Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:31:50.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

King John and the Historians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2017

C. Warren Hollister
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

King John Lackland was surely one of the most enigmatic figures ever to rule England. The dramatic ambivalence of his personality, the passions that he stirred among his own contemporaries, the very magnitude of his failures, have made him an object of endless fascination to historians and biographers. Whose interests would not be piqued by the man who was recently described by a distinguished scholar as “cruel and ruthless, violent and passionate, greedy and self-indulgent, genial and repellant, arbitrary and judicious, clever and capable, original and inquisitive”?

As one might expect, King John has received a great deal of scholarly attention. Nearly every historian who touches on any aspect of his reign feels compelled to offer his own judgment of John's puzzling character, his effectiveness, even his personal morality. The present century has seen, in addition to numerous specialized studies of various facets of John's reign, no less than three major biographies of that indefatigable but luckless king. The first of these, by Miss Kate Norgate, was published in 1902 and reflects the traditional viewpoint of the late nineteenth century. The second, Sidney Painter's work of 1949, stresses the monarch's relations with his baronial and administrative subordinates and presents a more genial and sophisticated interpretation of John himself. Hopes for a promised companion volume dealing with military and naval institutions and the development of the common law under John have been shattered by Painter's untimely death.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , November 1961 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Poole, A. L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (2nd ed., Oxford, 1955), p. 425 Google Scholar.

2. Norgate, Kate, John Lackland (London, 1902)Google Scholar. A German study, Lehmann, 's Jokann ohne Land (Berlin, 1904)Google Scholar, although of sound scholarship, adds little to the work of previous English writers.

3. Painter, Sidney, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949)Google Scholar. Painter, 's earlier work, William Marshal (Baltimore, 1933)Google Scholar is an exceptionally valuable study of the man who was one of the most important and most loyal of John's barons. His Reign of King John begins shakily with a tribute to Sir Frederick (sic) and Lady Stenton but thereafter is a model of scholarship.

4. Warren, W. L., King John (New York, 1961)Google Scholar. J. C. Holt's more specialized study of baronial discontent under John, The Northerners, will be forthcoming in the immediate future.

5. Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England (6th ed., 3 vols. Oxford, 1897), I, 563 Google Scholar.

6. Green, John Richard, History of the English People (special ed., Nations of the World series, 4 vols., New York, n.d.), I, 237 Google Scholar.

7. Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 286 Google Scholar.

8. Petit-Dutaillis, Charles, The Feudal Monarchy in France and England, (London, 1936), p. 215 Google Scholar. Actually, Petit-Dutaillis bases his conclusion more on John's vacillations in Normandy than on his evil reputation.

9. Ibid., p. 216; L'Essoir des états d'occident (new ed., Paris, 1944), p. 137 Google Scholar.

10. Sayles, G. O., The Medieval Foundations of England (Philadelphia, 1950), p. 390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Previté-Orton, C. W., The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History (2 vols., Cambridge, 1952), II, 707 Google Scholar, suggests in passing that his alternation between energy and lethargy has made his sanity suspect.

11. See Poole, , Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 426 Google Scholar; Warren, , King John, p. 88 Google Scholar.

12. Galbraith, V. H., Roger Wendover and Matthew Paris (Glasgow, 1944), pp. 35–9Google Scholar. See also Vaughan, R., Matthew Paris (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar, and the excellent review of the problem in Warren, , King John, pp. 11–16 Google Scholar.

13. Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 136 Google Scholar; Wendover, Roger, Chronica, ed. Coxe, H. O. (5 vols., 1841–1844), III, 229 Google Scholar. See also Ramsay, James, The Angevin Empire (London, 1903), p. 434 Google Scholar, and Powicke, F. M., Stephen Langton (Oxford, 1928), p. 100 Google Scholar.

14. Painter, , Reign of King John, pp. 270–72Google Scholar. The basic outlines of the tale are corroborated by de Coggeshall, Ralph, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Stevenson, J. (Rolls Series, 1875), p. 165 (A.D. 1212)Google Scholar; the Annals of Dunstaple, in Annates Monastici, ed. Luard, H. R. (5 vols., Rolls Series, 1864–1869), III, 33–4 (A.D. 1210)Google Scholar; and the Annals of St. Edmunds in Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey, ed. Arnold, Thomas (3 vols., Rolls Series, 1890–1896), II, 25 (A.D. 1212)Google Scholar, but without reference to the cope of lead. Paris's, Matthew accounts of this episode are lurid and badly confused: Chronica Majora, ed. Luard, H. R. (7 vols., Rolls Series, 1872–1883), II, 537–8, 557 Google Scholar; Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, Frederic (3 vols., Rolls Series, 1866–1869), II, 126 Google Scholar. Painter asserts that Geoffrey was murdered in prison (op. cit., p. 236), but this is by no means certain. Much confusion arises from the fact that at least three Geoffreys of Norwich were active during John's reign: the justice of the Jews(who was probably the victim in question), Geoffrey de Burgh (archdeacon of Norwich who became bishop of Ely in 1225), and Geoffrey de Buckland (also an archdeacon of Norwich who vanishes from the records around 1203). See Painter, Sidney, “Norwich's Three Geoffreys,” Speculum, xxviii (1953), 808–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Painter complains, “There were simply too many Geoffreys connected with Norwich.” See also Richardson, H. G., “William of Ely, the King's Treasurer,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, XV (1932), 51–2Google Scholar.

15. Warren, , King John, p. 13 Google Scholar. See also Poole, , Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 427, n.1Google Scholar.

16. Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 113 Google Scholar. citing Paris, Matthew, Historia Anglorum, II, 104 Google Scholar.

17. Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 61 Google Scholar; Paris, Matthew, Chronica Majora, II, 559 Google Scholar. Cf. Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 194, n.5Google Scholar, and Warren, , King John, pp. 14, 134 Google Scholar.

18. Magna Vita S. Hugonis, Episcopi Lincolniensis, ed. Dimock, J. F. (Rolls Series, 1864), pp. 292–3Google Scholar. See Warren, , King John, pp. 171–2Google Scholar, who remarks dryly, “Unfortunately for his reputation, John was not a great benefactor to monasteries which kept chronicles (p. 172).”

19. William of Newburg. Historia Rerum Anglorum in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Howlett, Richard (4 vols., Rolls Series, 1884–1889), II, 521 Google Scholar; Warren, , King John, pp. 189, 230 Google Scholar.

20. Richardson, H. G., “The Marriage and Coronation of Isabelle of Angoulême,” English Historical Review, LXI (1946), 289–314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “King John and Isabelle of Angoulême,” English Historical Review, LXV (1950), 360–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Ibid., p. 361.

22. Cazel, F. A. and Painter, Sidney, “The Marriage of Isabelle of Angoulême,” English Historical Review, LXIII (1948), 83–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; LXVII (1952), 233-5.

23. Warren, , King John, p. 257 Google Scholar.

24. Ibid., p. 47; see also pp. 100-101, 125-153.

25. Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 238 Google Scholar; see also pp. 93-150. The older view is expressed by Norgate, Kate, John Lackland, p. 215 Google Scholar: “The whole judicial administration of the realm was corrupt.” Ibid., pp. 217-18: “In a word, the entire system of government and administration set up under the Norman kings and developed under Henry and Richard had been converted by the ingenuity of John into a most subtle and effective engine of royal extortion, oppression and tyranny over all classes of the nation, from earl to villein.”

26. Besides the references cited above, see Lyon, Bryce, A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England (New York, 1960), p. 241 Google Scholar; Stenton, D. M., English Society in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 44–5Google Scholar, and “King John and the Courts of Justice,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XLIV (1958), 103–128 Google Scholar; Barlow, Frank, The Feudal Kingdom of England (London, etc., 1955), pp. 396–9Google Scholar; Poole, , Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 429 Google Scholar; Jolliffe, J. E. A., Angevin Kingship (London, 1955), pp. 345 ffGoogle Scholar. For the older view, see Maitland, F. W., The Constitutional History of England (Cambridge, 1908), p. 93 Google Scholar: “Under John the sale of justice had become scandalous.”

27. Powicke, F. M., The Loss of Normandy (Manchester, 1913), p. 447 Google Scholar.

28. Jolliffe, , Angevin Kingship, pp. 346–7Google Scholar.

29. Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 398 Google Scholar.

30. For a full discussion of this matter, see Painter, , Reign of King John, pp. 93 ffGoogle Scholar.

31. This fact is stressed by Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 407 Google Scholar; Jolliffe, , Angevin Kingship, pp. 345 ffGoogle Scholar. Lyon, Bryce, Constitutional and Legal History, p. 241 Google Scholar, writes, “John's administrative ability, though superb, led him to develop Angevin government into a despotism. …,” and Previté-Orton, , Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, II, 720 Google Scholar, observes that under John “efficiency and with it oppression reached their peak.”

32. See Warren, King John, pp. 207 ff., 233 Google Scholar; Painter, , Reign of King John, pp. 192 ffGoogle Scholar. Painter calls John's decision to make England a papal fief, “a true stroke of genius (p. 193).” See also Norgate, , John Lackland, pp. 181–2Google Scholar.

33. Warren, , King John, p. 232 Google Scholar.

34. See my book, Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions (Oxford, Clarendon Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

35. Stenton, D. M., English Society in the Early Middle Ages, p. 45 Google Scholar. See Brooks, F. W., The English Naval Forces, 1199-1272, (London, 1933), pp. 134, 164 Google Scholar.

36. And for a few years between 1087 and 1106.

37. See Powell, W. R., “The Administration of the Navy and the Stannaries, 1189-1216,” English Historical Review, LXXI (1956), 177–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Warren, , King John, p. 125 Google Scholar. See also ibid., pp. 20-25; Brooks, English Naval Forces, passim; Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 409 Google Scholar.

39. Poole, , Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 426 Google Scholar.

40. Ibid.; Warren, , King John, p. 88 Google Scholar.

41. Previté-Orton, , Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, II, 708 Google Scholar; Warren, , King John, pp. 86–88 Google Scholar.

42. Lyon, , Constitutional and Legal History, p. 141 Google Scholar.

43. See Warren, , King John, pp. 248–9, 252 Google Scholar.

44. Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 395 Google Scholar. See also Lyon, , Constitutional and Legal History, p. 238 Google Scholar, Warren, , King John, pp. 89–91, 99 Google Scholar; Fawtier, Robert, The Capetian Kings of France (London, 1960), p. 145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “The artificial union brought about by Henry II, just strong enough to hold together in his own lifetime, was proving to be a brittle thing in the hands of his heirs.” Powicke, (Loss of Normandy, p. 367)Google Scholar, observes, “The causes of Angevin failure … lie partly, of course, in John's character, but they are to be found even more in the fact that, while in France the growing separation between feudalism and government was a symptom of national strength and purpose, in Normandy it was typical of a general disintegration. In crushing the power of resistance to themselves Henry II and his sons destroyed the desire to unite against an invader.” On the other hand, Powicke believes that Richard's death hastened the loss of Normandy (ibid., p. 189.

45. Holt, J. C., “The Barons and the Great Charter,” English Historical Review, LXX (1955), 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. Painter, , Reign of King John, pp. 226–7Google Scholar. See also Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 407 Google Scholar, and Warren, , King John, pp. 178, 238–9Google Scholar.

47. Joliffe, , Angevin Kingship, p. 341 Google Scholar.

48. Ibid., p. 328.

49. Ibid., p. 329.

50. Ibid., p. 349.

51. Holt, , “The Barons and the Great Charter,” p. 3 Google Scholar.

52. Ibid., pp. 4, 17.

53. Warren, , King John, p. 239 Google Scholar.

54. Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 238 Google Scholar.

55. Ibid., p. 228. See also Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 402 Google Scholar: “Just as he had lost his fiefs through a quarrel not of his own choosing and because of factors largely outside his control, so his great struggle with the pope was not in origin of his own making or connected directly with his special vices.”

56. Stenton, D. M., English Society in the Early Middle Ages, p. 44 Google Scholar.

57. Poole, , Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 383 Google Scholar.

58. Petit-Dutaillis, , Feudal Monarchy, p. 214 Google Scholar.

59. Fawtier, , Capetian Kings of France, p. 146 Google Scholar. See also ibid., p. 26: “King John's blundering drove the English barons into revolt at the very time when a united England might have proved fatal to Philip.” Sayles, (Medieval Foundations of England, p. 393)Google Scholar, believes that John was by no means free of blame in the catastrophe at Bouvines. John's role in the campaign was to strike at Philip Augustus through Poitou, forcing the French to defend themselves on two fronts: “After a promising beginning to his campaign John succumbed to inertia and allowed himself to be checked on the Loire when it was essential that he should advance towards Paris.” Philip was therefore able to devote his full energies to the Flemish and Imperial forces at Bouvines.

60. Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, p. 189 Google Scholar.

61. Cazel, and Painter, , “The Marriage of Isabelle of Angoulême,” pp. 83–9Google Scholar; Poole, , Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 380 Google Scholar.

62. Ibid.; Petit-Dutaillis, , Feudal Monarchy, pp. 217–18Google Scholar; Fawtier, , Capetian Kings of France, p. 146 Google Scholar. Warren, (King John, pp. 258–9)Google Scholar writes, “… he won a respite by his campaign of 1199 and by the Treaty of Le Goulet, but threw it away by his reckless provocation of the Lusignans.”

63. See Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, pp. 137–8Google Scholar.

64. Warren, , King John, p. 80 Google Scholar.

65. See Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp. 226–7Google Scholar.

66. Annals of Margam, in Annales Monastici, I, 26 Google Scholar.

67. Ibid., I, 27.

68. Wendover, , Chronica, I, 316–17Google Scholar; II, 8; III, 171. Wendover's account is accepted by Norgate, (John Lackland, p. 89)Google Scholar and at least partially by several later writers, e.g., Sayles, (Medieval Foundations, p. 390)Google Scholar, who refers to his intermittent fits of energy and apathy in his continental campaigns; Previté-Orton, , Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, II, 707 Google Scholar (“energy alternated with singular lethargy”). But see Warren, , King John, pp. 87–8Google Scholar.

69. Previté-Orton, , Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, II, 708 Google Scholar.

70. Warren, , King John, p. 86 Google Scholar.

71. Ibid., p. 84.

72. Ibid., p. 259.

73. See Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp. 453–81Google Scholar; Petit-Dutaillis, , Le Deshérite-ment de Jean Sans Terre et le meurtre d'Arthur de Bretagne (Paris, 1925)Google Scholar.

74. The story is attested by every contemporary chronicler. See Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 236 Google Scholar; Warren, , King John, p. 185 Google Scholar.

75. Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 237 Google Scholar. Although the chiefs were in rebellion, Painter observes that John's act was “savage beyond the custom of the day.”

76. Ibid., pp. 232-6; Warren, , King John, pp. 189, 230 Google Scholar.

77. Ibid., pp. 190-91; Painter, , Reign of King John, pp. 231–2Google Scholar.

78. Ibid., pp. 229-30. Warren calls his appeal to the pope to annul the Charter “double-dealing of the most contemptible, though yet secret, kind” (King John, p. 242).

79. Ibid., 71-2, 184 ff., 258 ff.; Painter, , Reign of King John, pp. 228 ff., 238 Google Scholar, and passim.

80. Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp. 191–2Google Scholar.

81. Warren, , King John, p. 258 Google Scholar. John's behavior toward the Lusignans, which I touched on earlier, is only one of numerous examples of his clumsiness in baronial relations.

82. Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 286 Google Scholar. Cf. Warren, , King John, p. 256 Google Scholar: “John's death itself helped the cause of his house. …”

83. Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 7 Google Scholar.

84. Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 286 Google Scholar.

85. Previté-Orton, , Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, II, 707 Google Scholar. Probably, however, Warren would prefer softer words than “thoroughly bad”.

86. Warren, , King John, p. 10 Google Scholar; see also p. 16.

87. Green, , History of the English People, p. 238 Google Scholar; Norgate, , John Lackland, opposite p. 1 Google Scholar.