Laudabiliter

At the beginning of his reign, Henry II sent Rotrodus, Bishop of Evreux, Arnold, Bishop of Lisieux, the Bishop of Le Mans and Robert of Gorham, Abbot of St. Albans as ambassadors to Adrian IV.[16] The date of this mission is the same as that claimed by Salisbury for his visit, 1155. Alfread H. Tarleton gives the date of 9 October, St. Dionysius's day, when the ambassadors set out.[17] L. F. Rushbrook Williams also gives 9 October 1155.[18] While both mention Robert of Gorham assisting in some royal business and being a part of deputation including three bishops selected by Henry neither mention John of Salisbury. However, John D. Hosler thinks "It is clear that John of Salibury did indeed travel to Rome as part of Henry's first embassy to Pope Adrian.[19]

According to L. F. Rushbrook Williams, Abbot Robert of Gorham evidently saw with the elevation of Adrian IV an opportunity of acquiring privileges for St. Albans with the ostensible object of assisting in the settlement of some royal business which was in progress at the curia.[20] Alfread H Tarleton suggests that some historians have stated that John of Salisbury accompanied this mission but this is a mistake, based on a confusion of the fact that John had many interviews with the Pope at Beneventum. The mistake may be due to the fact that the King, hearing John intended to visit the Pope, sent messages and letters through him in addition to employing a regular messenger, in the person of Robert the Abbot.[21]

Gasquet suggests that there is almost conclusively evidence, that while a request of the nature described by Salisbury was made about this time to the Pope, Salisbury was not the envoy sent to make it.[22] John of Salisbury, he notes, claims in Metalogicus to have been the ambassador for Henry II and obtained Laudabiliter for him and gives the year 1155 as the date when it was granted. With Bernard of Clairvaux's Life of Malachy and its description of the Irish as little more than savages, John of Salisbury found a ready audience in Rome when he spoke about the barbaric and impious people of Ireland.[5]

Salisbury finished his work called Polycraticus, written before Metalogicus he dedicated it to Thomas Becket, then Chancellor of England and later a saint, who at this time was with Henry at the siege of Toulouse. This was in 1159; and in that year, Salisbury was presented to Henry apparently for the first time, by Thomas.[23]

According to Stephen J. McCormick, the date that Metalogicus was written is fixed according to the author himself, pointing to the fact that John of Salisbury immediately before he tells us that the news of Pope Adrian's death had reached him his own patron, Theobald of Bec, Archbishop of Canterbury, though still living, was "weighed down by many infirmities." Pope Adrian died in 1159 he says and the death of Archbishop, Theobald of Bec occurred in 1161. Gile and other editors of John of Salisbury's works, without a dissent, refer the Metalogicus to the year 1159, a view shared by Curtis.[24][25]

John of Salisbury, in his Metalogicus (lib. iv., cap. 42) writes, that while he was in an official capacity at the Papal Court, in 1155, Pope Adrian IV, granted the investiture of Ireland Henry II of England. However, John of Salisbury also kept a diary, later published, entitled Polycraticus and had a detailed account of the various incidents of his embassy to Pope Adrian, yet in it he makes no mention of the Bull, or of the gold ring and its fine emerald, mentioned in Metalogicus or of the grant of Ireland, all of which would have been so important for his narrative in Metalogicus.[24] If Adrian granted this Bull to Henry at the solicitation of John of Salisbury in 1155 there is but one explanation for the silence in Polycraticus, according to McCormick and that this secrecy was required by the English monarch.[26]

J. Duncan Mackie writes that those who desire to do away altogether with Laudabiliter, find in the last chapter of the sixth book of the Metalogicus, an account of the transaction between John and Pope Adrian and in this passage is an almost insurmountable difficulty. It become necessary he says to assume that it is an interpolation, and this can only be done "in the face of all probability."[27]

John of Salisbury, speaking of the existence of Laudabiliter in the last chapter of the Metalogicus does not give its text and it was at least thirty years after Adrian's death that the Laudabiliter itself first appeared in the Expugnatio Hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis.[28]

Oliver Joseph Thatcher suggests that the trustworthiness of Giraldus, to whom he says we owe Laudabiliter preservation, has nothing to do with the question of its genuineness, and should be left out of the discussion.[28] However, Thomas Moore says the character of the man himself ought to be taken into account,[29] and Michael Richter says that as no copy of the text survives, the issue becomes the credibility of those authors who recorded it on their works.[30]

According to Thatcher, Giraldus Cambrensis apparently drew a false inference from John of Salisbury's works by saying that John went as the king's ambassador to the pope. Thatcher notes that other historians have since then unthinkingly copied this statement.[28]

Giraldus first published Expugnatio Hibernica around the year 1188. According to Gasquet every subsequent English chronicler who mentions Laudabiliter has simply accepted it on Giraldus's authority.[31] James F. Dimock notes that some late Irish writers seemed to him to put more faith in Giraldus's history than it really deserves.[32] Dimock, who edited Qiraldi Cambrensis Opera, says that De Expugnatione Hiberniae is, in great measure, rather "a poetical fiction than a prosaic truthful history."[33]

On the question of the date when Laudabiliter was first publicized, most of those who deny its authenticity believe that it was first made known about 1180 according to Ginnell.[34] Ua Clerigh believes Laudabiliter was probably prepared in 1156, but not forwarded at that time because the offer of Adrian was not then acted on, though the investiture was accepted.[8]

According to Burke, in the year 1174 King Henry II produced Laudabiliter which he said he got from Pope Adrian IV, permitting him to go to Ireland.[35] For twenty years, according to McCormick, that is from 1155 to 1175, there was no mention of the gift of Adrian. Henry did not refer to it when authorising his vassals to join Dermot MacMurrough in 1167, or when he himself set out for Ireland to receive the homage of the Irish princes and not even after he assumed his new title and accomplished the purpose of his expedition.[26]

Curtis, however, while accepting that it is true that the Laudabiliter was not published by Henry when in Ireland, that can be explained by his being alienated from Rome over the murder of Thomas Becket, in addition to the Empress Matilda's having protested against this invasion of Ireland.[3] The date, Burke writes, that was on Laudabiliter was 1154, therefore it was consequently twenty years old. During this twenty-year period nobody ever heard of this Laudabiliter except Henry, and it was said that Henry kept this a secret, because his mother, the Empress Matilda, did not want Henry to act on it.[35]

The Synod of Cashel in 1172, McCormick notes was the first Episcopal assembly after Henry's arrival in Ireland. The Papal Legate was present and had Adrian's Bull existed it should necessarily have engaged the attention of the assembled Fathers. However, "not a whisper" as to Adrian's grant he says was to be heard at that Council. Even the learned editor of Cambrensis Eversus Dr. Kelly, while 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".[26][34]

McCormick says that it is extremely difficult, in any hypothesis, to explain in a satisfactory way this silence, nor is it easy to understand how a fact so important to the interests of Ireland could remain so many years concealed, including from those in the Irish Church. Throughout this period he says, Ireland numbered among its Bishops one who held the important office of Legate of the Holy See, and that the Church had had constant intercourse with England and the continent through St Laurence O'Toole and a hundred other distinguished Prelates, who enjoyed in the fullest manner the confidence of Rome.[26]

Pope Alexander III

On the conclusion of the Synod of Cashel according to Edmund Curtis, Henry sent envoys to Pope Alexander III asking for a papal privilege for Ireland. Alexander from Tusculum then published three letters on the Irish question.[39] The three letters, according to Thatcher, are numbered 12,162, 12,163, and 12,164 in the Regesta of Jaffé-Loewenfeld, and printed in Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol, CC, cols. 883 ff. They all have the same date, 20 September, and it is certain, he says, that they were written in 1172.[40] Cardinal Gasquet writes that they were first published in 1728 by Hearne in the Liber Niger Scaccarii the Black Book of the Exchequer and are addressed to the Irish Bishops, to the English king, and to the Irish princes. While they all have the same date of 20 September, and are written from Tusculum, he suggest that they are attributed to the year 1170.[41]

In the letter to Henry, according to Thatcher, Alexander beseeches Henry to preserve whatever rights St. Peter already actually exercises in Ireland, and expresses confidence that Henry will be willing to acknowledge his duty. In this letter, Thatcher notes, there is no mention of Adrian IV., or any document issued by him, and there is nothing that can possibly be interpreted as a reference to Laudabiliter.[42]

Laurence Ginnell (1854–1923)

On the letters of Alexander III, Cardinal Gasquet cites the editor of the Analecta who notes that they completely ignore the existence of Laudabiliter. The letters, he says, recognise no title or claim of Henry to dominion except "the power of the monarch, and the submission of the chiefs." They do mention the Pope's rights over all islands, and ask Henry to preserve these rights. This proves, he says, that the grant of Adrian was unknown in Rome as completely as it was in England and Ireland. Such a deduction is confirmed, he says, by the action later of Pope John XXII with the Ambassadors of Edward II at the beginning of the 14th century. Although the author of the article in the Analecta does not agree with Dr. Moran as to the authentic character of these documents, he admits that they, at least, form some very powerful arguments against the genuineness of Pope Adrian's grant.[41]

Citing Matthew of Westminster, Father Burke notes that "Henry obliged every man in England, from the boy of twelve years up to the old man, to renounce their allegiance to the true Pope, and go over to an anti-Pope"; and asks whether it was likely that Alexander would give Henry a letter to settle ecclesiastical matters in Ireland. Father Burke, citing Alexander who wrote to Henry, notes that instead of referring to a document giving him permission to settle Church matters in Ireland Alexander said:[43]

Instead of remedying the disorders caused by your predecessors, you have oppressed the Church, and you have endeavored to destroy the canons of apostolic men.

James Anthony Froude

However, Curtis in his History of Ireland suggests that Henry was at this time in May 1172 reconciled with the Papacy.[39] Father Burke notes that Alexander's letter carried the date 1172 and asked was is it likely that the Pope would have given a letter to Henry, asking him to take care of the Church and put everything in order?[43]

Burke points out that Adrian did not know Henry, but Alexander knew him well. Henry, he says, in 1159 supported the anti-Pope, Octavianus, against Alexander and opposed him again in 1166, this time supporting the anti-Pope Guido. Father Burke then asks, "is this the man that Alexander would send to Ireland to settle affairs, and make the Irish good children of the Pope?" Responding again to Froude, who then said that "the Irish never loved the Pope till the Normans taught them," Father Burke notes that until "the accursed Normans came to Ireland", the Papal Legate could always come and go as he pleased and that no Irish king obstructed him and that no Irishman's hand was ever raised against a bishop, "much less against the Papal Legate". However, of the very first Legate that came to Ireland after the Norman Invasion, Father Burke writes, in passing through England, Henry "took him by the throat, and imposed upon him an oath that, when he went to Ireland, he would not do anything that would be against the interest of the King". It was unheard of that a bishop, archbishop, or cardinal should be persecuted, Burke says, until the Anglo-Normans brought with them "their accursed feudal system, and concentration of power in the hands of the king".[44]

According to Curtis, the Pope sent another privilege which was published by papal envoys after the Synod of Waterford, which he said conferred on Henry the dominion over the Irish people. Whatever we may think of the so-called Bull of Adrian, says Curtis, there can be no doubt that the letters and privilege of Alexander conferred the lordship of Ireland upon Henry II.[39] Herbert Paul says that James Anthony Froude also maintained that the existence of Laudabiliter was proved by this later letter.[45] However, Father Burke said that he preferred to believe that it was a forgery.[43]

John Lingard, John Lanigan, Stephen J. McCormick, and P. S. O'Hegarty have defended the authenticity of the Laudabiliter, and English writers generally have accepted it as genuine.[36][46] According to Ginnell, Sylvester Malone, D.D., Vicar General of Killaloe, was the most strenuous upholder of both letters.[47] English historians according to Gasquet, have universally taken the genuineness of the document for granted.[22] Michael Richter concludes the bull is authentic.

Ginnell notes the entire absence of any mention in Gaelic writings.[47] However, Arthur Ua Clerigh argues in favor of the bull based upon a text of Laudabiliter in the Book of Leinster. To the text of the bull are prefixed the following headings: "Ah! men of the faith of the world, how beautiful [so far Gaelic] when over the cold sea in ships Zephyrus wafts glad tidings" [Latin] a Bull granted to the King of the English on the collation, i.e. grant, of Hibernia, in which nothing is derogated from the rights of the Irish, as appears by the words of the text. Ua Clerigh holds this was almost certainly written, and probably by his old tutor Aedh McCrimthainn, during the lifetime of Diarmaid MacMurchada, who was banished in 1157, and died in 1171.[48]

Irish historians who have accepted John of Salisbury's account of Laudabiliter suggest that Adrian was purposely deceived as to the state of the Ireland at the time thus giving rise to the necessity of the English interference by the king, and have regarded the "Bull" as a document granted in error as to the real circumstances of the case.[22]

Writing about the 1317 Remonstrance (see below), the historian J. R. S. Phillips has said that "it demonstrates that in the early fourteenth century Pope Adrian IV’s bull Laudabiliter, in which he had urged Henry II of England to conquer Ireland, was regarded even by enemies of the English as a key element in the English monarchy’s claims to the lordship of Ireland".[49]

Goddard Henry Orpen notes that as early as 1615 Laudabiliter was denounced as a forgery by Stephen White, to be followed by John Lynch in 1662 and later still by Abbé Mac Geoghegan. Francis Aidan Gasquet writes that during the residence of the pontifical Court at Avignon two Lives of Pope Adrian IV were written. One was composed in 1331 and the second in 1356. In neither is there any mention of this important act of the Pope, although the authors find a place for many less important documents.[41]

Thomas N. Burke O.P., in his English Misrule in Ireland: A Course of Lectures in Reply to J. A Froude, puts forward a number of arguments against both the Bull of Adrian and the letters of his successor, Pope Alexander III. Burke questions the date on Laudabiliter, in addition to the terms contained in it and how it was obtained, questioning also the date in which it was first produced by Henry and why.[50] Patrick Francis Moran also disputed the bull's authenticity in a November 1872 article in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record.[51]

Professor Anne Duggan's research indicates that Laudabiliter is a falsification of an existing letter and that was not in fact Adrian's intention to grant Henry the rights he claimed.[52]

A number of scholars have drawn a distinction between the letter given to John of Salisbury and the subsequent bull Laudabiliter.

According to Arthur Ua Clerigh, the letter referred to was not Laudabiliter, but a formal letter of investiture, such as was used in the case of Robert Guiscard in Italy.[8] Historian Paul Scheffer-Boichorst regards the donation as indisputable, while rejecting Laudabiliter as a forgery,[53] as does Felix Liebermann.[54] Oliver Joseph Thatcher's Studies Concerning Adrian IV; I. The Offer of Ireland to Henry II, reproduces the arguments of Boichorst.[8]

Textual scholar Anne Duggan of King's College, London, is of the opinion that Laudabiliter is a falsification of a genuine letter, now lost. Professor Duggan demonstrated that arranging the paragraphs in a more conventional manner, reveals a more cautious statement that "fits very closely with a known letter of Adrian IV, advising the kings of France and England not to go forward with a planned crusade to Spain unless they consulted the ‘princes, churches and people of the region’". Duggan suggests that Adrian IV did not wish to alienate the most powerful prince in Europe, but insisted on the consent of the Irish.[55]

Ginnell has written that those who accept Laudabiliter as authentic can be equally divided on its significance. Some use it with the object of exposing the Papacy's venality, corruption, and "ingratitude towards mankind in general, and towards faithful Ireland in particular" while others cite it as proof that Ireland has always been the object of the "Pope's special paternal care."[56] Another argument, again assuming the authenticity of Laudabiliter, is that it would be tantamount to the Pope having made a shockingly bad choice of an instrument in Henry II for reducing Ireland to law and order.[56]

The Bulls of Adrian and Alexander were read at a meeting of Bishops in Waterford in 1175, during which Laudabiliter was used by the Papacy as evidence showing the clergy of England and Ireland were solely under papal supremacy.

ADRIAN, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dearly beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolical blessing.

...You have signified to us, our well-beloved son in Christ, that you propose to enter the island of Ireland in order to subdue the people and make them obedient to laws, and to root out from among them the weeds of sin; and that you are willing to yield and pay yearly from every house the pension of one penny to St Peter, and to keep and preserve the rights of the churches in that land whole and inviolate.

We, therefore, regarding your pious and laudable design with due favour, and graciously assenting to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that, for the purpose of enlarging the borders of the Church, setting bounds to the progress of wickedness, reforming evil manners, planting virtue, and increasing the Christian religion, you do enter and take possession of that island, and execute therein whatsoever shall be for God's honour and the welfare of the same.

And, further, we do also strictly charge and require that the people of that land shall accept you with all honour, and dutifully obey you, as their liege lord, saving only the rights of the churches, which we will have inviolably preserved; and reserving to St Peter and the holy Roman Church the yearly pension of one penny from each house. If, therefore, you bring your purpose to good effect, let it be your study to improve the habits of that people, and take such orders by yourself, or by others whom you shall think fitting, for their lives, manners and conversation, that the Church there may be adorned by them, the Christian faith be planted and increased, and all that concerns the honour of God and the salvation of souls be ordered by you in like manner; so that you may receive at God's hands the blessed reward of everlasting life, and may obtain on earth a glorious name in ages to come.[59]

Paraphrased, the terms of the Bull Laudabiliter are that:

• The Pope grants the King of England the right to "enter and take possession of" Ireland for God's honour and the welfare of Ireland.
• The Irish people are to accept the King of England with all honour and obey him dutifully as their liege lord, with the exception that the rights of the churches of Ireland are to be "inviolably preserved".
• The Papacy and Church of Rome are to receive one penny a year from each house in Ireland.
• The King of England is charged to improve the habits of the people of Ireland, particularly their lives, manners and conversation.
• The King of England is charged to ensure that the Christian Church is adopted by the people of Ireland, and the Christian faith "planted and increased".