The now

upon the

second trial

French, German and English scholars, with one exception, who have given their opinion on the alleged trial of April, 1203. M. accepted opinion Bémont demonstrated in 1884, by the most cogent arguments, that the condemnation of John Lackland in 1203 for the murder of Arthur was a fable, invented by the court of France in 1216, in order to justify the pretensions of Lewis of France to the crown of England.1 The attempt made in 1899 by M. Guilhiermoz to refute the thesis of M. Bémont has not met with acceptance.2 We have examined and contested it on a previous occasion. We will content ourselves with quoting the views of two scholars who

1. De Johanne cognomine sine Terra Angliae rege Lutetiae Parisiorum anno 1202 condemnato, 1884; French edition: De la Condemnation de Jean sans Terre par la cour des pairs de France en 1202 in the Revue Historique, xxxii, 1886. Cf. Ch, Petit-Dutaillis, Etude sur la vie et le règne de Louis VIII, 1894, pp. 77 sqq. M. Guilhiermoz remarks that the conclusions of M. Bémont "appear to have been universally accepted," and he quotes MM. Ch. V. Langlois, Beautemps-Beaupré, Luchaire, Lot, etc.

2. Guilhiermoz, Les deux condemnations de Jean sans Terre par la cour de Philippe-Auguste, in Bibl. de l'Ecole des Chartes, 1899. Ĉf. his controversy with M. Bémont in the same volume, and with MM. PetitDutaillis and G. Monod, in Rev. Historique, lxxi and lxxii (1899-1900), and a new article by him in the Nouv. Rev. hist. de droit français et étranger (1904), p. 786 sqq. I am bound to say that on a reperusal of the article in which I refuted M. Guilhiermoz's thesis, my only regret is that I did not put my conclusion more strongly. For the rest, M. Guilhiermoz has found no supporters. See a luminous summary of the question by M. Luchaire, Séances et Travaux de l'Acad. des Sc. Morales, liii, 1900; F. Lot, Fidèles ou vassaux (1904), pp. 89, note 3, 223 sqq.; R. Holtzmann, Der Prozess gegen Johann ohne Land und die Anfänge des französischen Pairhofes, in the Historische Zeitschrift, Neue Folge, lix. (1905). M. J. Lehmann, Johann ohne Land, in the Historische Studien published by E. Ebering, Pt. 45, 1904, goes beyond M. Bémont's thesis and puts forth the singular view that the documents of 1216, in which the trial of 1203 is referred to, are not authentic. I am only acquainted with the summary of this article given by M. Holtzmann, op. cit., p. 32, n. 3. In England, Sir James Ramsay (The Angevin Empire, 1903, pp. 393 and 397) does not believe in the condemnation of 1203; but he thinks there was a citation; he interprets the documents quite wrongly and obscures the question instead of throwing light on it. An American scholar, Mr. G. B. Adams, entrusted with the treatment of this period in the Political History of England (ii, 1905), declares, p. 399, that he is not convinced by M. Guilhiermoz. So, too, Miss Kate Norgate in the article referred to below, and in her John Lackland (1902), pp. 91-92; as we shall see, Miss Norgate goes farther than M. Bémont, and assuredly much too far.

66

not having been brought into the controversy by M. Guilhiermoz, have expressed an opinion the impartiality of which no one will dispute. M. Luchaire declares that he adheres until further proof is forthcoming to the conclusions of M. Bémont;" quite recently M. Holtzmann stated that the vehement polemic of M. Guilhiermoz has made no impression; it appears to him to be based rather on a lawyer's argument than on a critical examination of the sources.'

In a work devoted to English institutions I cannot dwell any longer on this point, and Stubbs' excuse is just this, that it is a matter of little importance for the subject of which he is treating whether M. Bémont is right or wrong as far as concerns the reality of the second trial of John Lackland.

Miss Kate Norgate's theory respecting the first trial

But it is important to know whether M. Bémont was right in believing in the reality of the first trial; the loss of Normandy had such consequences in the constitutional history of England that it is a matter of interest, even here, to determine whether it was the result of a sentence of the court of France. The publication of M. Bémont's article did not affect the belief that Normandy was confiscated by legal process; only the date or dates of the confiscation were matters of controversy. But a new theory has grafted itself on that of M. Bémont. According to an article published in 1900 by Miss Kate Norgate1 John Lackland was no more condemned by the court of Philip Augustus for refusing to redress the wrongs he had inflicted on the Poitevin barons, than for having put to death his nephew Arthur, and the "alleged condemnation" of 1202 of 1202 was invented in 1204-5 by Philip Augustus, in order to overcome the scruples of the Norman clergy and justify the conquest of

1. The alleged condemnation of King John by the Court of France in 1202, in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, New series, xiv, 1900, pp. 53-67.

Normandy. It seems to me expedient to examine this theory closely.

Miss Norgate's argument is as follows. Five contemporary documents narrate the citation the citation of John Lackland before the court of France in 1202: the French chronicles of Rigord and Guillaume le Breton, the English chronicles of Gervase of Canterbury and Ralph of Coggeshall, and finally a letter addressed by Pope Innocent III. to John Lackland on the 31st of October, 1203. Roger of Wendover does not speak of the citation at all.1 And the later chroniclers who accepted the discredited trial of 1203, are silent as to that of 1202. The five documents mentioned above supplement one another and present no contradiction amongst themselves, as far as concerns the citation, and the relations of the two kings before the trial; but Ralph of Coggeshall alone declares that John Lackland was condemned by default,2 and the alleged sentence of 1202 rests in reality on his single testimony. It is improbable that this abbot of an obscure monastery in Essex was better informed than Gervase of Canterbury, Rigord, Guillaume le

1. I do not quite understand why Miss Norgate limits her study to six documents in all, including Roger of Wendover. Robert of Auxerre is a contemporary of the events and his testimony has great value; he does not speak of a citation either, but he says nothing to prevent us from believing in one. See the passage in Historiens de France, xviii, p. 266.

2. "Tandem vero curia regis Franciae adunata adjudicavit regem Angliae tota terra sua privandum, quam hactenus de regibus Franciae ipse et progenitores sui tenuerant, eo quod fere omnia servitia eisdem terris debita per longum jam tempus facere contempserant, nec domino suo fere in aliquibus obtemperare volebant." (R. de Coggeshale, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Stevenson, p. 136). It will be observed that the sentence is based upon the faults committed by John and by his ancestors, towards their suzerains the kings of France. This, it seems to me, has escaped the scholars who have quoted this passage; M. Bémont (op. cit., p. 54 and p. 307) and M. Luchaire (Hist. de France, publiée sous la direction de M. Lavisse, iii, 1re partie, 1901, pp. 128129) translate it inaccurately. Sir James Ramsay (op. cit., p. 393) and Miss Norgate (John Lackland, p. 84) pass over in silence the reasons given in the sentence, as our chronicler relates them. As for M. Guilhiermoz (Bibl. de l'Ec. des Chartes, 1899, pp. 48, 65), he makes very free with the text of Ralph of Coggeshall, which he interprets in the most arbitrary manner.

Breton, and the Pope himself. The testimony of Ralph of Coggeshall cannot prevail against their silence. Innocent III., to whom it was Philip Augustus's strong interest to give information respecting the trial and three chroniclers well situated for hearing it spoken of were ignorant of the condemnation; consequently it never occurred.

The very first reading of this argument reveals one of its weak points; Miss Norgate's scepticism is highly Exaggerated exaggerated, it is "hypercriticism." If we scepticism had to reject all the historical facts which are only known to us from one source, a great part of our knowledge of the past would crumble away. And Miss Norgate would be obliged to suppress many pages of her works, notably of her John Lackland, where she often confides in the unsupported testimony of the biographer who wrote the metrical life of William the Marshal. Given the weakness of historical science and the mediocrity of the materials at its disposal, it is necessary to admit information derived from a single document, on the double condition that the general veracity of that document has been tested on other points, and that on the particular point in question it is not in contradiction with our other sources.

Great value of

the evidence of Coggeshall

Now this twofold condition is fulfilled as far as concerns the testimony of Ralph of Coggeshall. His chronicle is indisputably one of the most precise and most exact that we have for the first twenty-five years of the thirteenth century. On the other hand, Rigord, Guillaume le Breton and Gervase of Canterbury, whose narrative, be it remarked, is much briefer than Ralph's, say nothing which forbids us to accept the condemnation. All three state that John failed to appear, and suppressing mention of the sentence, relate afterwards, like Ralph of Coggeshall, how Philip Augustus invaded Normandy

and destroyed the castle of Boutavant. It is clear that the details of the trial did not interest them. Just as they do not speak of the dilatory pleas put forward by John, of which Ralph of Coggeshall informs us, they have omitted to relate that a condemnation by default had been pronounced; was not this condemnation a matter of course, and why should the court of Philip Augustus have abstained from passing this sentence the necessity of which was self-evident? The event was so natural that there was hardly need to describe it.

As for the letter addressed by Innocent III. to John Lackland on the 31st of October, 1203, a year and a half

Innocent III's letter proves it

after these events and seven months after the death of Arthur, it appears to us not only to be reconcilable with the statements of Ralph of Coggeshall, but to absolutely corroborate them, and this document, in which Miss Norgate seeks her most decisive arguments, appears to be the one which definitively rebuts her thesis.

3

In this celebrated letter, the Pope communicates to the king of England the reasons which Philip Augustus has placed before the Holy See, "per suas literas et nuntios," to justify his conduct. Evidently, Innocent III., being impartial, must have faithfully reproduced these reasons. Now the justification put forward by the king of France, as the Pope summarizes it, confirms the narrative of Ralph de Coggeshall almost word for word, even on the precise point under discussion in Miss Norgate's article;

1. This was a castle which John had promised to deliver up as a pledge of his appearance at the court of Philip Augustus; he had refused to fulfil his promise (Guillaume le Breton, ed Delaborde, i, pp. 207, 209, 210). The destruction of the castle of Boutavant was therefore a logical consequence of the condemnation; and we may even say that it implies it. Ralph of Coggeshall says with the precision which distinguishes his whole narrative: "Hoc igitur curiae suae judicium rex Philippus gratanter acceptans et approbans, coadunato exercitu, confestim invasit castellum Butavant" (Ed. Stevenson, p. 136).

2. Guillaume le Breton gives them only a single word, "post multos defectus."

3. Potthast, Regesta Pontificorum Romanorum, No. 2013. Miss Norgate dates it by mistake the 29th October.