Geoffrey de Mandeville: A study of the AnarchyRound, John Horace
History
Geoffrey de Mandeville: A study of the Anarchy
Round, John Horace
Great Britain -- History -- Stephen, 1135-1154; Mandeville, Geoffrey de, earl of Essex, -1144
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."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account