GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE.*
Fon many reasons this is the most remarkable historical work which has recently appeared. It is valuable for the new light which it throws upon a particularly dark period in English history, as we shall consider directly ; but it is also worthy of attentive consideration as being a perfect example of work of a new kind,—a type of books which are likely to be numerous in the future, because old methods are either fast becoming unproductive, or at all events have been used exhaustively. Those who contemplate writing history in the future, at all events the history of the Middle Ages, will have to reckon with Mr. Round. The chronicles in the skilful bands of Professor Freeman, Dr. Stubbs, and Miss Norgate have yielded all that they can yield, but the charters which are preserved in the British Museum and the Bodleian can fill in important gaps in our knowledge, and after the present effort cannot longer be neglected. This brings us face to face with Mr. Round, and we have at once to ask, does not this personal method of writing to some extent defeat itself P The new history will be too vast and complex to give any general idea even of what has taken place. The details may seem to be too trivial. It is like, some would say, the writing of the story of the religious wars of France round the life of a commander of the second rank. And how are wo to look forward with confidence to the same method of investigation when applied to the Wars of the Roses, at all events, if it centres round any other than Warwick P To such suggestions in part no answer can be returned, from this book at any rate. There is a want of a general view of the subject which is most perplexing to the reader, and many of the points made are made at the expense of those who, having strictly laid down the limits of their inquiry, can only be convicted of a certain consistency in not going further, or, as they would consider it, too far, An apt instance of this occurs on the first page in the crittoism which is offered on the statements of Bishop Stubbs and Miss Norgate as to the reception of Stephen in Kent. The accounts of all may be right ; Mr, Round, by the help of Ordericus, goes a little further than the others ; but what is said by them of the hatred of the men of Kent for the foreigners from Boulogne is probably true. Again, in his treatment of those of whose opinions he dis- approves, Mr. Round has no right to speak in the worst manner of Macaulay. Mr. Loftie appears in the index as "Loftie, Mr, W. J. his Strange Errors," and a reference to the page (p. 152) shows, when it is taken with the context, that Mr. Loftie is a " conductor " of punishment to Professor Freeman, who edited the series of which Mr. Loftie's work on London forms part, in addition to receiving somewhat truculent criticism himself. Professor Freeman is not, however, neglected personally. In the index, again, with the exception of one item, the only references to his writings are gathered under
"Professor Freeman, his Errors." Mr. the description,
Round's theories on the subject of knight-service had a value, and although he has not, until the appearance of this volume, -contributed in any very large amount to historical literature, his work has been good enough to make one wish that this sort of thing had been done more quietly. It can hardly be .said to be worth while repeating Mr. Vincent's criticism on • Geoffrey de Mandeville a Study of tha Anarchy. By J. H, Bona, M.A. London.: Long-mans, Green, and Ca. 1892.
The History of Wells Cathedral, which, moreover, probably Mr. Vincent himself would no longer express as he did in the Genealogist for 1885.
The author's method, then, of dealing with opponents (and also, we think, with those who agree with him) is open to exception ; but of the real value of the book as a minute account of the reign of Stephen no one can doubt for a moment. On p. 8 will be found an account supplemented by Appendix B, of the hitherto unrecognised appeal by the Empress Maud to Rome in 1186,—a transaction which offers a curious parallel to the, events of 10136. The way in which Mr. Bound uses the letter of Gilbert Foliot to settle the date, and criticises the theory of Miss Norgate, are excellent examples of the substantial additions which may be made to the know- ledge of a period by confining the range of inquiry. The appendix dealing with the earldoms of Stephen's creation seems also an excellent piece of work. As Latin. is usually rendered, it seems difficult to hold that the Exchequer was charged with " pensions " to the new peers, but, in a wider sense, Bishop Stubbs is fairly accurate in this case. Stephen. did create new earldoms, with some of which grants were made, and though these grants were chiefly grants of land, speaking in the language of feudalism, it is not absolutely incorrect to speak of them as pensions. This is a small matter in which two separate works of Bishop Stubbs show some variation. But the third-penny grant would undoubtedly be of value, we might suggest to Mr. Round, even though the Exchequer were disorganised. More important is the appendix dealing with the earldom of Arundel, which, especially on pp. 320-21, supplies an account of the origin of the system of feudal earldoms which will, we think, be accepted in time to come. The same may be said of Appendix D, on the early administration of London, which throws a good deal of light upon the connection of the City with the county ; and we would direct the attention of the reader to the importance, as far as the government of the City is concerned, of Mr. Round's emendation in a charter which supplies " vadinionia," for " wardemotum," making sense out of nonsense. These appendices atone for any criticism which may be passed upon the manner of Mr. Round's writing.
One feature of the life of Geoffrey de Mandeville is pre-
served, and that is his purely feudal character. He had no aims beyond his own enrichment. He was, in fact, the typical
baron of France, who might have strengthened himself into a
king, who held the balance with considerable success between the opposing factions, and who failed by finally wanting too much. But, in spite of his personal importance, how small is the figure that he has made in the histories which we have of his times I Even in Mr, Round's hands, he is still more a text for a number of very valuable and learned essays than an interesting subject of biography.
Previous page
