This peculiar method of dating charters which is found in this reign suggests that the genuine charter to Colchester would contain a similar clause (if any),[1219] beginning "Apud Rothomagum eodem anno quo," etc., etc. As it stands in the cartulary, the original clause has been treated by the monkish scribe much as an original passage in a chronicle might be worked into his text, in the present day, by an historian of the "popular" school.[1220] But wide and interesting though the conclusions are to which such an hypothesis might lead, I must confine myself here to pointing out that the list of witnesses, in its minutest details, is apparently beyond impeachment. Specially would I refer to four names, those of the clerks of the king's chapel. It is rare, indeed, to find so complete and careful a list. The four "capellani regis," as they are here styled, are (1) John de Bayeux;[1221] (2) Nigel de Caine;[1222] (3) Robert "Pechet;"[1223] (4) Richard "custos sigilli regis."[1224] The remarkable and, we may fairly assume, undesigned coincidence between the list of witnesses attesting this charter, and that of the king's followers at the battle of Brémulé (fought, there is reason to believe, within a few weeks of its grant), as given by Ordericus Vitalis, ought to be carefully noted, confirming, as it obviously does, the authority of both the lists, and consequently my hypothesis that the charter in the Colchester cartulary represents a genuine original record belonging to the date alleged.[1225]
It is also, perhaps, worth notice that Eadmer applies to William "the Ætheling" the very same term as that which meets us in this charter, namely, "designatus."[1226]
Approaching now the question of date, we note that the charter must have been subsequent to the marriage at Lisieux (June, 1119) to which it refers, and previous to the Council of Rheims (October 20, 1119), which Archbishop Thurstan attended, and from which he did not return.[1227] We know that between these dates Henry was in Rouen at least once, viz. at the end of September (1119),[1228] so that we can determine the date of the charter within exceedingly narrow limits.
The remaining charters which we have now to examine are all subsequent to the king's return and the disaster of the White Ship (November 25, 1120).
The desolate king had spent his Christmas (1120) in comparative seclusion at Brampton, attended by his nephew, Theobald of Blois.[1229] In January (1121) he came south to attend a great council before his approaching marriage. By Eadmer and the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, the assembling of the council is assigned to the Epiphany (January 6, 1121). Richard "de Sigillo" was on the following day (January 7) elected to the see of Hereford, and was consecrated nine days later (January 16, 1121) at Lambeth.[1230]
To this council we may safely assign a charter in the British Museum (Harley, 111, B. 46),[1231] of value for its list of witnesses, twenty-six in number. It gives us the names of no fewer than thirteen bishops, by whom, in addition to the primate, this council was attended.[1232] Mr. Walter de Gray Birch, by whom so much has been done to encourage the study of charters and of seals, has edited this record in one of his instructive sphragistic monographs.[1233] He has, however, by an unfortunate inadvertence, omitted about half a dozen witnesses,[1234] while his two limits of date are not quite correct; for Richard was consecrated Bishop of Hereford, not on "the 16th of January, 1120," but on the 16th of January, 1121 (N.S.), and Archbishop Ralph died, not "19th September," but 19th October (xiv. kal. Novembris), 1122. Thus the limit for this charter would be, not "from April, 1120, to September, 1122," but from January, 1121, to October, 1122. Mr. Birch further observes that "the date may be taken very shortly after the consecration of Richard." Here again, I must reluctantly differ, for by the practice of the time, the grant of the temporalities did not come after, but before, the consecration. The charter, in short, as I observed above, can be safely assigned to the council of January, 1121.
In it the subject of this paper attests as "Roberto filio Regis." His name occurs in its right place immediately after those of the earls, who, oddly enough, are in this charter the same two, at least in title,[1235] after whom he had attested the Savigny charter in 1118.[1236]
The next charters in my chain of evidence are two which passed at Windsor. We are told by Simeon of Durham that at the time of the king's marriage (January 29-30, 1121) there was gathered together at Windsor a council of the whole realm.[1237] To this council I assign a charter printed by Madox from the original among the archives of Westminster Abbey.[1238] I am led to do so because, firstly, the names of the witnesses are all found, with three exceptions, in charters belonging to this date; second, the said three exceptions are those of Count Theobald of Blois, who had, we know, joined the king not long before, of Earl David, from Scotland, whose visit would be due to the occasion of his brother-in-law's wedding, and of the Archbishop of Rouen, whose presence may be also thus accounted for;[1239] third, the attestation of two archbishops with four bishops suggests the presence of a "concilium," as described by Simeon of Durham.
If this is the date of the charter in question, it may also be that of another charter, also to Westminster Abbey,[1240] for its eleven witnesses are all found among those of the preceding charter. In both these cases "Robert, the king's son," attests in his regular place immediately after the earls.[1241]
We now come to an original charter in every way of the highest importance.[1242] I have already quoted its dating clause,[1243] which proves it to have been executed at Winchester, between Easter (April 10) and Pentecost (May 29), 1121. Moreover, as the king spent his Easter at Berkeley and his Whitsuntide at Westminster,[1244] the limit of date, as a matter of fact, is somewhat narrower still. Here again Robert attests ("Rob[erto] fil[io] Regis") at the head of all the laity beneath the rank of earl.