One of the most interesting and curious discoveries that I have made in the course of my researches has been the true story of the appeal to Rome as arbiter between Stephen and Maud. Considering the exceptional importance of this episode, in many ways, it has received strangely little attention, with the result that it has been imperfectly understood and almost incredibly misdated.

Mr. Freeman, working, in the Norman Conquest, from the Historia Pontificalis,[748] writes of this episode as taking place on and in consequence of Stephen's attempt to secure the coronation of Eustace in 1152.[749] Miss Norgate has gone into the matter far more fully than Mr. Freeman, but at first assigned the debate described in the Historia Pontificalis to "1151."[750]

In so doing, she was guided merely by the Historia passage itself, which she did not connect, as did Mr. Freeman, with the episode of the proposed coronation in 1152. But on investigating the matter more closely, she was clearly led to reject the date she had first given:—

"From the way in which the trial is brought into the Historia Pontificalis, it would at first sight seem to have taken place in 1151. But the presence of Bishop Ulger of Angers and Roger of Chester, both of whom died in 1149, and the account of the proceedings written by Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count, clearly prove the true date to be 1148."[751]

As to the time of the bishop's death, Roger died, not in 1149, but in April, 1148, and at Antioch, so that the chronology is no less fatal to Miss Norgate's date than to Mr. Freeman's own. But the additional evidence she obtains from Gilbert Foliot's letter requires a special examination.

The sequence of events at which she arrives is this:—

(1) Theobald goes, in defiance of Stephen, to the council convened at Rheims by Eugenius III. for Mid-Lent Sunday, (March) 1148 (N.S.).

(2) Stephen forfeits Theobald, and is threatened in consequence by the Pope.

(3) Geoffrey of Anjou, thereupon, challenges Stephen "to an investigation of his claims before the papal court." Stephen, in reply, calls on Geoffrey to surrender Normandy "before he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter."

(4) Geoffrey surrenders Normandy—but to his son Henry, and Stephen "appears to have consented, as if in desperation, to the proposed trial at Rome."

(5) "The trial" takes place, as recorded in the Historia Pontificalis, and is attended, inter alios, by Gilbert Foliot, Abbot of Gloucester, who had obtained "the succession to the vacant see" of Hereford at the Council of Rheims, and had added, in consequence, to his style the words "et Herefordiensis ecclesiæ mandato Domini Papæ vicarius."

(6) Gilbert Foliot writes the letter to Brian fitz Count, reviewing the treatise which Brian had just composed in support of the claims of the Empress, and alluding to the above "trial" at Rome which he (Gilbert) had attended.

(7) Gilbert Foliot is consecrated Bishop of Hereford by Theobald, at St. Omer, in September (1148).[752]

Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his son Henry belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or 1151.[753] This, however, scarcely affects Miss Norgate's sequence of events. It is when we turn to Foliot's letter that our suspicions begin to be aroused. Although Dr. Giles has placed it at the end of those letters which belong to the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we must be struck by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was written just before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style would have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the Diocese (ut supra)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. Moreover, as Henry was ex hypothesi now Duke of Normandy, the "trial" would have been, surely, of his own claims, not of those of his mother, who had virtually retired in his favour. Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her to this "trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by any direct evidence.

But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the Historia Pontificalis to see that they must have been perused with almost incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions (a) that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,[754] (b) that the "trial" took place under Pope Innocent.[755] Now, Celestine died in March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in September, 1143. The letter, therefore, must have been written within these six months, and the "trial" at Rome must have taken place before September 24, 1143. This being clear, we naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the case argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the very beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at the outset, how could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it were, de novo? Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by the Historia writer as Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see as 1141.[756] A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon must, on her own showing, be not later than this.[757] Lastly, now that we know the council to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the writer—"Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that it was, further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester in 1139? Turning again to the passage in the Historia Pontificalis (41), we find that, in the light of the above evidence, its meaning is beyond dispute. So, indeed, it should be of itself, but for a most incomprehensible blunder by which two passages of the narrative are printed in Pertz as part of the arguments advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the Historia, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is anxious to show us how the matter stood by tracing the attitude of the Papacy to Stephen since the beginning of his reign. He, therefore, takes us right back to the year of the king's accession, and tells us how, and to what extent, his claim came to be confirmed.

This discovery at once explains Gilbert Foliot's expression. For, the trial at Rome taking place, as I shall show, early in 1136, he attended it, not as Abbot of Gloucester, but merely as "minimus Cluniacensium," in attendance on his famous abbot, Peter the Venerable (1122-1158). It may have been as prior ("claustral" prior?) of the abbey that he thus attended him, for we know from himself that he had held that office.

Everything now fits into place. We find that, following in her grandfather's footsteps, Maud at once appealed to Rome against Stephen's usurpation, charging him, precisely as William, in his day, had charged Harold, (1) with defrauding her of her rightful inheritance, (2) with breach of his oath. Stephen, when he had overcome the scruples of William of Corbeuil, and had secured coronation at his hands, hastened to take his next step by despatching to Rome three envoys to plead his cause before the pope. These envoys were Roger, Bishop of Chester, Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez (the spokesman of the party), and "Lovel," a clerk of Archbishop William.[758] This last was, of course, intended to represent his master in the matter, and to justify his action in crowning Stephen by explaining the grounds on which his scruples had been overruled. The envoys were abundantly supplied with the requisite motive power—or, shall we say, the oil for lubricating the wheels of the Curia?—from the hoarded treasure of the dead king, which was now in his successor's hands. The pope resolved that so important a cause required no ordinary tribunal: he convoked for the purpose a great council, and among those by whom it was attended was Peter, Abbot of Cluny, with Gilbert Foliot in his train.[759]

The name of Cluny leads me to break the thread for a moment for the purpose of insisting on the important fact that the sympathies of the house, under its then abbot, must have been with the Angevin cause. This is certain from the documents printed by Sir George Duckett,[760] especially from the Mandatory Epistle of this same Abbot Peter relating to the Empress.[761] We have here, I think, the probable explanation of the energy with which that cause was espoused by Gilbert Foliot.

To return to the council. The case for the prosecution, as we might term it, was opened by the Bishop of Angers, who charged Stephen both with perjury, that is, with breaking the oath he had sworn to Henry I., and with usurpation in seizing the throne to the detriment of the rightful heir.[762] Stephen's supporters, with Arnulf at their head, met these charges by a defence, the two reports of which are not in absolute harmony. It is quite certain that to the charge of usurpation they retorted that the Empress was the offspring of an unlawful alliance, and had, therefore, suffered no wrong.[763] But how they disposed of the oath is not so clear. According to Gilbert Foliot, whose account we may safely follow, they advanced the subtle and ingenious plea that fidelity had only been sworn to the Empress as heir ("sicut heredi") to the throne, and since (they urged) she was not such heir (for the reason given above), the oath was ipso facto void, and the charge fell to the ground.[764] The other writer asserts that the defence was based, first, on the plea that the oath had been forcibly extorted, and, second, on the cunning pretence that the king had reserved to himself the right of appointing another heir, and had exercised that right on his deathbed, to the extent of disinheriting the Empress and nominating Stephen in her stead.[765]

A careful study of the two versions has led me to believe that both writers were, probably, right in their facts. Gilbert Foliot would be the last man to invent an argument in favour of Stephen, nor would the other writer have any inducement to do so, writing (as he did) long after that king's death. Moreover, the pleas that (1) the oath had been extorted, (2) Henry I. had released his barons from its obligation, are precisely those which the author of the Gesta and William of Malmesbury[766] respectively mention as being advanced on Stephen's behalf. Lastly, we have yet another plea advanced by Bishop Roger of Salisbury, namely, that, so far as he was himself concerned, he looked on the re-marriage of the Empress, without the consent of the Great Council, as absolving him from his oath. Now, all this points to one conclusion. The thorn in the side of Stephen and of his friends was, clearly, this unlucky oath. Their various attempts to excuse its breach betray their consciousness of the fact. More especially was this the case before a spiritual court. Hence their ingenious endeavour, described by Gilbert Foliot, to keep the oath in the background as the lesser of the two points. Hence, too, their accumulated pleas. First, they urge that the oath was void because the Empress was not the heir; then, that it was void, because extorted; lastly, that it was void because the dying king had released them from their obligation. Such an argument as this speaks for itself.

The only point on which the two witnesses do, at first sight, differ, is the attitude taken by the Bishop of Angers with regard to the plea that the Empress was not of legitimate birth. Did he contravene this plea? The Historia asserts that when Stephen's advocates had stated the case for the defence, the bishop rose and traversed their pleadings, rejecting them one by one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count, admits that the attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument which he discusses) had not been replied to.[767] Now, the version found in the Historia, though composed much later, is a more detailed account, and bears the stamp of truth. Yet Gilbert's admission to his friend and ally betrays an uneasy consciousness that the charge had not been disposed of. For he asks him to suggest an effectual reply, and proceeds to suggest one himself.[768] He relies on St. Anselm's consent to her parents' marriage. We have here possibly the clue we seek. For the Bishop of Angers, in his speech, as given by the writer of the Historia, had not alluded to St. Anselm's consent.[769] Perhaps he was taken by surprise, and had not expected the plea.

Stephen's advocates seem, from a hint of Gilbert Foliot,[770] to have simply "stampeded the convention" (conventus), and the wrath of the Angevin champion rose to a white heat.[771] The pope commanded that the wrangling should cease, and announced that he would neither pass sentence nor allow the trial to be adjourned. This was equivalent to a verdict that the king was not guilty, and was duly followed by a letter to Stephen confirming him in his possession of the kingdom and the duchy.[772]

Seeing that he had lost his case, the aged Bishop of Angers relieved his feelings by a bitter jest at the cost of the heir of St. Peter.[773]

But we are more immediately concerned with that letter by which the pope (the writer tells us) confirmed Stephen in possession. For this connecting link is no other than the letter which meets us in the pages of Richard of Hexham.[774]

Its relevant portion runs thus:—

"Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, præeunte divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe etiam certa,[775] et [quia] beato Petro in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die obedientiam et reverentiam promisisse, et quia de præfati regis prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse dinosceris, quod de te factum est gratum habentes, te in specialem beati Petri et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesie filium affectione paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris et familiaritatis prærogativa, qua predecessor tuus egregiæ recordationis Henricus a nobis coronabatur, te propensius volumus retinere."

The chronicler, observing that Stephen was "his et aliis modis in regno Angliæ confirmatus," passes straight from this letter to the King's Oxford charter, in which he describes himself as "ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus." Of this "confirmation," as we find it styled by the author of the Historia, by Richard of Hexham, by John of Hexham, and lastly, by Stephen himself, I speak more fully in the text. For the present the point to be grasped is that (1) the "conventus" at Rome was previous to (2) this letter of the pope, which was previous itself to (3) Stephen's charter, which is assigned to the spring (after Easter) of 1136. Thus we arrive at the fact that the council and debate at Rome belong to the early months of 1136.

To complete while we are about it the explanation of the Historia narrative, we will now take the second passage which has been erroneously printed in Pertz—

"Postea, cum prefatus Guido cardinalis promoveretur in papam Celestinum, favore imperatricis scripsit domno Theobaldo Cantuarensi archiepiscopo inhibens ne qua fieret innovatio in regno Anglie circa coronam, quia res erat litigiosa cujus translatio jure reprobata est. Successores eius papæ Lucius et Eugenius eandem prohibitionem innovaverunt."

This passage is absurdly given as part of Bishop Ulger's sneer.

The above cardinal is Guy, cardinal priest of St. Mark, referred to in the previous misplaced passage as opposing the confirmation of Stephen. Observe here that three writers allude quite independently to his sympathy with the Angevin cause. These are—(1) the writer (ut supra) of the Historia Pontificalis; (2) Gilbert Foliot, who speaks of him, when pope, as "favente parti huic domino papa Celestino," and (3) John of Hexham, who describes him as "Alumpnus Andegavensium." A coincidence of testimony, so striking as this, strengthens the authority of all three, including that of the writer of the Historia Pontificalis.

The step taken by Pope Celestine was based on the alleged doubt in which his predecessor had left the question. It was, he held, still "res litigiosa," and, therefore, without reversing the action of Innocent in the matter, he felt free to forbid any further step in advance. His instructions to that effect, to the primate, were duly renewed by his successors, and covered, when the time arrived, the case of the coronation of Eustace as being an "innovatio in regno Anglie circa coronam." Stephen had, indeed, been confirmed as king, and this could not be undone. But that confirmation did not extend to the son of the "perjured" king.[776]

With the character and meaning of the "confirmation" obtained by Stephen from the pope, I have dealt in the body of this work. There are, however, a few minor points which had better be disposed of here. Of these the first is Miss Norgate's contention that when, in 1148, Stephen met Geoffrey's challenge to submit his claims to Rome, "by a counter challenge calling upon Geoffrey to give up his equally ill-gotten duchy before he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter,"

"Geoffrey took him at his word, but in a way which he was far from desiring. He did give up the duchy of Normandy, by making it over to his own son, Henry Fitz-Empress."[777]

A reference to the passage in the Historia[778] on which Miss Norgate relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving the counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the matter further.[779] It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had refused admission to his dominions to either pope or legate. This is a fact of interest.

This was not the only occasion on which Stephen's "recognition" by the pope stood him in good stead. At the crisis of 1141, the sensitive conscience of Archbishop Theobald had prevented his transferring his allegiance to the Empress, badly though Stephen had treated him, till he received permission from the Lord's anointed to follow in the footsteps of his brother prelates.[780]

The loyal primate explained the position when Gilbert Foliot had enraged the Angevins by doing homage to Stephen for the see of Hereford. Wholly Angevin though they were in their sympathies, the prelates maintained that they were bound as Churchmen to follow the pope's ruling, and that the Papacy had "received" Stephen as king.[781]

Another point deserving notice is the choice of Arnulf, afterwards the well-known Bishop of Lisieux, as Stephen's chief envoy in 1136. For Miss Norgate, oddly enough, misses this point in her sketch of this distinguished man's career.[782] She has nothing to say of his doings between his Tractatus de Schismate, "about 1130," and his appointment to the see of Lisieux in 1141, from which date "for the next forty years there was hardly a diplomatic transaction of any kind, ecclesiastical or secular, in England or in Gaul, in which he was not at some moment or in some way or other concerned."[783] This, therefore, constitutes a welcome addition to his career, and, moreover, gives us the reason of Geoffrey's aversion to him, when duke, and of the "heavy price" with which his favour had to be bought by Arnulf.[784]

The last point concerns the "most interesting and valuable"[785] letter from Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count. A careful perusal of this composition has led me to believe, from internal evidence, that it refers not (as Miss Norgate puts it) to a "book" by Brian fitz Count, or "a defence of his Lady's rights in the shape of a little treatise,"[786] but to a justification of his own conduct in reply to hostile criticism. And I venture to think that so far from this composition being "unhappily lost,"[787] it may be, and probably is, no other than that lengthy epistle from Brian to the Bishop of Winchester, of which a copy was entered in Richard de Bury's Liber Epistolaris. And there, happily, it is still preserved.[788] This can only be decided when the contents of that epistle are made accessible to the public, as they should have been before now.

To resume. I have now established these facts. The "trial" at Rome took place, not, as Mr. Freeman assumes, in 1152, nor, as Miss Norgate argues, in 1148, but early in 1136. The letter of Gilbert Foliot, in which he refers to it, was written, not in 1148, but late in 1143 or early in 1144. The whole of Miss Norgate's sequence of events (i. 369, 370) breaks down entirely. The great debate before the pope at Rome was not the result of Stephen's attempt to get Eustace crowned, nor of Geoffrey's challenge to Stephen by the mouth of Bishop Miles, but of the charge brought against Stephen at the very outset of his reign. The true story of this debate and of Stephen's "confirmation," by the pope, as king is here set forth for the first time, and throws on the whole chain of events a light entirely new.