I pass to my second question: ‘How were the documents concocted?’ The unfortunate theory was advanced by the ‘Analecta’ writer that “Laudabiliter” was adapted from a genuine letter of Adrian written, in 1158, to Henry of England and Louis of France, forbidding them to enter Ireland, as they proposed to do, in conjunction. It was urged that this genuine letter had been altered into the ‘Bull’ Laudabiliter, and thus made to bear the very reverse of its meaning. It was necessary, for this solution, to hold that the genuine letter did not refer, as had been supposed, to Spain (H[ispania]) but to Ireland (H[ibernia]). Although this bold theory was adopted by Father Gasquet,[413] he seems to have been conscious of its weakness; for he leaves it with the words: “Whether this theory as to the origin of the Bull be correct or not,” etc., etc. The words “pagani” in the genuine letter are of themselves fatal to the theory, and Father Malone had no difficulty in showing that it was preposterous.[414] It is true that, as Miss Norgate admits,[415] “between the introductory sentences of the two letters there is certainly a close verbal similarity,” but even if this letter, relating to the Spanish crusade was placed under contribution by the concocter of our document, I should none the less advance as my own theory the view that Gerald employed, largely at any rate, the genuine letters of Alexander III., entered in the ‘Liber Niger.’ In support of this theory I might adduce certain suggestive parallels:
| THE LETTER. | THE “BULL.” |
| sicut ... comperimus, ... ad subjugandum tuo Dominio gentem
illam et ad extirpandum tantæ abominationis spurcitiam ...
tuum animum erexisti. Christianæ religionis suscipiat disciplinam ... ita etiam de suæ salutis perfectu coronam merearis suscipere sempiternam. quia, sicut tuæ magnitudinis excellentia [? cognoscit], Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet in Insula quam in terra magna et continua, etc. | Significasti ... nobis ... te Hiberniæ insulam ad subdendum
illum populum legibus et vitiorum plantaria exstirpanda velle,
intrare. crescat fidei Christianæ religio, et quæ ad honorem Dei et salutem pertinent animarum taliter ordinentur, ut a Deo sempiternum mercedis cumulum consequi merearis. sane Hiberniam et omnes insulas ... ad jus beati Petri et sacrosanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ, quod tua etiam nobilitas recognoscit, non est dubium pertinere. |
The very fact that these coincidences are rather suggestive than verbal, favours, I think, the theory of concoction. But I am chiefly influenced by the fact that “Laudabiliter” does little more than paraphrase and adapt the contents of Alexander’s letter. Even its clause as to Peter’s pence might be based on Alexander’s insistence that Henry was not only to guard “jura beati Petri,” but “si etiam ibi non habet (jura)”—as was the case with Peter’s pence—to establish them himself.
And now as to my third question: ‘Was there a conspiracy?’ I doubt if sufficient attention has been paid to the remarkable words of the ‘Gesta Henrici,’ followed as they were by Hoveden.[416] That they were introduced of set purpose is evident from their repetition.[417] It should be observed that the story told in the ‘Metalogicus’ of Adrian and in the ‘Gesta’ of Alexander is to the same effect:
| Metalogicus. | Gesta Henrici. |
| regi Anglorum Henrico secundo (Papa) concessit et dedit Hiberniam jure hæreditario possidendam. | summus pontifex ... confirmavit ei et heredibus suis regnum illud, et eos imperpetuum reges constituit. |
Neither the letters in the ‘Liber Niger’ nor even the documents given by Giraldus can justify these expressions. Yet this must have been what we may term the view officially adopted. As the Black Book letters of Alexander III. could not be made to support this view, its upholders preferred to fall back on the alleged grant by Adrian, as the source of Henry’s title, and to pretend that his successor Alexander had merely confirmed it. “Laudabiliter” did not, it is true, go so far as was required, but it carried back the title to Adrian’s action, and, so far, supported the story.
The subsequent attitude of Rome towards the English story is a matter of obvious interest, but, as yet, of much obscurity. Cardinal Moran relied on the personal information of Theiner for the statement that
nowhere in the private archives, or among the private papers of the Vatican, or in the ‘Regesta’ which Jaffé’s researches have made so famous, or in the various indices of the Pontifical letters, can a single trace be found of the supposed Bulls of Adrian and Alexander.[418]
In the strict sense of the words, no doubt the above statement may be absolutely true. But in the document below, from Theiner’s own work,[419] we have, surely, in the words “de voluntatis sedis ipsius,” a most distinct reference, at least, to Adrian’s alleged action. In the preamble to a Papal dispensation of the 13th century, we find these words: