Filmmaking in Action 1st Edition Leipzig Test Bank 1
Filmmaking in Action 1st Edition Leipzig Test Bank 1
Filmmaking in Action 1st Edition Leipzig Test Bank 1
1. Which crew member is the chief strategist/problem solver when it comes to day-to-day
production management work?
A) director
B) producer
C) stage manager
D) unit production manager
2. Which of the following tasks does NOT fall under the unit production manager's area of
responsibility?
A) organizing actor and crew contracts
B) arranging location scouts and permits
C) interacting with department heads
D) shaping the artistic vision of the film
3. Midway through the filming of a big-budget feature, the unit production manager
(UPM) spends an entire day negotiating with location owners and union representatives
in advance of a unit move to another city. Which crew member will handle an on-set
problem, such as revising a call sheet, while the UPM is occupied?
A) grip
B) gaffer
C) assistant director
D) director
Page 1
4. Which of the following is NOT an important legal consideration for filmmakers?
A) release forms for trademarked logos featured on camera
B) wage minimums and other rules from unions such as SAG-AFTRA
C) damage protection insurance
D) costs of crew meals
6. Which of the following is NOT part of the process of creating a script breakdown?
A) identifying the number of speaking roles in the film
B) determining which scenes will require special effects, such as “squibs” to simulate
wounds from gunfire
C) revising the dialogue in a scene so that the language more clearly expresses
dramatic intent
D) organizing scenes that take place in a particular location so that all work in the
location can be completed contiguously
7. Which term refers to a document representing all the people and things required to shoot
one particular scene?
A) breakdown sheet
B) call sheet
C) top sheet
D) production sheet
Page 2
8. What is the difference between production boards and production strips?
A) A production board is a graphical display of breakdown-sheet information on a
series of thin, color-coded cardboard charts, often called production strips.
B) A production strip is a graphical display of breakdown-sheet information on a
series of thin, color-coded cardboard charts, often called production boards.
C) Production boards are drawings depicting what individual camera shots will look
like, and production strips are animations made from these drawings.
D) Production strips are drawings depicting what individual camera shots will look
like, and production boards are animations made from these drawings.
10. Which of the following is NOT an element of preparing to shoot at an exterior location?
A) taking care of any needed permits long before the shooting day
B) constantly analyzing weather's potential impact on the location
C) finding interesting tourist attractions for crew field trips during shooting
D) arranging a cover set in the event of bad weather
11. You have arranged with the owner of a local restaurant to shoot there on a particular
Tuesday afternoon, and you have limited resources in terms of time and money for
location management. To ensure smooth production, what else should you do?
A) Make arrangements with another restaurant in case you decide at the last minute to
change your mind.
B) Make additional arrangements for an alternative shooting day in case an
exterior-shooting day is ruined by weather and you want to save the entire day of
shooting.
C) Build a restaurant set in case the owner of the restaurant withdraws your
permission to shoot.
D) Rewrite the scene in question so you can shoot in the restaurant during the evening
as well as the afternoon, because you figure the owner will be too embarrassed to
ask you to leave once your agreed-upon departure time passes.
Page 3
12. What scheduling method helps get a film production off to a good start?
A) shooting the most complex and difficult scene on the first day
B) shooting several quick and easy scenes on the first day
C) shooting 10 script pages of material before lunch the first day
D) shooting in as many different locations on the first day as possible
13. Generally speaking, how many pages of a script might a low-budget crew expect to
shoot in a 10- to 12-hour day?
A) one and a half
B) three or four
C) 10 or more
D) the entire script
14. You are midway through production on your low-budget feature film, and you are
behind schedule. Which of the following scenes should you consider cutting from the
script first?
A) an important dialogue scene that resolves a dramatic conflict between characters
B) an exciting fight scene that breaks up a series of dialogue scenes
C) a transitional shot of an actor walking from his office to his car, which explains
how he shifted from one location to the next between dialogue scenes
D) a “beauty shot” of the sun setting, with no actors visible in the frame
15. You obtained a signed release form from the owner of an outdoor sculpture that you
featured in one scene. What extra step should you take to protect yourself?
A) Start a Kickstarter campaign to raise money with which to purchase the sculpture.
B) Shoot an alternative version of the scene in which the sculpture is not featured.
C) Keep the release form in a secure file, where it will be readily available.
D) Give the original and only copy of the release form to the owner for safekeeping.
16. The term _________ refers to a document that delineates each shooting day's
operational plan in detail.
A) call sheet
B) top sheet
C) completion bond
D) script breakdown
Page 4
17. The term _________ refers to a page that summarizes the budget document's major
categories and lists the bottom line, or total cost of production.
A) call sheet
B) top sheet
C) completion bond
D) script breakdown
18. Which of the following is NOT an example of a hard cost for filmmakers?
A) camera rental
B) daily meals for the crew
C) location fees
D) massage table for the crew
19. What is the difference between above-the-line (ATL) costs and below-the-line (BTL)
costs?
A) BTL costs refer to generally more expensive costs, such as actors, directors, and
rights acquisition, whereas ATL costs refer to such day-to-day costs as crew and
equipment.
B) BTL costs are incurred exclusively during preproduction, while ATL costs are
incurred exclusively during postproduction.
C) ATL costs are incurred exclusively during preproduction, while BTL costs are
incurred exclusively during postproduction.
D) ATL costs refer to generally more expensive costs, such as actors, directors, and
rights acquisition, whereas BTL costs refer to such day-to-day costs as crew and
equipment.
20. You are serving as the production manager for your own low-budget shoot, which will
spread across approximately two working days at a location that is local for all
participants. What is your most economic strategy with regard to crew meals?
A) Rent hotel rooms for all participants for both days, and pick up the room-service
tab for all meals the participants eat during the two days.
B) Plan long shooting days that begin at dawn and end at midnight, hiring a caterer to
bring in three meals per shooting day.
C) Begin each shooting day after breakfast, end each shooting day before dinner, and
provide snacks as well as a satisfying lunch during your two shooting days.
D) Plan long shooting days that begin at dawn and end at midnight, telling actors and
crew members they are responsible for buying their own food during the two days.
21. Name and explain at least three important business, insurance, and legal requirements
for filmmakers.
Page 5
Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
the Pope once more, charged with a formal request for the two palls, in
the name of the whole Irish Church. Malachi died on the way, at
Clairvaux;[420] but he left his commission in safe hands. Nine years
before, when on his first journey to Rome he had passed through the
“bright valley,” its abbot had recognized in him a kindred spirit.[421]
From that moment S. Bernard’s care of all the churches extended itself
even to the far-off Church of Ireland; and if it was not he who actually
forwarded his dying friend’s petition to Eugene III., there can be little
doubt that Eugene’s favourable reception of it was chiefly owing to his
influence. The result was the mission of John Paparo as special legate to
Ireland. Stephen’s refusal to let John pass through his dominions caused
another year’s delay;[422] but at the close of 1151 John made his way
through Scotland safe to his destination.[423] In March 1152 he held a
synod at Kells, in which the diocesan and provincial system of the Irish
Church was organized upon lines which remained unaltered till the
sixteenth century. The episcopal sees were definitely fixed, and grouped
under not two but four archbishoprics. The primacy of all Ireland, with
metropolitical authority over Ulster and Meath, was assigned to Armagh;
Tuam became the metropolis of Connaught, Cashel of Munster; while
the rivalry of Armagh and Canterbury for the spiritual obedience of the
Ostmen was settled by the grant of a fourth pallium, with metropolitical
jurisdiction over the whole of Leinster, to Bishop Gregory of Dublin
himself.[424]
[417] Ibid. Cf. Lanigan’s note, Eccles. Hist. Ireland, vol. iv. pp. 110, 111.
[419] Lanigan, Eccles. Hist. Ireland, vol. iv. pp. 114, 115, 116.
[420] S. Bern., Vita S. Malach., cc. 30, 31 (Mabillon, vol. i. cols. 687–
692). Lanigan, as above, pp. 129, 130.
[424] On the synod of Kells see Four Masters, a. 1152 (as above, p. 1101);
Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 212; and Lanigan, as above, pp. 139–151.
[425] Pet. Blois, Ep. clxviii. (Giles, vol. ii. pp. 116–118). See above, vol. i.
p. 497.
been alienated by his harsh government and evil deeds.[436] Left alone to
the justice of Roderic and the vengeance of O’Ruark, he fled to Cork and
thence took ship to Bristol. Here he found shelter for a while in the
priory of S. Augustine, under the protection of its founder Robert Fitz-
Harding;[437] at the close of the year he made his way to Normandy, and
thence, with some difficulty, tracked Henry’s restless movements into the
depths of Aquitaine,[438] where he at last laid his appeal for succour at
the feet of the English king.
[450] Four Masters, a. 1167 (O’Donovan, vol. ii. pp. 1165–1167). Among
the slain they mention “the son of the king of Britain, who was the battle-
prop of the island of Britain, who had come across the sea in the army of
Mac Murchadha.” This can only mean a son or brother of Rees; but neither
Gerald nor the Welsh chronicles make any mention of such a person in
Ireland.
[451] The modern county of Wexford, or rather the diocese of Ferns. The
Four Masters (as above, p. 1165) say that Dermot “returned from England
with a force of Galls, and he took the kingdom of Ui-Ceinnsealaigh.”
[458] Gir. Cambr. as above, l. i. c. 3 (p. 230). See also l. ii. c. 11 (pp. 327,
328).
[460] Ibid. (pp. 232, 233). Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 24, 25.
[462] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 4 (p. 234). Cf. the long account in Anglo-
Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 27–38.
[463] Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 42–51.
[466] Ten knights, thirty “arcarii” or mounted archers, and about a hundred
“sagittarii pedestres.” Ib. c. 11 (pp. 244, 245).
The history of Richard of Striguil is far from clear. From the number
of troops which eventually accompanied him to Ireland it is evident that
he had been during these two years actively preparing for his expedition;
and it may even be that the extent of his preparations had drawn upon
him the suspicions of King Henry. We only know that, for some cause or
other, he was now a ruined man; his lands were forfeited to the Crown;
[470] and he seems to have lingered on, absorbed in a desperate effort to
regain Henry’s favour, and clinging to his lost home with a feeling that if
he once turned his back upon it, he would never be allowed to see it
again. A letter from Dermot, telling of the successes of his party in
Leinster and renewing his former offers, forced him into action.[471] He
made a last appeal to the king, intreating either for restoration of his
lands or for the royal license to go and repair his fortunes elsewhere.
Henry ironically bade him go, and he went.[472] On S. Bartholomew’s
eve, 1170, he landed at Waterford with twelve hundred men;[473] next
day he was joined by Raymond “the Fat,” a young warrior whom he had
sent over three months before[474] with ten knights and seventy archers,
and who with this small force had contrived to beat back an assault of
three thousand Irishmen of Decies and Ostmen of Waterford upon his
camp of wattle and thatch, hastily thrown up on the rocky promontory of
Dundonulf.[475] On August 25 Richard and Raymond attacked
Waterford; three assaults in one day carried both town and citadel;[476]
seven hundred citizens were slaughtered,[477] and the officers of the
fortress, whose names tell of northern blood, were made prisoners.[478] A
few days later Richard was married at Waterford to Dermot’s daughter
Eva.[479] He then joined his father-in-law in a circuitous march across the
hills and through Glendalough,[480] whereby they avoided a great host
which Roderic had gathered at Clondalkin to intercept them, and arrived
in safety on S. Matthew’s day beneath the walls of Dublin.[481] Dermot
sent his bard to demand the instant surrender of the town, with thirty
hostages for its fidelity. A dispute arose, probably between the Irish and
Danish inhabitants, as to the selection of the hostages;[482] Archbishop
Laurence was endeavouring to compose the difficulty,[483] and Hasculf
Thorgils’ son, a chieftain of northern blood who commanded the citadel,
had actually promised to surrender it on the morrow,[484] when a sudden
attack made by Raymond the Fat on one side and by a knight called
Miles Cogan on the other carried the town before the leaders of either
party knew what had happened.[485] A second rush won the citadel;
Hasculf escaped by sea and took refuge in the Orkneys;[486] Dublin was
sacked,[487] and left throughout the winter under the command of Miles
Cogan,[488] while Richard of Striguil was guarding Waterford against the
men of Munster,[489] and Dermot, from his old head-quarters at Ferns,
[490] was making raid after raid upon Meath and Breffny.[491]
[471] Gir. Cambr. Expugn. Hibern., l. i. c. 12 (as above, pp. 246, 247).
[472] Ib. cc. 12, 13 (pp. 247, 248). Cf. Gerv. Cant. as above.
[474] So says Gerald, as above, c. 13 (p. 248); but Mr. Dimock (ib. note 2)
thinks this too early.
[475] Ibid. (pp. 248, 249). There is however a less heroic version of this
affair in the Anglo-Norman Poem (Michel), pp. 68–70. We are there told that
Raymond and his men had provided themselves with food by “lifting” all the
cattle in the neighbourhood and penning them within the camp. At the sound
of arms these creatures rushed out in a wild stampede, and it was this which
put the assailants to flight. On the site of Dundonulf see Mr. Dimock’s
Glossary to Gir. Cambr., vol. v. p. 421.
[478] Ragnald and “the two Sihtrics”; Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 255). The
Four Masters (as above) give to the commandant of the citadel—which
Gerald calls “Ragnald’s tower”—the name of Gillemaire. In the Anglo-
Norm. Poem (Michel), p. 72, we read that “les plus poanz de la cité” were
Regenald and “Smorch.”
[481] Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 75–78. Cf. Gir. Cambr. and Four
Masters as above. The latter say that “there was a challenge of battle between
them” (i.e. between Roderic and the foreigners) “for three days, until
lightning burned Ath-Cliath” [Dublin].
[485] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 256, 257). Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel),
pp. 80, 81.
[493] Four Masters, a. 1171 (O’Donovan, vol. ii. p. 1185). The Ui-Maine
were a tribe in south-eastern Connaught.
[494] Ibid. (p. 1183). Cf. Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1171 (Hennessy, vol. i. p. 145).
The date, “circa Kalendas Maiæ,” is given by Gir. Cambr. Expugn. Hibern.,
l. i. c. 20 (Dimock, vol. v. p. 263).
[495] “Duce Johanne agnomine the Wode,” Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 21 (p.
264). “Johan le Devé,” Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), p. 108. It is there added
that, “solum les Yrreis,” he was a nephew of the king of “Norwiche,” i.e.
Norway. The Four Masters, a. 1171 (as above, p. 1185) describe him as
“Eoan, a Dane from the Orkney Islands.”
[500] Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 117, 118. (On his captor cf. ib. p.
111). Gir. Cambr. Expugn. Hibern., l. i. c. 21 (Dimock, vol. v. pp. 264, 265).
[501] Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 116, 118. The date of this siege is
given by Gir. Cambr. (as above, p. 263) as “eâdem fere tempestate” (i.e.
about the time of Dermot’s death), “circa Pentecosten.” This would be at the
beginning of May. In the Poem it comes much later in the year. There seems
however no reason to upset Gerald’s arrangement of events. See Mr.
Dimock’s remarks, Gir. Cambr. as above, note 2.
[505] Ibid. Cf. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 235. Raymond was back
again in time to share in the defence of Dublin against Roderic O’Conor—
i.e. by the end of May or beginning of June. Gerald says he had to seek the
king in “Aquitanic Gaul,” but this time the phrase cannot be taken literally.
Eyton’s Itinerary shews plainly that throughout 1171 Henry never was
further south than the Norman, or, at the utmost, the Breton border.
[506] This seems to be the key-note of a speech which Gerald puts into
Maurice’s mouth; Expugn. Hibern., l. i. c. 23 (as above, pp. 266, 267).
[508] Gir. Cambr. as above, cc. 22, 24 (pp. 265, 266, 269). This is the
archbishop afterwards canonized as S. Laurence O’Toole.
[511] Ibid.
[512] Four Masters, a. 1171 (O’Donovan, vol. ii. p. 1185). Gir. Cambr.
Expugn. Hibern., l. i. c. 24 (Dimock, vol. v. p. 269).
For nearly two months[514] the English knights were thus blockaded in
Dublin. Their sole hope of relief was in Robert Fitz-Stephen, who had
been left in command at Wexford. They were all but starving when
Donell Kavanagh, a half-brother of Eva Mac-Murrough and a devoted
adherent of her husband, slipped into the city with tidings that Wexford
had risen; Robert Fitz-Stephen was blockaded in the little fort of Carrick
by the townsfolk and the men of Kinsellagh, to the number of three
thousand; unless he could be succoured within three days, all would be
over with him and his men.[515] Earl Richard at once called a council of
war. It comprised nearly all the leaders of the English and Welsh forces
in Ireland:—Richard of Striguil himself; Maurice Fitz-Gerald with three
of his gallant nephews, Meiler Fitz-Henry, Miles Fitz-David and
Raymond the Fat; Miles Cogan, the captor of Dublin and its chief
defender in the recent siege; Maurice de Prendergast,[516] who two years
before had thrown up the adventure and gone home in disgust at the
faithlessness of his allies,[517] but had returned, it seems, in Earl
Richard’s train, and was yet to leave, alone of all the invading band, an
honoured memory among the Irish people;[518] and some fourteen others.
[519] They decided upon sending Maurice de Prendergast and Archbishop
Laurence to Roderic with an offer of surrender on condition that Richard
of Striguil should hold the kingdom of Leinster under Roderic as
overlord. Roderic rejected the proposal with scorn; the knights might
hold what the earlier pirates had held—Dublin, Waterford and Wexford;
not another rood of Irish land should be granted to the earl and his
company; and if they refused these terms, Dublin should be stormed on
the morrow.[520] That afternoon the little garrison—scarce six hundred in
all[521]—sallied forth and surprized Roderic’s camp while he and his men
were bathing; Roderic himself escaped with great difficulty; fifteen
hundred Irishmen were slain, many of them perishing in the water; while
at sunset the victors returned, after a long pursuit, with scarcely a man
missing, and laden with provisions enough to supply all Dublin for a
year.[522] The rest of the besieging army dispersed at once, and the very
next morning Earl Richard was free to set out for the relief of Robert
Fitz-Stephen.[523]
[515] Gir. Cambr. as above. The Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 85, 86,
gives a very hasty and confused sketch of this Wexford affair.
[516] Earl Richard, Meiler, the two Mileses and Maurice Prendergast are
mentioned in the Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 86, 87. Raymond is
named by Gerald, Expugn. Hibern., l. i. c. 22 (Dimock, vol. v. p. 266), as “a
curiâ jam reversus”; his presence also appears later in the Poem. Gerald
alone mentions the presence of Maurice Fitz-Gerald, whom the Poem never
names throughout the siege; while Gerald never names Maurice de
Prendergast. Is it possible that he has transferred to his own uncle the
exploits of his namesake? But if so, where can Fitz-Gerald have been?
[519] The Poem (as above), p. 87, reckons them at twenty in all, and
names four besides those already mentioned, viz., Robert de Quincy, Walter
de Riddlesford, Richard de Marreis and Walter Bluet.
[521] The Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 90, 91, describes the force as
composed of three divisions, each consisting of forty knights, sixty archers
and a hundred “serjanz.” Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 24 (p. 268), makes the
three bands of knights contain respectively twenty, thirty and forty, each
accompanied by as many archers and citizens as could be spared from
guarding the walls.
[523] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 269, 270). Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel),
p. 95.
He was however already too late. Three thousand men of Wexford and
Kinsellagh, finding that they could make no impression by fair means
upon Robert Fitz-Stephen shut up in the fort of Carrick with five knights
and a handful of archers, at length had recourse to fraud. Two bishops
and some monks were made to stand under the walls of the fort and
swear upon relics brought for the purpose that Dublin was taken, the earl
and his comrades slain, and Roderic on the march to Wexford at the head
of his victorious host. On a promise of liberty to escape to Wales[524]
Robert in his despair surrendered, only to see his little band of humbler
followers slaughtered to a man, and himself and his five knights cast into
chains. The men of Wexford then fired their town and took refuge with
their captives on the neighbouring island of Beg-Erin,[525] whence they
sent word to Richard of Striguil that if he dared to approach them he
should immediately receive the heads of his six friends.[526]
Notwithstanding this disaster at Wexford, and the failure of a plot to
entrap the chief of Ossory—a well-deserved failure, due to the loyalty of
Maurice de Prendergast[527]—the invaders were rapidly gaining ground.
The king of North Munster, who was married to Eva’s sister, again
forsook Roderic and made alliance with his English brother-in-law;[528]
an attempt made by Tighernan O’Ruark to renew the siege of Dublin
ended in failure;[529] and at last Murtogh of Kinsellagh was reduced to
make a surrender of his principality into Richard’s hands and accept a re-
grant of it from him as overlord, while Donell Kavanagh was invested on
like terms with the remaining portion of Leinster.[530]
[525] Ibid. (p. 271). Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 85, 97.
[529] Four Masters, a. 1171 (as above, pp. 1185–1187). Gir. Cambr. as
above, c. 29 (p. 274).
The earl’s triumphs, however, met with an abrupt check from over sea.
His uncle Hervey of Mountmorris, who had gone to plead his cause with
the king after the failure of Raymond’s mission, returned to
Waterford[531] with tidings that Henry himself was on his way to Ireland
and required the self-styled earl of Leinster to go and speak with him
without delay. Richard hurried over to Wales,[532] met Henry on the
border,[533] and was forgiven on condition that he should surrender
Dublin and the other coast towns absolutely into the king’s hands and do
him homage and fealty for the rest of Leinster;[534] he then accompanied
Henry into Pembrokeshire;[535] where the royal fleet was assembling in
Milford Haven. It consisted of four hundred ships,[536] carrying a force
of about four thousand men, of whom some five hundred were knights
and the rest archers, mounted and unmounted.[537] The king embarked on
the evening of Saturday, October 16, and landed next day at Croch, eight
miles from Waterford.[538] On the morrow, S. Luke’s day, he entered the
town of Waterford;[539] there he was met by his seneschal William Fitz-
Aldhelm, his constable Humfrey de Bohun, Hugh de Lacy, Robert Fitz-
Bernard, and some other officers of his household whom he had sent
over to prepare for his coming.[540] The Irish of the district and the
Ostmen of the town, in the person of their chieftain Ragnald, made
submission to him as their sovereign;[541] while Richard of Striguil
formally surrendered the place into the king’s hands and did homage to
him for the earldom of Leinster.[542] The men of Wexford now, according
to an agreement which they had made with Henry while he was waiting
for a wind at Pembroke,[543] brought their captive Robert Fitz-Stephen to
his sovereign’s feet, to be by him dealt with as a rebel and a traitor.
Henry loaded him with reproaches and imprisoned him afresh, but his
anger was more assumed than real, and the captive was soon released.
[544] The submission of the English adventurers was followed by that of
[534] Gir. Cambr. as above. Cf. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 26 (Howlett, vol. i.
pp. 168, 169).
[538] Gesta Hen. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 25; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p.
29. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 348, makes October 16 the day of Henry’s
arrival in Ireland; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 235, makes it “about S.
Calixtus’s day” (October 16 would be two days after). Gerald, Expugn.
Hibern., l. i. c. 30 (Dimock, vol. v. p. 275) makes him reach Waterford “circa
kalendas Novembris, die videlicet S. Lucæ.” The Anglo-Norm. Poem
(Michel, p. 123) turns this into “à la Tusseinz”; the Four Masters, a. 1171
(O’Donovan, vol. ii. p. 1187) record his coming without any date at all; and
the Brut y Tywys. a. 1171 (Williams, p. 217), absurdly says he sailed on
Sunday, November 16. The Anglo-Norman poet seems to have taken Croch
—“à la Croiz” as he calls it—for the place of embarkation.
[541] Gesta Hen. as above. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 30.
[543] See the curious story of their envoy’s arrival and reception at
Pembroke, ib. pp. 119–123.
[544] Gir. Cambr. Expugn. Hibern., l. i. cc. 31, 32 (Dimock, vol. v. pp.
276, 277, 278). Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 125, 126.
[546] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 30, says he stayed at Waterford
fifteen days.
[547] Gir. Cambr. as above, cc. 31, 32 (pp. 277, 278). He adds that Henry
returned to Waterford, where he released Robert Fitz-Stephen, and thence
proceeded to Dublin. The Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp. 126, 127, places
this progress through Cashel and Lismore in inverse order, after Henry’s first
visit to Dublin, and says nothing of a second visit to Waterford. Its account is
however much less circumstantial than Gerald’s. The Gesta Hen. and Rog.
Howden only name two places where Henry stayed—Waterford and Dublin;
and as they both say he reached the latter at Martinmas, while Roger says he
left Waterford when he had been there a fortnight (i.e. on November 1),
Gerald’s story fills up the interval very well.
[548] Gesta Hen. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 28. Rog. Howden (as above), p. 32.
[549] Gerald (as above, c. 33, p. 278) enumerates the princes who
submitted at Dublin as follows: “Machelanus Ophelan [O’Phelan],
Machtalewi, Otuetheli [O’Toole], Gillemoholmoch [Gillamocholmog of
Fingal by Dublin—see above, p. 106], Ocathesi [O’Casey], Ocaruel
Urielensis [O’Carroll of Oiriel], et Ororicius Medensis [O’Ruark]”. He then
relates the half-submission of Roderic of Connaught (of which more later),
and adds: “sic itaque, præter solos Ultonienses, subditi per se singuli.” (Ib. p.
279.) He need not however have excepted the Ulstermen; for the Ann. Loch
Cé, a. 1171 (Hennessy, vol. i. p. 145) —copying, it seems, the old Annals of
Ulster (see Four Masters, O’Donovan, vol. ii. p. 1187, note c, and O’Kelly’s
note to Lynch’s Cambr. Evers., vol. ii. p. 472, note d)—say that Henry while
at Dublin received hostages from “Leinster, Meath, Breffny, Oiriel and
Uladh.” This leaves only Connaught and Aileach unsubdued. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs, vol. i. p. 235) and the Gesta Hen. (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 25) lump all
these submissions together, and the latter seems to place them all, as well as
the submission of the bishops, during Henry’s stay in Waterford. Rog.
Howden (Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 30) not only does the same still more distinctly,
but he does worse; he places the submission of the bishops first, and then
says that the lay princes submitted “exemplo clericorum.” It is he, not Gerald
or any one else, who is responsible for this misrepresentation, which the
champions of the Irish Church have been justly denouncing ever since Dr.
Lynch’s time.
[550] Gesta Hen. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 28, 29. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol.
ii. p. 32. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 236. Gir. Cambr. Expugn. Hibern., l.
i. c. 33 (Dimock, vol. v. p. 279).
[551] Gesta Hen. (Stubbs) vol. i. p. 28. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p.
31. The messengers were Nicolas, a chaplain of the king, and Ralf
archdeacon of Landaff. They were sent out “circa festum S. Leonardi”
(November 6). Gesta Hen. as above.
[552] The Gesta Hen. and Rog. Howden as above, both place this council
before Christmas 1171. Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 35 (p. 281), and R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 351, date it 1172. It seems better to follow them, for
though Gerald is certainly no chronologist, he is the only writer who gives a
detailed and rational account of this synod; and the summary given by R.
Diceto also shews a fair knowledge of the subject, though he makes the
synod meet at Lismore instead of Cashel.
[553] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 283). He adds that the primate afterwards
went to Dublin and there submitted to Henry; but see Dr. Lanigan’s
comment, Eccles. Hist. Ireland, vol. iv. pp. 205, 206.
[554] Gir. Cambr. as above. R. Diceto (as above), pp. 350, 351.
[555] They sent him “litteras suas in modum cartæ extra sigillum
pendentes:” Gesta Hen. (as above), p. 26. Cf. Rog. Howden (as above), pp.
30, 31. This is however placed by both writers some time before the council.
See above, p. 114, note 6{549}.
[556] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 31, says that Henry sent copies of
the bishops’ letters of submission to Rome. Dr. Lanigan (Eccles. Hist.
Ireland, vol. iv. pp. 217, 218) objects that this can only have been done some
time later, as Henry’s communications were cut off by the weather. But this
is not borne out either by the words of R. Diceto (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 350) or by
those of Gerald (Expugn. Hibern., l. i. c. 36, Dimock, vol. v. p. 284). They
both say distinctly that a persistent contrary wind hindered all
communication from England to Ireland. For communication in the opposite
direction such a wind would surely be most favourable. Moreover, it is quite
certain that the Pope did, some time before September 20, 1172, receive
reports of Henry’s proceedings in Ireland both from Henry himself and from
the Irish bishops, for he says so in three letters—one addressed to Henry,
another to the kings and bishops of Ireland, and the third to the legate,
Christian bishop of Lismore—all dated Tusculum, September 20, and all
printed in Hearne’s Liber Niger, vol. i. pp. 42–48, as well as in the notes to
Macariæ Excidium (O’Callaghan), pp. 255–262.
In all Ireland the king of Connaught was now the only ruler, spiritual
or temporal, who had not submitted to Henry.[557] Trusting to the
inaccessible nature of his country,[558] Roderic had at first refused all
dealings with the invader, declaring that he himself was the sole rightful
monarch of Ireland.[559] It seems however that he afterwards came to a
meeting with William Fitz-Aldhelm and Hugh de Lacy by the banks of
the Shannon, on the frontier of Connaught and Meath, and there
promised tribute and fealty like his fellow-kings.[560] The promise was
however worthless until confirmed by his personal homage; and this
Henry soon perceived was only to be extorted at the sword’s point. The
impossibility of fighting to any advantage in the wet Irish winter
compelled him to postpone the attempt until the spring;[561] and when
spring came he found that his intended campaign must be abandoned
altogether. From the day when he left Milford he had received not one
word of tidings from any part of his dominions.[562] This total isolation,
welcome at first as a relief from the load of cares which indeed he had
purposely left behind him,[563] became at the end of nineteen weeks a
source of almost unbearable anxiety. On March 1 he removed from
Dublin to Wexford;[564] there for nearly a month he remained eagerly
watching for a ship from England; none came until after Mid-Lent,[565]
and then it was laden with such ill news that he could only take such
hasty measures as were possible at the moment for maintaining his hold
upon Ireland, and prepare to hurry out of it as soon as the wind would
carry him.[566] Richard of Striguil was suffered to remain at Kildare[567]
as earl of Leinster; the general direction of government and
administration throughout the king’s Irish domains was intrusted to Hugh
de Lacy,[568] who had already received a grant of Meath in fee,[569] and
who was also left in command of the citadel of Dublin,[570] with a
garrison of twenty knights, among whom were Maurice Fitz-Gerald[571]
and Robert Fitz-Stephen.[572] The grants of territory made by Dermot to
the half-brothers were of course annulled; Waterford and Wexford were
both garrisoned and placed in charge of an officer appointed by the king;
[573] and in each of these towns a fortress was either erected or repaired
by his orders.[574]
[557] Perhaps we should add the chief of Aileach; see above, p. 114, note
6{549}.
[559] Gesta Hen. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 25, 26. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 235.
[564] Gesta Hen. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 29; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p.
33.
[566] Ib. c. 37 (pp. 285, 286). In the Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), pp.
128, 129, Henry is made to receive the bad news before leaving Dublin,
which is obviously too soon. Cf. Gesta Hen. as above, and Rog. Howden (as
above), pp. 33, 34.
[569] Ibid. Gesta Hen. (as above), p. 30. Gir. Cambr. (as above), c. 38 (p.
286). Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel), p. 130. See the charter of donation in
Lyttelton, Hen. II., vol. iv. p. 295.
[570] Gir. Cambr., Gesta Hen. and Rog. Howden, as above. Anglo-Norm.
Poem (Michel), p. 129.
[574] Gesta Hen. and Rog. Howden, as above. If we may believe the
Anglo-Norm. Poem (Michel, p. 130) Henry furthermore made a grant of
Ulster to John de Courcy—“si à force la peust conquere.”
[578] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 351, says at sunset on Easter day (April
16); the Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1172 (Hennessy, vol. i. p. 147), say on Easter day
“after Mass.” Gerald, Expugn. Hibern., l. i. c. 38 (Dimock, vol. v. p. 286), the
Gesta Hen. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 30, and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 34,
say he sailed early on the Monday morning, the two latter adding a reason—
he would not travel on the feast-day, though he had suffered his household to
do so. Most probably he sailed at midnight, as seems to have been often
done. The Brut y Tywys. a. 1172 (Williams, p. 217), makes him reach
Pembroke on Good Friday, but this is impossible.
[580] Gesta Hen. and Rog. Howden, as above. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 351. The name of the place, Portfinnan, is given only in the Anglo-Norm.
Poem (as above).
[581] See the itinerary in Gir. Cambr. Expugn. Hibern., l. i. cc. 38–40
(Dimock, vol. v. pp. 286–291), compared with Brut y Tywys. a. 1172
(Williams, pp. 217–219).
[582] Gesta Hen. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 30. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p.
34. It is Porchester in R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 351.
CHAPTER IV.
HENRY AND THE BARONS.
1166–1175.
F the last eight years Henry had been literally, throughout his English
realm, over all persons and all causes supreme. From the hour of
Thomas’s flight, not a hand, not a voice was lifted to oppose or to
question his will; England lay passive before him; the time seemed to
have come when he might work out at leisure and without fear of check
his long-cherished plans of legal, judicial and administrative reform. In
the execution of those plans, however, he was seriously hampered by the
indirect consequences of the ecclesiastical quarrel. One of these was his
own prolonged absence from England, which was made necessary by the
hostility of France, and which compelled him to be content with setting
his reforms in operation and then leave their working to other hands and
other heads, without the power of superintending it and watching its
effects with his own eyes, during nearly six years. He had now to learn
that the enemy with whom he had been striving throughout those years
was after all not the most serious obstacle in his way;—that the most
threatening danger to his scheme of government still lay, as it had lain at
his accession, in that temper of the baronage which it had been his first
kingly task to bring under subjection. The victory which he had gained
over Hugh Bigod in 1156 was real, but it was not final. The spirit of
feudal insubordination was checked, not crushed; it was only waiting an
opportunity to lift its head once more; and with the strife that raged
around S. Thomas of Canterbury the opportunity came.
Henry’s attitude towards the barons during these years had been of
necessity a somewhat inconsistent one. He never lost sight of the main
thread of policy which he had inherited from his grandfather: a policy
which may be defined as the consolidation of kingly power in his own
hands, through the repression of the feudal nobles and the raising of the
people at large into a condition of greater security and prosperity, and of
closer connexion with and dependence upon the Crown, as a check and
counterpoise to the territorial influence of the feudataries. On the other
hand, his quarrel with the primate had driven him to throw himself on the
support of those very feudataries whom it was his true policy to repress,
and had brought him into hostility with the ecclesiastical interest which
ought to have been, and which actually had been until now, his surest
and most powerful aid. If it was what we may perhaps venture to call the
feudal side of the ecclesiastical movement—its introduction of a separate
system of law and jurisdiction, traversing and impeding the course of his
own uniform regal administration—which roused the suspicions of the
king, it was its anti-feudal side, its championship of the universal rights
and liberties of men in the highest and widest sense, that provoked the
jealousy of the nobles. This was a point which Henry, blinded for the
moment by his natural instinct of imperiousness, seems to have
overlooked when at the council of Northampton he stooped to avail
himself of the assistance of the barons to crush the primate. They
doubtless saw what he failed to see, that he was crushing not so much his
own rival as theirs. The cause of the Church was bound up with that of
the people, and both alike were closely knit to that of the Crown. Sceptre
and crozier once parted, the barons might strive with the former at an
advantage such as they had never had while Lanfranc stood beside
William and Anselm beside Henry I., such as they never could have had
if Thomas had remained standing by the side of Henry II.[583]
[584] On the date see Bishop Stubbs’ preface to Gesta Hen., vol. ii. pp.
lix.–lxi. The Assize is printed in an appendix to same preface, pp. cxlix–cliv,
and in Select Charters, pp. 143–146.