Præterea præcepit idem rex ut omnes, tam clerici quam laici, qui cartas sive confirmationes habebant de sigillo suo veteri deferrent eas ad sigillum suum novum renovandas, et nisi fecerint, nihil quod actum fuerat per sigillum suum vetus ratum haberetur (iv. 66).
This passage, which ought to be compared with Coggeshall, is merely ignored by Dr Stubbs. Miss Norgate, however, boldly explains it as 'a renewal of the decree requiring all charters granted under the king's old seal to be brought up for confirmation under the new one' (ii. 356). But the passage stands by itself, as describing a new measure.[18]
The only conclusion to be drawn from this cumulative evidence is that the earlier passage in Hoveden (1194) which has been so universally accepted, must be rejected altogether. Against the facts I have adduced it cannot stand.
Incredible though it may seem that a court official, a chronicler so able and well informed, indeed, in the words of his editor, 'our primary authority for the period',[19] should have misstated so grossly an event, as it were, under his own eyes, we must remember that 'Hoveden's personality is to a certain degree vindicated by a sort of carelessness about exact dates'.[20] Yet even so, 'few are the points', our supreme authority assures us, 'in which a very close examination and collation with contemporary authors can detect chronological error in Hoveden'.[21] Nor, of the eight anachronisms laboriously established by Dr Stubbs, does any one approach in magnitude the error I have here exposed. The importance of every anachronism in its bearing on the authorship of the chronicle is by him clearly explained.
How far does the rejection of this statement on the change of seal affect the statement which precedes it as to the Truce of Tillières? Hoveden places the latter and the former in the relation of cause and effect:
Deinde veniens in Normanniam moleste tulit quicquid factum fuerat de supradictis treugis, et imputans cancellario suo hoc per eum fuisse factum, abstulit ab eo sigillum suum, et fecit, etc. (iii. 267).
This is rendered by Dr Stubbs in the margin: 'He annuls the truce and all the acts of the chancellor passed under the old seal.' The passage has also been so read by M. Boivin-Champeaux (p. 221); but if that is the meaning, which I think is by no means certain, Hoveden contradicts himself. For he speaks five months later of the truce ('Treuga quæ inter eos statuta fuerat duratura usque ad festum omnium sanctorum') as not having stopped private raids on either side.[22] R. de Diceto, mentioning the truce (ii. 120), says nothing of it being annulled, nor does R. Newburgh in his careful account. On the contrary, he implies that it held good, though the terms were thought dishonourable to Richard (ii. 420). I should, therefore, read Hoveden as stating simply that Richard was much annoyed at ('moleste tulit') its terms, and was wroth with the chancellor for accepting them.
In addition to correcting the received date for Richard the First's change of seal, the evidence I have collected enables us, for the first time, to learn how and to what extent the confirmation of the charters was effected. We find that it was no sweeping process, carried out on a single occasion, but that it was gradually and slowly proceeding during the last eleven months of the king's life. Here, then, is the explanation of another fact (also hitherto overlooked), namely that only a minority of the charters were ever confirmed under the second seal.[23] For the king's death abruptly stopped the operation of that oppressive decree which was being so reluctantly obeyed.
It should be superfluous for me to add that, in thus correcting previous statements, I have not impeached the accuracy of our greatest living historian, who could only form his judgment from the evidence before him. The result of my researches has been to show that the evidence itself breaks down when submitted to the test of fact.