Stephen. A legend of Reading Abbey ... Edited with introduction and notes by G. L. Gomme

Introduction

AND NOTES BY GEORGE LAURENCE GOMME Westminster ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND CO. 2 WHITEHALL GARDENS

Preface

It has been thought well to adopt the chro nological method of issuing the volumes of this series of Historical Novels, with only one modifica tion, namely to miss those reigns for which there are not books up to the standard which is deemed fitting for the purpose of the series. It may be, after the best books are finished throughout the long period of history which they illustrate, that attention may be directed to the second class of stories in order to fill up the gaps that will occur, but that is a consideration which may well be left to be determined later on. Charles Macfarlane's Legend of Reading Abbey of sufficient merit to warrant it representing the reign of Stephen in the series. It is not a great story, but it is faithful to its purpose and is by no means wanting in qualities of a peculiar sort.

It will not be read by the very young with the zest that they would have turned to Scott, or Stephenson, or Dumas, or some of the lesser writers, but it will be read with pleasure by all lovers of historical romances and it will not

PREFACE.

VI fail to convey to the mind an exceedingly good picture of the period. Macfarlane has no compet itor in this period, for strange to say the romancist has passed it over in silence. That it has fallen to such a sober writer as Macfarlane to depict a period which, in the hands of a romancist of the modern school, might have been so highly coloured as not to be recognisable is a distinct gain. The period of King Stephen is by this story brought into due proportion when compared with its predecessors in this series, Harold and William I, and it will hold a fitting place when compared with the next reign, Henry II, for which Scotfs Be trothed has been selected. LAURENCE GOMME. 24 Dorset Square. CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.

PAGES xi lxV GLOSSARY AND NOTES .... .. lxvi Ixxi

Chapter I

..... PAGE 1 II. ..... a 25 3} I" " „ iv. » 68 v „ 92 „ V. . • ir „ VI. . . • ■ ■ ..US „ vii. ..... „ 132 „ vm. ...•• ;> 150 „ ix » 182 x » 200 ,, xi » LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Facing Page GREAT SEAL OF KING STEPHEN (j Wtltispiece ). NORMAN SOLDIERS, SHOWING THE AXE AS A WEAPON IN USE XXI ECCLESIASTICAL COSTUME XXXI THE ABBEY PENNY XXXII GROUND PLAN OF READING ABBEY XLI READING ABBEY RUINS XI.II GATEWAY, READING ABBEY XLIII WALLS OF THE DORMITORY, READING ABBEY . . XLIV SOUTH TRANSEPT OF THE CHURCH, READING ABBEY XLIV SEAL OF READING ABBEY LI SEAL OF READING ABBEY LI GENERAL COSTUME OF THE PERIOD LIII COSTUME OF THE MIDDLE CLASSES LIII LADIES' COSTUME LIV SOLDIERS' COSTUME LIV SILVER COINS OF STEPHEN LV SILVER COIN OF STEPHEN AND MATILDA ... LV SILVER COIN OF WILLIAM, SON OF STEPHEN . . LV SILVER COIN OF EUSTACE, SON OF STEPHEN I.V SILVER COIN OF HENRY, BISHOP OF WINCHESTER LV SILVER COIN OF ROBERT, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER . LV GREAT SEAL OF MATILDA

INTRODUCTION.

This story unfolds the picture of King Stephen's reign in an extremely interesting manner. It re presents a near view of the events which are sup posed to have taken place in one definite part of the country, Reading in Berkshire, and a distant view of the national events of which Reading was only a single feature. There are thus two aspects of this reign, which it is necessary to bring before the reader, the local aspect at Reading and the national aspect. I think it will serve the purpose the better if I first of all deal with the national events. The most important, as it is the most obvious, fact to bear in mind in considering this reign is that the King, Stephen of Blois, was not king by hereditary right. Both his immediate predecessors had seized the crown to which their elder brother Robert should have succeeded if hereditary right had prevailed, but, in these cases a strong brother had replaced a weak one.

Hereditary right of the eldest was clearly not sufficiently established as a result of the Norman conquest to secure succession to the crown whatever might be the circumstances. At later dates, other kings, John,

INTRODUCTION.

XII Henry IV, Richard III, Henry VII, William III, George I, were not kings by hereditary right, but in these cases there was some special reason, the personal villainy of the usurping monarchs in causing the death of the rightful sovereign, the political conditions, or the popular demands, which brought about the position. With King Stephen it was not an act of personal villainy, it was not political conditions or popular demands which settled that he was to reign over the newly formed English kingdom for nineteen years. He was the grandson of William the Conqueror, but grand son through his mother Adeliza, daughter of the Conqueror, and not even the eldest grandson of this branch, for his elder brother Theobald lived and was worthy. Matilda, the daughter of the late king, Henry Beauclerk, claimed the throne as hereditary heir, and by the oaths of the barons, among whom was Stephen, Count of Blois, taken before her father's death.

Thus if his two uncles, William Rufus and Henry Beauclerk, had set aside the principle of hereditary right as between brothers of one family, Stephen set it aside still more violently — -in truth the obstacles to his claim as hereditary heir were overwhelming and yet he not only claimed but obtained the crown and kept it during his life, though after severe struggles. What then were King Stephen's claims and how were they enforced ? This question is a large one, but it is worth a little attention. In the first place his only serious opponent was

INTRODUCTION.

XIII a woman. Never in feudal Europe had a woman reigned as monarch. There is a vague popular idea that the so-called Salic law forbade succession by a woman, but though this is not the case, it is a fact that a woman was not held to be fit to reign as monarch. Matilda, the daughter of Henry I, came nearest to success, for she was upheld by some of the great barons and by a considerable party in the state. But she never succeeded in her great ambition. Whether she would have done so had she been wiser in action is even doubtful. But that she was supported by arms against the king de facto is an important consideration. Nobody took up arms on behalf of Arthur's sister, Eleanor of Brittany, when the grandson of Matilda, the heartless King John, had got rid of his nephew the heir to the throne.

No queen reigned, or was thought of as a possible monarch, until the breakup of the feudal monarchy and the succession of the Tudor house introduced new ideas. If, however, it was the feeling that a woman could not reign in person, there was not only no feeling against, but there are many examples in favour of, her being able to transmit the right to her son. Thus Matilda's son, Henry II, reigned unquestioned by right of his mother, and Edward III claimed the French throne by right of his mother, and in this claim there is more legal force according to the accepted doctrine of the age than is generally admitted by historians. If then Stephen was by right of his mother a

INTRODUCTION.

XIV possible heir to William the Conqueror's throne, he was also sister's son to the last reigning monarch, Henry I ; and sister's son was a very close relation ship according to the ideas of the times. It had already been put into operation in respect of the English throne by Stephen of Aumale, the son of William the Conqueror's sister, who tried to dis crown William Rufus. It did Stephen, Count of Blois, good service in his claim to succeed Henry Ist. Stephen then had in his favour that Matilda was a woman and that he was sister's son to the last king and daughter's-son to the greater Con queror. He had against him that his elder brother, Theobald, was alive and therefore held better claims on the self-same grounds. Against these better claims Stephen set his popularity with the English, among whom he had lived all his life, the evident partiality of the old king for him, and above all things his sudden dash for possession of the treasury and the crown, which caused his opponent the task of regaining possession and not of simply taking up the lapsed right.

Even this part of the events, however, has the sanction, or apparent sanction, of law. The acces sion of King Stephen was not a case of successful rebellion, or conquest, or dynastic quarrel. It was marked at each stage by undoubted even if curious and somewhat ancient legal conceptions. I have already noted his position in the reigning house, sister's son to the last monarch, daughter's son to the first monarch of the Norman house. There is

INTRODUCTION.

XV next to note that his claim was that of being chosen by the people, being elected in point of fact. This conception of election in our English monarchy is an interesting factor upon which Free man and Green among our historians have laid most stress. When political sovereignty first shows itself, says Sir Henry Maine, this sovereignty is constantly seen to reside not in an individual nor in any definite line of persons, but in a group of kinsmen, a house, a sept or a clan {Early Law and Custom, p. 44). This exactly meets Stephen's position. He belonged to the royal house, sept or clan, of the Normans. He was chosen to be king therefrom. This act of election is very interesting. The Saxon Chronicle says he "came to London, and the London folk received him . . . and hallowed him king on midwinter day."

But Mr. Green, relying on the Chronicle Gesta Stephani, has put into words, powerful in the story they tell, the political force of this act of the "London folk." First in the volume of proceedings of the Archæ ological Institute at London in 1866, and subse quently in slightly more guarded language in his History of ihe English People, Mr. Green points out the significance of the action of London in the election of King Stephen : — "Neither baron nor prelate was present to con stitute a national council, but the great city did not hesitate to take their place. The voice of her citizens had long been accepted as representative

INTRODUCTION.

XVI of the popular assent in the election of a king, but it marks the progress of English independence under Henry that London now claimed of itself the right of election. Undismayed by the absence of the hereditary counsellors of the crown, its 'Aldermen and wise folk gathered together the folk-moot, and these providing at their own will for the good of the realm unanimously resolved to choose a king.' The solemn deliberation ended in the choice of Stephen." And Mr. Freeman, adopting nearly the same view, says : — "The body by whom he was actually chosen seems, as on some earlier elections, to have consist ed of the London citizens and of such of the chief men of the land as could be got together at once." After this beginning, interesting to all students of constitutional history, there is nothing but war and violence to relate of this reign — constitu tional history almost ceases to exist.

Stephen had in both his brothers staunch sup porters. Theobald, the eldest, let no ambition of his own interfere with Stephen's success ; Henry, the youngest, was Bishop of Winchester, and aided Stephen with all his power and influence. After having been chosen king by "the alder men and wise folk" of London, Stephen hurried to Winchester to get possession of the Treasury, and the bishop at once surrendered his keys. Then followed a discussion among the magnates, of which the primate was one of the most conspicuous, as

INTRODUCTION.

XVII to the oath that had been sworn to King Henry to support the Empress Matilda. One after the other found good reasons for not keeping to it, and Hugh Bigod declared that the late king had solemnly absolved the barons from their promise. This, as Mr. Freeman observes, has very little likelihood of truth, but in the end the archbishop agreed to crown the new king, and the ceremony was performed at Westminster on Christmas Day. King Stephen soon had his hands full. The Scottish king invaded Northumberland and Stephen hastened northwards and met him at Durham where he concluded a peace and returned south wards. Then the barons came in to Stephen, and even Robert, Earl of Gloucester, half-brother to Matilda and the most influential man of the kingdom, did homage to the new king. Then came a succession of petty revolts.

Stephen, besieged Hugh Bigod at Norwich, and after capturing the stronghold, let the revolted baron go unpunished. Bald win of Redvers siezed Exeter, was besieged there by the king and forced to surrender, after which he escaped to the Isle of Wight and then to Anjou. This ended the first year of the reign. David of Scotland again invaded England the following year, and Stephen marched against him. But he had to return south, for there the blaze of rebellion burst forth in every direction. The king quarrelled with Robert of Gloucester, then confiscated his estates and razed some of his castles. This was the turning-point. The barons rose n

INTRODUCTION.

XVIII against the king, and in 1138 Bristol, in the hands of Earl Robert's son, Harptree under William Fitz john, Castle Carey under Ralf Lovel, Dunster under William of Mohun, Shrewsbury under William Fitzalan, Dudley under Ralf Paganel, Burne, Ellesmere, Whittington and Overtoil under Wil liam Peverel, Wareham under Ralf of Lincoln and Dover under Walkelyn Maminot openly made ready for defence or defiance. (Miss Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, i. 295.) Stephen decided to meet the blow by attacking the centre of the attack at Bristol. But the task was too great for his forces. " Turning southward," says Miss Norgate, "he struck across the Mendip Hills into the heart of Somerset and besieged Ralf Lovel in Castle Carey, a fortress whose remains in the shape of three grass-covered mounds, still overlook the little valley where the river Carey takes its rise at the foot of the Polden Hills." {Ibid. p. 298).

Stephen captured the place, marched to Harptree, which he gained by stratagem, and then proceeded to Shrewsbury. Here he burnt the garrison out, and as a warning that his usual clemency was not always to be expected he hanged the noblest of them. In the meantime Stephen's Queen, Matilda, captured Dover from Walkelyn, and Stephen was left free to march into Dorset shire and lay siege to Wareham. Stephen's military successes always seem to have been cancelled by his political blunders. At this time his treatment of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury,

INTRODUCTION.

XIX and Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, brought down upon him the censure of his brother Henry, Bishop of Winchester. Stephen's action was solemnly condemned and he had to lay aside his robes and come as an humble penitent to receive the censure of the Church. (Miss Norgate, op. cit. i. 306.) But this was not enough. He had shown him self unfriendly to the Church. The barons were prepared to give heed to other measures, and on the 30th September, 1139, Matilda the Empress sailed with her brother Robert of Gloucester for Arundel, where they landed and were received into the castle by its owner, Adeliza, late Queen of Henry Ist, who supported the party of her step daughter against Stephen. Then occurred a singular proceeding which shews up at once the weakness and the gallantry of Stephen's character, the causes of his wonderful success in gaining the crown and keeping it and of his disastrous mis fortunes.

Miss Norgate thus relates the story : "Earl Robert only stayed to place his sister in safety beneath her step-mother's roof and then set off to arouse her friends in England with the tidings of her arrival. Stephen flew after him, but in vain. With an escort of only twelve knights he rode right across southern England, met Brian of Wallingford and told him the news, earned it on to Miles of Gloucester and got safe to his journey's end at Bristol. The baffled king threw all his energies into the siege of Arundel till his brother joined him and suggested another scheme.

INTRODUCTION.

XX Bishop Henry argued that it was useless to be siege the Empress at one end of England while her brother was stirring up the other, that it would be far wiser to get all the enemies collected together in one spot by letting her follow him to Bristol. That Stephen having once made up his mind to this course, should not only give his rival a safe-conduct, but should commission the Count of Meulan and the Bishop of Winchester himself to escort her till she reached her brother's care was only what might have been expected from his chivalrous character." (Ibid. i. 310.) This was followed by a war of seven years' duration. The kingdom was at the mercy of the baronage, who built castles and warred as much against each other and for their own hand and purposes as for King Stephen or Matilda Queen and Empress.

Matilda was generally acknowledged throughout the western shires; London and Kent were for Stephen and so were the chief men of central and northern England. The war raged on in small detachments ; indeed it can scarcely be called a war. Eventually a chain of circumstances all pointing to private ambitions and not national concerns, brought Ralph, Earl of Chester, and Robert, Earl of Gloucester, to gether in joint attack against Stephen as he was laying siege to Lincoln. Stephen was captured, and the story of the struggle as told by Miss Norgate is too thrilling not to quote here. "Stephen and his foot-soldiers were left alone in the midst NORMAN SOLDIERS, SHOWING THE AXE AS A WEAPON IN USE. (From Fairholt's Costume, i. p. 81.) p.

INTRODUCTION.

XXI of the foe who closed round them on all sides and set to work to assault them as if besieging a fortress. Again and again the horsemen dashed upon that living wall, each time leaving a ghastly breach, but each time driven back from the central point where the king stood like a lion at bay, cutting down everyone who came within reach of his sword. The sword broke ; but a citizen of Lincoln who stood at his side replaced it by a more terrible weapon — one of those two-handed Danish battle-axes which it seems had not yet gone quite out of use in the Danelaw. Almost all his followers were taken or slain, yet still he fought on with the rage of a wild beast, and the courage of a hero, alone against an army. At last Chester charged with all his forces straight at the king. Down upon his helmet came the axe, and Ralf on his knees in the mire learned that he was even yet no match for his deserted and outraged sov ereign.

Most likely it was that blow, dealt at the traitor with all Stephen's remaining strength which broke the axe in his hand. Then a stone hurled no one knew whence, struck him on the head and he fell. A knight, William of Kahaines, seized him by the helmet, shouting ' Hither, hither, I have the king!' Yet even then Stephen shook him off, and it was only to Robert of Gloucester in person that he deigned to surrender at last." {Ibid. 320.) Here indeed we have something of the old spirit, and the old action, which was revealed at Has-

INTRODUCTION.

XXII tings. But, alas, it was not for such a cause as that of Hastings. English footmen again withstood Norman horse, an English king again fought side by side with English citizens, with battle-axe in hand, again stood at bay and was only not killed because his assailants were not so ruthless as Wil liam the Norman. But the event is unknown to popular history because it brings no credit either to conqueror or conquered. Stephen was imprisoned in Bristol, and Matilda was Lady of the realm. The castles held for Stephen were surrendered to Matilda, and Henry Bishop of Winchester at last arranged terms with the victorious queen and she proceeded in triumphal procession to the great minster. This was in March 1141, and shortly afterwards Matilda advanced to Reading. There she summoned Robert of Oilly to surrender Oxford, and on his obeying the command she proceeded to hold her Easter court at Oxford.

The next step was to get hold of London and this was accomplished with the help of Henry Bishop of Winchester in June, when she entered the capital and took up her residence at Westminster. If Matilda had possessed the qualities of her new position, she might possibly have reigned. At all events here was her chance and she threw it away. Stern, implacable, revengeful, she sinned as Stephen had sinned by confiscating lands and houses and disposing of Church property, and did not redeem these faults by any personal charm. She refused all

INTRODUCTION.

XXIII requests and placed her iron hand upon the riches of the London burghers. There was another Ma tilda, queen of England too, the queen of King Stephen and in every way worthy, more than worthy of her husband. She could not get help for her captive husband from his relentless foe, the Lady of the land, so she appealed to her husband's partizans, and gathering an army, brought it to the gates of London. The citizens sided with her and drove forth the queen, who fled to Oxford. At this juncture Henry of Winchester stepped into the breach and declared for Stephen. Robert of Gloucester tried in vain to bring him back, and Matilda went to Winchester to persuade or force him to her side. She did neither. Stephen's queen marched to his aid at the head of a band of London citizens, and Matilda the Lady was besieged in the castle of Winchester.

From this castle she escaped, protected by her loyal brother Robert of Gloucester, and at the last moment William of Ypres attacked the Lady's guard, and pursuing the party to Stockbridge, captured Robert of Gloucester. At this stage each party made a pause. Robert was as necessary to Matilda's cause, as Stephen was to his own, and Matilda the queen wanted to set her husband free. She proposed an exchange. After fruitless bickerings this was at last arranged, and in the early part of November 1141 both captives were set free, and Stephen re-entered London amidst the wild rejoicing of the citizens.

INTRODUCTION.

XXIV The heroism of his queen had done much — everything for him. For a time there was peace, but when Robert of Gloucester passed over to Anjou, Stephen at once laid siege to Oxford where Matilda held out. The siege went on until Christmas, and then across the snows and ice Matilda escaped and fled to Abingdon, where she took horse to Walling ford. Then Oxford surrendered. This success paved the way for others and the barons turned over to Stephen's side once more. In 1144 two of the most turbulent were killed, while Philip of Glou cester, Earl Robert's son, went over to Stephen against his own father and he was followed by the Earl of Chester. Henry of Anjou, Matilda's son, came over to his mother in 1145, and soon after he had returned in 1147, his uncle, the great Earl of Gloucester, caught a fever and died.

This was Matilda's last hope, and in the early part of 1148 she gave up the struggle and went over to Normandy. But the struggle was to go on nevertheless. Young Henry of Anjou was grow ing up to man's estate. When he was sixteen his father had ceded to him the duchy of Normandy, and he set to work to regain the Kingdom of England. In the middle of May 1149 he landed and proceeded northward to King David of Scot land. Stephen hastened to York. But no hostili ties took place, and Henry returned to the conti nent. Then arose fresh complications with the Church.

INTRODUCTION.

XXV Stephen had never loved clerks, and there was growing up in England a strong religious order who were to exercise great and abiding influences. The freedom of the barons in erecting castles wherever their interests led them was not the only freedom exercised. The great Augustin order of monks erected monasteries, and the monastic orders everywhere exercised to the full their half independent powers. At last the time came for a renewal of the struggle. Stephen had not succeeded in reducing all the castles of his rebellious vassals. Lincoln was at last given up by compromise, but there was still Wallingford commanded by Brian Fitz count which held out for Matilda's party. The king had built a rival fortress at Crowmarsh directly over against Wallingford, and finally, in the winter of 1153, he built a strong wooden tower at the foot of the bridge over the Thames, and the besiegers knew that their supplies were cut off.

Brian sent over to Henry for help, and Henry answered the call in person. He marched to Malmesbury, and Stephen hastening to meet his rival, found him self unable to do anvthing, and turned back to London. Then Henry marched to the relief of Wallingford and laid siege to Crowmarsh. The king and his rival there agreed to inconclusive terms. In 1153, the king's son Eustace turned from his father to ravage the land in revenge for the treaty agreed to at Crowmarsh and met his death at St. Edmundsbury. This was the last stroke.

INTRODUCTION.

XXVI Stephen's cause had lately been his son's cause. Death had taken his brother Henry of Winches ter and his beloved and heroic Queen Matilda, and there was nothing left but the cause of his son. With his death the last obstacle to peace was removed, and it is a testimony to Stephen's character that Henry of Anjou should agree to terms which allowed him to hold the crown for the remainder of his days. Amidst all this unhappiness and blackness for the kingdom at large, there are but few bright spots. Stephen was a gallant and chivalrous man. He was no statesman. He commanded the love and support of his brother Henry. He kept the love of London. He brought forth the heroic qualities of his wife. Matilda, harsh, impolitic and cruel, commanded the unswerving support of her brother Robert of Gloucester, and of Adeliza the widowed Queen of Henry I. The two rival families were true to each other at all events.

There must have been much to make this so, for barons and lesser knights were true to no party. They fought each for their own hand. Every rich man, says the chronicle, his castles made, when the land was full of castle-works and when as the castles were made they filled them with devils and evil men. (See Freeman, Norm. Cong. v. 283.) Every lord became a king in his own territory and dealt out a treatment to his unhappy subjects which can only be considered as brutally savage. The castles built during Stephen's reign are

INTRODUCTION.

XXVII estimated to have numbered about 1100. They were not, however, all of a permanent nature, and it is conjectured that some of them must have been very crudely and slightly built. But there existed the great castles built by his predecessors and the possession of these was the principal effort of both parties in the struggle. Thus of the great castles which were held for Stephen or Matilda and attacked by the opposing forces we have mention of Carlisle and Newcastle which are still tolerably perfect. Bamburgh is also nearly perfect and its keep was built in Stephen's reign ; at Exeter the mound known as "Rougemont", still exists, and the bridge from the city, still stand ing, was a point of attack in the great fight. Bedford consisted of two moated mounds on the opposite banks of the Ouse of which one is entirely removed, the other remains deprived of its masonry.

Norham is still a noble ruin. Parts of the walls and inner gate of Alnwick still exist. Malton has disappeared. Clitheroe still preserves its Norman keep on the top of an almost impregnable rock. The earthworks of Castle Carey still remain. North allerton was razed by Henry II, but the formidable earthworks still remain. Malmesbury is en tirely destroyed. Sherborne still retains its early earthworks, a keep and gatehouse. Of Devizes there remain a few fragments of its circular keep and the earthworks, which are the grandest in Eng land. Newark is still admired for its lofty and extended front and its magnificent Norman entrance.

INTRODUCTION.

XXVIII Sleaford is utterly demolished. Nottingham is gone. Of Marlborough only a fine mound remains, the site of its circular keep. Much of Ludlow remains, and the part of its existing exterior wall was the scene of the grappling hook being thrown by which the king of Scots was caught and only rescued by Stephen. Arundel preserves its earthworks pretty much as they must have appeared in Stephen's reign, and with its shell keep on its mound and the original gatehouse at its foot gives to the modern visitor a fair notion of the appearance of the defences before which Stephen pitched his camp. (Clark's Mediæval Military Architecture in England, i. 52-55.) The castles built during the conflict between Ste phen and Matilda were unlicensed, that is without the sanction of the sovereign, castra adulterina, as they were called.