Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Third: There is another serious error which must also be set at rest by the simple perusal of the above document. I mean that opinion which would fain set forth the letter of Pope Adrian as a dogmatical definition of the Holy See, as if the Sovereign Pontiff then spoke ex cathedra, ie., solemnly propounded some doctrine to be believed by the Universal Church. Now it is manifest from the letter itself that it has none of the conditions required for a definition ex cathedra : it is not addressed to the Universal Church; it proposes no matter of faith to be held by all the children of Christ; in fact, it presents no doctrine whatever to be believed by the faithful, and it is nothing more than a commendatory letter addressed to Henry, resting on the good intentions set forth by that monarch himself. There is one maxim, indeed, which awakens the suspicions of the old Gallican school, viz. that "all the islands are subject to the authority of St. Peter." However, it is no doctrinal teaching that is thus propounded: it is a matter of fact admitted by Henry himself, a principle recognised by the international law of Europe in the middle ages, a maxim set down by the various states themselves, the better to maintain peace and concord among the princes of Christendom. To admit, however, or to call in question the teaching of the civil law of Europe, as embodied in that maxim, has nothing whatever to say to the great prerogative of St. Peter's successors, whilst they solemnly propound to the faithful, in unerring accents, the doctrines of Divine faith.

Fourth To many it will seem a paradox, and yet it is a fact, that the supposed Bull of Pope Adrian had no part whatever in the submission of the Irish chieftains to Henry the Second. Even according to those who maintain its genuineness, this Bull was not published till the year 1175, and certainly no mention of it was made in Ireland till long after the submission of the Irish princes. The success of the AngloNormans was mainly due to a far different cause, viz., to the superior military skill and equipment of the invaders. Among the Anglo-Norman leaders were some of the bravest knights of the kingdom, who had won their laurels in the wars of France and Wales. Their weapons and armour rendered it almost impossible for the Irish troops to meet them in the open field. The cross-bow which was made use of for the first time in this invasion, produced as great a change in military tactics as the rifled cannon in our own days. When Henry came in person to Ireland his numerous army hushed all opposition. There were 400 vessels in his fleet, and if a minimum of twenty-five armed men be allowed for each vessel, we will have an army of at least 10,000 men fully equipped

landing unopposed on the southern shores of our island.1 It is to this imposing force, and the armour of the Anglo-Norman knights, that we must in great part refer whatever success attended this invasion of the English monarch.

To proceed now with the immediate matter of our present historical inquiry, the following is the summary of the arguments in favor of the authenticity of Pope Adrian's letter, inserted in the Irishman newspaper of June the 8th last, by J. C. O'Callaghan, Esq., editor of the "Macariae Excidium," and author of many valuable works on Irish history:-" We have, firstly, the testimony of John of Salisbury, secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and one of the ablest writers of his day, who relates his having been the envoy from Henry to Adrian, in 1155, to ask for a grant of Ireland, and such a grant having then been obtained, accompanied by a gold ring, containing a fine emerald, as a token of investiture, with which grant and ring the said John returned to Henry. We have, secondly, the grant or Bull of Adrian, in extenso in the works of Giraldus Cambrensis and his contemporary, Radulfus de Diceto, Dean of London, as well as in those of Roger de Wendover, and Matthew Paris. We have, thirdly, several Bulls of Adrian's successor, Pope Alexander III., still further to the purport of Adrian's, or in Henry's favour. We have, fourthly, the recorded public reading of the Bulls of Adrian and Alexander, at a meeting of Bishops in Waterford in 1175. We have, fifthly, after the liberation of Scotland. from England at Bannockburn, and the consequent invitation of Bruce's brother, Edward, to be King of Ireland, the Bull of Adrian prefixed to the eloquent lay remonstrance, which the Irish presented to Pope John XXII., against the English; the same Bull, moreover, referred to in the remonstrance itself, as so ruinous to Ireland; and a copy of that Bull, acccordingly sent back by the Pope to Edward II. of England, for his use under those circumstances. We have, sixthly, from Cardinal Baronius, in his great work, the 'Annales Ecclesiastici,' under Adrian IV., his grant of Ireland to his countrymen in full, or, as is said, 'ex codice Vaticano, diploma datum ad Henricum, Anglorum Regem.' We have, seventhly, the Bull in the Bullarium Romanum, as printed at Rome, in 1739. The citations and references in support of all the foregoing statements will be found in the 'Notes and Illustrations' of my edition of 'Macariae Excidium' for the Irish Archæological Society in 1850, given in such a manner as must satisfy the most sceptical."

1 The authorities for the statements made in the text may be seen in "Macariae Excidium," edited by Mr. O'Callaghan for the R. I. A. in 1850.

Examining these arguments in detail, I will follow the order thus marked out by Mr. O'Callaghan.

I.—We meet, in the first place, the testimony of John of Salisbury, who, in his Metalogicus (lib. iv., cap. 42), writes, that being in an official capacity at the Papal court, in 1155, Pope Adrian IV. then granted the investiture of Ireland to the illustrious King Henry II. of England.1

I do not wish in any way to detract from the praise due to John of Salisbury, who was at this time one of the ablest courtiers of Henry II. However, the words here imputed to him must be taken with great reserve. Inserted as they are in the last chapter of his work, they are not at all required by the context; by cancelling them the whole passage runs smoother, and is more connected in every way. This is the more striking, as in another work of the same writer, which is entitled Polycraticus, we meet with a detailed account of the various incidents of his embassy to Pope Adrian, yet he there makes no mention of the Bull in Henry's favor, or of the gold ring and its fine emerald, or of the grant of Ireland, all of which would have been so important for his narrative.

We must also hold in mind the time when the Metalogicus was written. The author himself fixes its date; for, immediately before asking the prayers of "those who read his book, and those who hear it read," he tells us that the news of Pope Adrian's death had reached him a little time before, and he adds that his own patron, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, though still living, was weighed down by many infirmities. Now, Pope Adrian departed this life in 1159, and the death of Archbishop Theobald happened in 1161. Hence, Gale and the other editors of John of Salisbury's works, without a dissentient voice, refer the Metalogicus to the year 1159.

Now it is a matter beyond the reach of controversy, that if Henry the Second obtained the investiture of Ireland from Adrian IV., he kept this grant a strict secret till at least the year 1175. For twenty years, i.e., from 1155 to 1175, no mention was made of the gift of Adrian. Henry did not refer to it when authorizing his vassals to join Diarmaid in 1167, when Adrian's Bull would have been so opportune to justify his intervention; he did not mention it when he him

Annu

1" Ad preces meas illustri regi Anglorum Henrico Secundo (Adrianus) concessit et dedit Hiberniam jure haereditario possidendam ; sicut literae ipsius testantur in hodiernum diem. Nam omnes insulae, de jure antiquo, ex donatione Constantini qui eam fundavit et dotavit, dicuntur ad Romanam Ecclesiam pertinere. lum quoque per me transmisit aureum, smaragdo optimo decoratum, quo fieret investitura juris in gerenda Hibernia idemque adhuc annulus in curiali archivo publico custodiri jussus est."

[blocks in formation]

self set out for Ireland to solicit and receive the homage of the Irish princes; he did not even refer to it when he assumed his new title and accomplished the purpose of his expedition. The Council of Cashel, in 1172, was the first episcopal assembly after Henry's arrival in Ireland; the Papal Legate was present there, and did Adrian's Bull exist it should necessarily have engaged the attention of the assembled Fathers. Nevertheless, not a whisper as to Adrian's grant was to be heard at that famous Council. Even the learned editor of "Cambrensis Eversus," whilst warmly asserting the genuineness of Adrian's Bull, admits "there is not any, even the slightest authority, for asserting that its existence was known in Ireland before the year 1172, or for three years later"-(vol. ii., p. 440, note z). It is extremely difficult, in any hypothesis, to explain in a satisfactory way this mysterious silence of Henry the Second, nor is it easy to understand how a fact so important, so vital to the interests of Ireland, could remain so many years concealed from those who ruled the destinies of the Irish Church. For, we must hold in mind, that throughout that interval Ireland numbered among its Bishops one who held the important office of Legate of the Holy See; our Church had constant intercourse with England and the continent, and through St. Laurence O'Toole and a hundred other distinguished prelates, enjoyed in the fullest manner the confidence of Rome.

If Adrian granted this Bull to Henry at the solicitation of John of Salisbury in 1155, there is but one explanation for the silence of this courtier in his diary, as set forth in the "Polycraticus," and for the concealment of the Bull itself from the Irish bishops and people, viz., that this secrecy was required by the state policy of the English monarch. And, if it be so, how then can we be asked to admit as genuine this passage of the "Metalogicus," in which the astute agent of Henry, still continuing to discharge offices of the highest trust in the Court, would proclaim to the world as early as the year 1159, that Pope Adrian had made this formal grant of Ireland to his royal master, and that the solemn record of the investiture of this high dignity was preserved in the public archives of the kingdom?

It must also be added, that there are some phrases in this passage of the "Metalogicus" which manifestly betray the hand of the impostor. Thus, the words usque in hodiernum diem imply that a long interval had elapsed since the concession was made by Pope Adrian; and surely they could not have been penned by John of Salisbury in 1159. Much less can we suppose that this writer employed the words jure haereditario possidendam. No such hereditary right is granted in

the Bull of Adrian. It was not dreamt of even during the first years of the Anglo-Norman invasion, and it was only at a later period, when the Irish chieftains scornfully rejected the Anglo-Norman law of hereditary succession, that this expedient was thought of for allaying the fierce opposition of our people.

Thus we are forced to regard the supposed testimony of John of Salisbury as nothing more than a clumsy interpolation, which probably was not inserted in his work till many years after the first Anglo-Norman invasion of our island.

2.-I now come to the second and main argument of those who seek to defend the authenticity of Pope Adrian's Bull. We have Giraldus Cambrensis, they say, a contemporary witness, whose testimony is unquestionable. He inserts in full this letter of Adrian IV., and he nowhere betrays the slightest doubt in regard to its genuineness.

Some years ago we might perhaps have accepted this flattering character of Giraldus Cambrensis, but at the present day, and since the publication of an accurate edition of his historical works, it is impossible for us to do so.

It was not till many years after the death of Pope Adrian that Gerald de Barry, better known by the name of Giraldus Cambrensis, entered on the stage of Irish history. Twice he visited Ireland after the year 1183, and on both occasions he discharged those duties which, at the present day, would merit for him the title of special court correspondent with the invading army. The Expugnatio Hibernica, in which he inserts Adrian's Bull, may justly be said to have been written to order. Hence, as a matter of course, Giraldus adopted in it as genuine every document set forth as such by his royal master, and any statements that strengthened the claim or promoted the interests of his brother Welsh adventurers, were sure not to be too nicely weighed in the scales of criticism by such an historian. The editors of the works of Giraldus, just now published under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, have fully recognised this special feature of the historical writings of Giraldus. The official catalogue describing the Expugnatio Hibernica, of which we treat, expressly says: "It may be regarded rather as a great epic, than a sober relation of facts occurring in his own days. No one can peruse it without coming to the conclusion that it is rather a poetical fiction than a prosaic truthful history."

In the preface to the fifth volume of the Historical Treatises of Giraldus, the learned editor, Rev. James F. Dimock, enters at considerable length into the inquiry, whether the Expugnatio Hibernica was to be accepted as genuine and

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »