APPENDICES. (continued 4)

The following is the gist of the letter to Stephen:—

"Serenitati tue rogando mandamus quatinus dignitates et libertates.... Venerabili quoque fratri nostro Nigello eiusdem loci episcopo in recuperandis possessionibus ecclesie sue injuste distractis consilium et auxilium prebeas. Nec pro eo quod ecclesia ipsa sua bona jam per longa tempora perdidit, justitie sue eam sustinere aliquod preiuditium patiaris" (fol. 114).

To his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, Innocent writes thus:—

"Rogando mandamus et mandando precipimus quatinus sententiam quam venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus in eos qui possessiones ecclesie sue iniuste et per violentiam detinent rationabiliter promulgavit firmiter observetis et observari per vestras parrochias pariter faciatis" (fol. 113 b).

A letter (also from the Lateran) of the same date to Nigel himself excuses his presence and that of the Abbot of Thorney at a council. A subsequent letter ("data trans Tyberim") of the 5th of October, addressed to Theobald and the English bishops, deals with the expulsion and restitution of Nigel, and insists on his full restoration.

The next series of letters are from Pope Lucius, and belong to May 24, 1144, being written on the occasion of Nigel's visit (ante, p. 208). Of these there are five in all. To Stephen Lucius writes as follows:—

"Venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus quamvis quibusdam criminibus in presentia nostra notatus fuerit, nec tamen convictus neque confessus est. Unde nos ipsum cum gratia nostra ad sedem propriam remittentes nobilitati tue mandamus ut eum pro beati Petri et nostra reverentia honores, diligas, nec ipse sibi vel ecclesie sue iniuriam vel molestiam inferas nec ab aliis inferri permittas. Si qua etiam ... ab hominibus tuis ei ablata sunt cum integritate restitui facias" (fol. 117).

The above "crimina" are those referred to in the Historia Eliensis as brought forward at the Council of London in 1143:—

"Quidam magni autoritatis et prudentiæ visi adversus Dominum Nigellum Episcopum parati insurrexerunt: illum ante Domini Papæ præsentiam appellaverunt, sinistra ei objicientes plurima, maxime quod seditiones in ipso concitaverat regno, et bona Ecclesie sue in milites dissipaverat; aliaque ei convicia blasphemantes improperabant" (p. 622).

A second letter of the same date "Ad clerum elyensem de condempnatione Symonie Vitalis presbyteri" deals with the case of Vitalis, a priest in Nigel's diocese, who had been sentenced to deprivation of his living, for simony, and whose appeal to the Council of London in 1143 had been favourably received by the legate.[1190] The pope had himself reheard the case, and now confirmed Nigel's decision:—

"Dilectis filiis Rodberto Abbati Thorneie et capitulo elyensi salutem etc. Notum vobis fieri quia iuditium super causa, videlicet symonia, Vitalis presbyteri in synodo elyensi habitum in nostra presentia discussum est et retractatum. Quod nos rationabile cognoscentes apostolice sedis auctoritate firmavimus," etc., etc. (fol. 117).

Then come two letters, also of the same date, one to Theobald and the English bishops, the other to the Archbishop of Rouen, both to the same effect, beginning, "Venerabilis frater noster Nigellus elyensis episcopus ad sedem apostolicam veniens, nobis conquestus est quod," etc. (fol. 116 b):[1191] the fifth document of the 24th of May (1144) is a general confirmation to Ely of all its privileges and possessions (fols. 114 b-116 b).

Last of all is the letter referring to Geoffrey de Mandeville, which must, from internal evidence, have been written in reply to a letter from Nigel after his return to England (ante, p. 215).

APPENDIX AA. "TENSERIE."

(See p. 215.)

The mention of "tenseriæ" in the letter of Lucius is peculiarly welcome, because (in its Norman-French form) it is the very word employed by the Peterborough chronicler.[1192] As I have pointed out in the Academy,[1193] the same Latin form is found in the agenda of the judicial iter in 1194: "de prisis et tenseriis omnium ballivorum" (R. Hoveden, iii. 267), while the Anglo-Norman "tenserie" is employed by Jordan Fantosme, who, writing of the burgesses of Northampton (1174), tells us that David of Scotland "ne pot tenserie de eus aver." He also illustrates the use of the verb when he describes how the Earl of Leicester, landing in East Anglia, "la terre vait tensant.... E ad tensé la terre cum il en fut bailli." The Latin form of the verb was "tensare," as is shown by the records of the Lincolnshire eyre in 1202 (Maitland's Select Pleas of the Crown, p. 19), where it is used of extorting toll from vessels as they traversed the marshes. A reference to the closing portion of the Lincolnshire survey in Domesday will show the very same offence presented by the jurors of 1086.

To the same number of the Academy, Mr. Paget Toynbee contributed a letter quoting some examples from Ducange of the use of tenseria, one of them taken from the Council of London in 1151: "Sancimus igitur ut Ecclesiæ et possessiones ecclesiasticæ ab operationibus et exactionibus, quas vulgo tenserias sive tallagia vocant, omnino liberæ permaneant, nec super his eas aliqui de cætero inquietare præsumant." The other is taken from the Council of Tours[1194] (1163), and is specially valuable because, I think, it explains how the word acquired its meaning. The difficulty is to deduce the sense of "robbery" from a verb which originally meant "to protect" or "to defend," but this difficulty is beautifully explained by our own word "blackmail," which similarly meant money extorted under pretence of protection or defence. The "defensio" of the Tours Council supports this explanation, as does the curious story told by the monks of Abingdon,[1195] that during the Anarchy under Stephen—

"Willelmus Boterel constabularius de Wallingford, pecunia accepta a domno Ingulfo abbate, res ecclesiæ Abbendonensis a suo exercitu se defensurum promisit. Sponsionis ergo suæ immemor, in villam Culeham, quæ huic cænobio adjacet, quicquid invenire potuit, deprædavit. Quo audito, abbas ... admirans quomodo quod tueri deberet, fure nequior diripuisset" etc.

William died excommunicate for this, but his brother Peter made some slight compensation later.[1196] It was not unusual for conscience or the Church to extort more or less restitution for lawless conduct, as, indeed, in the case of Geoffrey de Mandeville and his son. So, too, Earl Ferrers made a grant to Burton Abbey "propter dampna a me et meis Ecclesiæ predictæ illata" (cf. p. 276, n. 3), previous to going on pilgrimage to S. Jago de Compostella—an early instance of a pilgrimage thither.[1197]

While on this subject, it may be as well to add that the grant by Robert, Earl of Leicester, to the see of Lincoln in restitution for wrongs,[1198] may very possibly refer to his alleged share in the arrest of the bishops (1139), and so confirm the statement of Ordericus Vitalis.[1199]

The complaint of the same English Chronicle that the lawless barons "cruelly oppressed the wretched men of the land with castle works" is curiously confirmed by a letter from Pope Eugenius to four of the prelates, July 23, 1147:—

"Religiosorum fratrum Abbendoniæ gravem querelam accepimus quod Willelmus Martel, Hugo de Bolebec, Willelmus de Bellocampo, Johannes Marescallus, et eorum homines, et plures etiam alii parochiani vestri, possessiones eorum violenter invadunt, et bona ipsorum rapiunt et distrahunt et indebitas castellorum operationes ab eis exigunt."[1200]

With characteristic agreement upon this point, William Martel, who served the king, John the marshal, who followed the Empress, and William de Beauchamp, who had joined both, were at one in the evil work.

APPENDIX BB. THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL.

(See p. 234.)

This instrument, which is referred to in the text, belongs to the Devizes series of the charters granted by the Empress, and is enrolled among some deeds relating to the baronial family of Basset.[1201] As every charter of the Empress is of interest, while this one possesses special features, it is here given in extenso:—

M. Imperatrix Henrici Regis filia et Anglorum Domina, et H. filius Ducis Normannorum, Archiep. Epis. Abb. Comit. Baron. Justic. Vicecom. Minist. et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie et Normannie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Galfrido Ridel filio Ricardi Basset totam hereditatem suam et omnia recta sua ubicunque ea ratione poteret ostendere sive in Normannia sive in Anglia et totam terram quam pater eius Ricardus Basset habuit et tenuit jure hereditario de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque tenuisset, in Normannia sive in Anglia, ad tenendum in feodo et hereditate. Et totam terram Galfridi Ridel avi sui quamcunque habuit et tenuit jure hereditario, In Anglia sive in Normannia de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque tenuisset, ad tenendum in feudo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis de nobis et heredibus nostris. Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus quod bene et in pace et quiete et honorifice teneat in bosco et aquis et in viis et semitis in pratis et pasturis in omnibus locis cum soch et sache cum tol et them et infangefethef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et quietudinibus et libertatibus cum quibus antecessores eius tenuerunt. T[estibus]. Cancellario et Roberto Comite Glovernie et Galfrido Comite Essex et Roberto filio Reg[is] et Walchelino Maminot [et] Rogero filio (sic) Apud Diuis[as].

The charter with which this one ought to be closely compared is that granted, also at Devizes, to Humfrey de Bohun, early in 1144.[1202] These two are the only instances I have yet met with of joint charters from the Empress and her son. It may not be unjustifiable to infer that Henry was henceforth included as a partner in his mother's charters. If so, it would follow that her charters in which he is not mentioned are probably of earlier date.[1203] The second point suggested by a comparison of these charters is that here Henry figures as the son of the Duke of the Normans, while in the other document he is merely son of the Count of the Angevins. This is at once explained by the fact that her husband had now won his promotion (1144) from Count of the Angevins to Duke of the Normans, an explanation which confirms my remarks on the charter to Humfrey de Bohun.[1204] Thus this charter to Geoffrey Ridel must be later than the spring of 1144, while anterior to Henry's departure about the end of 1146. As the (Coucher) charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (junior) is attested by Humfrey as "Dapifer," that, also, may be placed subsequent to Humfrey's own. Again, in the charter here printed, we have proof that Richard Basset was dead at the time of its grant, if not before. There has been hitherto no clue as to the time of his decease, though Foss makes him die, by a strange confusion, in 1154. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the Bassets and Ridels were typical members of that official class which Henry I. had fostered, and which appears to have strongly favoured his daughter's cause. Lastly, in the re-grant of this charter, by Duke Henry at Wallingford (1153), we have a valuable illustration of his practice in ignoring his mother's charters, even when sanctioned by himself in his youth. For, although the terms of the instrument are reproduced with exactitude, the grant is made de novo, without reference to any former charter.[1205]