Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers, not enjoying the same standpoint as ourselves, were, I think, somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. Stephen, for instance, has been severely blamed, mainly on the authority of Henry of Huntingdon,[71] for not punishing more severely the rebels who held Exeter against him in 1136. Surely, in doing so, his critics must forget the parallel cases of both his predecessors. William Rufus at the siege of Rochester (1088), Henry I. at the siege of Bridgnorth (1102), should both be remembered when dealing with Stephen at the siege of Exeter. In both these cases, the people had clamoured for condign punishment on the traitors; in both, the king, who had conquered by their help, was held back by the jealousy of his barons, from punishing their fellows as they deserved. We learn from the author of the _Gesta_ that the same was the case at Exeter. The king's barons again intervened to save those who had rebelled from ruin, and at the same time to prevent the king from securing too signal a triumph. This brings us to the true source of his weakness throughout his reign. That weakness was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. These were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as he gave satisfaction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival claim, hanging over him from the first, like the sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to further demands. Let us glance at them both in succession. Stephen himself describes his title in the opening clause of his Oxford charter:— "Ego Stephanus Dei gratia assensu cleri et populi in regem Anglorum electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ legato consecratus, et ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus."[72] On this clause Dr. Stubbs observes:— "His rehearsal of his title is curious and important; it is worth while to compare it with that of Henry I., but it need not necessarily be interpreted as showing a consciousness of weakness."[73] Referring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause phrased thus:— "HENRICUS FILIUS WILLELMI REGIS post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, Dei gratia rex Anglorum."[74]