[454] while the archbishop of Rouen also, he urges, would have “sacrificed other considerations to ... obtaining the omission of any terms which would have openly asserted John’s claim to the succession.”[455]

But on turning to the ‘Gesta’ and to William of Newburgh, we find that the former, in what is admittedly, and the latter in what he explicitly makes, the later of the two agreements, declare the recognition of John as heir, in case of Richard’s death, to have been the feature of that later agreement, in which, according to Dr. Stubbs, it was conspicuously omitted.[456] This grave discrepancy would seem to have escaped notice.

I do not profess to determine absolutely the sequence of the two agreements, but I think it not impossible that the one recited by Hoveden may prove, after all, to have been the earlier of the two. They have hardly, perhaps, been examined with sufficient care. Dr. Stubbs, for instance, writes that in the agreement described by Richard “each party chooses eleven commissioners,” while in Hoveden, “each chooses seven.”[457] But the latter were merely sureties for the oaths of the parties to observe the agreement,[458] not arbitrators for arranging its terms; while, in the other agreement, the eleven were actual arbitrators, chosen (as for the Provisions of Oxford) for drawing up the agreement independently of the parties. Again, closer investigation shows that the agreement described by Richard of Devizes is, in some ways, more, not less, favourable to the chancellor than the other. Hoveden, for instance, makes John surrender Tickhill and Nottingham, not to the chancellor, but to the archbishop as representing the king. Richard, on the other hand, makes the chancellor not only receive the castles, but personally take hostages from their keepers for their safe custody. In Hoveden, indeed, the possession of these two castles is made, on the contrary, a kind of security for the chancellor’s good behaviour. Richard, to speak more generally, brings the chancellor to the front, and leaves the archbishop in the background, which is precisely what might be expected when Longchamp felt himself strong enough to pose once more as the king’s representative.

Moreover, we have a hint as to the order of these agreements in their provisions as to Gerard de Camville. In Hoveden’s document we read that he is to be provisionally restored, then to have a fair trial, and, if convicted, is to lose his castle and his shrievalty.[459] Richard, on the contrary, describes him as restored to the chancellor’s favour, and, therefore, to the permanent custody of the castle.[460] The latter, surely, is a later stage.

On all these grounds I lean strongly to the view that Richard of Devizes describes the later and final compromise, which, unlike its predecessor, was arranged by formal arbitration. On this hypothesis the archbishop of Rouen had refused to give way about the succession,[461] while the chancellor purchased concessions from John by throwing over Arthur. But as I do not claim to have demonstrated this, I hope my view will be discussed by some duly qualified critic.