There is, indeed, a charter which, if we could trust it, would greatly reduce the limit. This is Henry I.'s great charter to Merton,[1260] which is attested by Robert, as Earl of Gloucester, and which purports to have passed August 5-December 31, 1121 (? 24th March, 1122).[1261] But it is quite certain that, in the form we have it, this charter is spurious. It is true that the names given in the long list of witnesses are, apparently, consistent with the date,[1262] but all else is fatally bad. Both the charter itself, and the attestations thereto, are in the worst and most turgid style; the precedence of the witnesses is distinctly wrong,[1263] and the mention of the year-date would alone rouse suspicion. Whether, and, if so, to what extent, the charter is based on a genuine document, it is not easy to decide. A reference to the new Monasticon will show that there is a difficulty, a conflict of testimony, about the facts of the foundation. This increases the doubt as to the authenticity of the charter, from the evidence of which, if not confirmed, we are certainly not entitled to draw any authoritative conclusion as to the date of Robert's creation.
Adhering then, for the present, to the limits I have given above (1121-1122) I may point out that Robert's promotion may possibly have been due to his increased importance, consequent on the loss in the White Ship of the king's only legitimate son, and of his natural son Richard. Of Henry's three adult sons he now alone remained.[1264] It is certain that he henceforth continued to improve his position and power till, as we know, he contested with his future rival, Stephen, the honour of being first among the magnates to swear allegiance to the Empress.
Before passing to a corollary of the conclusion arrived at in this paper it may be well to glance at Robert's younger brother and namesake. This was a son of Henry by another mother, Edith, whose parentage, by the way, suggests a genealogical problem.[1265] He was quite a nonentity in the history of the time as compared with the elder Robert; nor does his name, so far as I know, occur before 1130, when it is entered in the Pipe-Roll for that year. He is found as a witness to one of his royal father's charters, which is only known to us from the Cartæ Antiquæ, and which belongs to the end of the reign.[1266] There is no possibility of confusion between his brother and himself, for his earliest attestations are, as we have seen, several years later than his brother's elevation to the earldom, so that they cannot both have been attesting, at any one period, as "Robert, the king's son." It is, moreover, self-evident that such a style could only be used when there was but one person whom it could be held to denote.
As illustrating the value of such researches as these, and the importance of securing a "fixed point" as a help for other inquiries, I shall now give an instance of the results consequent on ascertaining the date of this creation. Let us turn to that remarkable record among the muniments of St. Paul's, which the present Deputy Keeper of the Records first made public,[1267] and which has since been published in extenso and in fac-simile by the Corporation of London in their valuable History of the Guildhall. The importance of this record lies in its mention of the wards of the City, with their respective rulers, at an exceptionally early date. What that date was it is most desirable to learn. Mr. Loftie has rightly, in his later work,[1268] made the greatest use of this list, which he describes (p. 93) as "the document I have so often quoted as containing a list of the lands of the dean and chapter before 1115." Indeed, he invariably treats this document as one "which must have been written before 1115" (p. 82). But the only reason to be found for his conclusion is that—
"Coleman Street appears in the St. Paul's list as 'Warda Reimundi,' and this is the more interesting as we know that Reimund, or Reinmund, was dead before 1115, which helps us to date the document. Azo, his son, succeeded him" (p. 89).[1269]
This is a most astounding statement, considering that all "we know," from these documents, of Reimund or Reinmund is that both he and his son Azo were living in 1132, when they attested a charter![1270] Turning from this strange blunder to the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is among those mentioned in this list,[1271] we learn at once that, so far from being earlier than 1115, it is later than the earl's creation in 1121-1122. And this conclusion accords well with the fact that other names which it contains, such as those of John fitz Ralf (fitz Evrard),[1272] William Malet, etc., belong to the close of the reign.[1273]
Before taking leave of this record, I would glance at the curious entry:—
"Terra Gialle [reddit] ii sol[idos] et est latitudinis LII pedum longitudinis CXXXII pedum."
Mr. Price, the editor of the work, renders this "The land of Gialla;" but what possible proper name can "Gialla" represent? When we find that the list is followed by a reference to the Jews being "incarcerati apud Gyhalam," temp. Edward I., and when Mr. Price admits that "Gyaula" is among the early forms of "Guildhall," is it too rash a conjecture that we have in the above "Gialla" a mention of the Guildhall of London earlier, by far, than he, or any one else, has ever yet discovered?
[1206] This, the important word, is unfortunately doubtful.