King Stephen (review)

Edmund King offers a well-researched and valuable biography of King Stephen. His study adds to the seven other monographs and two sizable collections of essays on the topic published to date. The reason why Stephen is probably the most studied king of England, next to John, lies in continued interest in his ultimate failure as an Anglo-Norman monarch and, in particular, his inability to control his Church and unruly nobility. The traditional view is that Stephen’s reign formed an unsatisfactory interlude between the more successful and peaceful rule of Henry I (1100–35) and that of his talented grandson, Henry II (1154–89). To contemporaries, the turmoil of Stephen’s nineteen years was in stark contrast to the previous reign that is viewed by many as a vanished golden age. Modern historians choosing to write on Stephen’s reign almost inevitably run the gauntlet of dealing with the substantial collection of primary sources and the monumental historiography of the subject. Adding something new and valuable to the debate is difficult, and the merits of this could be questioned. King admits that his is a work of biography—a fair point—yet here offers a narrative that maneuvers around (and sometimes ignores) the most recent historiography of Stephen’s reign.

Much attention is given to Stephen’s religious nature and activities as well as his well-documented relationship with the bishops—in particular, his brother, Henry of Winchester (to whom King attributes much of his success). Less well explored is the critical association between Stephen and the barons, with limited analysis of the roles of Waleran II of Meulan and Robert of Gloucester, as well as curial lords such as Ranulf II of Chester. This is problematic as a number of key issues are denied their due significance (for example, the emergence of Robert of Gloucester as the leader of the Angevin cause in 1138, which overshadowed the politics of England until Stephen’s capture at Lincoln, and Count Waleran’s exit from the realm). As might be expected, King provides a masterly treatment of the contemporary chronicles and the charters issued in the king’s name, although it is a pity that he tends to shy away from the question of the authorship of the Gesta Stephani.

Throughout the book, the author attempts to offer a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Stephen’s leadership and problematic reign. Yet the focus is on the political and dynastic people who, we are told, molded Stephen’s destiny. Thus it was his ambitious brother Henry who largely engineered his seizure of the throne, whereas Stephen’s war strategy depended greatly on the role played by his wife, Matilda of Boulogne, who wished to protect the succession for her son, Eustace. Although recent historiography tends to emphasize the king’s role in monastic foundations and benefactions (especially toward Cluny and Savigny), most of the credit is given to Matilda. Also, much emphasis is placed on the influence of the king’s adversaries—Robert of Gloucester; Stephen’s cousin, Empress Matilda; and her son, Henry, who succeeded Stephen in 1154. The author concludes that Stephen was essentially “weak” and perhaps harshly views him as just “acting a part” (p. 339). It seems that the usual picture of Stephen as a brave, yet insubstantial, man and ruler as well as political failure is largely upheld in this latest biography of a flawed medieval king of England.