The Commune of London, and other studiesRound, John Horace
History
The Commune of London, and other studies
Round, John Horace
Great Britain -- History -- Norman period, 1066-1154; London (England) -- History -- To 1500
Accepting, then, these letters as genuine, let me briefly recapitulate
how the case stands. Their contents agree, we have seen, independently,
in the most indisputable way, with the narrative of Giraldus. Moreover,
that narrative, when carefully examined, leads us to infer that the
Pope’s answer was despatched in reply to Henry’s mission; and with that
inference the date of these letters (20th Sept., 1172) agrees fairly
enough. Such a date as 1174 or 1175 would not agree with it at all.
Lastly, Giraldus tells us that the Pope’s confirmation was despatched
to Ireland with William Fitz Audelin; and, indeed, we should naturally
expect that Henry, when he had succeeded in getting it, would lose no
time in publishing the fact. Both the statement of Giraldus and that
expectation are confirmed by the Pipe Roll entry, which proves that
William Fitz Audelin did visit Ireland between Michaelmas, 1172, and
Michaelmas, 1173, which is just the time that he must have done so, if
he went there in charge of the Pope’s letter (or letters).
But now comes the hitch. If Giraldus had given us the text of the
letter which the Pope really sent, and which is entered in the Black
Book, it would have agreed with and confirmed his narrative in every
respect. Instead, however, of doing this, he gave a letter, which even
his champions do not venture to defend as authentic, a letter which
does not agree with his narrative--for it ignores the legate’s report
and the other information supplied--a letter which, for all we can find
in it, was written in complete ignorance, not only of Henry’s visit to
Ireland, but of every other fact in the case. In short, it is a mere
general confirmation of Adrian’s famous “Bull,” and might as well have
been issued before as after the king’s expedition. And so clumsily
is it introduced that Giraldus does not even make the king ask for
anything of the kind.
I have said that even his champions do not defend its authenticity.
Miss Norgate, who defends with equal fervour Giraldus and
“Laudabiliter,” admits that its critics are right in stating that the
Pope’s letters in the ‘Liber Niger’
make no mention of any papal grant, nor of the tribute of
Peter-pence, which “Laudabiliter” expressly states that Henry
had undertaken to establish in Ireland.[405]
But, she urges, it was most improbable that the Pope would refer to
Peter-pence in 1172:
It would have been much more surprising, because highly
derogatory to his tact, wisdom, and justice, if he had mentioned
it at that moment.... To expect that he should assail them with
an instant demand for money before they had time to settle
down in their new relations, would be to charge him with equal
recklessness and rapacity.[406]
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