Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Treatment of Evidence

455 Exeter is one where something more is needed, where even accuracy is not sufficient without the possession of that higher gift, the power of seizing upon the truth when the evidence is misleading and contradictory. The paraphrasing of evidence is the work of a reporter; from the historian we have a right to expect the skilled summingup of the judge.

THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF LEICESTER (1068).

THIS

HIS question was raised and discussed by Mr. Freeman in his "History of the Norman Conquest" (iv. 196-7). We there read as follows:

Is it possible that in the case of Leicester, at least, no power was left either to follow or to resist? While we have no evidence either way on which we can rely with confidence, one of those secondary and local records, which sometimes contain fragments of authentic tradition, suggests, in a perfectly casual way, that a doom fell upon Leicester which might, doubtless, with some exaggeration, be spoken of as utter destruction. And this incidental hint may perhaps draw some indirect confirmation from the highest evidence of all [Domesday] ... and it may be that Leicester earned its overthrow by a defence worthy of a borough which was to give its name to the greatest of England's later worthies.

The "record" referred to is quoted in a footnote, and is a history of the foundation of Leicester Abbey, one of a class of narratives notoriously inaccurate and corrupt :

Robertus Comes Mellenti, veniens in Angliam cum Willelmo Duce Normanniæ, adeptus consulatum Leycestriæ, ex dono dicti Ducis et Conquestoris Angliæ, destructa prius civitate Leicestriæ cum castello et ecclesia infra castellum tempore prædicti Conquestoris, reædificavit ipsam æcclesiam Sancta Mariæ infra castellum.

Now, it strikes one in the first place as somewhat unlikely that William, on his arrival at Leicester, should find a castle to destroy. But, further, how could Robert have obtained the "consulatus" of Leicester from the Conqueror, when he is well known to have first obtained it (under

The Events Antedated

457

very peculiar circumstances) from Henry the First? If this known event has been so glaringly antedated, may not the alleged "destruction" be so likewise? These it may be said are only doubts. But, as it happens, we can not only discredit the suggested "destruction" in the days of the Conqueror: we can actually fix its date as the reign of Henry the First.

We learn from Orderic that the town of Leicester (" urbs Legrecestria") was divided into four quarters, of which Ivo de Grantmesnil possessed two, one in his own right, and one (which was the King's share) as the King's reeve and representative. We also learn that he was among the "seditiosi proceres," who rebelled against Henry in 110I, and that of these, "aliqui contra fideles vicinos guerram arripuerunt et gremium almæ telluris rapacitatibus et incendiis, cruentisque cædibus maculaverunt." Ivo is again mentioned by Orderic in 1102, not only among the "proditores" of the previous year, who were now called to account, but also as a special ringleader in that internecine conflict to which he had already referred. He tells us that Henry

Ivonem quoque, quia guerram in Anglia cœperat et vicinorum rura suorum incendia combusserat (quod in illa regione crimen est inusitatum nec sine grave ultione fit expiatum), rigidus censor accusatum nec purgatum ingentis pecuniæ redditione oneravit, et plurimo angore tribulatum mæstificavit.

In short, as Dr. Stubbs reminds us, Ivo "has the evil reputation of being the first to introduce the horrors of private warfare into England." Bearing in mind the divided authority from which Leicester suffered, and the statement that Ivo, ruling half the town, plundered and made fierce war upon his neighbours, we arrive at the conclusion that the "destruction," which, in the Monasticon narrative, precedes the accession of the Count of Meulan to the comitatus of Leicester, may be assigned, without a shadow of doubt, to the struggle of 11OI.

On Ivo's disgrace, as is well known, the wily Count stepped at once into his shoes, "et auxilio regis suâque calliditate totam sibi civitatem mancipavit, et inde consul in Anglia factus." There is no reason to doubt the statement that St. Mary "de Castro "was rebuilt and refounded by Count Robert after his obtaining this position at Lei

cester.

It is singular that just as the Monasticon seems to have misled Mr. Freeman at Leicester, so it is responsible for Thierry's "story of the fighting monks of Oxford," at about the same time, a story of which Mr. Freeman wrote that "the whole story is a dream," and "would not have been allowable even in an historical novel" (iv. 779-780).

A Great Suit for Lands

459

ELY AND HER DESPOILERS

(1072-75)

HE elaborate record of this trial is only found, I be

THE lieve, in the Trinity College (Cambridge) MS., O. 2,

I (fos. 210b-2136) from which it has been printed by Mr. Hamilton in his Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (pp. 192-195). This "placitum," therefore, would seem to have remained unknown till the publication of that work (1876). The date of this important document can be fixed within a few years. It mentions Earl Waltheof among those before whom the plea was held, so that it cannot be later than 1075; and as it also mentions "Rodulfus comes," it is evidently previous to the revolt of the earls in that year. On the other hand, it is later than the death of William Malet, for it mentions his son Robert as in possession, and later, therefore, than the restoration of Waltheof at the beginning of 1070. Moreover, it is subsequent to the death of Stigand ("post obitum illius"). Now Stigand was not even deposed till the spring of 1070; and we know from Domesday and other sources that he lived some time afterwards. We may safely say, therefore, that this " placitum " did not take place till after the suppression of the Ely revolt in the autumn of 1071. Practically, therefore, our document belongs to the years 1072-1075. Now, as Abbot Thurstan did not die till 1076-the date given in the "Liber Eliensis," and accepted by Mr. Freeman-it follows that this great act of restitution in favour of the Abbey took place under Abbot Thurstan himself, a fact unmen

« PreviousContinue »