ma 515mm AND mac» HiNRY or wmcmsm. A mm o: m mam 1135-1141 Thai: for tho Doom of M. A. MICHW STATE WIWY John WEIR-am Porrin 1957 'MmllflHHl Mifljflliflilltflliiiii 312 L 18 R A R Y Michigan State , University PLACED! WOOXmehWMyaxmd. TOAVOIDFINEsmnonorbddeowo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ‘L‘r ‘ qé MSU Is An Afflmntivo Action/EM Oppommuy Intuition Wanna-m I“) Approved [Elf/mm ‘ KING STEPHEN AND BISHOP HENRY OF WINCHESTER: A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY 1135-11h1 By JOHN WILLIAM PERRIN AN ABSTRACT submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of History 1957 y l * chz-g-ch. TajonProfessor ABSTRACT When Henry I of England died on 1 December 1155, after thirty-five years of consolidating the feudal monarchy of his father the Conqueror, he left no male heir. His lone surviving legal issue was a daughter, Matilda. Henry had hoped to secure her succession by an oath of allegiance from the magnates of the realm to support her upon his death. But his plan went awry. When Stephen of Blois heard of his uncle's death, he quickly crossed the channel and was accepted as king by London and the ArchbishOp of Canterbury. After securing the royal treasure at Winchester, he was coronated by Archbishop William of Canterbury at Christmas time, 1155. One of the foremost supporters of Stephen in his drive to the crown and the first stages of his reign was his brother Henry, BishOp of Winchester. Bishop Henry had been in a position to assist Stephen in acquiring the treasure at Winchester, and his surety to the Archbishop of Canterbury of Stephen's oath to restore and maintain the freedom of the Church had helped secure the Archbishop's coronation of Stephen. It seems fairly evident that Henry's motive at this time was to secure a monarch who would be favorably inclined towards ecclesiastical goals, 1.6. the freedom of the Church, and What better candidate than Henry's own brother Stephen. This close association of the two brothers contin- ued through mid—1156, but thereafter showed signs of steady deterioration. The capstone of this situation was the arrest and humiliation of the bishOps in June of 1139 and the consequent legatine council called by Bishop Henry in August. By the end of this council the men were following separate paths - Stephen to dominate the Church by force if necessary, Henry to ponder a means of securing ecclesiastical freedom. The arrival of Matilda Empress in England in 1159 to actively contend for her lost inheritance opened a new means of relief for Bishop Henry and any dis- affected barons. When the king was captured at Lincoln in February llhl, Henry used his legatine position to exchange a pledge of personal control of English ecclesiastical matters for recognition of a legitimate claim to the throne. Stephen was declared deposed by God. But Matilda soon proved more treacherous than Stephen, and with a promise from Stephen's queen of reform, Bishop Henry returned to his brother's allegi- ance. The personal relationship between Stephen and Henry is of significance throughout the flow of events, and could have had disasterous results had Matilda maintain- ed the allegiance of BishOp Henry after the capture of the king. And though Henry might be accused of personal ambition in seeking personal control of ecclesiastical affairs, he also might have genuinely felt he was furthering the best interests of the Church against a monarch who had become tyrannical and corrupt in his dealings. KING STEPHEN AND BISHOP HENRY OF WINCHESTER: A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY 1135-11h1 By JOHN WILLIAM PERRIN A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of History 1957 PREFACE This is for my wife and Dr. Marjorie Gesner, whose persistance and assistance have helped it to what merit it holds. JWP INTRODUCTION The reign of Stephen in English history is as important as it is little known. Generally regarded as the period of the Anarchy, it comes at a crucial period in the development of the English Monarchy. William the Conqueror and his sons, William.Rufus and Henry I, had created a centralized feudal monarchy on the solid foundations of the old English local government. Introducing the formal aspects of feudalism to a country which had already in existence that personal dependence characteristic of the system, the Conqueror had blended them into a unique and well-controlled system. This tendency to centralization was continued by hissons, most especially Henry I. When Stephen became king in 1155, he did so by means of a gggp_which left him susceptable to manipu- lation. A man who was by nature gentle, he soon proved himself inept at ruling, and the barons were not slow to follow up this advantage. Complicating the politi- cal situation was the existance of an alternate and legal claim in the person of King Henry's daughter Matilda. Stephen's most important advocate at the beginning of his reign was his brother, Henry. He had been raised as a child at Cluny and was BishOp of Winchester when Stephen came to England and claimed the throne. Through the agency of Henry, Stephen had been able to ii fulfill the requirements of William.Archbishop of Canterbury after having been elected to the throne by the citizens of London. By llhl, when Stephen was captured by the forces of his rival Matilda, this posit- ion had changed immeasurably. It was Stephen's own brother, Bishop Henry, who as legate in England de- clared the king deposed and Matilda elected. The purpose of this paper is to study the relation- ship of these two men as they move through the period 1135-llhl, and to determine what extent this relation- ship influenced or determined the flow of events. The study has been limited to this period because it represents, in the author's opinion, the best example of inter-action between these two men. (1) The problems which were to descend upon Englaid during that period of her history known as the Anarchy have their roots in the reign of King Henry I. Al- though he was the father of at least twenty-two children, only two were born in lawful wedlock. Of these, the legitimate male heir, William, was lost in the sinking of the White Ship, and only Matilda remained to re- present the direct line of William the Conqueror.1 However, she was married to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, and there seemed no hope for the dynastic dreams of the Dukes of Normandy. Then, in 1125, Emperor Henry most suddenly and con- veniently died, and King Henry had the Empress Matilda returned to England. At Westminster, during Christmas time 1126, Henry extracted from the barons, clergy and other great men of the realm an oath that if he should die without a male heir, they would accept his daughter Matilda as his successor.2 The king went to great lengths 1A.L. Poole, From DomesdayBook to Magna Carta, 1087-1216 (Oxford, 1951), p. 151 and note. Hereafter cited as A.L. Poole, Domesday Book. 2The Chronicle of Winchester, ed. and trans., Rev. Joseph Stevenson, in The Church Historians of England (5 vols. in 8, London, 1855358), Vol. IV, pt. 1, a. . Hereafter cited as: The Chronicle of Win- chester. Robert of Torigny, History of King Henry the FIFst, ed. and trans” Rev. Joseph Stevenson, vol. V, pt. I, c. XXV. Hereafter cited as: Robert of Torigny. William of Malmesbury, The Historia Novella, trans., K.R. Potter (London, 1955), c.'E50. Hereafter cited as: Ma lme sbury . (2) to show that she alone had a legal claim, descending on her father's side from kings and on her mother's side from Egbert King of‘Wessex through King Edward and Malcolm.King of Scots.3 He thus hOped to secure her acceptance and continue the rule of his house. But there were a number of complicating factors which should perhaps be examined at this time. Maud was a woman, and neither English nor Norman custom called for such a precedent - the crown might descend through a women, but not to one. The man to whom she was to be wedh was Geoffrey of Anjou, son of ma, Count of Anjou, a dynasty which had a long standing feud with the Normans. In the event of this marriage, the English barons would be faced with the prospect of either Geoffrey ruling instead of his wife, or, if King Henry died leaving a young son or grandson, the prospect of a long regency. Neither seemed very accept- able, especially in view of the nature of Norman-Angevin relations. The attitude of the feudal barons also assumed importance and must be considered. They had been hard put by King Henry during his reign. He had amneabury, c 0 11.500 hUndertaken as a means of consolidating continental holdings, of settling the troubles between the Normans and Angevins, and perhaps of securing, eventually, an 11511.0 (5) inherited that strongly centralized feudal monarchy established by his father the Conqueror after 1066. Henry's brother, Iilliam.Rufus, had done little to improve the system, but at least had passed it on in- tact. Henry had spent the better part of his reign of thirty-five years increasing and elaborating the royal administration, particularily in the areas of finance and justice. This growth of royal, centralized control struck a blow at the very essence of feudalism, i.e. aristocratic, decentralized control. If this increased royal control did not hamper the baron's individual actions entirely, it at least pressed them.rather hard. In view of this there can be little doubt that the barons did not want a future sovereign of the nature of the Conqueror or his son Henry; They were certainly as aware of King Henry's dynastic situation as he was himself, and therefore could not be counted upon to support a contender who promised to be of the same temper. The uneasy situation of this plan and alliance by marriage came to the fore soon after. The Empress was repudiated within a short time by her husband Geoffrey, and she returned to the care of her father.5 Before she was allowed to return to Geoffrey in 1151, a great 5Simeon of Durham, Histogy of the Kings, ed. and trans., Rev. Joseph Stevenson, vol. III, pt. ii, a. 1129. Hereafter cited as: Simeon of Durham. (h) council was called at Northampton to decide the quest- ion.6 The barons allowed the reunion, and before leaving renewed or took for the first time the oath to support Maud as her father's successor.7 The barons were not to be allowed to forget or to say that they had not taken the oath. Kate Norgate8 states that the situation changed again in 1135, with the birth of young Henry. King Henry saw that the objection to Maud's sex could be overcome by a regency for the young heir. Calling another council, he again made the great men of the realm swear fealty to the Empress and also her little son, whom he appointed to be king after him. The matter of succession now seemed settled. Another event of note in this period was the access- ion of Henry of Blois to the bishopric of Winchester. Henry had been brought up from infancy as a monk at Cluny, and had first come to England at the request of his uncle, King Henry, who made him abbot of Glastonbury, in Hampshire. With his elevation to the see of Winchester, 6Kate Norgate, England Under the Angevin Kings (2 vols., London, 1887), I, 268 and note. Hereafter cited as: Norgate, Angevin Kings. 7Malmesbury, c. h55. 8Norgate, Angevin Kingg, I, 269 and note. Malmes- bury, usually very reliable, makes no note of this council, perhaps suggesting it was held on the contin- Onto (5) he was also allowed to retain the abbacy of Glastonbury, in augmentation of his dignity.9 The significance of this lies in the fact that the city and bishopric of Winchester were the second place in the kingdom, after London. King Henry would have been unwise to approve anyone for such a position unless he could depend upon him.during the due course of events. This in turn gives us a little look in advance at the qualifications of the new BiIhOp Honry - at least so far as King Henry was concerned. He must have been capable, and the accounts of his actions shows us that he was. He must have been ambitious, and the accounts again tell us he was - the only question being for whom. was it ambition for the Church or for himself which motivated Bishop Henry during the early years of his brother's reign? We shall try to settle this question as we retrace the major events in the period 1135-11h1 and the relation- ship between Bishop Henry and his brother Stephen. The closing months of King Henry's reign were stormy ones. He spent that time on the continent, attending to his possessions there and enjoying the company of his grandsons. He was involved in a disagreement with.his young son-in-law Geoffrey about the government of Nor- 931meon of Durham, a. 1129. (6) mandy and the possession of castles there.10 No doubt other Normans besides William Talvace11 were harboring revolt in their hearts, and Roger de Hoveden attributes it to Henry's daughter the Empress, whom he says caused the young Count Geoffrey to quarrel with King Henry.12 The impasse seems to have been so great that the Empress left King Henry in Normandy and returned to her husband in Anjou.13 In addition to this, the king heard of a rebellion of the welsh, and though he three thmes.tried to sail for England with a body of retainers, his efforts were unsuccessful. Finally, while hunting near Lyons in Normandy the king fell ill and, at the abbey of St. Denis on 1 December 1135, “paid his debt to nature in the dead of night".1h At the news of King Henry's sickness, barons be- gan gathering at St. Denis. Among those present were: Robert,Earl of Gloucester, William.de warrenne, Rotrou 10Orderie Vitalis, Ecclesiastical Histor trans. and notes, Thomas FonstWéSfi), B. XIII, c. xviii. Hereafter cited as: Orderic. 11Robert of Torigny, c. xxiv. 12Roger de Hoveden, Annals, trans.and notes, Henry T. Riley (2 vols., 153333, 1855), I, 22h. Hereafter cited as: Roger de Hoveden. 13Robert of Torigny, o. xxiv. 1""Malmesbury, c. h57. (7) of Mortain, Waleran of Mellent, and Robert of Leicester, as well as other feudal lords and castellans.15 The number cannot have been too great, for there was not even time enough for the Empress to arrive from.Anjou. When she did reach Normandy, in about the first week in December, she arrived without the aid of her husband Geoffrey. He was detained at home by the uprising of Robert de Sable' in conjunction with some other men. laud received the command of a few castles from men who were probably, like Guigan Algason, men of mean origin 16 and viscounts of the late king. Meanwhile, the Normans held a council at Neubourg for the purpose of choosing a new ruler. Their choice fell to Theobald of Blois, older brother of Stephen and Bishop Henry. But an envoy arrived from Stephen announcing that Stephen had been accepted by the English. ‘With Theobald's consent, the council took no action, since many of the barons held fiefs in both 1ande.17 Stephen was on the continent when he heard the news of King Henry's death. He quickly crossed the Channel to England and made his way to London. There 150rderio, s. x111, c. xix. 16Robert of Torigny, c. xxxviii. Orderic, B. XIII, c. xxi. 17Orderic, B. XIII, c. xx. (8) he was elected king by the citizens, who held it was their right and privilege, especially in view of the dire circumstances under which the kingdom suffered.18 After his election at London, Stephen proceeded to Winchester to secure the crown and the royal treasure. He was met there by his brother Henry, BishOp of Winchester. After a short talk together, the bishop escorted him.into the city, with the leading citizens.19 The keeper of the royal castle and the treasure was William de Pont de l'Arche. Bishop Henry had tried earlier to secure the treasure and the castle by words and gold, but had failed. ‘William.now turned them over to the newly-elected monarch.20 With the royal treasure thus in his possession, Stephen returned to London to be crowned. It is perhaps appropriate to pause at this time and consider the details and significance of this elect- ion and crowning, and the meaning it will have for Stephen as king of England. Stephen had been elected by the citizens of London, who held it their especial right. But he had also sworn to a mutual compact of 18Costa Stephani, trans., K.R. Potter (London, 1955), o. 2. Hereafter cited as: ‘Qggtg. 199335;, o. 3. 29;ggg., c. h. (9) support and protection with the Londoners.21 Stephen may even have granted them.a charter with rights of self-government, since we later find reference to the commune of London.22 William, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was first to raise the question of the oath to support Mhud. He felt that this, as well as such a narrow base of election for such a broad functionary, negated any action the Londoners might take.25 Stephen's supporters countered with a number of factors: that King Henry had compelled the barons to take the oath, but on his death bed plainly showed repentance;2h that London, the leading city in the whole kingdom, had accepted without objecting; that Stephen was a suitable candidate owing to close relationship to the line of the Conqueror; that the present state of anarchy in the kingdom demanded a new fount of justice; and that Stephen would have as support his brothers Theobald and 21608“, c. as 22M’almesbury, o. A95. 23%,“, c. h. athid" c. h and note. J.H. Round, Geoffre dc MandevIIle (London, 1892), p. 6, claims tEe stories of Cervase and Ralph de Diceto in which Hugh Bigod swears by oath King Henry released the barons is proved by independent evidence of the Historia Pontif- icalis. Helmesbury, c. h57, says Henry assigned lands on Both sides of the sea to the Empress Matilda. (10) Henry, to supplement anything which.might be thought to be lacking in him.25 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury and Justiciar of the late King Henry, asserted that he had been released from.the oath to Maud because he swore only on condition that the king would not give Natilda in marriage to anyone outside the kingdom without first consulting the Great Council.26 However, this whole situation goes much deeper than the hesitancy of the archbishop to accept Stephen . for the throne because of an oath taken to support Maud or her heir. Henry had been a strong king, following up every advantage by which he could strengthen the crown against the corroding, decentralising tenden- cies of feudalism. He had inherited a solid potential in the system.1eft by his father, William the Conqueror, and had used it to its fullest advantage, not only as concerned the barons but also the Church.27 Both laymen and ecclesiastica.then, were well aware what the contin- uance of a reign like that of Henry's could mean to their individual interests. 25Gesta, c. h. 2éll'almesbury, c. h52. 27See the Costa, c. 15, for a scorching indict- ment of King Henry‘s treatment of the Church. (11) Then Stephen appeared on the scene, a pretender to the throne. True, he was descended from the Conqueror, but there existed a more direct descent in Matilda and her son Henry. The problem.here was that Maud was a woman, her heir yet a child of three,28 and her husband an Angevin most thoroughly despised. In view of old English custom, a woman sovereign was un- precedented, and in time of need a regency equally distasteful. Hence the only thing ihich overtly bound the kingdom to the Empress was the oath which had been sworn to support her or her heir.. Stephen was personally well known in England, having for many years been a favorite of King Henry, and enriched by him with fiefs both there and on the continent. ~No doubt he was well known as a friendly man, and not of the same calibre as his late uncle. Two contemporary chroniclers have this to say of him: He was a man of energy but little Judgment, active in war, of extraordinary spirit in undertaking any difficult task, lenient to his enemdes and easily appeased, courteous to all: though you admired his kindness in promising, still you felt his words lagged truth and his promises fulfilment;.... ZBBorn in March 1133. See Norgate, Angevin Kings, 1, 268, and Sir James H. Ramsay Foundations of England (2 vols., London, 1898), II, 558. Hereafter: Ramsay, Egundations of England. 29Malmesbury, c. M61. (12) He made himself affable and free from.stiff- ness to all of whatever age. He was even of such a kindly and gentle disposition that he commonly forgot a king's exalted rank and in many affairs saw himself not superior to his courtiers, but in every way their eaual, sometimes actually their inferior.3 Here indeed was a chance to escape the haughty nature of the Empress and the possibility of Geoffrey of Anjou ruling in the stead of his wife or his son. And in addition, a bargain could be driven with the pretender Stephen. The final apprehensions of ArchbishOp William of Canterbury were removed by Stephen's oath to restore and maintain the freedom of the Church,‘and Henry, Bishop of Winchester gave the matter further weight by making himself guarantor and surety of Stephen's oath.51 What Bishop Henry hoped to gain by this we cannot be sure but as a man raised in the reform move- ment of Cluny he may well have thought to bring the 5OGesta, c. 12. 31Malmesbury, c. h60. Both the Gesta and Malmesbury feel that Bishop Henry was the most important factor in Stephen's drive to the throne. ‘Yet the Gesta says that the bishOp failed to secure the treasure Before Stephen's arrival in Winchester. A.L. Poole, Domesday Book, p. 155, says the bishop was "doubtless instru- mental". Doubtless he was, but one can also appreci- ate Iilliam refusing to give up his trust until he saw Stephen and knew the truth of the matter. Nevertheless, Bishop Henry's warranty of Stephen's oath to free the Church is significant. (15) Church in England up to a level commensurate with that ideal. And he may well have decided that his brother Stephen was just the tool to help him do the job. At any rate, having won over London, two of the top ecclesiastics in England, and the head of the royal curia, Justiciar Bishop Roger of Salisbury, Stephen was crowned king on 22 December 1155. In attendance were three bishops (Canterbury, Winchester and Salis- bury), no abbots and very few nobles.32 On such a lonely note began the reign of King Stephen, a reign which was to last through thick and thin for nineteen years. For the time being Stephen had the backing of the cities of London and Winchester, the blessing of a Church crowning, the support of the ArchbishOp of Canterbury, the Justiciar and BishOp of Salisbury, Roger, and his brother Bishop Henry, as well as the resources of King Henry's treasure. The baronage was 32Malmesbury, c. h6l. In view of a charter of Stephen probably given after the crowning or at Christmas and significant for its meagerness and lack of witnesses, the statements in the Gesta, c. 8, and in The Continuator of Florence of Worchester, trans. and notes, Thomas Forester (London,—185h), a. 1155, that a number of the nobility were present must be rejected. See English Historical Documents, 10h2-1183, ed. David C._D0ug1as andvGeorge W. Greenaway TIOndon, 1955), p. hOZ, for the charter. Extant charter evidence shows that the barons and clergy did not make any large appearance at the royal court until Easter of 1156 at London and the giving of the charter of liberties at Oxford in the same year. (lit) the only question mark. The only mention we have of action on their part was the council held in Normandy which sought to elect Theobald. Perhaps they simply stayed away, waiting to see what the outcome of these events would be; or were in Normandy; or, more pro- bably, did not know what was happening until the affair was concluded. Stephen's first major act as king was to march to the north of England and settle the border raiding by the men of David King of Scotland. As an uncle of the Empress he had a good reason for such action, though private gain may have been the primary motive force. After meeting with Stephen at or near Durham,35 David accepted lands in the north in return for peace. David's son Henry did homage to Stephen for the fiefs, and returned with Stephen at Lent to London in pre- paration for the king's Easter court. The magnificence of this court is attested to by Roger de Hoveden,3u and it is here that we can get a clearer picture of the baronage and their acceptance of Stephen as king. Two charters given at this time are extant, and from the lists of witnesses we can 55Roger de Hoveden, I, 229. 3thid., p. 229. (15) see the number and prominence of the magnates of the king- dom who had come to Stephen's court and made a settle- ment with him. Included are three earls, a large number of barons and clergy, as well as some members of King Henry's administration.35 Since these men were at court, we must assume that they had made some sort of settle- ment with Stephen concerning their allegiance. The author of the 92323 tells us that after the word of Stephen's crowning had spread around the kingdom, the barons came to him and, receiving many gifts and enlargement of their lands, swore a voluntary oath to support Stephen.56 The king was also anxious to secure the allegiance of the officials of the late king's government, and we find their names on the grant given to Winchester at the Easter Court.57 They had refused earlier requests of Stephen's to appear at court be- cause of their oath, their fear of the nobles,58 and perhaps apprehension for injustices done under the heavy 55Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 262-265. 366esta, c. 5. 57Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 262-265. Note particularly Payne Fitz John and Miles of Gloucester, who held positions in the West of England. 58King Henry had employed many men of’mean birth whom he could trust in the administration of his kingdom. Not only were the nobles irate about losing crown jobs to mean-born men, but they also fbund these men very zealous in the pursuit of the king's ends. (16) hand of King Henry. Offered safe conduct, they appear- ed, and obtaining all their requests from.the new king, swore a voluntary oath to support Stephen.39 The last of the great barons to come to Stephen was Robert, Earl of Gloucester, though he had many times been summonedfio We find his name on the charter of liberties given by Stephen at Oxford in the first year of his reign.h1 This charter, which contains for the most part concessions to the Church, and few items of secular interest, was quite possibly given soon after the council at London.)+2 The earl was the last of the great men to take an oath to Stephen, and with his adherence almost the whole of the kingdom had sided with Stephen, at least nominally. The oath which the earl took was highly conditional, and rested 59Gesta, c. 12. hOGQUta, Ce 6e ulnouglas and Greenaway, Documents, pp. h05-h0h. thound, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 22-25. Round feels that the tendon council was adjourned to Oxford to meet the arrival of the powerful leader of the apposition, the Earl of Gloucester, that the charter of liberties was postponed until this time, and that it represents the final acceptance of Stephen by the mag- nates of England. The_only evidence to support this position is the tendency of the two more important and contemporary chroniclers, Malmesbury (c. h65) and the author of the Gesta (c. 15) to run these events to- gather. (17) on the king keeping his position unimpaired and up- holding their agreement.h3 William.of Halmesbury, Earl Robert's staunch supporter, says that the earl had been at pains to decide upon what he was to do in this trying moral situation - that is, his obligation to support his half-sister Maud's claim - and yet if he resisted it would do her no good and cause himself great harm. His final plan was to come and offer homage and oath, and once in England, work personally at persuading the barons to fulfill their oath to the Empress.M4 Earl Robert soon found that this was going to be a big job. Stephen had a vast amount of treasure at his diaposal, much of it amassed during the reign of his uncle Henry. This gold and silver brought to Stephen's side many men, both foreign and native, of questionable ethics. They hoped to gain for them- selves some of this treasure or land for their services. And Stephen was not stingy with his rewards to friends. Indeed, his very generosity and good naturedness had been two of the factors which endeared him to the baronage and led to his-acceptance as king.u5 Stephen, hBSee Malmesbury, c. h65, and the figgtg, c. 6, for details of the earl's homage and oath. Ml’Malmesbury, 0. A65. MM» c. has. (18) for the present, was deeply entrenched, and only time would determine what the earl's best move would be. The charter given at Oxford by Stephen marked his proclamation of the oath which he had given to the Archbishop of Canterbury before his crowning to restore and maintain the freedom of the Church)‘6 That oath was by its very nature broad, but the Oxford Charter is specific. Stephen promised to prohibit such abuses as simony and confiscation of Church lands and revenues, and promised to honor free clerical elections, jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts over clerics, and Church immunities.‘ The only matters of lay significance were short references to the royal forests, injustices of the sheriffs, and money owed to the crown from pleas and other causes.)“7 Another interesting facet of this Oxford Charter is the mention in the salutation of the confirmation of Stephen's kingship by POpe Innocent II. This may well have been only formal diplomatic recognition as Round argues}8 but a look at the situation of the h6Malmesbury, c. A60. u7For full text of the charter see Douglas and Greenaway, Documents, pp. hO5-h0h. Though the Forest section lessened royal prestige, the reference to the sheriffs reflected on royal local control of the barons, and the plea monies helped compose royal income, the charter as a whole is Church oriented. heRound, Geoffrey de_Mandeville, p. 9. (19) papacy involved in a struggle over lay investiture in the Holy Roman Empire helps clear the picture a little. The schism which had existed in the papacy since the double election of 1150 continued at the time of Stephen's election and consecration. In fact, Innocent, though then recOgnized by EurOpe north of the Alps, was having trouble holding his own in Italy against Roger of Sicily, the North Italian towns, and the Roman nobility. He had been unable to visit Home, and since 1155 had held his court and exercised papal functions from Pisa.”9 Innocent had appealed to the Emperor Lothaire for assistance, but Lothaire was him- self involved in German problems of his own. It was not until Christmas 1155, that he managed to draw matters to a successful conclusion there and began to think of the Italian situation.50 By the early part of 1156 the situation in southern Italy against ROger of Sicily had become so bad that Lothaire was driven into negotiation with the Greek Emperor, Innocent II and the Doge of Venice against a common foe.51 It was h9Rev. Horace K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Middle Agps, (12 vols., London, 1925), Ix, h2. Hereafter cited as: Mann, Lives. soIbid., pp. h5-hh. 51Ibid., p. u6. (20) not until August 1156 that Lothaire was able to launch an offensive into Italy, and then he spent the next six months subduing the northern Italian cities.52 With this clearly in mind, it is easy to see that Innocent could ill afford to lose the allegiance of England. When Stephen promised to restore and maintain the freedom of the Church, which was quite in line with the principles of the Cluniac reform.movement in the papacy since the time of Gregory VII, recOgnition of his place on the throne was a reasonable concession. Further, Innocent had been told by the bishops, the king of France,53 and by others that Stephen had been chosen by the united voice of the barons and peOple, had been duly consecrated by the clergy, and had ended the anarchy attendant on the death of King Henry.5h Let us now review and evaluate the situation as it has developed for Stephen through the giving of the Oxford Charter. He was the elected and anoited king of England. But he was a limited monarch and not in the sense that all feudal monarchies are limited. He had 52min}, Lina, II, p. h7e 53Louis VI, deeply involved in feudal conflict to consolidate his control over his vassals, would have found the young Geoffrey of Anjou a formidable adversary with the acquisition of Normandy and England. Shlann, Lives, IX, 78. (21) more than the stipulations of a feudal contract to fulfill. He had been accepted conditionally by the Londoners, Earl Robert, and the Church55 so long as he continued to fulfill his oath to them. He was probably accepted by the barons and Henry's old court officials on a conditional basis also.56 Stephen was king on condition of good behavior. If some sort of malmasance could be charged against.him, this could be used as a legal cause of rebellion or deposition based on his breaking of the contract. A rival claimant posed another problem for Stephen. Not completely disqualified, the Empress showed no signs of surrendering her claim to the throne. This could give any rebellious baron, brigand, or lord with a grievance an excuse to carry on activities against Stephen. Such persons would not be outlaws pure and simple. They could be justified. Soon after the Easter settlement, Stephen fell very ill, causing a rumor about England that he was dead. On 55Malmesbury, c. h6h. 56The Gesta, c. 5 and c. 12, represents these parties as devoting themselves wholly to his service, but one of the defenses for the rebels at Exeter was that Stephen was not their liege lord (Gesta, c. 20), and Miles of Gloucester, the constable, abjured his oath to Stephen in 1159 to join his liege lord, Robert Earl of Gloucester (Cont. Flor. W0r., a. 1159). (22) hearing this news, Baldwin de Redvers began oppress- ing the peOple in his area and seized the royal castle of Exeter.57 As soon as he was able, Stephen led a force against Baldwin, captured his castle of Plympton, and revaged his lands as a lesson against rebellion. Baldwin was besieged in Exeter castle by the king's forces for nearly three months before water shortage forced them to ask for terms. Henry, Bishop of‘Iin- cheater, was present at the time advising his brother Stephen, and noticing the condition of the supplicants, pressed for harder terms. On his advice, Stephen re- fused the first offers.58 In the end Stephen was guided by the advice of the barons, some of whom, the author of the 539333 felt, were in collaboration or sympathy with the rebels. It was argued by them.that Stephen had won a complete victory, that the besieged had not sworn fealty to the king's majesty, but had taken up arms in obedience to their lord, and that it was wise to take the castle, end the siege and prepare for other tasks. As a result, the besieged were allowed to go forth in all freedom, to take away all their possessions, and to follow any lord theywilled.59 Here indeed " the sign of a weak king. 57Gesta, c. 15. 581b1d., c. 19. 59Ib1d., c. 19-20. (25) He had not received liege homage from these barons in the first place, something a king like the Conqueror or Henry would have demanded in order that no man could claim their allegiance ahead of the monarch. This was partly due to the circumstances of Stephen's elevation to the throne. But then when he had these men at his mercy, he failed to follow up his advantage. He did not even punish.them as examples for breaking the king's peace, let alone extract an oath of liege homage. They were allowed to go free and follow whatever lord they willed. If ever a feudal baron looked for a reason why he should not fear the justice of the new king, he had to look no further than this. After the settlement at Exeter, Baldwin de Redvers proceeded to the Isle of Wight, where he hoped to set up Operations in hindrance of the shipping between England and Normandy. But Stephen, leaving Exeter and the surr- ounding county in the charge of his brother Bishop Henry, hurried to Wight and ended this piracy. Failing in a second series of requests, Baldwin left England and sailed to Normandy, where he joined the forces of the Count of Anjou.60 From here he carried on raids into Normandy in support of the Empress Matilda.61 6OGesta, c. 21. 611bid., c. 22. (2h) The Duchy of Normandy was all this time without leadership. In Stephen's absence during the early stages of his reign, his brother Count Theobald concluded a truce with the Count of Anjou which was to last until near the end of May 1156. When the time expired, Stephen had still not appeared on the scene, being held by matters in England. The Duchy was thus left without a leader to the mercy of freebooters and Count Geoffrey.62 The next event of significance for us is the death on 21 Novmnber 1156 of William, the ArchbishOp of Canterbury. Orderic reports that BishOp Henry of Winchester was chosen to the archbishopric, but that since the canons required papal sanction of a bishop's transfer, he crossed to Normandy for the winter and sent envoys to the pope.63 Spring did not find the archbishOpric filled, and it remained vacant until early in 1159. Providing Orderic is correct in re- porting BishOp Henry's elevation to the See of Center- bury,“4 the reason for the papal refusal to sanction his transflmral is evident in the circumstances in England and Italy. Stephen was engaged in consolidating 62Orderic, B. XIII, c. xxii. 651mm, B. 10:11, c. xxviii. 61‘“either the contemporary and usually well-informed Gesta, and William.of Malmesbury, nor Gervase of Canter- Eury, who wrote a generation later, make note of this. (25) his secular position, and would not be likely to favor a man of strong ecclesiastical bias or will in such a position, even though the man were his own brother. The barons, on the other hand, were alert to their own interests, and would not favor a man in the See of Canterbury who might use his strong religious position to back the crown against them. Henry was unacceptable to both.baron and.monarch, When this became known to the Pope, he had little choice but to refuse Bishop Henry's translation, for his own political position was little better than it had been early in 1156 when he recognized Stephen as king. The Emperor Lothaire had been in Italy at the time. But he was then involved in a struggle with the North Italian city-states, and it was not until March of 1157 that he had moved as far south as Campania.65 By the summer of 1157 Innocent and Lothaire had fallen out over the questions of booty disposition, investiture,and the control of the abbey of Monte Cassino.66 The Emperor finally withdrew from Italy altogether, leaving Innocent to capture Rome and handle Roger of Sicily as best he could. Lothaire died in an Alpine pass on 5 December 1157 during his passage 65Miann, Lives, IX, h7. 661bid., pp. h8-h9. (26) back to Germany.67 Until a new Emperor could be elected who would come to Innocent's aid in Italy, he stood alone against the anti-Pope Anacletus and Roger of Sicily. Stephen was finally free to cross to Normandy early in 1157.68 In May he was invested with the Duchy of Normandy by King Louis of France, and Stephen!s son Eustace did homage for it.69 Stephen next attempted to place his brother Theobald by offering him an annual pension of two thousand marks,70 and then prepared his military forces to meet Geoffrey of Anjou. However, Stephen's over-attention to his mercenaries roused the jealousy of his barons, and they stalked out of camp. Stephen, thus weakened, negotiated a two year truce with Count Geoffrey,71 and hearing of new troubles in England, hastened in Advent 1157 to return there. Before leaving Normandy he appointed as justiciars William de Roumare, 67Mann, Lives, IX, 51. 68Orderic, B. XIII, c. xxx. ROger de Hoveden, I, 229e Comte Flore Wor., ae 11370 69R0ger de Hoveden, I, 250. 70Robert of Torigny, Chronicle, ed. Richard Howlett, (Rolls Series, London, 1889), p. 152. Hereafter: Robert of Torigny (RS). 71Orderic, B. XIII, c. xxx. (27) Roger the Viscount and others, and left them to keep the peace.72 It may be, as ROger de Hoveden reports, that Geoffrey Count of Anjou was not ready at the time of Stephen's embarrassment to press a full scale engagement. Even though Stephen was short of men due to the dis- affection of some barons, he was a man of great military renown, and he retained an abundance of the late Henry's treasure.75 This alone assured him an army of mercenar- ies if nothing else. It is difficult to believe that if Geoffrey felt he had an advantage, he would have agreed to a truce of two years. A further event in Stephen's visit to Normandy in 1157 which.must be considered is the attack by the king's men on Robert, Earl of Gloucester. The earl had remained behind in England when Stephen left for Normandy in the spring of 1157. After spending most of Lent testing the loyalties and affections of Stephen's supporters, Earl Robert sailed to Normandy at Easter. Shortly afterwards the king's men tried to ambush the earl, but having been forewarned, he escaped. William of Malmesbury attributes the cause of this attack to 720rderic, B. XIII, c. xxxii. 73Roger de Hoveden, I, 250. (28) Stephen's mercenary captain, William.of‘Ypres,7h without stating any motive. It might have been simple distrust. Robert of Torigny says that Earl Robert reached an agreement with Geoffrey of Anjou in this same year,75 but, the month given for the event, October, is much too late to coincide with Malmesbury's approximation of the date of the attack. The two men were eventually reconciled, but there was never any sort of real confidence between the two men after that.76 Rdbert's course was clear before him. He had but to wait for an Opportunity. After spending his Christmas and holding court at Dunstable in Bedfordshire in 1157,77 Stephen proceeded to press a siege against Bedford castle. The refusal of the castellans to turn the castle over to the king's messengers stemmed from.a recent marriage negotiation of Stephons ihich they feared would cost them.their inheritance. Stephen had undertaken the siege against the advice of his brother Bishop Henry of Winchester, and it was not until after the arrival of the bishop 7hMalmesbury, c. h66. 75Robert of Torigny (RS), p. 156. 76Malmesbury, c. h66. 77ContLFlor. Wer., a. 1157. (29) on the scene, and through his mediation, that the affair was brought to a successful conclusion.78 Henry was no doubt by this time finding his brother Stephen more difficult to manage than he had suspected. On 10 April 1158 Stephen was in Northampton, and there held a council attended by the ArchbishOp of ‘York, as well as by most of the clergy and barons of the kingdom. Here we have an instance where the re- quired free clerical election seems to have been over- looked, for the bishOpric of Exeter was filled by ”appointment”, and the abbeys of‘York and‘linchcombe were "Given" to monks of Cluny.79 The appointment of the monks from Cluny seems to suggest that BishOp Henry's influence was not as yet altogether nill. Proceeding next to Gloucester, Stephen arrived about 10 May 1158, and was escorted into the city by his constable, Miles. Stephen