Chapter V (2)

In England, meanwhile, Stephen was carrying all before him. The first public act in which he had to take part as king was the burial of his predecessor at Reading on the feast of the Epiphany;[692] the next was the defence of his realm against a danger which it had not known for more than forty years--a Scottish invasion. King David of Scotland, true to the oath which every one else seemed to have forgotten, arose as the champion of Matilda’s rights, led his troops into Northumberland, and partly conquered it in her behalf. Stephen met him near Durham, pacified him by a grant of the earldoms of Carlisle, Huntingdon and Doncaster to his son Henry,[693] and came back in peace, almost in triumph, to the Easter festival and the crowning of his queen.[694] Adherents now came flocking in; the splendour of the Easter court made up for the meagreness of the Christmas meeting.[695] Baron and knight, clerk and layman, rallied round the winning young sovereign who was ready to promise anything, to undertake anything, to please anybody. The only class who still held aloof were the “new men” of the last reign, men like Payne Fitz-John and Miles the sheriff of Gloucester, who owed everything to Henry, and who were bound alike by gratitude and by policy to uphold his daughter’s cause. But the chief of them all, Bishop Roger of Salisbury, had already joined Stephen, and the rest were soon persuaded to follow his example.[696] Shortly after Easter there came in a yet more important personage. Earl Robert of Gloucester, the eldest son of the late king, influential alike on both sides of the sea by his rank, his wealth and his character, was looked upon both in Normandy and in England as the natural leader of the baronage. The suddenness of Stephen’s accession had snatched the leadership out of his hands, and he lingered on in Normandy, watching the course of events without sharing in them, and meditating how to reconcile his own interest with his duty to his sister. Stephen, anxious to win him over, sent him repeated invitations to England; till at last he decided to let himself be won, at least in appearance, if only for the sake of gaining a footing in England which might enable him afterwards to work there in Matilda’s favour. The king’s son, however, made terms for himself more like a king than a mere earl. He came to Stephen’s court and did homage for his English estates; but he did it only on the express condition of being bound by it only so long as Stephen’s own promises to him were kept, and he himself was maintained in all his honours and dignities.[697] The first result of his submission--if submission it can be called--was seen in a great council at Oxford, where all the bishops swore fealty to the king, and the vague promise to maintain the “Laws of King Henry,” which Stephen had issued on his coronation-day, was amplified into a more detailed and definite charter.[698] Suddenly, a few weeks later, there went forth a rumour that the king was dead, and the barons at once broke into revolt. Baldwin of Redvers threw himself into Exeter; Hugh Bigod, who but a few months ago had been foremost among the supporters of Stephen, seized Norwich castle, and was only dislodged by the king in person.[699] He was apparently forgiven; another rebel, Robert of Bathenton,[700] was caught and hanged, and his castle forced to surrender. The great castle of Exeter, where Baldwin had shut himself up with his family and a picked band of young knights, all sworn never to yield, cost a long and troublesome siege; but the agonies of thirst at length drove the garrison to break their vow and ask for terms. Stephen let them all go out free; Baldwin requited his leniency by hastening to a castle which he possessed in the Isle of Wight, and there setting himself up as a sort of pirate-chief at the head of a band of men as reckless as himself. But when Stephen hurried to Southampton and began to collect a fleet, Baldwin suddenly took fright and surrendered. His lands were confiscated, and he went into exile in Anjou, where he was eagerly welcomed by the count, and added one more to the elements of strife already working in Normandy.[701] In England his defeat put an end to the revolt, and the Christmas court at Dunstable brought the first year of King Stephen to a tranquil close.[702]

[692] Ord. Vit. (as above), pp. 901, 902. Hen. Hunt., l. viii.
c. 2 (Arnold, pp. 257, 258). Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol.
ii. p. 95. Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. i. c. 13 (Hardy, p.
705).

[693] For the details of this Scottish expedition and treaty
see Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 4 (Arnold, pp. 258, 289), Ric.
Hexh. (Raine), p. 72, and Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p. 114.

[694] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 96.

[695] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 2 (Arnold, p. 259).

[696] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), pp. 14–16.

[697] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. i. c. 14 (Hardy, pp.
705–707). Cf. _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 9.

[698] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. i. c. 15 (Hardy, pp.
707–709). Stubbs, _Select Charters_, pp. 119–121.

[699] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 4 (Arnold, p. 259).

[700] Or Bakington. In the _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 18, the
name of the place is _Batthentona_, which Lappenberg and Mr.
Freeman render by Bathenton in Devon. (Mr. Sewell, the editor
of the _Gesta Steph._, rendered it _Bath_.) But while two MSS.
of Hen. Hunt. have “Bathentun,” three others have “Bachentun”
or “Bakentun” (Arnold, p. 259, note 6. In the index Mr. Arnold
suggests “Bagington? Bathampton?”).

[701] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), pp. 18–29. Hen. Hunt. as above.
Eng. Chron. a. 1135. Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol. ii. pp.
96, 97.

[702] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 5 (Arnold, p. 260).

Yet already there were signs that those who had thought to find in Henry’s nephew such another king as Henry himself[703] were doomed to disappointment. It was no good omen for the fulfilment of the pledges embodied in his charters when Stephen broke the one which appealed most strongly to popular feeling--the promise to mitigate the severe forest laws--by holding a forest assize at Brampton after his triumph over Baldwin of Redvers in 1136.[704] Neither was it satisfactory that the accession of a king specially bound by the circumstances of his election to rule as a national sovereign proved to be the signal for a great influx of foreigners--not as in Henry’s time, honest industrious settlers who fled from their own unquiet homes to share “the good peace that he made in this land” and to become an useful element in the growing prosperity of the nation; but as in the Red King’s time, a rapacious and violent race of mercenary adventurers, chiefly from Britanny and Flanders; men to whom nothing was sacred, and who flocked to Stephen as they had flocked to Rufus, attracted by the report of his prodigality and the hope, only too well founded, of growing rich upon the spoils of England.[705] However much Henry may have provoked his subjects by his preference for ministers of continental birth, he had at least never insulted them by taking for his chief counsellor and confidant a mere foreign soldier of fortune like that William of Ypres who acted as the leader of Stephen’s Flemish mercenaries and whose influence over him excited the wrath of both the English and the Norman barons.[706] The peace of the country was probably all the better kept during the year 1137 because its preservation was left wholly to Bishop Roger and his nephews, while Stephen, accompanied by his Flemish friend, was well out of the way in Normandy, where he spent the year in concerting an alliance with his brother,[707] obtaining the French king’s sanction to his tenure of the duchy, for which his eldest son did homage in his stead,[708] and vainly endeavouring to secure it from the combined dangers of internal treason and Angevin intermeddling. No disturbance occurred in England during his absence; a Scottish invasion, threatened soon after Easter, was averted by Archbishop Thurstan of York, who persuaded the Scot king to accept a truce till Advent,[709] when Stephen was expected to return. He was no sooner back than David sent to demand for his son the earldom of Northumberland,[710] which had been, it was said, half promised to him a year before;[711] on the refusal of his demand,[712] early in January he led an army into England. An unsuccessful siege of the border fortress of Carham or Wark was followed by such a harrying of the whole land from Tweed to Tyne as had not been heard of since the wild heathenish days of Malcolm Canmore’s youth.[713] David, indeed, was not personally concerned in this horrible work; he had left it to the conduct of his nephew William Fitz-Duncan, while he himself with a strong body of troops took up his quarters at Corbridge.[714] Stephen marched against him early in February, whereupon he returned to the siege of Carham; dislodged thence by the English king, he buried himself and his troops in an almost inaccessible swamp near Roxburgh, bidding the townsfolk decoy the Southrons by a false show of friendliness and thus enable him to surround and despatch them.[715] Stephen however discovered the trap--apparently through the double treachery of some of his own barons who were concerned in it;[716] he crossed the Tweed, but instead of marching upon Roxburgh he turned south-westward and ravaged David’s territories till the lack of provisions forced him to return to the south.[717]

[703] “Hi uuendon thæt he sculde ben alsuic alse the eom wæs.”
Eng. Chron. a. 1137.

[704] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 4 (Arnold, p. 260).

[705] “Sub Henrico rege multi alienigenæ, qui genialis humi
inquietationibus exagitabantur, Angliam adnavigabant, et
sub ejus alis quietum otium agebant; sub Stephano plures ex
Flandriâ et Britanniâ, rapto vivere assueti, spe magnarum
prædarum Angliam involabant.” Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. ii.
c. 34. Cf. l. i. c. 14 (Hardy, pp. 731, 706).

[706] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 105. William of Ypres
was son of Philip of Flanders, second son of Count Robert
the Frisian. Although he had no legal place in the house of
Flanders, he was one of the claimants of the county after the
death of Charles of Denmark, against William the Clito and
Theodoric of Alsace. After being the torment of his own country
for nearly ten years, he was compelled to fly, and took service
in England under Stephen. See Walter of Térouanne, _Vita B.
Caroli Com._, in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xiii. pp. 336,
342–347; Galbert of Bruges, _Vita B. Car._ (_ibid._), pp. 354,
355, 359 _et seq._; _Geneal. Com. Flandr._ (_ibid._), pp.
412, 413; Joh. Ypr. _Chron. Sith._ (_ibid._), 466, 468. The
people’s hatred of William was justifiable enough; but it ill
became the barons to cast stones at him. His evil-doings were
not a whit greater than theirs, and the changeless devotion
with which he--a mere hireling, bound to Stephen by no tie but
that of a bargain which Stephen certainly cannot long have had
means to fulfil--stuck to the king in adversity as firmly as in
prosperity, might have put them all to shame.

[707] Theobald renounced all claims upon kingdom and duchy
for two thousand marks of silver to be paid him annually by
Stephen. Rob. Torigni, a. 1137.

[708] This was because William the Ætheling had done homage to
Louis, and it was agreed that Stephen should hold Normandy on
the same terms as his predecessor Henry. Ord. Vit. (Duchesne,
_Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 909. Cf. Rob. Torigni, a. 1137, and
Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 5 (Arnold, p. 260). This was in May.
Ord. Vit. as above.

[709] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 76, 77. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p.
115.

[710] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), p. 77. Joh. Hexh. as above.

[711] Ric. Hexh. (Raine, p. 72) says that some who were
present at the treaty made between Stephen and David in 1136
affirmed that Stephen had then promised that if ever he should
contemplate bestowing the earldom of Northumberland upon any
man, he would first cause to be fairly tried in his court the
claims upon it which Henry of Scotland had inherited from his
mother, the eldest daughter of the last old English earl,
Waltheof.

[712] According to Orderic, Stephen had some ground for his
refusal; for it seems that the form in which the lately expired
truce reached him--at any rate, that in which it reached
Orderic--was that of a plot made by “quidam pestiferi” to kill
all the Normans in England on a certain day, and betray the
realm to the Scots. Some of the plotters were said to have
confessed to Bishop Nigel of Ely, who revealed the plot, and so
it all came out. Ord. Vit. (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._),
p. 912. This plot appears also in R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 253, but is there attributed solely to one Ralf, a clerk of
Bishop Nigel’s, and nothing is said about the Scots.

[713] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 77–80. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), pp.
115, 116. Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 6 (Arnold, pp. 260, 261). The
Scottish host was “coadunatus de Normannis, Germanis, Anglis,
de Northanhymbranis et Cumbris, de Teswetadalâ, de Lodoneâ, de
Pictis, qui vulgo Galleweienses dicuntur, et Scottis, nec erat
qui eorum numerum sciret.” Ric. Hexh., p. 79.

[714] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), p. 79. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p. 116.

[715] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), p. 81. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p. 117.

[716] Joh. Hexh. as above.

[717] Ric. Hexh. and Joh. Hexh., as above. Hen. Hunt., l. viii.
c. 6 (Arnold, p. 261), and Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol.
ii. p. 102.

He had not long turned his back when David re-entered Northumberland and marched ravaging along the eastern coast till a mutiny among his soldiers compelled him to retreat to the border. Thence he sent William Fitz-Duncan to ravage the district of Craven, while he himself remained busy with the siege of Carham till he was dislodged by Count Waleran of Meulan.[718] The Empress meanwhile plied him with entreaties for support, both by her own letters and through her friends in the north, chief among whom was her father’s old minister Eustace Fitz-John,[719] lord of the mighty castles of Bamborough, Knaresborough, Malton and Alnwick. Eustace had already forfeited his best stronghold, Bamborough, through his plottings against Stephen;[720] in May 1138 he openly placed himself, his remaining castles and his men at the disposal of the Scot king. David hesitated no longer. Gathering up all the forces of his kingdom,[721] he joined Eustace in an unsuccessful attempt to regain Bamborough; thence the united host marched burning and harrying through the already thrice-wasted Patrimony of S. Cuthbert, crossed the Tees, and in the middle of August made its appearance in Yorkshire.[722]

[718] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 81–84. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p.
117. The record of Waleran’s exploit is in Flor. Worc. Contin.
(as above), p. 112.

[719] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 35.

[720] Joh. Hexh. (Raine), p. 117. “De magnis proceribus Angliæ,
regi quondam Henrico familiarissimus, vir summæ prudentiæ et in
secularibus negotiis magni consilii, qui a rege Anglorum ideo
recesserat quod ab eo in curiâ contra patrium morem captus,
castra quæ ei Rex Henricus commiserat reddere compulsus est.”
Æthelred Riev. _De Bello Standardi_ (Twysden, _X. Scriptt._),
col. 343. On Eustace Fitz-John see also Walbran, _Memor. of
Fountains_, p. 50, note 11.

[721] The Hexham chroniclers reckon them at something over
twenty thousand.

[722] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 84, 85, 89. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._),
p. 118.

There was no help to be looked for from the king. All through that summer the whole south and west of England had been in a blaze of revolt which was still unsubdued, and Stephen had neither time, thought, nor troops to spare for the defence of the north. But in face of such a danger as this the men of the north needed no help from him. When their own hearths and altars were threatened by the hereditary Scottish foe, resistance was a matter not of loyalty but of patriotism. The barons and great men of the shire at once organized their plans under the guidance of Archbishop Thurstan, whose lightest word carried more weight in Yorkshire than anything that Stephen could have said or done. Inspired by him, the forces of the diocese met at York in the temper of crusaders. Three days of fasting, almsgiving and penance, concluding with a solemn absolution and benediction from their primate, prepared them for their task. Worn out as he was with years and labours--so feeble that he could neither walk nor ride--Thurstan would yet have gone forth in his litter at the head of his men to encourage the host with his presence and his eloquence; but the barons shrank from such a risk. To them he was the Moses on whose uplifted hands depended their success in the coming battle; so they sent him back to wrestle in prayer for them within his own cathedral church, while they went forth to their earthly warfare against the Scot.[723]

[723] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 86, 87. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), pp.
118, 119.

Early in the morning of Tuesday, August 22, the English forces drew up in battle array upon Cowton Moor, two miles from Northallerton. In their midst was the “Standard” from which the fight afterwards took its name:--a cart into which was fixed a pole surmounted by a silver pyx containing the Host, and hung round with the consecrated banners of the local churches, S. Peter of York, S. John of Beverley, S. Wilfrid of Ripon.[724] Thurstan’s place as chief spiritual adviser of the army was filled by Ralf, bishop of the Orkneys;[725] their chief military adviser was Walter Lespec, the pious and noble founder of Kirkham and Rievaux--the very type and model of a Christian knight of the time. Standing upon the cart, with the sacred banners waving round his head, in a voice like a trumpet he addressed his comrades.[726] He appealed to the barons to prove themselves worthy of their race; he appealed to the English shire-levies to prove themselves worthy of their country; he pictured in glowing colours the wrongs which they all had to avenge, and the worse they would have to suffer if they survived a defeat; then, grasping the hand of William of Aumale, the new-made earl of York,[727] he swore aloud to conquer or die.[728] The unanimous “Amen!” of the English host was answered by shrill cries of “Albin! Albin!” as the Scots came charging on.[729] The glory of the first onset was snatched, much against David’s will, by the men of Galloway, who claimed it as their hereditary right.[730] The second division of the Scottish host comprised the Cumbrians and the men of Teviotdale, and the followers of Eustace Fitz-John. A third body was formed by the men of Lothian and of the western islands, and a fourth by the king’s household troops, a picked band of English and Norman knights commanded by David in person.[731] The English array was simple enough; the whole host stood in one compact mass clustered around the Standard,--the barons and their followers occupying the centre, the archers intermingled with them in front, and the general mass of less well-armed troops of the shire in the rear, with a small detachment of horse posted at a little distance; the main body of both armies fought on foot in the old English fashion. The wild Celts of Galloway dashed headlong upon the English front, only to find their spears and javelins glance off from the helmets and shields of the knights as from an iron wall, while their own half-naked bodies were riddled with a shower of arrows; their leader fell, and they fled in confusion.[732] The second line under the king’s son, Henry, charged with better success; but an Englishman lifted up a gory head upon a pole crying out that it was David’s; and like the English long ago in a like case at Assandun, the Scottish centre at once fled almost without waiting to be attacked.[733] David himself fought on well-nigh alone, till the few who stood around him dragged him off the field, lifted him on horseback, and fairly compelled him to retreat.[734] His scattered troops caught sight of the dragon on his standard,[735] and discovering that he was still alive, rallied enough to enable him to retreat in good order. Henry gathered up the remnants of the royal body-guard--the only mounted division of the army--and with them made a gallant effort to retrieve the day; but the horsemen charged in vain against the English shield-wall, and falling back with shattered spears and wounded horses they were compelled to fling away their accoutrements and escape as best they could.[736] Three days elapsed before Henry himself could rejoin his father at Carlisle.[737] Eleven hundred Scots were said to have been slain in the battle or caught in their flight through the woods and marshes and there despatched.[738] Out of two hundred armed knights only nineteen carried their mail-coats home again;[739] such of the rest as escaped at all escaped only with their lives; and the field was so strewn with baggage, provisions and arms, left behind by the fugitives, that the victors gave it the nickname of Baggamore.[740] The enthusiasm which had carried the Yorkshiremen through the hour of danger carried them also through the temptation of the hour of triumph. They sullied their victory by no attempt at pursuit or retaliation, but simply returned as they had come, in solemn procession, and having restored the holy banners to their several places with joy and thanksgiving, went quietly back every man to his own home.[741] Some three months later the garrison of Carham, having salted their last horse save one, were driven to surrender; but their stubborn defence had won them the right to march out free with the honours of war, and all that David gained was the satisfaction of razing the empty fortress.[742]

[724] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 90, 91. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p.
119. Cf. the description of the Milanese _carroccio_--“quod
apud nos _standard_ dicitur” as the German writer remarks--in
1162 (_Ep. Burchard. Notar. Imp. de Excidio Mediolan._, in
Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Scriptt._, vol. vi. p. 917).

[725] On Ralf see Dixon and Raine, _Fasti Eborac._, vol. i. p.
168.

[726] So says Æthelred of Rievaux (_De Bello Standardi_,
Twysden, _X. Scriptt._, cols. 338, 339), giving a charming
portrait of Walter and a vivid picture of the scene. Hen.
Hunt., l. viii. c. 7 (Arnold, p. 262), attributes the speech to
Bishop Ralf.

[727] “The the king adde beteht Euorwic.” Eng. Chron. a. 1138.

[728] Æthelred Riev., _De Bello Standardi_ (as above), cols.
339–342.

[729] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 9 (Arnold, p. 263).

[730] Æthelred Riev. _De Bello Stand._ (Twysden, _X.
Scriptt._), col. 342. His account of the quarrel for precedence
and its consequences makes one think of the Macdonalds at
Culloden. Ric. Hexh. (Raine, p. 92), says the “Picti” were in
the van; Joh. Hexh. (_ib._ p. 119), calls them “Scotti”--both
meaning simply what at a later time would have been called
“wild Highlanders,” _i.e._ in this case men of Galloway. Hen.
Hunt. puts the Lothian men in front, but he is clearly wrong.

[731] Æthelred Riev. (as above), cols. 342, 343.

[732] _Ib._ col. 345. Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 9 (Arnold, pp.
263, 264), who, however, turns the Galwegians into men of
Lothian; see above, note 2{730}.

[733] Æthelred Riev. as above.

[734] Æthelred Riev. _De Bello Stand._ (Twysden, _X.
Scriptt._), col. 346. Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 9 (Arnold, p.
264).

[735] “Regale vexillum, quod ad similitudinem draconis
figuratum facile agnoscebatur.” Æthelred Riev. as above. Had S.
Margaret’s son adopted the old royal standard of her West-Saxon
forefathers?

[736] Æthelred Riev. and Hen. Hunt., as above. The two accounts
do not seem to tally at first sight, but they are easily
reconciled.

[737] Æthelred Riev. as above. Cf. Flor. Worc. Contin.
(Thorpe), vol. ii. p. 112.

[738] Hen. Hunt. as above. Ric. Hexh. (Raine), p. 93.

[739] Flor. Worc. Contin. as above.

[740] Joh. Hexh. (Raine), p. 120. Serlo (Twysden, _X.
Scriptt._), cols. 331, 332. According to this last, the
scattered eatables consisted chiefly of bread, cheese and
horseflesh, which, as well as other flesh, the Scots ate
indifferently raw or cooked.--There is yet one other curious
version of the Scottish rout and its cause: “Archiepiscopus
cum militibus regis latenter occurrens super Cotowne more
juxta Northallerton, fieri jussit in viis subterraneis
quædam instrumenta sonos horribiles reddentia, quæ Anglicè
dicuntur _petronces_; quibus resonantibus, feræ et cætera
armenta quæ procedebant exercitum prædicti David regis in
adjutorium, timore strepitûs perterriti, in exercitum David
ferociter resiliebant.” (MS. _Life of Abp. Thurstan_, quoted
by Mr. Raine, _Priory of Hexh._, vol. i. p. 92, note _t_).
The primate’s share in the victory was so strongly felt at
the time that in the Ann. Cicestr. a. 1138 (Liebermann,
_Geschichtsquellen_, p. 95), the battle appears as “Bellum
inter archiepiscopum Eboracensem et David.”

[741] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), p. 93. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p. 120.

[742] Ric. Hexh. (Raine), p. 100. Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p. 118.

The defeat of the Scots was shared by the English baron who had brought them into the land. But Eustace Fitz-John was far from standing alone in his breach of fealty to the English king. All the elements of danger and disruption which had been threatening Stephen ever since his accession suddenly burst forth in the spring of 1138.[743] Between the king and the barons there had been from the first a total lack of confidence. It could not be otherwise; for their mutual obligations were founded on the breach of an earlier obligation contracted by both towards Matilda and her son. There could not fail to be on both sides a feeling that as they had all alike broken their faith to the Empress, so they might at any moment break their faith to each other just as lightly. But on one side the insecurity lay still deeper. Not only was the king not sure of his subjects; he was not sure of himself. How far Stephen was morally justified in accepting the crown after he had sworn fealty to another candidate for it is a question whose solution depends upon that of a variety of other questions which we are not bound to discuss here. Politically, however, he could justify himself only in one way: by proving his fitness for the office which he had undertaken. What he proved was his unfitness for it. Stephen, in short, had done the most momentous deed of his life as he did all the lesser ones, without first counting the cost; and it was no sooner done than he found the cost beyond his power to meet. A thoroughly unselfish hero, a thoroughly unscrupulous tyrant, might have met it successfully, each in his own way. But Stephen was neither hero nor tyrant; he was “a mild man, soft and good--and did no justice.”[744] His weakness shewed itself in a policy of makeshift which only betrayed his uneasiness and increased his difficulties. His first expedient to strengthen his position had been the unlucky introduction of the Flemish mercenaries; his next was the creation of new earldoms in behalf of those whom he regarded as his especial friends, whereby he hoped to raise up an aristocracy wholly devoted to himself, but only succeeded in provoking the resentment and contempt of the older nobility; while to indemnify his new earls for their lack of territorial endowment and give them some means of supporting their titular dignity, he was obliged to provide them with revenues charged upon that of the Crown.[745] But his prodigality had already made the Crown revenues insufficient for his own needs;[746] and the next steps were the debasement of the coinage[747] and the arbitrary spoliation of those whom he mistrusted for the benefit of his insatiable favourites.[748] They grew greedier in asking, and he more lavish in giving; castles, lands, anything and everything, were demanded of him without scruple; and if their demands were not granted the petitioners at once prepared for defiance.[749] He flew hither and thither, but nothing came of his restless activity;[750] he did more harm to himself than to his enemies, giving away lands and honours almost at random, patching up a hollow peace,[751] and then, when he found every man’s hand against him and his hand against every man, bitterly complaining, “Why have they made me king, only to leave me thus destitute? By our Lord’s Nativity, I will not be a king thus disgraced!”[752]

[743] “Hi igitur duo anni [_i.e._ 1136 and 1137] Stephani regis
prosperrimi fuerunt, tertius vero ... mediocris et intercisus
fuit; duo vero ultimi exitiales fuerunt et prærupti.” Hen.
Hunt., l. viii. c. 5 (Arnold, p. 260). By this reckoning it
seems that after Stephen’s capture at the battle of Lincoln
Henry does not count him king at all.

[744] Eng. Chron. a. 1137.

[745] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. i. c. 18 (Hardy, p. 712).

[746] “He hadde get his [Henry’s] tresor, ac he todeld it and
scatered sotlice.” Eng. Chron. a. 1137.

[747] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. ii. c. 34 (Hardy, p. 732).

[748] See the first and fullest example in the story of the
siege of Bedford, December 1138–January 1139; _Gesta Steph._
(Sewell), pp. 30–32. Cf. Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 6 (Arnold, p.
260). The sequel of the story is in _Gesta Steph._, p. 74.

[749] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. i. c. 18 (Hardy, p. 711).

[750] “Modo hic, modo illic subitus aderat,” _ibid._
“Raptabatur enim nunc huc nunc illuc, et adeo vix aliquid
perficiebat.” Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 105. Cf. R.
Glaber’s description of Stephen’s ancestor Odo II. (above, p.
150).

[751] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. i. c. 18 (Hardy, pp. 711,
712).

[752] _Ib._ c. 17 (p. 711).

Matters were made worse by his relations with Earl Robert of Gloucester. As son of the late king and half-brother of the Empress; as one of the greatest and wealthiest landowners in England--earl of Gloucester by his father’s grant, lord of Bristol and of Glamorgan by his marriage with the heiress of Robert Fitz-Hamon--all-powerful throughout the western shires and on the Welsh march--Robert was the one man who above all others could most influence the policy of the barons, and whom it was most important for Stephen to conciliate at any cost. Robert had followed the king back to Normandy in 1137; throughout their stay there William of Ypres strove, only too successfully, to set them at variance; a formal reconciliation took place, but it was a mere form;[753] and a few months after Stephen’s return to England he was rash enough to order the confiscation of the earl’s English and Welsh estates, and actually to raze some of his castles.[754] The consequence was that soon after Whitsuntide Robert sent to the king a formal renunciation of his allegiance, and to his vassals in England instructions to prepare for war.[755] This message proved the signal for a general rising. Geoffrey Talbot had already seized Hereford castle;[756] in the north Eustace Fitz-John, as we have seen, joined hands with the Scot king; while throughout the south and west the barons shewed at once that they had been merely waiting for Robert’s decision. Bristol under Robert’s own son;[757] Harptree under William Fitz-John;[758] Castle Cary under Ralf Lovel; Dunster under William of Mohun; Shrewsbury under William Fitz-Alan;[759] Dudley under Ralf Paganel;[760] Burne, Ellesmere, Whittington and Overton under William Peverel;[761] on the south coast, Wareham, another castle of Earl Robert’s, held by Ralf of Lincoln, and Dover, held by Walkelyn Maminot[762]:--all these fortresses, and many more, were openly made ready for defence or defiance; and Stephen’s own constable Miles, who as sheriff of Gloucester had only a few weeks before welcomed him into that city with regal honours,[763] now followed the earl’s example and formally renounced his allegiance.[764]

[753] _Ib._ (p. 710).

[754] _Ib._ c. 18 (p. 713).

[755] _Ib._ p. 712; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 104. The
grounds of the defiance were--1, the unlawfulness of Stephen’s
accession; 2, his breach of his engagements towards Robert;
3, the unlawfulness of Robert’s own oath to him as being
invalidated, like Stephen’s claim to the crown, by the previous
oath to Matilda. (Will. Malm. as above.)

[756] At Ascension-tide. Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 7 (Arnold,
p. 261). There is also an account of the seizure of Hereford
by Geoffrey Talbot in _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 69, where
it seems to be placed in 1140. The writer has apparently
confused the seizure by Geoffrey in 1138 with that by Miles of
Gloucester in December 1139, and misdated both.

[757] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 7 (Arnold, p. 261). Ord. Vit.
(Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 917. _Gesta Steph._
(Sewell), p. 36.

[758] Ord. Vit. as above. _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 43.

[759] Hen. Hunt. and Ord. Vit. as above.

[760] “Paganellus [tenuit] castellum de _Ludelaue_,” says Hen.
Hunt. (as above). But we shortly afterwards find Stephen,
according to Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 110),
marching against “castellum de _Duddelæge_, quod Radulf Paignel
contra illum munierat.” As Henry makes no mention of Dudley
at all, and the continuator of Florence makes no mention of
Ludlow till 1139, when he says nothing of its commander, it
seems plain that there has been some mistake between the two
names, which indeed might easily get confounded. Mr. Eyton
(_Antiquities of Shropshire_, vol. v. pp. 244, 245) rules that
the Continuator is right, as there is no trace of any connexion
between Ralf Paganel and Ludlow, which indeed he shews to have
been in other hands at this time. See below, p. 301.

[761] Ord. Vit. as above.

[762] Hen. Hunt. and Ord. Vit. as above.

[763] Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol. ii. p. 105.

[764] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 104.

The full force of the blow came upon Stephen while he was endeavouring to dislodge Geoffrey Talbot from Hereford. After a siege of nearly five weeks’ duration the town caught fire below the bridge; the alarmed rebels offered terms, and Stephen with his usual clemency allowed them to depart free.[765] After taking the neighbouring castle of Weobly, and leaving a garrison there and another at Hereford,[766] he seems to have returned to London[767] and there collected his forces for an attack upon the insurgents in their headquarters at Bristol. Geoffrey Talbot meanwhile made an attempt upon Bath, but was caught and put in ward by the bishop. The latter however was presently captured in his turn by the garrison of Bristol, who threatened to hang him unless their friend was released. The bishop saved his neck by giving up his prize; Stephen in great indignation marched upon Bath, and was, it is said, with difficulty restrained from depriving the bishop of his ring and staff--a statement which tells something of the way in which the king kept his compact towards the Church. He contented himself however with putting a garrison into Bath, and hurried on to the siege of Bristol.[768]

[765] Flor. Worc. Contin. (as above), p. 106. The writer adds
that on the very day of Stephen’s departure (June 15) Geoffrey
set fire to everything beyond the Wye; seven or eight Welshmen
perished, but no English (_ib._ p. 107)--an indication that the
part of Hereford beyond the Wye was then a Welsh quarter.

[766] Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol. ii. p. 106.

[767] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 36.

[768] Flor. Worc. Contin. (as above), pp. 108, 109. In _Gesta
Steph._ (Sewell), pp. 37–39, 41, 42, the story is told at
greater length, and the writer seems to defend the bishop and
to consider his own hero rather ungrateful.

A survey of its environs soon convinced him that he had undertaken a very difficult task. Bristol with its two encircling rivers was a natural stronghold of no common order; and on the one side where nature had left it unprotected, art had supplied the deficiency. The narrow neck of land at the eastern end of the peninsula on which the town stood--the only point whence it could be reached without crossing the water--was in the Conqueror’s last days occupied by a castle which in the Red King’s reign passed into the hands of Robert Fitz-Hamon, famed alike in history and legend as the conqueror of Glamorgan; in those of his son-in-law and successor, Earl Robert of Gloucester,[769] it grew into a mighty fortress, provided with trench and wall, outworks and towers, and all other military contrivances then in use,[770] and surrounded on its exposed eastern side by a moat whose waters joined those of the Avon on the south.[771] Bristol was in fact Robert’s military capital, and under the command of his eldest son it had now become the chief muster-place of all his dispossessed partizans and followers, as well as of a swarm of mercenaries attracted thither from all parts of the country by the advantages of the place and the wealth and renown of its lord.[772] From this stronghold they sallied forth in all directions to do the king all the mischief in their power. They overran his lands and those of his adherents like a pack of hounds; wholesale cattle-lifting was among the least of their misdeeds; every wealthy man whom they could reach was hunted down or decoyed into their den, and there tortured with every refinement of ingenious cruelty till he had given up his uttermost farthing.[773] One Philip Gay, a kinsman of Earl Robert, specially distinguished himself in the contrivance of new methods of torture.[774] In his hands, and those of men like him, Bristol acquired the title of “the stepmother of all England.”[775] If Bristol could be reduced to submission, Stephen’s work would be more than half done. He held a council of war with his barons to deliberate on the best method of beginning the siege. Those who were in earnest about the matter urged the construction of a mole to dam up the narrow strait which formed the haven, whereby not only would the inhabitants be deprived of their chief hope of succour, but the waters, checked in their course and thrown back upon themselves, would swell into a mighty flood and speedily overwhelm the city. Meanwhile, added the supporters of this scheme, Stephen might build a tower on each side of the city to check all ingress and egress by means of the two bridges, while he himself should encamp with his host before the castle and storm or starve it into surrender. Another party, however, whose secret sympathies were with the besieged, argued that whatever material, wood or stone, was used for the construction of the dam would be either swallowed up in the depths of the river or swept away by its current; and they drew such a dismal picture of the hopelessness of the undertaking that Stephen gave it up, and with it all attempt at a siege of Bristol. Turning southward, he struck across the Mendip hills into the heart of Somerset, and besieged William Lovel in Castle Cary,[776] a fortress whose remains, in the shape of three grass-covered mounds, still overlook a little valley where the river Cary takes its rise at the foot of the Polden hills. According to one account, the place yielded to Stephen;[777] according to another,[778] he built over against it a tower in which he left a detachment of soldiers to annoy its garrison, and marched northward to another castle, Harptree, whose site is now buried in the middle of a lonely wood. Harptree was gained by a stratagem somewhat later on;[779] for the present Stephen left it to be harassed by the garrison of Bath, and pursued his northward march to Dudley. Here he made no attempt upon the castle, held against him by Ralf Paganel, but contented himself with burning and harrying the neighbourhood, and then led his host up the Severn to Shrewsbury.[780] The old “town in the scrub,” or bush, as its first English conquerors had called it, had grown under the care of its first Norman earl, Roger of Montgomery, into one of the chief strongholds of the Welsh border. The lands attached to the earldom, forfeited by the treason of Robert of Bellême, had been granted by Henry I. to his second queen, Adeliza; she and her second husband, William of Aubigny, had now thrown themselves into the party of her stepdaughter the Empress; and the castle built by Earl Roger on the neck of a peninsula in the Severn upon which the town of Shrewsbury stands was held in Matilda’s interest by William Fitz-Alan, who had married a niece of Robert of Gloucester.[781] William himself, with his wife and children, slipped out at the king’s approach, leaving the garrison sworn never to surrender. Stephen, however, caused the fosse to be filled with wood, set it on fire, and literally smoked them out.[782] The noblest were hanged; the rest escaped as best they could,[783] while Stephen followed up his success by taking a neighbouring castle which belonged to Fitz-Alan’s uncle Arnulf of Hesdin, and hanging Arnulf himself with ninety-three of his comrades.[784] This unwonted severity acted as a salutary warning which took effect at the opposite end of the kingdom. Queen Matilda, with a squadron of ships manned by sailors from her own county of Boulogne, was blockading Walkelyn Maminot in Dover, when the tidings of her husband’s victories in Shropshire induced Walkelyn to surrender.[785] This was in August.[786] When a truce had been patched up with Ralf Paganel,[787] the west of England might be considered fairly pacified, and Stephen was free to march into Dorsetshire against Earl Robert’s southernmost fortress, Wareham.[788] Nothing, however, seems to have come of this expedition; and Robert himself was still out of reach beyond sea. In the midland shires William Peverel, the lord of the Peak country, was still unsubdued, but he was now almost isolated, for in the north Eustace Fitz-John, as we have seen, had drawn his punishment upon himself from other hands than those of the king. Stephen’s successes in the west, his wife’s success at Dover, were quickly followed by tidings of the victory at Cowton Moor; and meanwhile a peacemaker had come upon the scene.

[769] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. i. c. 3 (Hardy, p. 692).

[770] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 37.

[771] See plans and description in Seyer, _Mem. of Bristol_,
vol. i. pp. 373 _et seq._

[772] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 37.

[773] _Ib._ p. 40, 41. Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol. ii.
p. 109. Both writers, however, seem to lay to the sole account
of the Bristol garrison all the horrors which in the Eng.
Chron. a. 1137, are attributed to the barons and soldiers in
general throughout the civil war.

[774] Flor. Worc. Contin. as above.

[775] “Ad totius Angliæ novercam, Bristoam.” _Gesta Steph._
(Sewell), p. 41.

[776] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 43. Flor. Worc. Contin.
(Thorpe), vol. ii. p. 110.

[777] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), pp. 43, 44.

[778] Flor. Worc. Contin. as above.

[779] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), p. 44.

[780] Flor. Worc. Contin. as above. On Dudley see above, p.
295, note 4{760}.

[781] Ord. Vit. (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 917.

[782] “Omnes infumigat et exfumigat.” Flor. Worc. Contin.
(Thorpe), vol. ii. p. 110.

[783] _Ibid._

[784] Ord. Vit. (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 917.

[785] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 7 (Arnold, p. 261).

[786] Ord. Vit. as above.

[787] Flor. Worc. Contin. as above.

[788] _Ibid._

In the spring of 1138 a schism which had rent the Western Church asunder for seven years was ended by the death of the anti-pope Anacletus, and Pope Innocent II. profited by the occasion to send Alberic bishop of Ostia as legate into England--Archbishop William of Canterbury, who had held a legatine commission together with the primacy, having died in November 1136.[789] Alberic landed just as the revolt broke out, and Stephen had therefore no choice but to accept his credentials and let him pursue his mission, whatever it might be.[790] It proved to be wholly a mission of peace. Alberic made a visitation-tour throughout England,[791] ending with a council at Carlisle, whither the king of Scots, who had adhered to Anacletus, now came to welcome Innocent’s representative. There, on the neutral ground of young Henry’s English fief, the legate made an attempt to mediate between David and Stephen; but all that the former would grant was a truce until Martinmas, and a promise to bring to Carlisle and there set free all the captive Englishwomen who could be collected before that time, as well as to enforce more Christian-like behaviour among his soldiers for the future.[792] On the third Sunday in Advent the legate held a council at Westminster, when Theobald, abbot of Bec, was elected archbishop of Canterbury by the prior of Christ Church and certain delegates of the convent, in presence of the king and the legate.[793] Theobald’s consecration, two days after Epiphany, brought Alberic’s mission to a satisfactory close.[794]

[789] Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol. ii. pp. 97, 98. On
Alberic see Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 96, 97.

[790] Flor. Worc. Contin. (as above), p. 106.

[791] _Ibid._ The details of his movements in the north are in
Ric. Hexh. (Raine), p. 98, and Joh. Hexh. (_ibid._), p. 121.

[792] Ric. Hex. (Raine), pp. 99, 100. Joh. Hexh. as above.

[793] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 9 (Arnold, p. 265). Ric. Hexh.
(Raine), pp. 101–103. Eng. Chron. a. 1140. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 107–109, and vol. ii. p. 384. Chron.
Becc., in Giles, _Lanfranc_, vol. i. p. 207. _Vita Theobaldi_
(_ibid._), pp. 337, 338.

[794] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 109.

In the work of mediation he had soon found that there was one who had the matter more nearly at heart, and who had a much better chance of success than himself. Queen Matilda was warmly attached to her Scottish relatives, and lost no opportunity of urging her husband to reconciliation with them. At last, on April 9, she and her cousin Henry met at Durham; David and Henry gave hostages for their pacific conduct in the future, and the English earldom of Northumberland was granted to Henry.[795] The treaty was ratified by Stephen at Nottingham;[796] the Scottish prince stayed to keep Easter with his cousins, and afterwards accompanied the king in an expedition against Ludlow. The castle of Ludlow, founded probably by Roger de Lacy in the reign of William Rufus, was destined in after-days to become a treasure-house alike for historian, antiquary and artist. Memories of every period in English history from the twelfth century to the seventeenth throng the mighty pile, in which almost every phase of English architecture may be studied amid surroundings of the most exquisite natural beauty. The site of the fortress, on a rocky promontory rising more than a hundred feet above the junction of the Corve and the Teme, was admirably adapted for defence. The northern and western walls of its outer ward rose abruptly from the steep slope of the rock itself; on the east and south it was protected by a ditch, crossed by a bridge which led to the inner ward and the keep, securely placed near the south-western angle of the enclosure.[797] The fief of Ludlow had escheated to the Crown soon after Stephen’s accession,[798] and he had apparently bestowed it upon one Joce or Joceas of Dinan,[799] who now, it seems, was holding it against him. The siege came to nothing, though it was made memorable by an incident which nearly cost the life of Henry of Scotland and furnished occasion for a characteristic display of Stephen’s personal bravery. A grappling-iron thrown from over the wall caught the Scottish prince, dragged him off his horse, and had all but lifted him into the castle, when the king rushed forward and set him free.[800] This adventure, however, seems to have cooled Stephen’s ardour for the assault, and after setting up two towers to hold the garrison in check, he again withdrew to London.[801] Early in the year he had taken Earl Robert’s castle of Leeds;[802] and altogether his prospects were beginning to brighten, when they were suddenly overclouded again by his own rashness and folly.

[795] With the exception of Newcastle and Bamborough, and on
condition that the local customs established by Henry I. should
be maintained inviolate. Ric. Hexh. (Raine), pp. 105, 106. Hen.
Hunt., l. viii. c. 10 (Arnold, p. 265), has a very strange
version of the way in which this treaty was brought about; see
below, p. 302, note 3{802}.

[796] Ric. Hexh. (as above), p. 106.

[797] See plan and description in Clark, _Mediev. Milit.
Archit._, vol. ii. pp. 273–290.

[798] By the death of Payne Fitz-John. See Eyton, _Antiqu.
Shropshire_, vol. v. p. 244.

[799] This is Joceas’s surname according to the romantic
_History of Fulk Fitzwarine_, and it is adopted by Mr. Eyton,
who takes it as derived from Dinan in Britanny; see his account
of Joceas, _Antiqu. Shropsh._, vol. v. pp. 244–247. According
to this, the name of _Dinham_, now borne by the part of Ludlow
which lies south and west of the castle, would be a corruption
of _Dinan_, which the above-mentioned romance (a work of the
reign of Henry III.) says was the name given to the whole place
in Joceas’s time. Mr. Wright, however (_Hist. Ludlow_, pp. 13,
34), thinks that _Dinham_ was the original name, afterwards
superseded by Ludlow; in which case Joceas becomes simply
“Joceas of Dinham,” with a surname derived not from a foreign
birthplace, but from an English fief.

[800] Hen. Hunt., l. viii. c. 10 (Arnold, p. 265).

[801] Flor. Worc. Contin. (Thorpe), vol. ii. p. 115.

[802] Hen. Hunt. as above. This is Leeds in Kent. It is
probably through mistaking it for its Yorkshire namesake that
Henry was misled into his odd notion that Stephen himself
was fighting in the north, and compelled the Scots to a
pacification. See above, p. 300, note 7{800}.

The administrative machinery of the state was still in the hands of Bishop Roger of Salisbury and the disciples whom he had trained. Roger himself retained his office of justiciar; the treasurership was held by his nephew, Nigel bishop of Ely, and the chancellorship by one whom he also called his nephew, but who was known to be really his son. This latter was commonly distinguished as “Roger the Poor”--a nickname pointed sarcastically at the enormous wealth of the elder Roger, compared with which that of the younger might pass for poverty. Outwardly, the justiciar stood as high in Stephen’s favour as he had stood in Henry’s; whatever he asked--and he was not slack in asking--was granted at once: “I shall give him the half of my kingdom some day, if he demands it!” was Stephen’s own confession.[803] But the greediness of the one and the lavishness of the other sprang alike from a secret mistrust which the mischief-makers of the court did their utmost to foster. Stephen’s personal friends assured him that the bishop of Salisbury and his nephews were in treasonable correspondence with the Empress, that they were fortifying and revictualling their castles in her behalf, and that the worldly pomp and show, the vast retinue of armed followers, with which they were wont to appear at court, was really intended for the support of her cause.[804] How far the suspicion was correct it is difficult to decide. Roger owed his whole career to King Henry; he had broken his plighted faith to Henry’s child; it is no wonder if his heart smote him for the ungrateful deed. If, on the other hand, that deed had been done from a real sense of duty to the state, a sincere belief in the advantage of Stephen’s rule for England, then it is no wonder if he felt that he had made a grievous mistake, and sought to repair it by a return to his earlier allegiance. But whatever may be thought of the bishop’s conduct, nothing can justify that of the king. At Midsummer 1139 Stephen summoned Bishop Roger to come and speak with him at Oxford. Some foreboding of evil--possibly some consciousness of double-dealing--made the old man very unwilling to go;[805] but he did go, and with him went his son the chancellor, and his two nephews, the treasurer and Alexander bishop of Lincoln,[806] each accompanied by a train of armed knights. Stephen, equally suspicious, bade his men arm themselves likewise, to be ready in case of need. While he was conversing with the bishops in Oxford castle,[807] a dispute about quarters arose between their followers and those of the count of Meulan and Alan of Richmond;[808] a fray ensued, in which Alan’s nephew was nearly killed,[809] whereupon the two Rogers and the bishop of Lincoln were at once seized by the king. Nigel of Ely, who was lodging apart from the others outside the town,[810] escaped, threw himself into his uncle’s castle of Devizes, and prepared to stand a siege.[811]

[803] Will. Malm. _Hist. Nov._, l. ii. c. 32 (Hardy, p. 729).

[804] _Gesta Steph._ (Sewell), pp. 46, 47.