Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket [1 ed.] 9781442676749, 9780802036506

Citation preview

LITURGIES IN HONOUR OF THOMAS BECKET

Norwich Breviary, fol. 2yv (British Library, MS Stowe 12). By permission of the British Library

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

KAYBRAINERD SLOCUM

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

www.utppublishing.com © University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2004 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-3650-3

Printed on acid-free paper

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Slocum, Kay Brainerd Liturgies in honour of Thomas Becket / Kay Brainerd Slocum. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-3650-3 i. Thomas, a Becket, Saint, 11 i8?-i 170. 2. Christian saints England - Biography. 3. Thomas, a Becket, Saint, 11 l8?-i 170 - Cult. I. Title. 6X2167.643556 2003

282'.OQ2

C20O2-904O67-1

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).

For Dieter

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

List of Illustrations Acknowledgments

ix xi

Introduction 3 Liturgical Images of Becket 5 Methodology 8 Becket's Biographers 9 The Liturgies: Structure and Terminology

11

PART ONE i Becket as Royal Chancellor

17

2 Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury 29 Novus homo 29 The Council of Clarendon 39 3 Becket in Exile 44 Return to England 58 4 The Martyrdom 63 5 The Miracles 79 The Water of St Thomas 92 6 The Development of the Cult of Becket 98 Angevin Marriage Diplomacy and the Early Dissemination of the Cult 102

viii

Contents

The Cult of Thomas Becket in Europe and the Nordic Countries 116 Summary 126 PART TWO 7 Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket, 29 December Commentary 135 Studens livor 146 Rhymed Office for the Feast of St Thomas Becket 167 Office for St Thomas Becket in Sarum Breviary 209 The Breviaries of Hereford Cathedral, York Cathedral, and Hyde Abbey 223

135

8 Office for the Translation of St Thomas Becket, 7 July 239 Commentary 239 Thomas's Tuesdays 247 Rhymed Office for the Translation of St Thomas Becket 264 Other Texts for the Translation of St Thomas Becket 299 Translation Office in Sarum Breviary 305 Translation Office in Hereford Breviary 312 Conclusion 318 Notes

323

Bibliography

355

General Index

365

Index of Offices

375

Illustrations

Frontispiece: Norwich Breviary, fol. 27v 1 Descendants of Henry II 103 2 Gospels of Henry the Lion, fol. I7iv 108 3 The seal of Eleanor of Castile

113

4 Cluniac Breviary/Missal from Lewes, fols. !O5r-i07r 129 5 Groundplan of Salisbury Cathedral 210 6 Norwich Breviary, fol. 27Or 263

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

I became interested in the Becket liturgies during an NEH seminar held at the Catholic University of America in 1988. During the years of research for this book many friends and colleagues have provided support and advice. Special thanks go to Ruth Steiner and Daniel Sheerin, who were the co-directors of that seminar, 'Liturgy and Hagiography in the High Middle Ages.' Professors Steiner and Sheerin provided inspiration and guidance during the early stages of my research, and I am most grateful for their continuing counsel. In addition to providing funding for the seminar, the National Endowment for the Humanities made further research possible through a Travel to Collections grant, enabling me to use the excellent resources of the Dom Mocquereau Microfilm Collection at the Catholic University of America. I wish also to express my gratitude to Andrew Hughes, who has been a constant source of inspiration and advice, in addition to having provided, through his seminal work on Becket and the liturgy in general, a foundation for my study. Many of the subtle biblical allusions in the texts of the antiphons and responsories were elucidated by John V. Fleming. I am most grateful for his interest in this project and for his kind support. The translations in this volume were accomplished with the generous help of Emeritus Professor Jane M. Snyder (Department of Classics, Ohio State University). Her patience and discerning eye immeasurably improved my initial efforts; the infelicities that remain are my own. The computerized music examples were prepared in Finale by Dr Dieter Droste, who also assembled the index and solved many difficult and frustrating problems of formatting; although there is no adequate ex-

xii

Acknowledgments

pression of gratitude for his countless hours of work, it is my hope that the dedication of this book to him will provide some indication of my appreciation for his labour and support. I wish to thank the librarians and staff members of several libraries, who were extremely helpful in locating and providing materials concerning Becket and the Becket liturgies, including Dr Thomas Heck (Ohio State University), Dr Martin Kauffmann (Bodleian Library, Oxford University), Dom Daniel Rees (Downside Abbey, Bath, England), and the librarians at the British Library, the Conway Library (Courtauld Institute), the Canterbury Cathedral Library, Princeton University Library, the library of the Institute of Musicology (Budapest, Hungary), and the library of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Other friends and colleagues who provided advice and encouragement include Charles A. Atkinson, Margaret Bent, Susan Boynton, Calvin Bower, Vincent Corrigan, Richard Crocker, Lazlo Dobszay, Joseph Dyer, Margot Fassler, Peter Jeffrey, Joseph Lynch, Jeanette Morgenroth, Richard Pfaff, Sherry Reames, Phyllis Roberts, and Leslie Ross. To all these individuals I extend my heartfelt thanks. I am grateful to the fine editorial staff at the University of Toronto Press for their dedicated attention to matters of format and consistency, and for their helpful advice. The following individuals were especially supportive: Sarah Downey, Douglas Hildebrand, Barbara Porter, Suzanne Rancourt, Jean Scarfe, and John St James. I also wish to acknowledge the generosity of the administration of Capital University, and especially the support of Josiah Blackmore (President Emeritus), Ronald Volpe (former Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, now President of Hood College, Frederick, MD), and Daina McGary (Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences). In addition, I wish to express my appreciation to Marti and Howard Wilson for their generous hospitality during a decade of summers spent in London, and to Edward and Mary Catherine Gerhold for their continuing financial support in the form of the Gerhold Endowed Professorship in the Humanities, without which the many necessary research trips to England would not have been possible.

LITURGIES IN HONOUR OF THOMAS BECKET

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

Thomas Becket was one of the most charismatic figures of the Middle Ages. Fascination with his personality, his controversial relationship with Henry II, his martyrdom, and the legends surrounding his miracles continued to develop throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, to be reborn in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His memory was kept alive not only through the devotion of medieval and Renaissance pilgrims and by the sermons of medieval preachers, but also through the literary works of Chaucer, Erasmus, Tennyson, Christopher Fry, T.S. Eliot, and Jean Anouilh. The potency of his image was recognized by Henry VIII, who realized, in his own struggle with the Church, the necessity of eradicating the artistic and liturgical images of the Canterbury martyr. The reasons for this continuing fascination are many and varied. Becket was venerated as a saint who had given his life in defence of the Church against the encroachments of secular authority; as such he became a hero to be celebrated throughout Europe wherever the Church faced a challenge to its authority. He was held up as a model for generations of clergymen who were encouraged to emulate his life and his role as bonus pastor, and he was recognized as a miracle-worker who held out the promise of spiritual and physical healing to the thousands of pilgrims who visited his shrine at Canterbury Cathedral. These images were presented and developed in various media during the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries; visions of the martyr were presented in artistic forms, including paintings, stained-glass windows, and objects of ivory, enamel, and metal. Medieval preachers used his life and martyrdom as subjects for their sermons; and the image of the martyr was presented in the liturgies that were celebrated on Thomas's

4

Introduction

feast day, as well as the feasts of the translation of his relics and the regressio, his return to Canterbury following his six-year exile. The men who composed the liturgies for Becket faced the same challenge as his biographers: the construction of a saintly identity for a man who had been a difficult and controversial figure - a man envisioned by one contemporary as a 'spiky hedgehog.' Becket was sanctified as a result of his martyrdom and his posthumous miracles, not as a response to an overtly holy and devout character, as was the case with many earlier saints. Hence, it was incumbent upon the biographers and liturgists to fashion a persona that would provide an inspiring and credible model for devotion. The purpose of the liturgy was thus to edify by explaining the significance of the life of Becket, as well as to create a ceremony in which he was honoured. Further, the Church fostered the growth of the cult of the Canterbury martyr because the church prelates anticipated that the establishment of Becket as a widely venerated saint would strengthen its position in relation to secular authority. The construction of a saintly identity was, in large part, the result of the writings of biographers and liturgists. Hence, the accounts of saints' lives that one finds in the lections (lessons) of the liturgy - the historia present an idealized account of the saint's interactions with his society, one in which the personality of the saint is fashioned to present a specific vision. Thus, in the liturgies for Becket, as in those for other saints, the martyr's contradictions and personal idiosyncracies were stripped away in order to present an ideal form to the listeners. Becket's only claim to sanctity was his martyrdom. He had changed his behaviour and his allegiances when he became archbishop, resigning the chancellorship and abandoning worldly pleasures; but this would merely have established his reputation as a good churchman, not a saint. Furthermore, as Antonia Grandson has remarked, his biographers and the liturgists could find few parallels from other saints' lives; the result is that the biographies and liturgies for Becket are relatively free from the hagiographical topoi that limit the use of many saints' vitae as historical sources.1 In addition, the portrait of the Canterbury martyr was created from his own actions, as observed by close associates. Hence, rather than portraying Becket as simply another epiphany of the ideal saint, the biographers and authors of the offices were able to demonstrate qualities that they saw as unique and distinctive in the character, life, and experience of Thomas Becket. In order to develop a saintly identity the liturgists emphasized six aspects of Thomas's personality and career: Thomas as novus homo,

Introduction

5

Thomas as bonus pastor, Thomas as defender of the Church, Thomas as Martyr, Thomas as Miracle-Worker, and Thomas as a type of Christ. The texts of the liturgies provide explicit views of these facets of his legend, in both prose and poetry. In the first part of this book I will examine these images of Becket's life and personality, demonstrating how each is developed through use of material drawn from the works of his biographers, and discussing and analysing the relevant historical context. My purpose in the first part of this study is thus to explore the persona of Becket as presented in the liturgies composed for his feast day, and to examine this portrait of the idealized saint within the context of the political and social history of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. The biographical analysis presented in part i of the book prepares the reader to place the liturgies for Becket within a historical and political context. The second part of the book presents transcriptions and translations of two complete offices: one composed for the celebration of his feast day, and one for the commemoration of the translation of his remains. There are, in addition, sections that discuss how the monastic office was adapted for use in the cathedrals of Salisbury, York, and Hereford, and at Hyde Abbey. The Thomas offices are, in a sense, paradigmatic, since they celebrate one of the most popular and widely venerated of medieval saints. This book offers an example of how a variety of materials - literary, historical, liturgical, and musical - may be drawn together to illuminate a number of aspects that are central to our understanding of medieval culture and society. Liturgical Images of Becket

Novus homo All of Becket's biographers were emphatic in their claims that Thomas became a transformed human being - a novus homo — upon his appointment as archbishop, and the importance of this aspect of his life is evident in the liturgies as well as in sermons concerning Becket. The concept of novus homo is an echo of classical references to Cicero, the 'new man' who came to Rome from the provinces and made a spectacular career as an orator, and it also refers to the Augustinian concept of the 'new life.' There is also a strong biblical resonance, drawn from the epistles of St Paul to the Ephesians and Colossians, where the recipients are exhorted to 'put off the old man ... and put on the new man,'

6

Introduction

'stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds.'2 Becket's transformation was exemplified by the hair shirt and hair breeches he wore underneath a monk's habit, which, in turn, was worn beneath the elaborate vestments signifying his office as archbishop. The dichotomy between outward display and inner austerity was advanced as evidence for Becket's true piety; he was secretly a saint, although he must present his office - the archbishopric - to the world in all its pomp and glory. The emphasis placed upon the evidence of Becket's spiritual regeneration as a 'new man' was necessary to indicate to the world that Becket had given up the worldly activities and preoccupations that had been a feature of his friendship with Henry II; as Chancellor of England he had been a close associate of the king, and had joined him in hunting and waging war, as well as the more general pursuits defined by his office. Upon being named archbishop Thomas seems to have undergone a spiritual transformation, one that compelled him to represent the Church in the contemporary struggle with secular power. On a more personal level, the image of Thomas as transformed human being held out to laypeople and clerics alike the hope that their individual repentance and regeneration were possible. Bonus pastor The image of Becket as bonus pastorwas presented in many phrases in the liturgy; he was the noble protector of the flock, the 'shepherd in the sheepfold' who zealously carried out the ministry entrusted to him. The message was intensified through the choice of the scriptural reading in Lesson 7: John 10 (w. 11-16), T am the good shepherd,' which was followed by a homily taken from the writings of Gregory the Great that expands upon the scriptural theme. This emphasis on Thomas's pastoral role was intended to provide a pattern of action for the clergymen who would perform and hear the liturgy. They were urged to care responsibly for those who were dependent upon them, and not to shirk from the ultimate sacrifice, the pattern of goodness in which 'the Good Shepherd laid down his life for his sheep.' Defender of the Church

The office texts stress again and again the strength and heroic courage exhibited by Thomas in the struggle between the Church and the encroaching demands of the king. As 'defender of the rights of the Church,'

Introduction

7

the image of Thomas was promulgated by the Church and spread far beyond the confines of the English kingdom. It held great appeal for prelates in many European nations as they faced similar demands from their rulers. The pope, in mandating the celebration of Becket's feast day throughout all of Christendom, fostered this vision of the strong churchman who devoted his energy and ultimately his life to the cause of the Church. This undoubtedly became a primary reason for the widespread popularity of the cult as witnessed throughout Europe during the following centuries. Martyr The vision of ultimate sacrifice in defence of religious principle contributed much impetus to the growth of Becket's cult. The dramatic images of Becket's martyrdom as portrayed in the office, in the antiphons and responsories as well as the lessons, heightened the emotional experience of the liturgy in both secular and monastic services. The Canterbury martyr gave his life for the liberty of the Church, and he did so with willingness coupled with courage and fortitude. Miracle-worker

It was the image of Becket as healer and miracle-worker that provided the greatest impetus to the growth of the cult among lay people. As word of his miracles spread rapidly soon after the martyrdom, individuals from all dimensions of medieval life began to flock to his tomb seeking the healing powers of the saint. In the liturgy for Becket's feast day the third nocturn describes and emphasizes this aspect of the martyr's power. Thomas was able to heal the blind, the lame, the feverish, and those afflicted with leprosy - all miracles that have biblical echoes. In addition, the author of the office pointed to miracles that extended beyond the topoi established in the early centuries of the Church, and included miraculous acts that pertained to Thomas alone. Becket as a Type of Christ

The image constructed by the biographers and the author of the texts of the offices emphasized the conformity of Thomas to the example of Christ. There are numerous references to scripture, likening the Canterbury martyr to Christ. Indeed, the author of the most important office for Becket, Benedict of Peterborough, stated that it would be difficult to

8

Introduction

find a passion of any other martyr that compares so closely to the Lord's. The biographers were careful to point out that Becket died at the sacred time of the nativity of our Lord, and the description of his death echoes in many ways the biblical account of the death of the Lamb of God. Methodology

The idealized portrait of Thomas Becket presented in the liturgy has been stripped of all contradictory elements; the accounts of his life and martyrdom were designed by the authors to form a model for both clergy and laypeople; objective evaluation of his personality and his relationship to the world around him had no place. I have not intended, in this study, to demonstrate the ways in which Becket may or may not have differed from this image, but rather have sought to show how the image was drawn from biographical materials created by his close associates, and how it may be viewed within the political context of Thomas's struggle with Henry II. The biography of the saint presented in the liturgy is, of necessity, abbreviated. As the text of the first lesson states, 'Since we cannot recollect the outstanding features of the entirety of his life and way of living, may this brief sermon summarize the mode and cause of his suffering.' Presumably the listeners during the first few decades would have been aware of the 'larger picture,' and many participants in the centuries to follow were familiar with the political circumstances that led to the martyrdom; hence, a more complete frame of reference would have been part of the medieval experience of hearing the office. Although the Becket legend is widely known today, its twenty-first-century form is in some ways quite removed from the intentions of the creators of the Becket office. For this reason the first part of this study will juxtapose the liturgical account with historical sources drawn from Becket's contemporaneous biographers. To provide context, general historical details have been taken from recent biographies of the saint, most notably those by Frank Barlow and David Knowles. This information will amplify the brief references in the office texts, demonstrating, for example, the larger issues at stake in the quarrel between Henry II and Becket, the circumstances of Thomas's exile, and the intervention by the pope and the king of France. What emerges from this process is a brief biography of the Canterbury martyr based on the liturgy, which will prepare the reader for a more complete appreciation of the offices presented in part 2 of this study.

Introduction

9

Chapter i discusses Becket's parentage, early life, and career as royal chancellor, and demonstrates the development of his close relationship with Henry II. His appointment as archbishop of Canterbury, and the change of character that distinguished his subsequent behaviour, are presented in chapter 2. This chapter also analyses the issues of contention between Becket and the king that led to the archbishop's exile and eventual martyrdom. Chapter 3 recounts Becket's activities during his exile in France, and delineates the attitudes of his supporters, including Pope Alexander III and King Louis VII of France. The fourth chapter presents an account of the archbishop's return to England, his encounter with the knights, and his subsequent murder. Chapter 5 describes the miracles that began to occur soon after Becket's martyrdom, and relates several accounts of miraculous occurrences. It includes a discussion of the miracle-working water that contained tiny amounts of the martyr's blood. Chapter 6 of the book deals with the spread of the cult of Becket. While it contains information about the use of the liturgy in various areas of Europe, it also discusses artistic images of Becket, as well as the founding of chapels, churches, and hospitals. One section is devoted to the patronage of the daughters of Henry II for the cult of Becket, demonstrating one path by which the cult spread. Chapters 7 and 8, which present the editions of the offices, are accompanied by commentary that analyses the texts and the music. Because of the variety of sources, both manuscript and printed, the orthography varies; the editors of the printed breviaries from Hereford, York, and Hyde Abbey chose to retain medieval spelling, whereas the editors of Analecta Hymnica and the printed Sarum Breviary decided to use classical Latin spelling. In this study of the liturgies classical spelling has been altered to provide consistent spelling in medieval style. Minor scribal errors are indicated by [ ]? and missing letters have been added in brackets. Every attempt has been made to ensure that these chapters will be accessible to the general reader, and that they will provide an enhanced appreciation of the beauty surrounding the liturgy for Thomas Becket. Becket's Biographers Most of the biographers of Becket were from his immediate circle of clerical associates; hence, their works have significant historical value because the writers knew Becket well and had worked for him. The

io

Introduction

following list of the most important biographers is given in chronological order, insofar as it is possible to ascertain individual dates. The number of the relevant volumes in Rolls Series 67, Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. James Craigie Robertson (Mats.), follows the individual citations. John of Salisbury was a famous scholar who eventually became bishop of Chartres. He had served both Archbishop Theobald and Thomas as clerk, and was a close friend and adviser of the latter. He was present at the martyrdom, though he hid behind the altar during the murder. He described the events in a letter written soon after the martyrdom, and it formed the last part of the Vita written soon thereafter (early nyi). 3 (Mats. 2: 30iff.). Passages from John's vita were used as the lessons in the Becket office found in the Hyde Abbey Breviary. Edward Grim, a clerk from Cambridge, joined Becket on his return from exile, and conducted himself heroically at the martyrdom, receiving a deep wound in his arm as he tried to shield the archbishop. His vita was written between 1171 and 1172 (Mats. 2: 353ff.). Benedict of Peterborough was a monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, who became prior in 1175 and abbot of Peterborough in 1177. He was in the cathedral at the time of the martyrdom. Benedict compiled a collection of miracles in addition to a lost Passio (1173-4), and was the author of the most famous and widely celebrated of the Becket offices, Studens livor(Mats. 2: iff.). William of Canterbury, also a monk of Christ Church, was present at the martyrdom until blows began to be struck. He assisted Benedict from 1172 in collecting and editing the miracle accounts. He also wrote a vita, probably in 1173-4 (Mats. i). William fitzStephen was Thomas's clerk and friend. He was present at the murder, and wrote his vita of the archbishop between 1173 and 1174 (Mate. 3: iff.). Guernes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence was a vagrant clerk who visited Canterbury before 1174 in order to gain first-hand information about Becket for a vita in French verse. He wrote two versions, of which only the second is extant (edition by E. Walberg, Lund, 1922, and translation by Janet Shirley, Felinfach, 1975). Alan of Tewkesbury was an English master who became prior of Canterbury about 1177 and abbot of Tewkesbury in 1186. His most important work was his collection of the Becket correspondence (Mats. 2:299ff.)Herbert of Bosham was a theologian and scholar who was one of

Introduction

ll

Thomas's closest friends and counsellors. His account of the exile was the most complete of all the biographers, since he was with the archbishop during the entire period. His vita was written later than the others, in 1184-6 (Mats. 3: I55ff.). Thomas Saga Erkibyskups began as a translation of a vita by a canon of Cirencester, Robert of Cricklade, now lost. Subsequent Icelandic versions were expanded with works drawn from the other biographers, including the Vita by John of Salisbury and several of the miracle accounts taken from Benedict. The Saga has been edited by E. Magnusson (Rolls Series 65, 2 vols.). The biographer known as Anonymous I has been identified by some writers as Roger, a monk of Pontigny, but there is no strong evidence for this opinion. His Life, probably written in 1176-7, was derived from the works of several of the other biographers; it is printed in Mats. 4: iff. Anonymous IV is the author of a Passio of St Thomas, printed in Mats. 4: i86ff. Anonymous X is also credited with a Passio, Mats. 4: 43iff. The work reflects the writings of several of the biographers, especially the Life of Edward Grim. I have made use of the works of all of these men in this study of the offices for Becket, drawing upon details that pertain directly to the vitae as presented in the liturgies. The Liturgies: Structure and Terminology The liturgies for Thomas Becket, which occurred in both secular and monastic contexts, were composed shortly after his canonization (1173). These consisted of a mass and several different offices;4 three were composed for use in services held on his feast day, 29 December, the anniversary of his murder, and were adopted into various monastic and secular observances;5 one commemorated the regressio, Becket's return to England following his six-year exile; and two were celebrated on 7 July, honouring the translation of his remains to a newly constructed shrine at the eastern end of Canterbury Cathedral in the year 122O.() The wide dissemination of manuscript sources indicates that the offices for the Canterbury martyr were among the most favoured in medieval Europe. 7 It seems probable that the popularity of the office was a result of the charismatic personal appeal of the Canterbury martyr, as well as the political significance of his struggle with Henry II. The offices composed for Becket conform to, indeed exemplify, the hagiographical purpose of the 'rhymed office,' 'versified office,' or historia8

12

Introduction

of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which was to provide a vehicle for presenting vitaeof the saints. In three large sections, known as nocturns, the lessons, which were recited in prose, recounted the legend of the saint, while the musical portions, identified as antiphons and responsories, commented upon, or celebrated, the same actions. Thus, the latemedieval office became an important outlet for creative musical and poetic activity, since it consisted of poetry added to the liturgy; most of the musical sections (the antiphons and responsories) were settings of verse.9 The general term 'Divine Office' refers to the continuous cycle of daily prayer and sacred reading that is intrinsic to the life of the Church. Mandated by the Rule of Saint Benedict, the eight 'hours' of the day set aside for worship consist of Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. Of these, Matins and Lauds are the most important musically, and thus form the central focus of this study. There are two forms of the Divine Office: the monastic cursus is used in monastic communities, especially those that follow the Benedictine Rule, and the secular, or Roman, cursus is found in cathedrals, secular or parochial churches, and some monastic orders, such as the friars and canons. Both forms of the office, which are found in service books known as breviaries, are presented in this study: the monastic office is represented by the edition in chapter 7 based on the notated Cluniac Breviary/Missal from the priory of St Pancras at Lewes, in Sussex, England, and by the Hyde Abbey Breviary, a service book from the monastery known as Hyde Abbey. The secular office is found in the Sarum Breviary, which documents the services celebrated at Salisbury Cathedral, in southwestern England; the liturgical practice, or use, of Salisbury, known as Sarum Use, was widely disseminated throughout England and the Continent, as will be discussed below. Also represented are the breviaries of Hereford Cathedral (western England) and York Cathedral (northern England). In both versions of the office the Matins service consists of three large sections, known as nocturns. In the monastic cursus there are six antiphons (with psalms) and four lessons (with responsories) in the first two nocturns, and one antiphon (with canticle) and four lessons (with responsories) in the third. In the secular cursus there are only three antiphons (with psalms), three lessons, and three responsories in each nocturn. In the Thomas offices the secular version is adapted from the monastic office, but obviously uses fewer antiphons and responsories. The lessons are not necessarily condensed; indeed, as will

introduction

13

Table 1 Structure of matins and lauds in the Thomas office SECULAR

MONASTIC Matins

Invitatory: Antiphon with Psalm Hymn

Invitatory: Antiphon with Psalm Hymn Nocturn One

Antiphon 1 with Psalm Antiphon 2 with Psalm Antiphon 3 with Psalm

Antiphon 1 with Psalm Antiphon 2 with Psalm Antiphon 3 with Psalm Antiphon 4 with Psalm Antiphon 5 with Psalm Antiphon 6 with Psalm Versicle with Response Lesson 1 with Responsory 1 Lesson 2 with Responsory 2 Lesson 3 with Responsory 3 Lesson 4 with Responsory 4 Gloria Patri

Versicle with Response Lesson 1 with Responsory 1 Lesson 2 with Responsory 2 Lesson 3 with Responsory 3 Gloria Patri Nocturn Two Antiphon 4 with Psalm Antiphon 5 with Psalm Antiphon 6 with Psalm

Antiphon 7 with Psalm Antiphon 8 with Psalm Antiphon 9 with Psalm Antiphon 1 0 with Psalm Antiphon 11 with Psalm Antiphon 12 with Psalm Lesson 5 with Responsory 5 Lesson 6 with Responsory 6 Lesson 7 with Responsory 7 Lesson 8 with Responsory 8

Lesson 4 with Responsory 4 Lesson 5 with Responsory 5 Lesson 6 with Responsory 6 Nocturn Three Antiphon 7 with Psalm Antiphon 8 with Psalm Antiphon 9 with Psalm Versicle with Response Lesson 7 with Responsory 7 Lesson 8 with Responsory 8 Lesson 9 with Responsory 9

Antiphon with Canticle

Versicle with Response Lesson 9 with Responsory 9 Lesson 1 0 with Responsory 1 0 Lesson 1 1 with Responsory 1 1 Lesson 1 2 with Responsory 1 2 Lauds Antiphon 1 with Psalm Antiphon 2 with Psalm Antiphon 3 with Psalm

Antiphon 1 with Psalm Antiphon 2 with Psalm Antiphon 3 with Psalm

14

introduction

Table 1 (concluded) SECULAR

MONASTIC Antiphon 4 with Psalm Antiphon 5 with Psalm Antiphon Antiphon

Antiphon 4 with Psalm Antiphon 5 with Psalm Benedictus Second Vespers

Antiphon Antiphon

be seen in part 2 of this book, the lessons in the Sarum Breviary are much longer than those in the monastic manuscript used to prepare the edition. The accompanying table illustrates in simplified form the structure of the matins and lauds sections of the Thomas office as celebrated within the monastic and secular traditions.10 A reconstruction of either the monastic or the secular version of this office is not a simple matter; many of the manuscripts contain variants in the lesson texts and the music, and an attempt to create a composite version is fraught with problems. Furthermore, much prior knowledge of local liturgical practice was assumed by the medieval compilers of books for use in the office; this situation sends the twenty-first-century scholar on a frustrating search for solutions to many difficult questions. For this reason, rather than attempting to collate materials from many sources, I have chosen to base the edition of Studens livor on one source from the Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 369 (the Cluniac Breviary/Missal from Lewes), and the office for the Translation on a manuscript from the British Library, Stowe 12 (the Norwich Breviary), with music drawn from British Library Add. MS 28598 (a thirteenth-century breviary from Ely). The ultimate product of these attempts at re-creation represents, at best, versions of these offices that may have been used in one place at one period of time. In spite of the difficulties and lack of certainty, however, an analysis of the office materials does provide much information about the ways in which medieval people venerated an important saint and encapsulates an image of the Canterbury martyr as promulgated by the Church.

Part One

This page intentionally left blank

chapter one

Becket as Royal Chancellor

Thomas, martir sanctissimus Antistes, Cantuarius, Lundoniis oriundus lustis piis parentibus, A primi cui tempore Donis ditatur gracie. Office, Martir Thoma1

The account of Becket's life in all but one of the offices chosen for this study begins with a description of the spiritual transformation that occurred soon after his election as archbishop. The author of the office in the Hyde Abbey Breviary, however, starts Lesson i by recounting Thomas's parentage and his native qualities of intelligence and physical grace. The text consists of passages drawn from the Vita of John of Salisbury, although it not presented in complete form. Unlike many other saints, Thomas's life did not provide examples of miracles performed in childhood, nor ecstatic states of devotion; hence, the author chose to emphasize his qualities of brilliance of intellect, piety, and reverence for the Virgin. The lesson text begins: 'Most blessed Thomas, born in the city of London, [was] the illustrious son of middle-class parents ...'2 In fact, Thomas was born in London on the afternoon of 21 December H20.3 His parents, Matilda and Gilbert, were indeed of the middle class, his father being a prosperous merchant. They were both of Norman ancestry, and the origins of the family were relatively humble, 4 since Thomas's

i8

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

father was the son of either a soldier or a free agricultural tenant. At some point he acquired the surname Beket, which is a diminutive of the French bee, meaning either 'beak' or, commonly in Normandy, 'beck' or 'brook.'5 Whatever the original meaning, it was not an aristocratic surname. Thomas did not, in fact, use the surname, being known as Thomas of London until he attained government and ecclesiastical office, then qualifying his name by archdeacon, chancellor, or archbishop.6 He has, however, become commonly known as Thomas Becket, and that is the name used by recent biographers and scholars of various aspects of his life and career. The frequently used 'a Becket' surname seems to have been a post-Reformation construction, and has been discarded in the recent literature.7 Thomas spent most of the first twenty-five years of his life in London, where he was a member of the capitalist merchant class that participated in the governance process of the city with increasing frequency. It was an age of great opportunity in which, as Thomas was to demonstrate, a young man with intelligence and ambition could amass great wealth or establish an extraordinary career in either the church or the service of the king. Thomas's native abilities were described in the Hyde Abbey Breviary in glowing terms: '[Thomas] was endowed from early adolescence with many kinds of grace. For he was tall in stature, handsome in form, perspicacious in intellect, sweet and witty in speech, and lovable because of the charm of his habits ...'8 This image is also presented in the fourth responsory of another office for Thomas's feast day:9 Thomas, martir sanctissimus, Antistes, Cantuarius, Lundoniis oriundus lustis piis parentibus, A primi cui tempore Donis ditatur grade; V. Erat forma decorus, Perspicax ingenio, Prudens, dulcis eloquio.

Thomas, most sacred martyr, High priest at Canterbury, Born in London Of just and pious parents, From the very first Thomas was enriched by gifts of grace; V. He was noble in form, Perceptive by nature, Modest and sweet in eloquence.10

Lesson 2 in the Hyde Abbey Breviary is even more laudatory in its description of Thomas's intellectual abilities: 'He flourished with such great mental acumen that he was able to solve unusual and difficult questions expertly; he was blessed by God with such a good memory that

Becket as Royal Chancellor

19

he was able to repeat without difficulty, just as often as was necessary, whatever concepts or words he had learned.'11 We know very little about how these abilities were developed during Thomas's childhood. His education included successive periods between 1130 and 1141 in which he was first a boarder at the Augustinian priory at Merton in Surrey, then a pupil at one or more of the London grammar schools, and finally a student at Paris.12 He was not sent to the Augustinian priory at Merton in 1130 as a child oblate. He would have been tonsured, but this, and the subsequent minor orders that he entered, would not have barred his participation in secular activities or prevented him from marrying. It is probable that his father was simply preparing him for a career as a clerk in government or an ecclesiastical establishment, and it is unlikely that Thomas exhibited a calling for the priesthood.' 3 Although aware of Becket's early career in government, the authors of the liturgy were careful to attribute to him one of the inherent characteristics invariably ascribed to a saint: moral excellence. Hence, in addition to praising his native abilities, the lesson in the Hyde Abbey Breviary also provides information about Thomas's religious and spiritual life as a youth, asserting that his pious nature existed from birth: 'At an early age, as he frequently remarked, he learned to fear the Lord from his mother; and he took delight in calling upon the Blessed Virgin as a guide and patron for his life, devoting his entire faith to her, second to Christ. He met beggars publicly in a spirit of generosity, and he assisted them through his actions, so that he was able to say with the blessed Job, "Mercy has grown in me from the beginning, and piety has come with me from my mother's womb."' '4 Thomas studied at Paris around 1140, when he would have come into contact with the leading scholars and disputatores of the age, and may have studied under Robert of Melun. There is no indication, however, that he was in any sense a stellar student; indeed, his biographers are alternately apologetic and forgiving about his lack of success at Paris.15 Several explain that his schooling was cut short by family financial reverses or by the death of his parents, while Herbert of Bosham thinks he was not applying himself to his studies with diligence.16 In any case, Thomas evidently returned to London about the time of his twenty-first birthday (21 December 1141). The future archbishop's education, though limited, would have included the standard curriculum of the seven liberal arts: the trivium - grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic - and the quadrivium- arithmetic, geometry,

20

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

astronomy, and music. Herbert of Bosham makes clear that he had by no means mastered these subjects, but he was able to succeed, with some specialized training, in all of the positions he held before the archbishopric. His innate gifts, intelligence, and a spectacular memory served him well in his career, which was distinguished by vision and imagination.17 The author of the breviary lesson wishes to emphasize that Thomas devoted himself seriously to the development of the skills he would need at court: 'After studying the liberal disciplines, he devoted himself to the tasks of the court, and he quickly succeeded in both serious and trivial matters as soon as his spirit took them up; in these things he easily excelled over his comrades and contemporaries.'18 Following his return to London after his years in Paris, Thomas began to climb the ladders of preference and patronage. He was attractive and ingratiating, and his courtesy and generosity made him a welcome member of the fashionable society that he frequented. According to his biographers he was somewhat frivolous and given to ostentatious dress, and was very fond of the aristocratic pursuits of hunting and fowling. They took care, however, to emphasize Thomas's absolute truthfulness and chastity in order to substantiate his sterling character, and there seems to be no evidence to contradict their claims.19 By 1146 Thomas was well established as an archiepiscopal clerk in the household of Archbishop Theobold at Canterbury, where he regularly witnessed Theobald's documents as Thomas of London. The archbishop, according to the usual practice, consecrated him deacon as a preliminary step to his promotion to archdeacon.20 The Hyde Abbey Breviary and John of Salisbury claim that Thomas entered the service of Theobold when it became obvious that his true vocation was in clerical orders: 'When he realized that he had the integrity of a cleric above all other qualities, he went to Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury, of blessed memory, and, because of his evident diligence, he was established as archdeacon by the archbishop of the holy church at Canterbury.'21 The experience gained by Thomas in Theobald's household provided him with a breadth of ecclesiastical experience. He became aware of the intricate functioning of Canterbury and the entire English church and, through his diplomatic missions to the papal curia, the Western church at large.22 Thus, when he became archbishop of Canterbury some seven years later, he was well versed in the machinery of his fiefdom.23 The appointment of Thomas as royal chancellor in 1155 was reported by the biographers to be a result of the influence of Theobald, since the

Becket as Royal Chancellor

21

English prelates wanted one of their own men close to the king. The author of the Hyde Abbey Breviary concurs: 'After a short time, when Henry, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, son of Empress Matilda and Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, had succeeded Stephen as king of England, it was negotiated by the aforementioned archbishop [Theobald] that his own archdeacon would be made chancellor of the realm.'24 John of Salisbury and William of Canterbury remark upon Theobald's advocacy of Thomas for the position, providing evidence that the churchman fervently desired that a cleric be highly placed at court. They point out that there was a great deal of anxiety in the Church, because of both the king's youth and the marked hostility of his courtiers towards the rights and liberties of the Church. The Breviary echoes their reasoning: The adolescence of the king was viewed with apprehension by him [Archbishop Theobald] and he feared both the foolishness and maliciousness of the youths and depraved men by whose counsel he seemed to be led. And lest the king, under their influence, transact business with arrogant men, he maintained a chancellor in the regular court, with whose help he might restrain the actions of the new king, so that he [the king] should not fall into an attack against the church of God.'25 As chancellor Thomas was the most important ecclesiastical servant in the royal household; it was his responsibility to administer the scriptorium and the chapel royal, and he was thus in charge of the church services at court as well as the secretariat and the royal archives. He travelled in the royal ambulatory court, and was in frequent contact with the king. According to William fitzStephen, Thomas enjoyed the cooperation of the clergy, earls, and barons, and as a result England prospered and the Church was respected. The influence and importance that the office assumed under Thomas was, in fact, a direct result of the friendship that developed between him and Henry II. No previous chancellor had been anything more than a trusted servant, one without great prominence at court.26 Once Thomas had become established as chancellor, according to all of his biographers, he impressed everyone by the splendour, ostentation, and seeming worldliness of his lifestyle. The king's great wealth seems to have been available to subsidize his activities, and his contemporaries remarked upon the magnificence of his domestic arrangements, the sumptuous quality of his clothing and furnishings, the large number of guests at his table, and his lavish bestowing of alms to the poor. It was thought that Thomas outshone even the king in his splendour. His position in the feudal order gave him the service of at least one hundred knights, and he was even entrusted with the tutelage of the

22

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

king's son and heir, the young Henry.27 Many barons and knights paid homage to him, and among these were three of his murderers: William de Tracy, Reginald fitzUrse, and Hugh de Morville.28 Most of his biographers maintained that the outward display was necessary to provide a camouflage for the piety and integrity of his inner life. They claimed that he was chaste and that he secretly did good works. He was a 'second Joseph at the court of Pharaoh.'29 Several incidents were recounted in order to prove his inner saintliness. The author of the Icelandic Saga related an occurence in which a kinsman who was at the royal court on business decided to consult the chancellor first, and, approaching his lodgings shortly before dawn, passed him prostrate before the doors of a church.30 William fitzStephen claimed that, although the king placed temptation in Thomas's path, he was much too busy with his duties to succumb. He reported that Thomas's confessor said that the chancellor had abstained from sexual activity from the day of his appointment. And Anonymous I wrote that he had learned from men who had been in Thomas's service for more than twenty years, that even when the chancellor was advised by his doctors to indulge in sex for the sake of his health, he refused, believing that sexual intercourse corrupted both the body and the spirit.31 According to fitzStephen, Thomas accepted regular scourging on his back from several clerics while he was chancellor. He may, however, have been antedating the practice in order to establish Thomas's saintly character; he may not have begun such discipline before he became archbishop.32 Several of the biographers drew attention to the dangers and temptations to which Thomas was subject, and the Hyde Abbey Breviary states that 'he was almost overcome by many attacks ... and exposed to various traps in the court by the malice of those living there.'33 It was generally believed, however, that Thomas was to a degree instrumental in the development of the policies of Henry II that resulted in the restoration of order and strong royal government in England.34 Thomas's services to the king were generously rewarded. The office of chancellor was extremely lucrative, attracting gifts of all kinds. In the years before 1154 Thomas had obtained a variety of ecclesiastical benefices that provided him with a substantial basic income, and he shared with other royal servants immunity from various taxes, such as danegeld, scutage, and other fees. He was granted 'pardons' from these liabilities that were recorded on the Pipe Rolls; the amounts entered there for the period 1158-62 indicate that, although he held land in various parts of England, he did not receive vast estates until he became archbishop.35 The custodies that 'Thomas Cancellarius' received from the king were

Becket as Royal Chancellor

23

far more valuable, and included the Tower of London, the castlery of Eye, and the castle or town of Berkhamsted in Hertfordshire. These grants were probably assigned in 1155, and Thomas retained possession until January 1164, when he was dispossessed following the Council of Clarendon.*6 According to Herbert of Bosham, Thomas also received the revenues from the archbishopric following Theobald's death, before he became archbishop, and he seems to have held vacant bishoprics while he was chancellor. Hence, it is evident that Henry granted to Thomas between 1155 and 1162 a series of enormously lucrative custodies for which he was not obligated to report to the royal exchequer. When, in 1164, he was asked to account for the profits, some thirty thousand pounds, he replied that all the money had been spent on behalf of the king. This was probably true, but Thomas could not produce the receipts and warrants for payment. The archbishop was no doubt merely careless, since it was common knowledge that the enormous expenditures had been solely for the benefit of the king. As Barlow points out in his biography, according to the standards of the age Thomas had done nothing wrong. He had not embezzled royal revenues in order to establish a private fortune, nor had he accumulated freeholds, built castles, founded a dynasty, or enriched his family and friends.37 Indeed, it seems evident that his extravagant expenditures served solely to enhance the grandeur of the king, for the splendid image of the servant bore witness to the greatness of the master. Evidence of this is given by one prominent example: Thomas was sent to France to negotiate the engagement of Henry's eldest surviving son, also named Henry, in 1158. William fitzStephen described the magnificent display that was carefully calculated to impress the French king with the wealth of his master. Thomas took with him an entourage of some two hundred men drawn from all ranks, each with his own attendants, and all attired in splendid new livery. The chancellor himself had twentyfour different outfits (perhaps one for each day), mostly made of silk and destined to be distributed as gifts. His bedchamber was hung with sumptuous drapes and tapestries, and he displayed various sorts of furs. In his cavalcade were eighty-five wagons, each drawn by impressive horses. He had, in addition, hounds and hawks of the kinds generally associated with kings and men of great wealth, and each wagon was accompanied by a 'great and terrible' hound capable of overpowering a bear or a lion. Each horse was attended by its own groom, and each groom wore a new tunic and had his own cart and horse. Two of the wagons held casks of beer to provide unusual refreshment for the French. The entourage of

24

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

the chancellor also included twelve packhorses, eight with chests containing his gold and silver plate. The leading animal bore the altar ornaments and service books for use in his chapel. Each horse was led by a handsomely dressed groom and had a monkey on its back.38 When this spectacular cavalcade entered a French village and the dazzled inhabitants learned that this was the entourage of the chancellor of England en route to a conference with their king, they exclaimed, 'What a wonderful king he must be to have such a great chancellor!'39 The embassy was a great success. The English chancellor and the French king competed with one another in the distribution of honours. Thomas presented gifts to the French nobles and more important citizenry; he gave away all of his silver and gold plate, all of his clothing, cloaks, and furs, and many of his horses. And he, in exchange, received the friendship of Louis VII, the French king, an alliance that was to be of supreme importance to him following the quarrel with Henry. Shortly after the successful negotiation Thomas joined Henry in a military exploit to enforce Angevin authority in the south of France, an area that the king claimed by virtue of his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. William fitzStephen remarked that the chancellor took this opportunity to achieve his dreams of military glory; clad in armour and leading his troops, he captured three fortified towns.40 Thomas's extravagance, his pride, and his military exploits were not necessarily viewed as reprehensible by the Church at this time. Even though he was an archdeacon who held several important benefices, he was identified as a curialis, a courtier. Thus, he was a 'secular' clerk, for whom there were more lenient standards of conduct. What did anger the church hierarchy was the king's method of paying for his foreign wars: the imposition, perhaps encouraged by his chancellor, of scutages (an extraordinary tax) on those who owed military service. There had been one exaction in 1156 and the scutage of 1159 was resented even more intensely. Some of the prelates were pardoned from the fee, although it is not evident why. The general sentiment in ecclesiastical circles was that Thomas should have protected the Church from the exaction, and his reputation was severely damaged by this seeming infringement on the privileges of the Church. Even John of Salisbury failed to find an excuse for his actions, and believed that Thomas's future vicissitudes were God's retribution for this crime. Following the martyrdom one of Thomas's former clerks had a discussion with a nobleman, a former enemy of the archbishop, who was remarking upon the number of miracles associated with a man who had, as chancellor,

Becket as Royal Chancellor

25

been against the Church. The clerk, Henry of Houghton, replied that Thomas had suffered seven years of exile and a great number of injuries before his murder; this atoned for his previous transgressions in the same way that the thief on the Cross and St Peter had obtained God's pardon.41 Henry's military exploits were by no means over; in 1161 he and Thomas were again at war, mainly in the Vexin. According to fitzStephen, the chancellor had 700 household knights, another 1200 hired cavalry, and 4000 sergeants under his command. This contingent, led by Thomas, was the most daring and effective in the army. His biographer adds that his feats were so brave and impressive that he earned the respect of the French king and his magnates, 'for courage is honoured even in an enemy,' and the chancellor displayed the most noble virtues.42 Edward Grim was less sanguine about Thomas's military achievements. He reported that Thomas had wiped out entire towns and fortresses, with an incalculable loss of life. He had burned farms and properties without mercy, and had been relentless in his pursuit of enemies of the king.43 Shortly after the campaign of 1161 Thomas became seriously ill, and several of his biographers have suggested that his pursuit of worldly glory began to be curtailed as a result. It was at this time that Archbishop Theobald died, creating a vacancy at Canterbury, and there was a rumour that Henry was considering appointing his friend to the position. When Thomas heard it he replied that he knew no less than three priests he would rather see elevated to the archbishopric, 'For if it should come about that I am promoted, I know the king so well, indeed inside out, that I would either have to lose his favour or, God forbid, neglect my duty to the Almighty.'44 Most biographers have suggested that he was not serious, but it is possible that he was beginning to consider a different career. By 1165-6, according to Herbert of Bosham, Thomas was unusually meritorious, for he had been nurtured in a palace, learning from the great, and had 'thrown all that splendour up for the sweat of pastoral chores.'45 Following Theobald's death it was recorded in the chronicle of the Canterbury monk Gervase that Thomas, archdeacon and royal chancellor, was the most powerful man in England, 'glorious in the sight of all, extremely wise, and admired by everyone for the nobility of his soul.' He was also a formidable force by virtue of his friendship with the king, since he was his deputy, his tutor, and 'almost his master.'46 His close association with the king was undoubtedly one reason that Theobald had

26

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

hoped that Thomas would succeed him. Obviously his predecessor at Canterbury was convinced that the chancellor's influence with the king would be utilized for the benefit of the Church. And Thomas's prestige and power would enable him to protect the see; he could withstand the ambitions of the bishops of York and Winchester, control the suffragan bishops, successfully direct the monks of Canterbury, and preserve the interests of the English church in potential conflicts with a reformed papacy.47 The Hyde Abbey Breviary described the situation thus:' [H]e nevertheless earned such favour in the eyes of the king that, after the death of Archbishop Theobald of the church of Canterbury, [King Henry] appointed Thomas as his successor, so that he might rule the whole English church more easily.'48 After a brief period of indecision, Henry appointed Thomas. As stated in the Breviary, it was generally believed that the king planned to turn his faithful chancellor into his faithful archbishop. This view is reinforced in the next lesson of the office: 'After learning of his bravery and his loyalty in many instances, because of his high position, [King Henry] believed that [Thomas] was highly suitable, and would incline easily to his own wishes, performing everything in ecclesiastical negotiations, as well as secular, according to his own directions. However, [Thomas], as a person who was most experienced and accustomed to judging future events, shrewdly enough understood the danger associated with such an office, since he had learned through long experience what onus and what honour that office held.'49 The Breviary points out that Thomas had misgivings about accepting the appointment, but that he ultimately gave in to the wishes of the king: 'Thus for some time he resisted both the king and other supporters when they were advancing his cause. But divine election prevailed. After Henry of Pisa, the venerable man [who was] priest, cardinal and apostolic legate, advised and urged [him] vehemently, he acquiesced to the desire of the king and the counsel of friends.'50 Henry no doubt expected that Thomas would retain his secular office, and it would enhance his dignity to have an archbishop as chancellor. It was claimed that Henry sought the permission of the pope for the plurality, but we do not know wheuher or not he discussed the issue with Thomas.51 He may have assumed that the plurality would not bother his friend, since he was already such a confirmed pluralist. There has been much speculation as to the motives of the king. He may have had intentions of using the archbishop to further his dynastic schemes; he

Becket as Royal Chancellor

27

was perhaps planning a subordinate government under the aegis of his young son and a council of regents so that he could more effectively govern the vast Angevin empire. Certainly an obvious aim was the recovery of the 'just rights' of the crown, many of which he believed to have been lost or misdirected during the reign of Stephen. He was especially eager to sustain the royal prerogatives against the encroachments of the Church. The English church had, since about 1100, become more independent, more powerful in the direction of its own government, more distinct as a separate order, more assertive, and more self-assured. These changes were not welcomed by Henry II, who demanded obedience from all of his vassals, both lay and ecclesiastical. In fact, bishops still did homage and swore fealty to the king before receiving their lands from him; they were then consecrated by the Church.52 Following Henry's decision to make Thomas archbishop, the bishops and justiciar persuaded the monks at Canterbury to make the formal election of their archdeacon. Their choice was debated at Westminster on 23 May at a council of bishops, abbots and cathedral priors, earls, barons, and royal officials. There seems to have been widespread dismay at the choice, although Gilbert Foliot was the only bishop to register his thoughts publicly. The Hyde Abbey Breviary describes the events in the following way: 'Although some of his rivals at first acted against the counsel of divine dispensation, and tried to prevent the decision, he was, nevertheless, unanimously elected.'53 Interestingly, the York Breviary presents an account of Thomas's election in Lesson i of the office for Thomas's feast day, choosing to 'begin the action' with this phase of the archbishop's career, although clerical dissension is not mentioned: 'Since Archbishop Theobald of blessed memory had gone to rest with his ancestors at a ripe old age, Thomas of Canterbury, archdeacon of the church, was solemnly elected archbishop of Canterbury and was consecrated after a short time.'54 No one doubted that the king's wishes had been forced upon the Church. Herbert of Bosham wrote that 'a man full of vainglory had been transferred from the royal court into the church, contrary to every rule of law, grotesquely and irregularly.' But John of Salisbury was able to comment soon after the martyrdom that 'Thomas had been pre-elected by God to be archbishop and future martyr.' 55 At some point soon after his election to the archbishopric Thomas was relieved of some of his secular obligations. The release is described differently by the various biographers, but the importance lies in the implication that the newly consecrated archbishop was considering

28

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

whether he could continue as chancellor; he was, perhaps, being pushed by the bishops to resign so that a new beginning could be effected. In light of the following events the issue assumes at least a symbolic importance, as Thomas was said to become a 'new man.'56 The Hyde Abbey Breviary reinforces the image: 'Moreover, immediately after he was consecrated, he threw off his old self with his actions and put on a hair shirt, crucifying his flesh in the midst of vice and carnal desires.'57 Thomas was ordained priest at Canterbury on 2 June, and on the following day he was consecrated bishop in his cathedral church.58 Thomas's consecration was a sumptuous ceremony, attended by young Henry (the son and heir of Henry II) and many members of the nobility. He was invested in the presence of fourteen of his suffragan bishops by Henry of Winchester. The only remarkable event in the proceedings occurred when the Scriptures were opened at random, as was the custom, and the unfortunate passage proved to be Matthew 21:19, which contains Christ's cursing of the fig tree: '"Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth forever," and the fig tree withered away.' Following the consecration a group of Thomas's close associates was dispatched to Pope Alexander III to present the customary request for the pallium, the symbol of archiepiscopal authority. The pallium was duly granted, and Thomas, barefoot and prostrate, received this emblem of his papal vicarate; he then lifted it up with his own hands from the high altar of his cathedral before it was placed as a yoke around his neck. He thus entered into the service of the Church.59

chapter two

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury

Summo sacerdocio Thomas sublimatus Est in virum alium subito mutatus. Office, Studens livor}

Novus homo

The construction of Becket's saintly persona was dependent upon establishing the transformation of his character when he became archbishop, and all of Becket's biographers agree that the new prelate, once consecrated, 'put off the chancellor and put on the archbishop.'2 As Herbert of Bosham reiterates, Thomas was not only a new archbishop, he was a newly ordained priest, who would be a new celebrant of the liturgy. He had to accustom himself to a new way of life and master new kinds of duties. The process whereby he entered the episcopal world entailed, according to his associates, his becoming a 'new man.'3 This view was given poetic form in the first antiphon of the Office Martir Thoma: Amore fervens divino Thomas in pontificio Sprevit viam peccancium Legis Dei tenens statum.4

Glowing with divine love, Thomas in his priesthood Rejected the way of sinners, Holding the position of the law of God.

And the first antiphon of Studens livor recounts:

30

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Summo sacerdocio Thomas sublimatus, Est in virum alium subito mutatus. 5

Raised to the highest priestly office, Thomas was suddenly changed into another man.

The Sarum Breviary and the Hereford Breviary describe the change in Thomas's attitude and demeanour in the first lesson: 'Blessed Thomas, just as he had been incomparably energetic in administration in the role of chancellor and archdeacon, so also, after accepting the pastoral office, he became devoted to God beyond human estimation.'6 His transformation was perfectly symbolized by the clothing he wore: next to his skin were a hair shirt and hair breeches, and over these he wore monastic garb, both of which were concealed by the robes of a regular canon.7 The first lesson discusses the secret self-mortification: 'For when consecrated, he was suddenly transformed into another man. He secretly put on a hair shirt and wore hairy breeches reaching to his knees, honourably hiding [the hair garments] under a monastic habit of clerical clothing; he thoroughly compelled the flesh to serve the spirit, eager to please God unceasingly in the practice of all virtues. And recognizing that he was the husbandman placed in the field of the Lord, custodian of the vineyard, shepherd in the sheepfolds, he zealously carried out the ministry entrusted to him.'8 The York Breviary focuses instead upon Thomas's new spiritual state, although the author also refers to the hidden monk's habit. From Lesson 2: 'Advanced [as] the chosen priest of God, [and] anointed with the sanctification of the sacred oil, he took up the substance of the sacrament from the vestige and was filled with the manifold grace of the holy spirit. Walking in the newness of life as a new man, he was changed into another man in whom all things were altered for the better. In this state of grace he sanctified the beginning of his bishopric, so that having clothed himself secretly in a monk's habit he might accomplish the works and good deeds of a monk.' 9 The change is echoed in the antiphons from the first nocturn in Martir Thoma: Dei preventus gracia Occultat vite merita, Thomas indutus clanculo Cuculla cum cilicio.

Thomas, aided by the grace of God, Conceals the merits of his life, Dressed in a cowl with a secret hair shirt.10

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury

31

And in Studens livor: Monachus sub clerico clam ciliciatus Carnis carne forcior edomat conatus.

The monk, secretly hair-shirted under the clothing of a cleric, Stronger than flesh, conquers the stirrings of the flesh.11

A more detailed account, which mentions Thomas's ultimate destiny, is provided in Responsory 1, Sacrat Thomas from the office Martir Thoma: Sacrat Thomas primordia Presulatus cum gracia, Carnem terit cilicio Destinatam martirio, Vita et veste monachus Mores informal arcius. V. Extunc Christo vivere, Christo parere studuit Verbo, affectu et opere.

Thomas consecrates the beginnings Ordained with grace, With a hair shirt he rubs the flesh Destined for martyrdom, By life and clothing a monk, He shapes his habits more strictly. V. He was eager then to live in Christ, To be obedient to Christ In word, emotion, and deed.

Thomas's transformation as novus homo is emphasized in the liturgy not only to establish the change in his life and character, but to demonstrate the possibility for repentance and renewal in any human life, clerical or secular. Although the contemporaneous biographers and the authors of the liturgies refer to the archbishop's immediate assumption of the hair shirt and hair breeches, Thomas may initially have dressed much as before, changing to a dark full-length robe only after the Council of Clarendon in January 1164. This style was generally thought to be unremarkable; it gave him the appearance of a canon regular. His underclothes came as a shock to all except his chaplain and confessor, Robert of Merton, when they were discovered at the time of his burial, but it is probable that these rough garments did not antedate Clarendon or his years of exile and humiliation. 12 The dichotomy between outward appearance and inward austerity was also evident at the archbishop's dinner table. Although Thomas was an extraordinarily generous host, and the food was sumptuous, he himself ate and drank in moderation. Other details of the archbishop's daily habits also indicate a transformation of character and the assumption of

32

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

activities indicative of extreme piety. According to his biographers, Thomas carried out his Maundy duties each day, in contrast to the once-ayear requirement. In the middle of the night, the archbishop, stripped to his hair shirt and stole, secretly washed the feet of thirteen poor men who had been gathered together by his almoner and gave them 4 pence apiece. At dawn his almoner fed and washed the feet of twelve more paupers, and at Tierce two monks tended and fed one hundred of the archbishop's poor 'prebendaries.'13 Following a brief period of sleep Thomas devoted himself to study of the Bible, with Herbert of Bosham as tutor; this instruction was undertaken to remedy the deficiencies in Thomas's earlier training. Additional time was allotted for personal meditation and prayer. The biographers once again stressed the fact that the archbishop eradicated sin from his life. Not only did he give himself to private devotion, he underwent frequent scourging on his bare back.14 Following these preparations Thomas celebrated mass, which, according to the final lesson in the Hyde Abbey Breviary, he conducted most reverently: 'Openly leading a solitary life of penance, he was frequently suffused with tears. When he was engaged with his duties at the altars, he realized that the Lord's suffering was happening as a presence in the flesh. He conducted the divine sacraments most reverently so that his handling might shape the faith and habits of the onlookers.'15 It is interesting to note that the liturgy for Thomas in the Hyde Abbey Breviary ends with this text; the author must have viewed Thomas's most important role as that of pastoral model. After mass Thomas attended to his duties as archbishop, which consisted, among other things, of sitting as judge in the audience chamber, where he heard ecclesiastical cases. Both Herbert of Bosham and John of Salisbury stressed his probity and integrity as a judge, and pointed to his efforts to eradicate all improper fees and bribes.16 The biographers and authors of the liturgy also stressed the change in Thomas's inner life, and emphasized his zeal in adapting himself to the requirements of his new office. They saw the archbishop's quarrel with the king as a direct result of his change in lifestyle; when he began to observe the laws of God in a strict manner, he was compelled to disobey the laws of the king.17 Barlow and other modern historians believe that this interpretation is much too simplistic. Many of Thomas's actions indicate that he was continuing on his worldly path, and that his primary objective was the proper control and organization of the archiepiscopal estates. The inevi-

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury

33

table result was the turning of Thomas's financial and administrative skills from the interests of the king to those of the Church.18 For example, the archbishop, according to William fitzStephen, obtained a royal writ that authorized him to reclaim lands which had been alienated by his predecessors or usurped by laymen. His actions included the revocation of all leases of archiepiscopal demesne; he dismissed the holders and took the estates back into direct exploitation. This was done either to renegotiate the terms of the leases or to ensure against hereditary ownership. In all of these actions the archbishop no doubt had a viable argument; but according to letters and reports, his behaviour was arbitrary. His aggressive policy and the manner of implementation offended the lessees, who argued that he should have proceeded by legal process. In particular, he angered an important royal servant, John the Marshal, whose complaints to the king contributed significantly to the emerging hostility between Henry and Thomas.19 It is evident that the growing tension was heightened by the archbishop's unwillingness to conform to the expectations that the king held when he named Thomas to the see of Canterbury. Henry had anticipated support from his new appointee concerning the reform of certain abuses that he saw as prevalent in the English church, most particularly the question of ecclesiastical justice, and Thomas was adamant in advocating what he viewed as the 'ancient rights' of the Church. The lessons of both the Sarum Breviary and the York Breviary present an image of the archbishop which conforms to the view that Thomas was intrepid in his defence of the Church. From Lesson 1 (Sarum Breviary): He attempted to restore and to recall the laws and privileges of the Church, which public power had usurped for itself, to their due condition. As a result, there arose a serious dispute between him and the king of the English concerning the rights of the Church and the practices of royal power. By a concerted plan, practices were put forward which the king stubbornly demanded be confirmed by the charter of the archbishop and his suffragans. The archbishop refused steadfastly, asserting that in these [provisions] there was a clear subversion of ecclesiastical liberty.*0 The York Breviary, however, gives a different perspective on the problem in Lesson 3:

34

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket So the spiteful enemy regarded the new archbishop as a new man, who was burgeoning with manifold grace. He contrived to implant the burning itch of temptation through which he could suffocate the already rising seed of good deeds. Nor was there any delay until he who separates a man from his own God - a friend from one who is closest - sowed inexorable discord between the king and the archbishop because of certain matters and affairs of state that had been usurped into the precedent of ecclesiastical law.21

It is evident that the author of the lessons in the York Breviary was more sympathetic to Henry than the creator of those in the Sarum Breviary. Here it is the devil (the spiteful enemy who separates a man from his own God) who engenders the division between the king and the archbishop, rather than growing hostility based either upon disappointed expectations or a rational distinction between legal views. Further, the author implies that the Church had usurped secular rights into ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The most rancorous issue between Thomas and Henry was that concerning criminous clerics. It was a generally accepted precept that the Church held the authority to deliver judgment in cases that pertained to religion. Thus, the entirety of the clergy, including men in minor orders, was subject to canon law in both civil and criminal matters. Clerics were to be punished for any kind of sin, crime, or offence according to the precepts of ecclesiastical law, and laypeople were responsible to the Church for infractions of the moral code. In such a system there were, of course, areas of dispute, and in practice the king determined the boundaries. This had been effective during the reign of William I, when the king and the bishops cooperated in the maintenance of authority; in a dispute, however, it was generally accepted that the king's jurisdiction held sway.22 During the weak rule of Stephen, however, there had occurred an extension of power in the areas of ecclesiastical government and jurisdiction. This was due, in part, to the influence of the 'Gregorian' reform of the eleventh century, and to the codification and elucidation of canon law.23 It was evident to Henry II that the old system was threatened, and he was convinced that unlawful encroachment on royal prerogatives had taken place since the death of his grandfather. He resented church courts hearing land cases, and he was threatened by the way in which the Church was exercising its jurisdiction. In addition, he agreed with the many complaints that accused the clergy of exploiting sin as a way to wealth. He also believed that clerks who were guilty of secular crimes

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury

35

were punished too leniently in ecclesiastical courts. Their sentences often included flogging, imprisonment, or mandatory pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which was, in reality, a sentence akin to banishment. But the court could not inflict the 'spilling of blood,' which automatically excluded sentences of blinding, branding, death, or mutilation - punishments that were customarily meted out to the laity. Henry also believed that many clerical criminals escaped punishment altogether through the common method of exculpation, which consisted of denial of the charge on oath, either unsupported or verified by a specified number of witnesses. Since Henry faced the difficult problem of maintaining law and order in his kingdom, he obviously thought it important to convict and then drastically discipline those who broke the law. Unless clerics who were guilty of violent crimes were severely punished, criminal activity would increase.24 The ecclesiastical side of the argument had been eloquently presented by John of Salisbury in his Entheticus (1156-9) and Policraticus (1159), both of which were dedicated to Thomas. In these works John discussed the danger that the Church faced from 'ancient customs,' and pointed out the infringements on ecclesiastical authority that had been perpetrated by tyrannical monarchs, especially King Stephen. John believed, however, that ecclesiastical legal privilege should be extended only to priests; the clergy in minor orders would thus be excluded. It is evident from these writings that the issues had been clearly delineated on both sides before Thomas became archbishop, and he was fully aware of all dimensions of the controversy.25 The central problem consisted in determining how to deal with priests and clerks accused of committing a serious secular crime. The question at issue was whether clerics should be tried and punished in the same manner as the laity. In previous eras the bishops had not generally provided undue protection for criminous clerks who had been summoned to a secular tribunal; many cases were simply ignored. When necessary, clerical orders were taken away from the criminal and he was left to be judged as a layman. Sometimes, especially when the crime consisted of heresy or rebellion against ecclesiastical authority, the churchmen actually encouraged or required the lay power to impose corporal punishment. But by the second half of the twelfth century these practices and attitudes were becoming difficult to sustain. As a result of the growing independence and power of the Church, the clergy was becoming differentiated as a separate order in society; moreover, theologians

36

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

had expressed the view that clerical orders were indelible. In addition, knowledge of canon law was more extensive, and there was much greater administrative efficiency in the ecclesiastical realm. When the royal justiciars began to see 'benefit of clergy' emerging as an effective plea for clerical criminals, they were frustrated and aggravated; furthermore, they saw the number of criminous clerks as increasing dramatically.26 According to Thomas's biographers, the archbishop was involved in some cases that came to the notice of the king. William fitzStephen recounted an incident in which a clerk, who had killed a man in order to rape his daughter, was not allowed by Thomas to be tried in a lay court; in fact, he directed that the clerk be held in the custody of the bishop so that the royal judges would not have access to him. He also protected a clerk who had been arrested for the theft of a silver chalice from one of his own churches in the city of London; but he deprived him of his orders and, to appease the king, had him branded. In another case a priest in the diocese of Salisbury, who had been accused of homicide, was taken before the bishop, Jocelin de Bohun, by royal officials. The accused man denied the charge, but failed in the proof of innocence required by the bishop (he may have made a mistake in the clearing oath or failed to produce the required number of oath helpers). The bishop turned to Thomas for advice as to the proper solution. The archbishop decreed, and this became a rule for the entire province, that in no case should a convicted clerk be sentenced to death or mutilation. The punishment should be the loss of all his ecclesiastical benefices, and he should be incarcerated in a monastery, where he would carry out the required penances. The length of the penalty should depend upon the rank of the offender and the seriousness of the crime. In this case Thomas recommended the maximum sentence, imprisonment for life.27 The archbishop offended Henry in another case, in which Philip de Brois, canon of Bedford and a man of noble lineage, was accused of murdering a knight by the victim's relatives. De Brois had cleared himself of the accusation in the court of his diocese, Lincoln, and the king had assented to the verdict. In 1163, however, a royal itinerant justice, holding an assize at Dunstable, had tried to reopen the case. The canon became angry and hurled invective at the judge, who rode quickly to London to complain to the king. Henry threatened immediate and harsh secular penalties for the crimes, and Thomas proceeded to protect his colleague. It was finally agreed that the archbishop would try de Brois for his offences, and that a council of bishops and barons selected

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury

37

by Henry should act as judges or assessors. De Brois pleaded guilty to the charge of insulting a royal judge, but denied the original charge of homicide, and insisted that he should not be tried a second time for an offence of which he had been acquitted. Both pleas were accepted by the archbishop's court, which sentenced him to the loss of his prebend and all other revenues for two years, with the profits to be given to the poor at the king's direction. The accused was to stand for a public whipping in the presence of the judge he had insulted, and he might possibly be banished for one or two years. The king was infuriated by the leniency of the sentence; here was another case in which a clerical criminal was saved from death because of his ecclesiastical affiliation.28 The issue of clerical punishment was not the only item of contention between the archbishop and the king; Thomas also offended Henry regarding the right of appointments to benefices. Thomas claimed that, as archbishop, he held the right to present the candidates for all vacant churches on the lands of his barons and the convent of Christ Church, and he gave the church of Eynsford (Kent) to a clerk named Lawrence. The lord of the manor, William of Eynsford, objected to the appointment, and he expelled the clerk's associates. The archbishop, without consulting or even informing the king, excommunicated the lord, who, of course, complained to Henry. The king ordered Thomas to absolve William, and the archbishop answered that the king had no right to order him either to absolve or to excommunicate any man. Henry responded that it was, in fact, a royal prerogative that tenants-in-chief should not be excommunicated without his approval. Thomas finally absolved William in order to pacify the king; certainly in Henry's eyes he had usurped an undoubted 'ancient custom.'29 The growing alienation thus centred upon three main grievances: the protection of clerical criminals from proper trial and punishment; the right of appointment to ecclesiastical office; and usurpation of the ancient customs that governed interactions between the royal and the ecclesiastical authorities. These issues were exacerbated by Thomas's supposed betrayal and lack of gratitude toward the king, who felt that he had been deceived. The archbishop's justification for his new allegiance was that he was defending the rights of the Church against evil customs and the abuse, violence, and oppression of secular power. Becket's vision was emphasized and enhanced by the author of the antiphons and responsories of the offices. For example, in order to present Thomas as the defender of the Church, the second antiphon in Martir Thoma asserts:

38

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Verbo potens et actibus, Divine legi deditus, Prevaricantes increpat, Precepta vite intonans.

Strong in word and actions, Devoted to divine law, He rebuked the transgressors, Invoking the precepts of life.

And in the second responsory, Virinvicte: Vir invicte constancie Deo disponens vivere, Se ipsum opponit murum Contra incursus hostium, Ne subvertant ecclesiam Dei, cuius agit causam. V. Qui nee frangi novit minis Nee molliri blandiciis.

A man of unconquered steadfastness, Ordaining to live in God, He placed himself in opposition as a wall, Against the attacks of enemies, Lest they overthrow the church of God, whose cause he pleads. V. He [Thomas] knew neither to be broken by threats, nor softened by blandishments.

Further, in Responsory 3, Instabant modis: Instabant modis variis, Ut ius ecclesie regis Conferrent in arbitrium, Sed Thomas illudens dolum, Adiecit Dei honorem Salvum et suum ordinem. V. O predicanda seculis, O miranda sacerdotis Confessio, Cuius prefulget merito Martirum in numero.

They threatened in various ways In order to confer the right of the church to the authority of the king, But Thomas, ridiculing the treachery, Established the honour of God and his order as secure. V. O preachable to the world, O wonderful Testimony of the priest; By its merit he shines forth In the number of martyrs.

Antiphon 3 in Studens livor borrows imagery from the Bible to present Thomas as the agent of change and renewal (the cultivator of the fields of the Lord), warding off the threats and encroachments of the king and his counsellors (the foxes): Cultor agri Domini tribulos avellit Et vulpes a vineis arcet et expellit.

The cultivator of the field of the Lord removes the thistles, And wards off the foxes and drives them out from the vineyards.

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury

39

The image is extended in Antiphon 4: Nee in agnos sustinet lupos desevire, Nee in hortum olerum vineam transire.

Neither does he allow the wolves to ravage the lambs, Nor the vineyard to turn into a vegetable garden.

During the early part of his tenure as archbishop, Thomas had the general support of not only his own advisers and group of scholars, but also the bishops and higher clergy. They were in agreement with the principles that Thomas was espousing, and they were anxious not to lose the advantages they had gained during the reign of Stephen.30 In October of 1163 Henry called a council of the Church to Westminster. He aired his grievances concerning criminous clerks, which were heard with a notable lack of sympathy. The king then inquired as to whether the bishops would observe the ancient royal customs of the land. The bishops stood solidly behind Thomas, agreeing to observe them 'saving the rights of their order'; that is, anything that could be shown to be contrary to canon law was excluded from their consent.31 Henry immediately retaliated by removing his son from the custody and tutorship of Thomas, and publicly deprived Thomas of all of the castles, honours, and benefices he had held as chancellor. The biographers concurred, however, that matters were still not at an impasse; compromise, given the motivation, was still possible. But a bitter and defiant archbishop and a revengeful king could not come to terms.32 The Council of Clarendon

In early 1164 Henry summoned a council of the higher clergy, major barons, and royal officials to Clarendon. He demanded that all the bishops give their absolute and unconditional agreement to the ancient royal customs observed by Henry I and his barons. This uncompromising demand was greeted with resistance, and Thomas was reluctant to respond. The king was enraged, and made threatening remarks. Several earls and knights encouraged the archbishop to compromise for the general good of the Church. Although it was later claimed by Gilbert Foliot that the bishops agreed with Thomas's principles concerning ecclesiastical rights, it is unlikely that they gave him much comfort or active support. The barons appear to have been entirely hostile. Ulti-

4O

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

mately, the archbishop gave way; as Foliot was to remark later, 'Only the leader fled the field.' Several of the biographers thought that Thomas yielded because he feared imprisonment or death. Whatever the psychological motivation, Thomas declared in the hearing of the conclave that he would observe the laws and customs of the kingdom in good faith. Furthermore, he ordered the other bishops to make the same pledge, which Henry required, and they complied.33 Thomas was terribly distressed by the reality that he had capitulated. He left Clarendon in a mood of deep depression, and within a few days he wrote to the pope begging for absolution for his sin of disloyalty. He then refrained from service at the altar for forty days, until the document granting papal absolution arrived from Sens, where the pope was in residence.34 His biographers agreed that he had been wrong in yielding to the demands of the king, but in retrospect they interpreted this incident in the archbishop's life as a fall that would enable him to rise again. He was likened to St Peter who had denied Christ, or David who had committed adultery and murder. It may well be that Thomas began wearing the hair shirt and hair breeches at this point, although most of the biographers place his change of demeanour and garments earlier in his episcopate.35 Henry began to harass Thomas in every way available to him. Ultimately he used a feudal case and then a financial suit to totally discredit him. Called to a council at Northampton, the archbishop was first accused of failing to attend a feudal court when summoned by the king. The assembled barons and bishops found the archbishop to be in the wrong, and the imposed penalty was the forfeiture of all of his movable possessions at the mercy of the king.36 Thomas was forced to accept the verdict by the unanimous pressure of the bishops, who were willing to stand surety for the fine; they no doubt expected that it would be commuted to a reasonable monetary payment, as was customary in such cases.37 The judgment was ultimately reversed by the pope on the grounds that a superior should not be judged by his subordinates, and that the church should not suffer a loss through the actions of an individual. Furthermore, the sentence of confiscation of all movable property was contrary to justice and ecclesiastical custom, especially since the archbishop did not possess any goods beyond those which belonged to the Church. Henry persevered in his harassment of the archbishop, and began to address a series of complaints that dealt with such issues as Thomas's failure to repay royal loans, his retention of royal revenues while serving

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury

41

as chancellor, and the contempt shown by his failure to comply with the provisions of the oath he had sworn at Clarendon.38 Thomas claimed that all of the profits had been spent on the king's business and with the consent of the king. In addition, all claims that might have been lodged against him as chancellor had been annulled before his consecration as archbishop. It was obvious to everyone that the king, by this time, intended to humiliate and ruin the archbishop; many believed that Henry was aiming at Thomas's arrest, and there were rumours of penalties of greater severity.39 The archbishop was warned that the king was contemplating either imprisonment or death, and there were rumours that some of the courtiers were threatening to kill him. The king had no doubt made some rash remarks, as he was to do at Christmas 1170. Still, it would have been unheard of for an archbishop to have been imprisoned by the secular authorities, especially on a questionable secular charge, and entirely out of the realm of possibility for an archbishop to have been sentenced to death by the king's court. Henry certainly had no intention at this time of going beyond threats, but Thomas believed the rumours, and he began to formulate plans to escape to the Continent. Although the contemporaneous biographers were not eyewitnesses to the final decisions of the council, they assumed that the Constitutions of Clarendon were invoked and Thomas was condemned for violating his oath. This would have made him guilty of perjury and treason, and a sentence of imprisonment would have been justifiable. This was probably the judgment of the barons,40 and it is likely that the bishops made every effort to escape further involvement. Henry ultimately agreed to a bipartite procedure; the bishops would appeal to the pope against Thomas on the grounds of his perjury, and would attempt to persuade Alexander to depose him.41 When they presented their case to Thomas he accepted it, but justified his behaviour by saying that he had accepted nothing at Clarendon beyond the dictates of his own conscience. When the barons approached him, however, Thomas refused to accept their judgment. He claimed that he had been summoned to court to answer only the charges relative to the case of John the Marshal; there had been no formal charge in any other case; furthermore, barons were incompetent to judge an archbishop. Thomas stalked out of the chamber and passed through the hall to jibes of 'perjurer' and 'traitor.' He and his entourage managed to escape from the castle and rode to St Andrew's.

42

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

The trial had come to a turbulent conclusion. Each of the protagonists had his own point of view of the situation; the king believed that the ungrateful archbishop had been tried for financial embezzlement while in royal service, and had refused to produce his accounts; he had, therefore, been justly found guilty. Hence, he was a convicted criminal running from the authorities. Thomas was outraged by the humiliating treatment that had been meted out to him as Archbishop of Canterbury; he had been tried as a layman, judged, persecuted, and condemned by those who sought to destroy the liberties of the Church by invoking evil customs that they viewed an 'ancestral.' He was, indeed, a martyr for the Church.*2 Although Henry proclaimed that no one was to cause any harm to Thomas, rumours of violence were intense; Thomas asked for a safe conduct for his journey from court, and when Henry replied that he would consider the matter on the next day, the archbishop concluded that he must put into effect the escape plan he had formulated. With a small group of companions Thomas rode to Lincoln, and from there to the archiepiscopal port at Eastry. Before dawn on the second of November he embarked for France, arriving that afternoon at Oye, not far from Dunkirk; in a short time he was on the road to Sens,43 where he intended to present his case to the pope in person. The York Breviary describes the trial at Northampton and the escape into exile in the following way: Summoned to the court at Northampton regarding his compliance with certain customary laws of the king, he said he would not give a covenant because [the laws] stood in the way of truth and reason. On the basis of his own authority, which was opposed - or rather exposed - to legal action, he threatened a pronouncement that would protect ecclesiastical freedom. Scarcely anyone could be found who would support him when he spoke, and everything turned out badly. Delay protracted the danger once the pronouncement of his crime had been made; thus, he withdrew secretly, departed by sea, accompanied by a few men, and crossed the channel.44 And the Sarum Breviary recounts: He was abused with great insults, weakened by graver misfortunes, and wounded with innumerable injuries. At last, when he was threatened with death, inasmuch as the case of the Church had not yet become fully known,

Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury and because the persecution appeared to be directed against him personally, he decided that he should yield to ill-will. Driven therefore into exile, he was honourably supported by Pope Alexander at Sens, and he was recommended enthusiastically to the monastery at Pontigny.45

43

chapter three

Becket in Exile

Exulat vir optimus sacer et insignis Ne cedat ecclesie dignitas indignis. Office, Studens livor1

When the archbishop and his small group of companions arrived at Oye they were no doubt tired, dishevelled, and uncertain of their welcome; fear of being captured by representatives dispatched by the English king added to their uneasiness. They rested at Gravelines, and set off the next day for St Orner, where they would stop on the way to Sens. The situation was complicated by the arrival of an embassy from Henry, sent to the same princes whose protection Thomas sought: the count of Flanders, the king of France, and the pope. The king's envoys were following a more southerly route to St Omer, and thence to Sens, and both parties wished to avoid an encounter. The archbishop delayed his journey and then followed the royal embassy cautiously.2 Thomas had chosen the Benedictine abbey of St Berlin's at St Omer as the place to meet his supporters; Herbert of Bosham was already there, having brought from Canterbury a few silver vases and one hundred marks in cash as provision for the journey. In order to avoid encountering the messengers from the king, Thomas waited at the Cistercian abbey of Clairmarais, and then in a hermitage nearby.3 When it became known that the count of Flanders had given an equivocal response to the request for the archbishop's safe conduct through the area, Thomas left at once for Soissons. He assigned Herbert of Bosham and one other of his men to follow the royal embassy and to report on their activities.4

Becket in Exile

45

When Henry's emissaries met the French king at Compiegne, northeast of Paris, they asked him not to give asylum to 'the former archbishop.' They reminded Louis that the recent peace treaty between France and England had contained a provision stipulating that neither would harbour the enemies of the other, and had provided for the extradition of fugitives from justice. Louis, however, was evasive in his response, and instead of writing to the pope on behalf of Henry, as the embassy requested, he wrote in support of Thomas. On the following day Herbert was received by Louis; he informed the king of the archbishop's situation, and obtained a safe conduct for him. The French king, moreover, travelled to Soissons to meet Thomas, assuring him of his support and offering him financial assistance during his exile.5 Matters were obviously improving, but Thomas needed, above all, the favour of the pope and curia. Henry had requested through his ambassadors that the pope order Thomas to return to England; he also asked that legates be sent there with power to hear and judge the appeals and counter-appeals that had been discussed at Northampton. In return the king offered to increase the amount of Peter's Pence, England's annual gift to the pope. The envoys also dispensed bribes to the cardinals.6 The pope, after hearing the requests of Henry's embassy, refused to entrust final judgment to legates. Herbert wrote that the pontiff said he could not make a final judgment except in Thomas's presence, and after he had heard the archbishop's side of the argument. The English dignitaries returned home, dispatching the dean of Waltham to watch the proceedings at Sens between the pope and the archbishop on behalf of the king.7 When Thomas arrived at Sens he was met by a large group of the cardinals, who rode out to greet him, and he was received warmly by Pope Alexander, who rose and took him in his arms. His formal audience, scheduled for the next day, was held privately in the papal chamber, and Thomas, who undertook his own defence, evidently performed in a convincing way. The archbishop presented the pope with a copy of the Constitutions of Clarendon, which he declared to be the cause of his exile. He confessed that he had sinned by agreeing to them. He then discussed the document with the pope clause by clause, revealing the improbity and evil nature of each. Henry was represented by William of Pavia. At the end of the long and exhausting session the pope gave his opinion, declaring that none of the laws was good, but some were permissible. Others he decreed to be directly contrary to canon law, and these must be censured. Unfortunately, these judgments were never put

46

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

into writing. Thomas, however, considered himself, after this interview, to have been absolved of any sins or improprieties he had committed as archbishop.8 The interview between Thomas and the pope was described thus in the York Breviary: 'The most blessed pope Alexander arrived, for he had come to France for that season. [Thomas], just as he had previously proposed certain items for negotiation, carefully explained about the safety of his soul, and then about the oppressions of the Church, which he had undertaken to govern. And after the father and universal pastor understood the situation of his fellow bishop in its entirety, he gave thanks that such a great and distinguished pillar had been erected in the house of the Lord.'9 Thomas had not lost his case; indeed, he had gained obvious and important support. He had retained his title and his office, but he could not return to Canterbury until either he gave in or Henry pardoned him or died; he thus prepared for a long exile. As the antiphon in the office Studens livor tells us: Exulatvir optimus sacer et insignis Ne cedat ecclesie dignitas indignis.

The remarkable man, holy and glorious, goes into exile, Lest the dignity of the Church yield to the unworthy.

In discussions with the pope and curia Thomas had said that he favoured the houses of the Cistercian order, in particular Pontigny, which was situated in Burgundy, some 55 kilometres south-east of Sens.10 The pope persuaded the monks at Pontigny to accept Thomas and a small household; they were given lodgings within the monastic compound, which was, according to Herbert of Bosham, 'lonely in a wooded solitude between the monks and the stones.'11 Alan of Tewkesbury wrote that the pope intended that the experience at Pontigny would introduce Thomas to the monastic life. Remarking that the archbishop was accustomed to sumptuous surroundings, Alexander said that Thomas would 'learn what he ought to be - the comforter of the poor - a lesson which can only be learned from poverty herself, the mother of religion.' Thomas was to live in simplicity, 'as befits an exile and an athlete of Christ.'12 When Henry learned that his embassy to the pope had failed, he began to take revenge on Thomas and his supporters. He mandated the expropriation of all of the archbishop's possessions and the forfeiture of

Becket in Exile

47

the archbishopric. In the opinion of Thomas's defenders, an even more detestable decree was the one that denied any sort of aid to Thomas, even by prayers. Antiphon 6 from Studens livor emphasizes the strength of the archbishop in refusing to bow to this pressure: Exulantis predia preda sunt malignis, Sed in igne positum non exurit ignis.' 3

The manors of the exiled man are spoil for the wicked, But fire does not consume the one placed in the flame.

At Christmas 1164 Henry ordered the confiscation of all the churches and revenues of Thomas's clerks, and the expropriated benefices were put in the custody of several diocesan bishops. Archiepiscopal clerks who were well endowed, such as John of Salisbury and Herbert of Bosham, were seriously damaged.14 Henry also began to demand payment from some of the prelates who had stood surety for the archbishop at Northampton. Some of these men were placed in severe financial straits as a result; Jocelin of Salisbury, for example, had to sell almost all the stock on his demesne manors in order to satisfy the demands of the king.15 William fitzStephen, who remained in England during Becket's exile, gives a detailed description of Henry's actions, reporting that the king ordered the proscription and exile of all of Thomas's relatives and members of his household, both clerics and laypeople, along with their families.16 As the first responsory in the Sarum Breviary recounts: Studens livor Thome supplicio Thome genus damnat exilio. Tota simul exit cognacio. V. Ordo, sexus, etas, condicio, Nullo gaudet hie privilegio.' 7

Malice, eager for the punishment of Thomas, Condemns the family of Thomas to exile. All his relatives go forth together. V. Rank, sex, a e g > status, Here enjoys no exemption.

All appeals to the papal curia were prohibited, in order to repress opposition. On 27 December, Ranulf de Broc and other royal officials

48

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

took possession of the archiepiscopal residence at Lambeth, ordering the arrest of all Thomas's relatives, clerks, and servants and all of those who had assisted in his flight from England. Most of those who were arrested were compelled to take an oath that they would leave England immediately and proceed directly to join the archbishop at Pontigny. The exiled kinspeople included women, children, and servants, clearly entire families; it was generally believed that the numbers were quite large. Not all of the exiles reached Pontigny; some of the proscribed, especially the aged, poor, and sick, were absolved from their oath by the pope, and remained in Flanders. Although Thomas was greatly moved by the plight of these innocent sufferers, he remained steadfast in his resolve.18 Even if the biographers and the author of the Becket office exaggerated their descriptions of pregnant women and those with suckling infants, it is evident that the royal persecution was real and intense. Henry's failure to obtain Thomas's condemnation at Northampton and Sens and the archbishop's escape into exile had caused severe reprisals. The Sarum Breviary describes the persecution in detail: Meanwhile, all the revenues of the archbishop in England were confiscated, all his lands were ravaged, all his possessions pillaged, and by a newly invented form of punishment, Thomas's entire family was outlawed at the same time. All of his friends or companions, or anyone who was associated with him by any title, without consideration of rank, fortune, authority, age, or sex, were exiled equally. Both the aged and the infirm, the babes crying in cradles, and pregnant women were driven into exile. Moreover, as many as had reached adulthood were compelled to swear on holy relics that they, once they had crossed the sea, would present themselves to the archbishop of Canterbury, so that, pierced as many times by the sword of compassion, he might bend his rigid way of thinking toward the will of the king. But the man of God, placing his own hand to brave deeds, steadfastly endured exile, loss, insults and abuse, proscription of his relatives and friends for the name of Christ, and was not broken by any injury. Indeed, so great was the steadfastness of the confessor of Christ that he seemed to teach all of his co-exiles the fact that the whole world is fatherland to the brave.19

The author of the lesson emphasized Thomas's steadfast position, and the poetry of the following responsory intensified the meaning of the lesson, lauding the archbishop's strength: 'No injury weakened Thomas.'

Becket in Exile Thomas manum mittit ad forcia, Spernit damna, spernit opprobria, Nulla Thomam frangit iniuria. V. Clamat cunctis Thome constancia: Omne solum est forti patria.20

49

Thomas puts his hand to bold deeds, He rejects losses, rejects abuse, No injury breaks Thomas. V. The constancy of Thomas cries out to all: The whole world is fatherland to the brave.

In the office Martir Thoma, the fifth antiphon claimed that the archbishop's renown was magnified by the punishment meted out to his relatives and colleagues: Lactencium proscripcio Patris Thome martirio Laudis adauxit titulum, Quo stravit adversarium.^ 1

In the martyrdom of father Thomas, The proscription of the suckling [babes] Increased the renown of his glory By which he overthrew the adversary.

At Pontigny the archbishop adopted a life of ascetic religious observance, study, and the furtherance of his cause through diplomacy. He lived austerely, and it is believed that he petitioned the pope for a monastic habit. Alexander evidently had one made and sent it with his blessing, saying that he had sent as good a habit as he had, 'but not as good as we would have wished.' 22 Alan of Tewkesbury relates an anecdote relative to this occurence that provides some information about Thomas's underclothing, a subject that was to assume great importance in the legend and liturgy of the saint. One of Thomas's clerks disapproved of the thick woollen garment sent by the pope; he thought, in particular, that the hood (caputium) was disproportionately small. He expressed his observation to his master, who replied that the pope sent such a garment so that the archbishop would not be a subject of ridicule, as he had been recently. Thomas went on to explain, The day before yesterday, when I was robing for mass and, with my belt tied, looked rather padded out, you asked how it was that my backside was puffed up. So, if I were to have a great hood hanging down my back causing a protuberance there, you could taunt me with being a hunchback. The pope has providentially spared me from such insults.' 23 As Alan recounted, Thomas wore a hair shirt that

5O

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

stretched from his neck to his knees, the existence of which was not known by even his closest friends. Because of its stiff texture, the hair garment protruded when his belt was tightly drawn.24 His description also implies that the strange garment sent by the pope may have been the black colobium without a hood that Thomas later wore over his hair shirt, and which was identified in 1170 as a monastic cowl by the monks. The abbot of Pontigny supposedly invested Thomas with this garment in a secret ceremony, although none of the biographers claimed that the archbishop took monastic vows. He undoubtedly took part in the monastic life of his hosts, perhaps to the extent of helping them in the fields, but, as Barlow remarks, he seems always to have remained an archbishop in exile, 'a clerk among his clerks.'25 Thomas and his companions remained at Pontigny for almost two years and were to continue in exile for another four. During this period he undertook a serious study of canon law and pursued the epistolary diplomacy that presented his case to the wider world.26 He was battling for his own and Canterbury's privileges as well as for the liberties of the English church and, by extension, the Church as a whole. His campaign engendered considerable sympathy throughout Europe, but particularly in the Gallican church and in the Cistercian order.27 In May of 1166 Thomas sent three letters to Henry, admonishing him for his actions against the Church, and urging him to make reparations. The letters are somewhat conciliatory, although they are replete with warnings in which Becket compares Henry to Old Testament kings who were punished by a vengeful Lord. In one he vowed that he was prepared to serve Henry devotedly and faithfully, excepting only the honour due to God, the Roman church, and his own order. If Henry failed to make peace on these terms, he would surely incur the stern retaliation of Almighty God.28 Thomas was encouraged in his activities by the pope, who granted to him a papal legation and an authorization to punish all those who had injured him and his men with respect to the goods and possessions of his church. In formulating his attack, Thomas decided to travel to Vezelay to pronounce sentence upon his enemies. At die invitation of the abbot, he celebrated the main, public mass on Whit Sunday. He began the sermon eloquently, according to Herbert of Bosham, and then explained the cause of his quarrel with the king, detailing his hardships.29 Then, to the surprise of everyone, he began to proclaim sentences of anamema and

Becket in Exile

51

to excommunicate some of his adversaries by name. He first spoke against the Constitutions of Clarendon, and censured all those who had observed and implemented them. He specifically condemned those clauses that controlled communication with the papal curia, restricted the Church's power of excommunication, and lessened ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Several of Henry's supporters, among them Richard de Lucy and Jocelin de Balliol, were excommunicated for strengthening royal tyranny and creating the constitutions, 'those heretical iniquities'; and the archbishop excommunicated Ranulf de Broc, Hugh de St Clair, and Thomas fitzBernard for expropriating the chattels and possessions of the church of Canterbury. Thomas added that he had not yet pronounced sentence upon Henry, but unless the king reversed his position and rectified his actions, he would do so.30 Henry was not much influenced by Thomas's letters, nor by the rhetoric of the epistolary controversy that surrounded the issues. He was angered by the reports of Thomas's actions at Vezelay, and he was determinedto win in the struggle with the archbishop; therefore, he decided to deprive Thomas of the support that he enjoyed from the Cistercian abbeys of Pontigny, Cercamp, and Rigny. In September 1166 the king complained to the general council at Citeaux, and threatened that unless Thomas was expelled from Pontigny, he would confiscate the holdings of the Cistercians in England and banish them from his realm.31 Following the council, the abbot of Citeaux, accompanied by several of his colleagues, visited Thomas and informed him of the council's decision. The monks felt that Thomas should not be driven out, but they wished him to consider what should be done. Obviously, he would not want to bring injury to the order that had been so generous to him, and toward which he bore such love. The archbishop, after consulting with his associates, bowed to necessity; he would leave Pontigny of his own accord.32 Lesson 3 of the Sarum Breviary described the actions of King Henry in the following way: 'The king, hearing of his steadfast resolution, sent a threatening letter to the general chapter through certain abbots of the Cistercian order; he thus saw to it that Thomas would be driven from Pontigny. Blessed Thomas, however, fearing that holy men were threatened with loss on his account, left of his own accord. But before he retreated he was comforted by a divine revelation: a judgment from heaven was revealed to him, that he would return to his Church with glory, and travel to God by the palm of the martyr.'33

52

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Thomas's associates were growing restless in the isolated atmosphere of the abbey; they encouraged the archbishop to seek residence in a palace or town. Herbert of Bosham suggested that he ask the French king for aid in locating an appropriate place, and he was sent to Louis to make arrangements for the move. Thomas ultimately decided to accept the king's offer of a place at St Columba's abbey, which was located a short distance from the royal and archiepiscopal city of Sens.34 Thomas and his comrades left Pontigny in November 1166; the monks were genuinely grieved at his departure, and he was saddened by the parting.35 The third lesson of the Sarum Breviary credits King Louis of France with great kindness in his support of the archbishop: 'Louis, the most Christian king of the French, received him with the greatest honour when he was driven from Pontigny, and he sustained him most kindly until peace was restored. Moreover, Louis himself was quite often pressed, though to no effect, not to show any kindness to a traitor to the King of the English.'36 The most complete description of Thomas's life at St Columba is that of Edward Grim, writing on the authority of the archbishop's chaplain, Robert of Merton, who shared the archbishop's bedroom. He reported that the archbishop took an active part in the regular monastic horarium and the daily celebration of mass; much time was also given to private prayer. He ate sparingly, and rarely slept, spending the night in prayer in his oratory. At least three times a day, and sometimes five, his chaplain lifted up his hair shirt and flogged him on his bare back until he bled. According to Grim, when the chaplain became tired, Thomas tore at his flesh with his fingernails. And when he lay exhausted on the floor with his neck on a stone, the roughness of his shirt - infested with lice and crawling with vermin - prevented him from sleeping. His shirt and breeches, according to his servant Brown, who used to wash them, were made from the roughest goat hair - the hair of Soissons, forte et dure. The archbishop undertook such extremes of asceticism in order to atone for his faults and to subdue strong passions; he wanted to purify himself so as to be ready to appear before God.37 Thomas's pronouncements at Vezelay had not been ineffectual; those who had been anathematized were not able to disregard the ban, and many feared contamination by association with those who had been named.38 The king also seemed to be seriously upset by the ecclesiastical censures and threats. The archiepiscopal party realized that the royalists were debilitated and on the defensive, and in 1166, when the term for

Becket in Exile

53

the appeals was approaching, it was rumoured that Thomas intended to confirm Henry's excommunication and perhaps place all of England under interdict.39 According to the Sarum Breviary Henry's persecution intensified: The savage furor went further, a cruelty horrible to devout ears. For although the Catholic church prays both for heretics and schismatics and the perfidious Jews, it was forbidden that anyone aid him by the voicing of prayers. Therefore, remaining in exile for six years, he was afflicted by uninterrupted, varied, and innumerable injuries, and like the living stone in the structure of the heavenly edifice, he was squared by all kinds of blows and oppressions; the more he was struck so that he might fall, the more he was proven to stand firm and immovable. For, just as gold cannot be burned when it is so tested, the house founded upon a firm rock cannot be pulled down.'40 Responsory 3 in Studens livor borrows some of the imagery from the lesson: Lapis iste sex ann[isj? tunditur, Sic politur, sic quadrus redditur, Minus cedens quo magis ceditur. V. Aurum fornax probat nee uritur, Domus ventis non quatitur. 4 '

That gem is pounded for six years, Thus it is polished, thus rendered square, Yielding that much less the more it is cut. V. The furnace tests the gold and it is not burned; The solid house is not shaken by winds.

Henry sent an embassy to Rome to plead his case on behalf of England, and in response Thomas sent an emissary to the pope with letters of support from prelates of various European countries. Thomas reminded Alexander of the recent injuries to which he had been subjected by the king: the expulsion of his servants and kinspeople, some of whom had died in exile; the threats to the Cistercian order; and the pressures placed on the Church. Thomas believed that Henry had knowingly invited excommunication through his harsh actions toward the clerks.42 In each of the remaining four years of the archbishop's exile the pope sent a legation to England. The avowed purpose of each was to hear and determine the appeals and counter-appeals made to the papal Curia. But this proved impossible from the beginning, and the real activity of

54

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

the legations became conciliation, the attempt to settle the disputes through compromise. Each side had assumed an intransigent position, and Thomas considered any retreat on Henry's part to be merely a deceitful ruse; progress toward settlement was, therefore, extremely slow. By February of 1170 there was intense pressure on Henry for settlement. He had made concessions concerning all the important points at issue; both his lands and his person were threatened by the spectre of ecclesiastical censure; and there was a general feeling that he was exhibiting extraordinary stubborness in his concentration on unimportant details of the settlement. He did have, however, a measure of support in his tenacious hostility toward the archbishop. None of the bishops in Henry's domains lent active backing to their exiled colleague, and few were secret proponents of the archbishop's cause. Outside of England, however, Thomas was gaining support; powerful prelates such as the archbishop of Sens championed his cause. Furthermore, the longer Thomas persisted in his position, the more his moral stature increased; he was becoming the conscience of the Church. In the autumn of 1170 Pope Alexander referred in a letter to his constant virtue and faith and the strength of spirit and resolution he had shown in defending the cause of his church.43 In die spring of 1170 Henry assembled a great council of nobles, archbishops, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries and announced that he had invited Thomas and his followers to return to England, where all of their possessions would be restored in peace and safety. He claimed, furthermore, that he had banished from his soul all hostility, malice, and resentment against Thomas and his men. All he required in return was that Thomas carry out every service that an archbishop should by rights perform for a king.44 Another matter at issue during this period was the coronation of Henry's eldest son. Everyone knew that the right and privilege to crown and give unction to English monarchs belonged to the Archbishop of Canterbury by ancient custom,45 and further, since young Henry had been part of Thomas's household, a personal dimension was added. Pope Alexander had discussed the matter in two letters (24 and 26 February H7o).46 In the first he ordered Thomas and all other bishops in England not to crown the prince unless he took the traditional coronation oath, with its guarantee of liberty to the Church, particularly the church of Canterbury. He must also promise to release everyone from observing the customs that had been recently introduced by Henry

Becket in Exile

55

II. In the second letter the pope forbade Roger of York or any other English bishop to crown the prince while Thomas was in exile: 'If any of you shall dare to act with such presumption, let him know for certain that the deed will redound to the peril of his order and his office.'47 The securing of his lineage had obviously always been a preoccupation of Henry, but it is unclear why he chose this particular time. The most logical way for Henry to arrange the coronation would have been to make peace with the archbishop and then publicize the ceremony as evidence of their complete reconciliation. His choosing to do the opposite probably did not signal an intention on his part not to settle, but rather to inflict a final wound before the inevitable rapprochement with Thomas. The pope would have heard of the plans for the coronation by the end of April, and in a letter to his commissioners he sent instructions that they should deliver the following message to Henry: he was required, as before, to carry out the terms of peace within forty days, or an interdict would be placed on Henry's continental lands thereafter. Any bishop who did not observe the interdict would be dismissed from office and then, if necessary, excommunicated. The king himself would be excommunicated in person by the pope. This pronouncement from Alexander appeared to be serious, and Thomas regarded the letter as a sign of his victory.48 Thomas, in anticipation of the legates'journey to England, gave them specific instructions, including his precise requirements for the settlement. He insisted upon fulfilment of all the terms, including the 1000 marks owed him by the king as well as the kiss of peace. He provided a schedule of his possessions, which was to be accepted by the king, and he wished some barons and bishops to act as guarantors. Henry's adherence to the terms must be stipulated in royal letters patent, produced in triplicate, with copies to the archbishop, the pope, and the commissioners.49 Thomas had narrowed his demands at the suggestion of the pope. The requirements were now concerned only with the restoration of the offices and possessions of the archbishop and his followers, and with the conditions on which the men who had been excommunicated by Thomas would receive absolution. This limiting of objectives was a tactical move; as the end of the conflict came into sight the archbishop followed the way of the realist more closely. Rumours regarding the planning of the coronation grew, and Thomas

56

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

issued proclamations against taking part in the ceremony. He was faced with the problem, however, of passing the letters through Henry's blockade. There was some doubt as to whether the papal letter of prohibition had, in fact, arrived in England. Some of the bishops, those who took part in the ceremony, must have evaded its delivery.50 The will of the king prevailed, however, and young Henry was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 14 June by Roger of York. He was assisted by the bishops of London, Salisbury, Chester, Rochester, St Asaph, Llandaff, Durham, Bayeux, Evreux, and Sees. Absent were the bishops of Winchester, Norwich, and Worcester. The remaining English sees were vacant at the time. Thomas was dealt a stunning blow by the coronation. Not only had the ancient right of Canterbury been usurped, the event had been supported by the episcopacy of the entire realm. Those bishops who had failed to attend were aged and no doubt excused themselves on the grounds of ill health. Furthermore, Thomas had great affection for young Henry; he certainly must have expected to crown him.51 About a month after the coronation, as a result of the efforts of the pope and the king of France, Henry and Thomas met at Freteval to seek a compromise that would end their rift. At issue were the recent coronation and the treatment of Thomas's associates, in addition to the continuing problems between the ecclesiastical and secular realms. After much discussion, Henry agreed to treat Thomas's enemies as traitors, and offered to allow Thomas to recrown young King Henry and his wife. In addition, the king gave permission for Thomas to discipline the bishops who had been involved in the coronation. Although there is no transcript of the agreement, the king seems to have convinced Thomas of his sincerity. Following his return to England, the archbishop frequently referred to the concessions offered by Henry.52 Thomas may have decided to return to England upon receiving a packet of letters from the Curia that contained Alexander's joyous remarks concerning the settlement at Freteval and his instructions to proceed to England and Canterbury. He probably also advised Thomas to behave with restraint. In addition, the pope confirmed Thomas's legation in England, with everything necessary to implement and safeguard the terms of the peace established at Freteval. If any measure were neglected, an interdict could be placed over the whole of the empire, including the excommunication of anyone except the royal family. Clergy who chose to disregard the interdict were to be placed in a monastery for life. Pope Alexander also gave notice that all those who detained archiepiscopal property were to be excommunicated.53

Becket in Exile

57

The pope's role in the settlement was referred to in the Sarum Breviary, which also mentions the 'good offices' of the king of France: 'Finally, through the good offices of the pope and the king of the French, a period of time was established for the restoration of peace. Because the servant of God did not wish to accept peace except with the honour of God and the integrity of the Church intact, the disagreeing parties withdrew from one another. Finally the pope, taking pity on the desolation of the English church, with purposeful threats, restored with difficulty the peace of the Church. Therefore the kingdoms rejoiced, because the king received the archbishop in grace; some believed that the matter was really settled while others were sceptical.'54 Thomas must have felt that he was secure and protected; certainly the confirmation of his legatine powers gave him confidence. His enemies could be severely punished, but his friends in the papal court had urged him to be forgiving; he should pardon, rather than seek revenge. His victory should be characterized by mercy.55 Accompanied by his retinue, Thomas travelled north to the port of Wissant. While waiting for favourable winds, he received the latest news from England, none of it encouraging. Moreover, he was warned that all English ports were closed and he would be in danger if he crossed. The archbishop, however, would not turn back.56 Most alarming among the reports was the news that opposition to Thomas's return was being organized and led by the archbishop of York, with the assistance of the bishops of London and Salisbury in alliance with royal officials and courtiers, among them Ranulf de Broc. These men would undoubtedly search his person for papal letters and arrest him; Becket told the pope that he feared that they planned to cut off his head.57 At the end of November, probably on the 29th, Thomas dispatched a servant with papal letters imposing sentences on York and the two bishops. The young man managed to avoid the watch, and served the letters personally on the three prelates, disappearing before he could be captured and killed.58 Herbert of Bosham, who was accompanying the archbishop, was informed by the pilot of the ship which had brought the news that they would probably be arrested at Dover, where their enemies had gathered. Herbert told Thomas of the ominous situation, and another of their associates advised Thomas to wait until the agitation provoked by the papal letters subsided. The archbishop then asked Herbert for his opinion, and the clerk replied that they should not retreat from the situation,

58

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

but should return to the kingdom to fight and conquer. Thomas agreed, and gave directions to proceed with the voyage.59 That same night, Monday, 30 November 1170, Thomas and his clerks set sail for Sandwich, an episcopal manor where they might have a chance of eluding the guards and angry bishops. Their passage was calm and they landed unopposed. The archbishop's cross had been raised in the prow of the boat as they approached the harbour, and a crowd of poor people rejoiced at his arrival and prostrated themselves for his blessing.60 The landing took place on Tuesday, 1 December, another of the momentous Tuesdays in Thomas's life. He had been in exile for six years and one month; in three weeks he would celebrate his fiftieth birthday; in four weeks he would claim the palm of the martyr,61 Return to England

Thomas's return to Canterbury was triumphant. In each village on the route from Sandwich the archbishop's party was met with a festive procession led by a priest and given an enthusiastic greeting;62 at Burgate they were welcomed by a procession of chanting Christ Church monks. Thomas removed his boots and finished the journey on foot while the bells rang joyfully.63 When he arrived at the monastery he prostrated himself and then greeted each of his monks with the kiss of peace. Herbert of Bosham recalled that the archbishop's face took on the rosy glow of happiness as he re-entered his see. Herbert felt that it was a day of triumph for the Church and for Jesus Christ.64 This is reflected in Lesson 4 of the Sarum Breviary, where we are told that 'the noble shepherd returned to England in the seventh year of his exile, so that he might either liberate the sheep of Christ from the vicious attacks of wolves, or expend himself on behalf of the flock entrusted to him. He was received, consequently, by the clerics and the people with inestimable joy, as all wept and sang "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."'65 The York Breviary, pointing out in Lesson 6 that Thomas had 'grown into a perfect man' while in exile, related that God arranged the peace so that the archbishop could attain his highest perfection by claiming the palm of the martyr: The most blessed father had happily spent almost six years with his own men, in the course of which he had grown into a perfect man. During that whole time it was not possible to re-establish peace between him and the

Becket in Exile

59

king of the English; rather it seemed to have crumbled. Finally, it was pleasing to God, the arranger of all things, to make compensation to Thomas for his good works, and to bring his lengthy labours to highest perfection with the victorious palm of martyrdom. He changed the intention of the king for the better. Through mediators of the lord pope, as well as through the fatherly admonition of the king of the French, the advice of many bishops, and the suppliant intervention of the princes, once the flame of his anger had subsided, he received the archbishop into grace and granted to him that he might return to his own church. 6()

Several days after his return, Thomas decided to pay his respects to young King Henry, and he set out for Winchester, by way of London. On the third day of his journey he was welcomed by enormous crowds in Southwark, the suburb at the south end of the old wooden London bridge in the diocese of Winchester. William fitzStephen, who was probably in the archbishop's retinue, estimated the crowd at about 3000. Thomas was greeted by a procession from the Augustinian priory, and groups of scholars and London clerks sang Te deum laudamus as he approached. A woman in the crowd kept shouting, 'Archbishop, beware of the knife!' but the sounds of rejoicing overcame her warning.('7 On the following day he received the messengers of the young king, who informed him that Henry would not see him.58 Furthermore, he was to cease visiting royal cities and manors, and must return to Canterbury and remain there. Thomas asked of the king's men how he should conduct the business of his diocese if he were so restricted, and they replied that they were there simply to deliver orders, not to discuss the implications. It seems evident that the king believed that Thomas was intending to make changes in his diocese, especially to repair the effects of his exile, and that the archbishop would use force if necessary. Thomas was travelling with a small bodyguard of five knights, but it was reported to the king that the archbishop was traversing the kingdom with a large army in full armour in order to capture towns and overturn the government of the young king. The reality was that Thomas was simply taking sensible precautions in a dangerous situation. While he was still in London he received a message urging him to return to Canterbury. One or more of his ships had been destroyed by Ranulf de Broc, and the sailors either killed or imprisoned in the castle, the cargo of wine confiscated.*'9 Thomas sent a messenger to the royal court to plead his case and to make protests about the current conditions. His emissary presented

6o

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

various complaints in the archbishop's name: clerks were not being given benefit of clergy, the restoration of the archbishopric, which had been promised at the peace, had not been implemented, and the archbishop's house had been vandalized; the forests had been emptied of game, the trees cut down, the peasants ruined by tallages, the estates pillaged, and the heirs disinherited. Further, Ranulf de Broc had destroyed the archbishop's ships and seized his wine; the archbishop's churches were still occupied by the usurpers; and clerks were being actively restrained from leaving and entering the kingdom. The response given to Thomas's messengers was that his petitions would not be heard as long as he persisted in opposing the king and his barons.70 Disappointed in the outcome, Thomas left for Canterbury. According to the biographers, this could have been no later than 17 or 18 December. The royal government was alarmed by his travelling in defiance of the prohibition, and signs of hostility were growing. As recounted in the Sarum Breviary: 'After a few days he was again subjected to penalties and injuries beyond measure and number, and he was prohibited by public edict from leaving the protection of his church. Anyone who was friendly to him or to any of his family was deemed a public enemy. His spirit was not broken by any of these things, but his hand still reached toward the liberation of the Church. He sighed continually, and because of this situation he kept vigils, fast-days, and prayers; he wished to devote himself fully to the task of securing this [liberation].'71 In spite of the difficulties, Thomas attempted to carry out his spiritual duties as best he could; he continued his pastoral duties at the cathedral, and on Sunday, 20 December, he held an ordination ceremony for monks and clerks of his diocese. On Christmas Eve Thomas celebrated the night Mass and read the lesson text from the first chapter of the Gospel according to St Matthew. On Christmas Day he preached a sermon to the assembled congregation on the text 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will' (Luke 2:14, Vulgate text), which was one of the lessons for the day. In order to prepare for the anathemas he intended to pronounce, he reminded the people of the archbishops who were saints, especially the confessors, and St Aelfheah in particular. 'Soon there will be another martyr,' he is reported to have said. After the usual prayers for the pope and the peace and prosperity of the people, he excommunicated all violators of the rights of his church and agitators in general, naming Robert and Ranulf de Broc, in addition to others. He also announced the sentences that had been previously imposed on the prelates who assisted in the coronation, which Thomas

Becket in Exile

61

considered to be illegal. 'May they all be damned by Jesus Christ,' he shouted as he hurled the flaming candles from the altar to the floor. His intentions were certainly clear to all.72 Henry's court at Bur-le-Roi, near Bayeux, had been discussing what measures should be taken against Thomas. The king undoubtedly made many derogatory and inflammatory remarks about the archbishop, and some reckless and untrue charges were made. During the course of the discussions, probably on Christmas Day, the king uttered the fatal words that Edward Grim reported: 'What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk!'73 This statement provided the impetus for a secret plot to be initiated by four of his knights, William de Tracy, Reginald fitzUrse, Hugh de Morville, and Richard le Bret. The first three, according to fitzStephen, had been Thomas's vassals when he was chancellor. These four conspirators seem to have acted in tandem with an official mission sent to confront and confine the archbishop. Henry II ordered several of his men, led by William de Mandeville, to present an ultimatum to Thomas, and implied that, if he refused to accept its terms, he would be arrested. The result might have been the same if the official delegation had reached Canterbury first, but the archbishop was already dead by the time the king's embassy arrived. De Mandeville told the monks that he had intended to make certain demands to the archbishop that pertained to the king's rights, and, if Thomas had agreed to them, he would have been left in peace. If he had refused, however, he would no doubt have been compelled to yield. Other men in de Mandeville's company told a different story; if the monks had hidden the archbishop, they would have set the monastery on fire so as to smoke out the traitor who deserved execution. Thus, although most people at the time, including Becket's biographers, believed that the king had not given the orders for the murder of the archbishop, he had placed in motion a chain of events that could easily bring about that result.74 The parties split up before or after reaching the French coast. The four conspirators had an easy passage, and arrived at Saltwood on 28 December.75 They spent the night making plans. The stratagem they concocted was to surround the cathedral complex in order to prevent the archbishop's escape; if they could confine him they would be able to apply pressure on him to absolve the bishops, provide pledges of good faith, and, perhaps, prepare to stand trial.

62

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

As the conspirators rode toward Canterbury they gathered other knights; when they entered the city with their small army, they first ordered citizens to take up arms and to join them in surrounding the archiepiscopal palace. When they refused, they were ordered to stay quiet and remain clear of the path of the soldiers.76 Ranulf de Broc retained the command of the encircling force, while the four barons, led by Reginald fitzUrse, with about a dozen knights and some others, including Robert de Broc and a subdeacon, Hugh of Horsea, called Mauclerk (Bad-clerk) proceeded toward the palace to confront the archbishop. 77

chapter four

The Martyrdom

Post sex annos redit vir stabilis, Dare terre teste vas fragilis, Christo vasis thesaurum fictilis. V. Ne sit lupis preda sit humilis, Se pro grege dat pastor nobilis. Office, Studens livor1

December 29, 1170, the last day in the life of Thomas Becket, has been thoroughly described by five eyewitnesses: his clerks John of Salisbury and William fitzStephen, the monks Benedict of Peterborough and William of Canterbury, and the visiting clerk, Edward Grim. Benedict furnishes the most complete description of the interview with the king's barons, and William fitzStephen the aspects of events outside the chamber. Each of the biographers remembered or chose to include something slightly different from the others, and it seems appropriate to conflate the accounts for the purposes of this study.2 Some of Thomas's actions on the last morning of his life were recorded by the biographers, and indicate that the archbishop followed his usual routine. We know, for example, that he attended Mass, and then did his customary obeisance at the various altars of the church, praying for the aid of the saints. According to William of Canterbury, he

64

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

then made his confession to a senior monk, Thomas of Maidstone, probably in the chapter house.3 It is also reported that he was flogged three times that day, presumably by Robert of Merton.4 At approximately two o'clock he dined in the hall, eating, according to Gerald of Wales, a dish of pheasants.5 Soon afterwards, he withdrew to his chamber to confer with his associates; at this juncture the arrival of messengers from the king was announced.6 About three o'clock the four barons were conducted into the inner chamber. According to Benedict, Becket received the knights discourteously and contemptuously, not even acknowledging their presence at first, and initially refusing to terminate his conversation with a monk to whom he was speaking at the time of their entrance.7 Reginald fitzUrse, who remained the leader of the group, announced that they had come from the king, who was then in France, with an important message, which directed Thomas to go to his royal son at Winchester and 'make satisfaction to him.' Thomas demanded clarification concerning the meaning of this request, and a quarrel ensued concerning his barony and his feudal duties, and the ways in which he had supposedly transgressed. The archbishop declared that he would not go to Winchester to be put on trial, insisting that he was completely innocent of any violation.8 The barons then explained the charges against the archbishop: he had broken the terms of the peace after his return to England by discharging and excommunicating the prelates, and he had excommunicated royal servants and threatened to negate the coronation and disinherit the young Henry. Thomas answered that these were papal rulings and that the pope was taking disciplinary action for the wrongs perpetrated against the church of Canterbury and its archbishop; merciful terms had been offered to the bishops that were still open for acceptance, even though they had previously refused to compromise; furthermore, no one was intending to remove the young king from his position.9 Thomas countered with charges of his own, recounting his sufferings in England and the restrictions on his movements. He reminded the barons that three of them had been his vassals when he was chancellor and had done homage to him. Tempers flared, and Thomas and Reginald exchanged warnings, the archbishop threatening to avenge the crimes committed against him by invoking the sword of his priestly office, and the baron warning of a return to exile or something much more dire.10 Reginald ordered the monks to guard the archbishop and prevent his

The Martyrdom

65

escape until the king should pass judgment. Thomas, infuriated, shouted, 'Do you think I'm going to sneak away? I haven't returned to Canterbury in order to run off. You'll find me here. And in the Lord's battle I will fight hand to hand, toe to toe.'11 The encounter had differed from Becket's previous disputes with royal officials in two respects: the intensity of the exchanges and the fact that the archbishop was confined. The next step would logically have been for the barons to take Becket to prison or the royal court, but they probably thought that this was unwise in the face of the archbishop's hostile company and the surrounding citizens. They retreated to obtain armed assistance, proceeding quickly, for it was late afternoon and it would soon be dark. Thomas and his advisers were discussing the events when they heard the returning knights pounding on the door. Finding the doors barred and not opened to their knock, the soldiers hacked through a window.12 The archbishop's attendants urged him to take refuge in the church, but he remained calm, scorning the monks for their cowardice. He was determined to wait in the palace, a less sacred place, fearing that the sanctity of the cathedral might prevent the impious from effecting their purpose and deprive the archbishop of the fulfilment of his heart's desire. 1 ^ He had predicted his martyrdom after his return from exile, saying, 'You already have here a martyr, Elphege,14 well-beloved of God, and a true Saint. Another will the Divine compassion provide for you.' 15 The clamour of Robert de Broc breaking into a nearby room moved the archbishop's companions into action. By combining pleas to seek escape with entreaties that he should attend Vespers in the cathedral, and with the application of some physical force, they were able to persuade him to move. They could see that the palace was surrounded by armed men, in both the courtyard and the orchard, so some other route to the cathedral had to be discovered. By forcing a door and crossing through an unused corridor to the cloisters, they managed to get ahead of the intruding knights. lb Thomas was determined not to appear to be in flight or to behave in an undignified manner. He insisted that his cross be carried before him, and it was handed to Henry of Auxerre.17 Edward Grim reported that Thomas was dragged and pushed, indeed half-carried, all the way to the cathedral. But William of Canterbury, Benedict of Peterborough, and William fitzStephen, using the image of the bonus pastor, preferred to report that he walked slowly and calmly, with great dignity, behind his

66

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

little flock, 'driving all before him, like a good shepherd [driving] his sheep.'18 Guernes, with Anonymous I, recalled that Thomas broke free from his attendants twice while in the cloister, and once more to dart into the chapter house. Probably once the archbishop found himself securely ahead of the king's men, he reasserted his authority and was able to enter the church in a dignified manner.19 There were two daily evensong services at Canterbury Cathedral, the first for the monks in the choir, followed by another in the nave for clerks and townspeople.20 The monastic Vespers must have been in progress when they were stopped by the rising clamour. It was approximately four o'clock, at sunset, when Thomas went into the north transept of the church. The monks, some of whom had come down from the choir, embraced him with great relief, because it had been reported to them that he had been slain.21 They entreated him to seek refuge at the high altar, and proceeded to bar the door. Thomas demanded that it be reopened, exclaiming that a church was not an armed camp.22 'The church of Christ, even when it is not closed, provides a stronghold for its children,' Thomas insisted. 'Furthermore, we shall triumph over the foe by suffering, rather than by fighting; for indeed we have come to suffer [violence], not to battle against it.'23 Some of his companions were weeping out of joy or fear. The archbishop, not fearing death for the liberty and interests of the Church of God, told them to stand back; he directed them not to hinder his Passion, which he had predicted as destined to come, and now saw as imminent.24 Thomas then began to mount the staircase in the north aisle which led to the choir. But he had not proceeded very far when the first of his assailants, probably Reginald fitzUrse, entered the north transept by the same door. The train of Satan is come to the Minster,' Gamier recounts,25 wearing mail, with their heads covered, and with naked swords in their right hands, and axes, for breaking doors open, in their left. Upon entering the church, they shouted, 'Where is the traitor? Where is the archbishop?' and, according to Grim, 'Where is Thomas Becketh, a traitor to the king and kingdom?' The archbishop, 'a righteous man ... bold as a lion without fear,' started back down the steps and turned right to stand by a pillar in the centre of the opening to the transept, calling out to the knights, 'Here I am. No traitor to the king, but a priest of God. What do you want of me?'2h According to William fitzStephen, Thomas was abandoned at this point by John of Salisbury and all his clerks except Robert, canon of Merton, who was his chaplain and constant companion, Edward Grim,

The Martyrdom

67

and himself.27 FitzStephen also pointed out how convenient it would have been for the archbishop to flee. The steps to the crypt were nearby, providing access to an area full of dark hiding places, and a spiral staircase led to the upper areas of the church. Night was approaching, and Thomas would not have been easily discovered; but he deliberately refused this option, inviting his martyrdom.28 Thomas, according to the unanimous opinion of the biographers, was prepared, even anxious, for martyrdom. He wished to give an example to his flock; as Barlow remarks, he intended 'to follow the royal road, that trodden by his Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles.'29 Whatever his exact state of mind, the archbishop was not prepared either to go tamely into captivity or to be arrested. The biographers note the place where the martyr took his stand. It was not, as John of Salisbury reports, and as portrayed in countless images, in front of the altar. As stated by Anonymous I, it was 'near an altar of St Benedict,' Thomas having 'turned aside to the northern part of the church. >;5 The monks at Colchester recounted another tale of a similar sort. They had washed the wax stopper of their vial of the precious substance, and enclosed in a pyx the water in which the wax had been washed, which they presented as a present to a nearby church. The priest first placed it on the altar, but then took it to his own house. The next morning the pyx was found split, and not a drop remained. Thus,' according to Benedict, 'the blood was given and multiplied for those for whom the Divine Ordinance so willed it; and from him to whom it was not given, even that which he seemed to have was taken away.'5'' The case of the leaking pyx at Colchester was not an isolated instance, for Benedict recounts a similar circumstance soon thereafter. William of Bourne, a venerable priest, gave some of the blood in a pyx of boxwood to a travelling priest or pardoner, for whom Benedict seems to have had limited respect. The pyx cracked immediately upon contact with the miraculous water, but the wax prevented the spilling of the blood. The next morning, however, the pardoner, who had taken the pyx to his home, found not a trace of blood. The reason for this was much discussed, 'but not a few conjectured, and with some probability, that the man's intentions were open to the charge of avarice.'57 Ultimately such cases became extremely common; Benedict relates that the sacred water persistently remained in the pyx of the pious, but refused to remain when poured into that of the impious; in the latter circumstance the sacred water slipped this way and that, and bubbled as though boiling, and finally vanished. Eventually the wooden boxes were found to be so unreliable that a young man was commissioned to pro-

The Miracles

95

duce tin vials or ampullae to carry the miraculous substance.5* These were made in several shapes including that of Thomas's mitred bust, the most common surviving type, and an emblem in which the saint is on horseback, probably referring to the archbishop's return from exile, but also reflecting his fame as a horseman.59 These small vials of miraculous water became a symbol of the Canterbury pilgrim, analagous to the scallop shell of Santiago de Compostella and the palm of Jerusalem. While the 'water of St Thomas' was used at the tomb of the saint, it was also effective for cures that took place a distance away. In fact, the use of the blood of the martyr by the poor citizens of Canterbury, the monks, and the pilgrims points to part of the intense interest shown in his cult and its rapid growth (see below, chapter 6). The widespread appeal was not centred upon the persona of the archbishop as a great churchman, but upon Thomas as a great martyr. His blood was the most intimate strand in this personal devotion, and became, as well, one of the means by which the cult was decentralized.'"' The effect of the verbal accounts concerning 'aqua sanctissima' by Benedict and William was heightened and intensified by the poetic references to the miraculous water in the liturgy. The service for Lauds in the office Student /worcontains two antiphons that refer specifically to the 'aqua sanctissima' and its healing power: Aqua Thome quinquies varians colorem In lac semel transiil, quater in cruorem.1'1

The water of Thomas, varying its colour five times Changed once into milk, four times into blood.

And we are told: Tu per Thome sanguinem, quern pro te irnpendit, Fac nos, Christe, scandere, quo Thomas ascendi!.1'"

Through the blood of Thomas which he shed for you, Cause us, Christ, to ascend, where Thomas rose.

In another of the Becket offices (Martir Thoma) there are two responsories that testify in greater detail to the power of the blood: Testantur tria pro martire, Spiritus, aqua cum sanguine,

Three substances bear witness for the martyr, Spirit, water with blood,

96

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Nam sancto prestante flamine, Thome sanguis in potu aque Mortuos restituitvite. V. Excite gentes undique Miraculorum fulgure Concurrunt afferentes Munera, vota, preces.63

For with the holy priest presiding, The blood of Thomas in a potion of water restores the dead to life. V. The people come together from all sides, excited by the Gleaming of the miracles, Bringing tributes, vows, and prayers.

And: Ex eius aqua sanctissima Curatur pestis varia, Qua potati sanantur egri, Mutis loquela redditur, Et debilis quisque Letus revertitur. V. Alternatim ruunt languidi Consequi properantes, Que martir prestat, beneficia.84

From his most holy water Various diseases are cured, Having drunk it the sick are returned to health, Speech is given back to the mute And each of the lame Is returned to gladness. V. The weak rush one after another Hastening to follow the benefits which the martyr offers.

The Trinity Chapel Becket windows also make use of the theme of the sacred, healing water. In window 5, for example, a man sits by the tomb, his swollen foot being bathed by a kneeling 'friend or servant.' Two 'keepers of the tomb' approach, bringing another bowl and a towel. The inscription (DETVMET IN VOTO LAVACRO [prece] ... SANGVINE ... [poto]) may be translated, 'As he makes his vow, washes, prays, and drinks the blood, the swelling goes down.'65 In another window a man prostrates himself before the tomb. A priest stands by with a bowl into which he seems to be dropping the blood of the martyr from a rod (represented by a piece of ruby glass). And in window 8 a man sits up in bed drinking the water of St Thomas out of a glass flask. The inscription reads BIBENS AQUAM s. TH. SANUS EFFic[itur] [aq]vA: 'Drinking the water of St Thomas, he is made whole by the water.'66 The image of the Canterbury martyr as healer and miracle-worker that was presented in the liturgy and the windows provided great impetus to the growth of Thomas's cult. He was portrayed in the liturgy and in the stained glass as a martyr whose intercession could be invoked to cure illness and resuscitate the dead. As word of his miracles rapidly spread

The Miracles

97

soon after the martyrdom, individuals from all dimensions of medieval life began to flock to the tomb seeking the healing powers of the saint. In the liturgy the third nocturn describes and emphasizes this aspect of the martyr's power: Thomas was able to cure the blind, the lame, the feverish, and those afflicted with leprosy, all miracles that have Christlike implications. It was this promise of healing that drew thousands of pilgrims to his shrine at Canterbury, and that encouraged veneration of the martyr in shrines and chapels throughout England and Europe.

chapter six

The Development of the Cult of Becket

The cult of Thomas Becket became one of the most celebrated and widespread examples of popular devotion in the Middle Ages.1 Following his murder in the cathedral, the legend of the Canterbury martyr spread rapidly throughout England and the Continent; as accounts of his miracles were disseminated, veneration of the saint escalated rapidly. Both Benedict of Peterborough and William of Canterbury stress the fame that St Thomas developed abroad, and their collections include accounts of miracles performed 'east and west,' in the Holy Land, Italy, and Norway.2 Soon pilgrims from the various corners of Christendom began to come in crowds to his tomb at Canterbury, returning home with tales of the miraculous exploits of the saint and carrying symbols of their pilgrimage. The development of the legend was intensified by the artistic commemorations that began to appear soon after the martyrdom, providing a visual reminder of the suffering of the archbishop. An additional stimulus to the development of the cult was provided by the adoption of the Becket office into the liturgy of the Sarum rite and the liturgical calendars of various monastic communities throughout Europe and Scandinavia. Evidence of this influence may be found in the wide dissemination of some three hundred manuscripts that include the liturgical celebrations for the Canterbury martyr.3 Becket was canonized by Pope Alexander III within three years of his murder in 11 yo;4 by the end of the next decade his cult had spread to the boundaries of Latin Christendom, and his tomb at Canterbury had become a goal for pilgrims from all over Europe.5 According to one of Becket's early biographers, 'at first none but the poor and lowly crept to the tomb; then, the middle class. Afterwards, when the fear of the king6 was at last removed, clerks, barons, soldiers, and the whole people of

The Development of the Cult of Becket

99

England and neighbouring islands and realms came in crowds to Canterbury, where the hands of the Lord fell down upon the most esteemed place.'7 The biographers were not simply presenting a typical hagiographical topos in recounting that the cult began with the poor; the record of miracles indicates that veneration of the martyr eventually included all classes of society, from the most destitute to the kings of France and England. It is true that there are more miracles in the accounts that concern people of the wealthier classes, but Benedict explained that the poor left the shrine without discussing the miracles they had experienced because they could not afford a gift to the saint.8 Becket's remains were translated to a magnificent new shrine that dominated the east end of Canterbury Cathedral in 1220; the ceremony was one of the most important and sumptuous state occasions of the century, and began the Jubilee of St Thomas, which was celebrated every fifty years from 1220 to 1470.° No other English saint was accorded this exceptional veneration, nor did any other English shrine achieve such fame.10 This phenomenon can be explained partly as a result of the cause that Becket espoused, and partly as a consequence of the European political context within which the controversy between the archbishop and the king occurred. The issues of greatest contention in the struggle between Becket and Henry II - clerical immunity from lay jurisdiction, right of appeal to the pope, and the election of bishops were areas of crucial importance to every province in the Western church. Hence, the archbishop's fate became a significant issue that extended far beyond the boundaries of the English kingdom. If Henry II had emerged unscathed from his conflict with the archbishop, the secular powers would have triumphed over the Church, whereas Becket's victory by martyrdom was perceived as divine judgment in favour of Pope Alexander III and the Church, and against Henry and other monarchs. Becket became a symbol which demonstrated that the advance of secular authority could be contained; as such, he took on the character of a national hero, defending not only the Church, but the English people as a whole. By 1170 Henry II had curtailed the privileges of the baronage as well as the Church. His regular collection of revenue aroused the indignation of the nobility, and the emerging boroughs felt that the king was slow to grant civic privileges. Thus, several classes of Englishmen were anxious to see an effective check on the growing power of the king. Becket, by his resistance and death, slowed the advance of royal authority; indeed, as Josiah C. Russell observed, in the person of the Canterbury martyr 'resistance to the king had been canonized.' 11

ioo

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Becket's contemporary biographer, Edward Grim, was not content to present the martyr's struggle within the narrow confines of English history. He wrote that the martyrdom had universal significance; it was part of the divine plan for salvation. In order to provide a model for the people of twelfth-century Europe, Christ had sent 'a new soldier,' a 'notable martyr, [who] has come forward among us in St Thomas, mirror of holiness, rule of righteousness, persuasion of patience, example of virtue and invincible spokesman of truth.' 12 Becket's martyrdom provided a medieval exemplum akin to the early Christian conception of death in defence of the faith.13 The early Christian martyrs were executed by the Roman government for steadfastly refusing to abjure their Christianity. They conceived of martyrdom as a second baptism, by blood, resulting in their immediate sanctification and admittance to heaven, the final act of faith in Christ eradicating the deficiencies of the victim's previous life. Becket, according to his biographers, died for the freedom of the Church; moreover, his passion and death emphasized his conformity to the examplar of Christ himself. Indeed, according to Benedict, 'It would be difficult to find a passion of any other martyr which is so like that of the Lord.'14 The men who wrote about Becket emphasized that his martyrdom was even more illustrious than those of the early Christians, because the original martyrs died to save their own souls, whereas Becket's sacrifice was undertaken for others. Thus, Becket became a focus of popular devotion, a phenomenon that was perhaps unique to the twelfth century. According to Andre Vauchez, cults of recently deceased individuals proliferated after 1150, and they often became, within a few decades, as illustrious and highly regarded as those of the Aposdes and the martyrs of the early Church.15 Vauchez sees this development as one manifestation of the change of perspective in the Church that resulted from the Gregorian reform; from the end of the eleventh century there was, under the influence of a papacy determined to produce an ideal Christianity, a disjunction with the Christianity of the first millennium. Although reverence for the apostolic age and the primitive Church was not abandoned, the ecclesiastical contemporaries of Alexander III and Innocent III were conscious of themselves as seeing farther than their predecessors; as a result, they wished to emphasize the religious experiences they themselves witnessed, and to establish their own age as one of the great epochs of the Church.16 The papacy gave strong impetus to this development by granting the honour of canonization to persons who had only recently died, such as

The Development of the Cult of Becket

101

Saints Thomas Becket (1173) and Bernard (1174). This was, of course, a testament to the success of the centralizing policy that had been pursued by the papacy for more than a century, as well as to the efficiency of the network created by the Church to communicate its directives to the whole of Christendom. But the canonization of Thomas Becket and the rapid diffusion of his cult had a further significance. The feast of the Canterbury martyr, which Alexander III had announced in a series of five bulls, was quickly inscribed in the calendars of the Lateran and the Vatican, a practice that was accepted from that time forward for recently deceased saints.' 7 Vauchez sees this 'opening' of the liturgical books to 'modern' saints as representative of a decisive turning-point in the history of Christianity; by instituting the process of canonization, the Church sought to strengthen its control by presenting exemplars of unimpeachable orthodoxy for imitation by the faithful. Hence, the papacy promoted the cult of the new martyr throughout Christendom by stipulating the celebration of a feast day. Aviad Kleinberg attributes the canonization of 'modern' saints to the changing culture of the late twelfth century. In an era of rejuvenation people did not want to look back into the distant past to find intercessors and protectors, but rather wished to embrace new heroes who did not necessarily reflect the stereotypical hagiographical models. Hence, writers of vitae such as the biographers of Becket were required to present details that demonstrated the unique and distinctive qualities of the saint, and the popes found it appropriate to canonize these new icons.18 The cult of a new saint did not come into being solely as a result of ecclesiastical provision, however. The process of canonization most often occurred as a result of spontaneous popular devotion. In fact, as Vauchez points out, two conditions were necessary to the development of a new cult: popular acclaim (vox populi) and clerical approval (vox Dei).19 If popular devotion was not present, the cult was doomed to extinction; but the greatest popular enthusiasm could only endure if it became entrenched within the framework of the ecclesiastical institution. Collaboration between clergy and laity was inevitable; indeed, elements of popular origin and ecclesiastical sanction were inextricably woven.20 According to the biographers, the cult of Becket began spontaneously, among the sick and indigent at Canterbury, and was initially inspired by accounts of the miraculous healing power of the martyr. As Gervase of Canterbury remarked, the miracles had become numerous and very frequent, occurring first around 'his tomb, then through the

102

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

whole crypt, then the whole church, then all of Canterbury, then England, then France, Normandy, Germany, then over the whole world. The famous cult attracted the interest of all ranks of society from Canterbury street urchins who sang songs about the martyr, to the pope himself.'21 Thus, the cult began to be disseminated rapidly throughout England and the Continent. It spread through many channels, including trade routes and the Plantagenet marriage alliances. The Cistercian order was another important vehicle; since the Chapter General of abbots legislated for all houses in the closely knit organization, a common policy was mandated. Their reasons for fostering the cult of Becket are obvious: they had supported the saint in his exile, and were resentful of the interference of Henry II. Their enthusiasm for the cult was made evident by the adoption of Becket's feast into their liturgical calendar as soon as he was canonized.22 Further impetus for the spread of the cult derived from the colonizing activities of the Cistericans in the border areas of Poland, Bohemia, Austria, and Hungary; Becket was included in the calendar of saints wherever they had a settlement. It is the purpose of this chapter to trace various threads of the development of the cult, analysing the ways it was propagated through Angevin marriage diplomacy, as well as by the activities of the Church and the monastic orders. The analysis will employ a variety of sources, including artistic, liturgical, biographical, and documentary materials. Angevin Marriage Diplomacy and the Early Dissemination of the Cult

By the early thirteenth century, veneration of the Canterbury martyr had extended throughout England and the European continent. There were several reasons for this rapid expansion, including institutionalized propagation of the cult by the Church as well as popular belief in the healing efficacy of St Thomas's miracles. Perhaps paradoxically, veneration of the archbishop was, in several European countries, a direct result of Angevin marriage diplomacy. Three of the daughters of Henry II and one of his daughters-in-law were instrumental in establishing the foundations of cultic observance in honour of Thomas Becket; these included Matilda (born in 1156), who married the Saxon Duke Henry the Lion in 1168; Eleanor (b. 1161), who became the wife of Alfonso VIII of Castile in 1170; Joan (b. 1165), who was married to William II of Sicily in 1177; and Margaret Capet, the widow of young King Henry, who married Bela HI of Hungary in 1186. (Illustration i presents a genealogical chart of

Alix of Champagne

Philip II King of France

Bela III of Hungary

Margaret

:ieanor 01 ^quitaine

LOUIS VII

King of France

tenn

Matilda

Henry 3uke ol Saxony

Otto IV Holy Roman Emperor

Richard I

Berengaria

Geoffrev

Henry II

Constance

Eleanor

Alfonso VIII King of Castile

Blanche

Louis VIII King of France

Illustration 1 Descendants of Henry II

William II King of Sicily

Joan

Raymond VI Count of Toulouse

Jonn

Isabella

1O4

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Henry II and his descendants.) The marriages served to reinforce the dynastic, political, and economic links between England and these various countries, and the alliances also helped to establish connections between the higher clergy; veneration of the archbishop of Canterbury symbolized these associations.23 One interesting result was the development of royal patronage by the daughters of Henry II for the cult of his arch-enemy, Thomas Becket. Historians are not in agreement about the motives of Henry II with regard to the marriages of his daughters. For example, W.L. Warren, the author of a massive biography of Henry II, remarked that no 'grand design can be traced in the marriages of Henry's daughters.'24 According to Warren, Matilda's marriage was one facet of a plan to provide a counterbalance to Louis VII's marriage alliance with the house of Blois, but there is not much indication that it provided help against Louis.23 Eleanor's Spanish marriage provided a way to preserve the neutrality of Castile and to neutralize French influence there.26 And Joan's marriage merely served to cement the good relations England had always enjoyed with the Normans in Sicily. According to Warren, at the time of this marriage (1177) Henry must have had no greater design, since William had politely refused him aid in 1173 when he was embroiled in difficulty with his sons.27 Perhaps Henry had no more ambitious plan than arranging marriages for his daughters that suited their station in life; he needed to establish the prestige of his kingship, and marrying his daughters well was one way to achieve this end.28 Other historians view the problem differently. For example, EdmondRene Labande has remarked that the careers of Henry's three daughters reflected the king's wish to become a leader in international politics; he hoped to exercise his influence in Germany through Matilda's alliance with Henry the Lion, in Spain through Eleanor's marriage to Alfonso VIII, and in southern Italy and Sicily through Joan's union with William II.29 Karl Jordan has cautioned, however, that Henry H's marriage plans for his daughters should not be regarded as proof that the Angevin king was pursuing 'imperial' ambitions against Frederick Barbarossa.30 The web of diplomatic connections, whatever their original purpose, did provide a widespread public forum in which Henry and his progeny might atone for the act that was an egregious sin in the eyes of twelfthcentury Europeans - the murder of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry was shrewd enough to posthumously heal the rift with his former friend and to make use of the saint's growing influence

The Development of the Cult of Becket

105

throughout England and the Continent.31 There is no need to repeat here the facts of the martyrdom, described above; but it is important to recall the actions of the contrite king and the public humiliation he sought as evidence of his true penitence. In 1172 Henry II appeared before a group of prelates at Avranches, including the archbishop of Rouen, all of the bishops and abbots of Normandy, and the papal legates, Cardinals Theodinus and Albert. He swore an oath upon the relics of the saints, and upon the Holy Gospels, 'that he had neither commanded nor wished that the archbishop of Canterbury be put to death, and that, when he heard of the event, he was extremely distressed.'32 As recompense, Henry promised that he would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and that he would give to the Templars enough money for the maintenance of two hundred knights for one year. Further, he 'remitted his wrath and displeasure against all those, both clergy and laity, who were in exile for the cause of St Thomas,' and allowed them to return home freely.33 He also declared that he would restore the possessions of the church of Canterbury to the same state as they were one year before the beginning of Becket's exile, and he promised that he would utterly abolish the customs that had been introduced in his time to the prejudice of the churches of his kingdom. He set his seal to the 'writing in which the above-stated articles were contained,' and received in return a Charter of Absolution that reiterated the conditions.34 In the early summer of 1174, Henry II faced a rebellion on the part of his elder sons, aided by all of his external enemies, including the kings of France and Scotland, and supported by disaffected barons in all areas of his empire. The murder of the archbishop may well have reduced respect for his authority; he seems to have become a king with a tarnished reputation. It looked as if the Angevin empire was in serious danger of collapse.35 On the eighth day before the ides of July, the king approached Canterbury, 'bringing with him his wife, queen Eleanor, and queen Margaret, daughter of Louis, king of the Franks, and wife of his son Henry3''...,' for the purpose of visiting the martyr's tomb. Henry wished to provide concrete evidence of his penitence and to entreat the support of St Thomas. On his approach, as soon as he was in sight of the church, in which the body of the blessed martyr lay buried, he dismounted from the horse on which he rode, took off his shoes, and, barefoot, and clad in woollen garments,

1O6

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

walked three miles to the tomb of the martyr, with such humility and compunction of heart, that it may be believed beyond a doubt to have been the work of Him who looks down on the earth, and makes it tremble. To those who saw them, his footsteps along the road on which he walked seemed to be covered with blood, and really were so; for his tender feet being cut by the hard stones, a great quantity of blood flowed from them on to the ground.37

Upon reaching the tomb, he prostrated himself and, in the presence of his own men and some monks, abbots, and bishops, publicly confessed his sins, assuming the responsibility for being the unwitting cause of the martyrdom. He asked that he be punished, and removed his outer garments, revealing a green smock over a hair shirt. Each of the prelates administered five strokes of the rod, and each of the eighty monks three strokes. After the flogging he offered gold and other gifts at the shrine, and promised to build a monastery in honour of the saint. Henry remained the rest of the day and the whole night lying on the ground by the tomb, fasting and without leaving for any call of nature, in public humiliation, since he ordered that no other pilgrim be denied access. The next morning, after attending Mass and visiting each altar in the main church, he was given Thomas's sacred water to drink, and he then rode off to London with a vial of it around his neck. His public display of penitence must have been recognized by the saint, or so it seemed to the king, since the fortunes of war soon altered dramatically in Henry's favour. By September 1174, all the enemies and rebels had been defeated or were ready to capitulate.38 From this point forward the cult of the martyr grew dramatically, spreading throughout Europe in the following decades. Iconographical, documentary, and liturgical sources from this period indicate that Henry and his family were instrumental in this rapid development of organized veneration of the martyr. Historians have written that these artefacts of royal patronage express either a moral reparation for the injustice committed39 or, in the case of the English bride of the king of Sicily, a compliment.40 While these interpretations certainly contain merit, I would like to suggest, in addition, that the female Plantagenets had a serious and well-defined political goal; they were determined to demonstrate to the world that the archbishop had forgiven his old enemy Henry II, and they wished to proclaim that their family was now firmly under the protection of the Canterbury martyr. Using the opportunities afforded through patronage, Henry's daughters were able, either inde-

The Development of the Cult of Becket

107

pendently or in concert with their husbands, to effect a political agenda that asserted and reinforced the power of their lineage and established their authority. 41 Direct evidence of this may be seen in a miniature from the Gospels of Henry the Lion (Illustration 2), also known as the Gmunden Evangeliarium, which was commissioned by Duke Henry in the 11705. It was produced between 1173 and 1180 in the monastery of Helmarshausen, one of the leading schools of manuscript illumination in Germany; the scribe and illuminator, Hermann of Helmarshausen, was the most famous artist in the school during the second half of the twelfth century. 42 The gospel book, one of the finest illuminated manuscripts produced at Helmarshausen, was presented to the church of St Blaise by the royal couple. The dedicatory poem which identifies the duke as patron of the work emphasizes his noble birth and that of his queen. Henry the Lion is extolled as a descendant of Charlemagne, reflecting the idea then current that any ruler with Carolingian blood was endowed with special legitimacy. It was for this reason, according to the poem, that England deemed Henry alone to be a worthy spouse for Princess Matilda, and it was certain that their posterity would bring salvation and the peace of Christ to Saxony. The special dignity of the royal couple is emphasized even more clearly in the coronation image that is the most well known illumination in the volume. The upper part, which represents the heavenly realm, shows Christ in glory with his apostles, angels, and saints, especially those which were revered by Henry himself or who were particularly honoured in England. On one side are John the Evangelist, John the Baptist, and St Blaise; on the other are St Peter, Pope Gregory the Great, and the recently canonized St Thomas Becket; two figures are unidentified. The lower half signifies the temporal world. Kneeling in the centre are the duke and duchess, who receive two crowns from the Saviour's crossed hands. On either side are the ancestors of the duke and duchess, with their names inscribed. On the duke's side are Henry the Proud and Gertrude, and next to them, Gertrude's parents, the Emperor Lothair III and his consort Richenza. On the other side are Henry II of England, the father of the duchess, Henry's mother, Matilda (daughter of Henry I) and an unidentified figure. Matilda was the consort of the emperor Henry V and had subsequently been, for a brief time, queen of England. The image of Thomas Becket appears above the figures of Henry II and

io8

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Illustration 2 Gospels of Henry the Lion, fol. lyiv (Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbuttel: Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss.)

The Development of the Cult of Becket

109

Matilda, signifying his recently renewed protection and support of the Angevin rulers.43 According to Johannes Fried, the Canterbury martyr is the key figure among the saints, providing a definitive clue to the interpretation of the miniature. Henry the Lion was pursuing the imperial crown 'for himself and his wife,' and he hoped, through his honour and patronage, to ensure the assistance of the saints in this endeavour. The favour of the newly canonized archbishop was especially coveted, and his inclusion in the illumination indicates his support of the Angevin royal family and, by extension, the dynasty of Henry the Lion.44 The patronage of the Saxon royal couple45 also extended to architecture, most notably the rebuilding of St Blaise's church. The work was begun in 1173 during the reign of Henry, and the building was officially consecrated on 29 December (the feast day of Thomas Becket), in the year 1226, by Henry of Brunswick, the son of Matilda and Henry the Lion.46 The Canterbury martyr had been added to the original patron saints, Blaise and John the Baptist, in the early thirteenth century.47 The cathedral contained a now much-restored series of wall paintings (from circa 1200) that depict, in seven scenes, the life of St Thomas.48 A third area of patronage that the duke fostered was that of goldsmithing. Beginning in the mid-twelfth century he commissioned containers for the numerous relics he had gathered on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Byzantium, several of which form a collection known todayas the 'Welf Treasury' (formerly called the 'treasury of relics of the house of Brunswick-Luneburg'). Most of the collection is in the Kunstgewerbemuseum in Berlin, but several pieces are owned by museums in the United States.49 The Cleveland Museum holds, among other objects, a book-shaped reliquary with a silver gilt engraved image of the patron saints of the cathedral, Blaise, John the Baptist, and Thomas of Canterbury, on the back.50 The cult spread throughout the lands of Henry the Lion, as may be seen from church calendars of the cathedrals at Ratzeburg in the east and Miinster in the west, where the feast was included by the midthirteenth century. 5 ' After 1173 Henry the Lion had, through annual donations, supported the church at Ratzeburg, where he initiated the cult of Becket, an act that Medard Barth viewed as a direct result of the duke's marriage to Matilda.52 By the fifteenth century the Office of St Thomas was celebrated throughout Germany, including bishoprics in the lands formerly controlled by Henry die Lion: Osnabriick, Paderborn, Minden, Hildesheim, Erfurt, Verden, Bremen, Hamburg, and Lubeck.5S

l lo

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

The second daughter of Henry II, Eleanor, born in 1161, was sent to Castile in 1170, and she officially married Alfonso VIII at that time; the union was probably consummated about 1177 and she had her first child in ii8o.54 Eleanor seems to have maintained strong ties to her country of origin, and she brought many English customs to the Spanish court. She also continued her mother's practice of literary patronage.55 From her reign we have direct evidence of queenly patronage of the cult of Thomas Becket. On 30 April 1179, Eleanor issued a charter of protection for the altar of St Thomas in the Church of the Blessed Mary at Toledo (Toledo Cathedral), providing a chaplain in perpetuity, and lands that would support the altar.56 1179, April 30, Toledo (Christus, alpha y omega.) In nomine sancte et individue Trinitatis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, amen. Notum sit omnibus tarn presentibus quam futuris quod ego Alienor, Dei gratia regina Castelle, una cum coniuge meo rege Aldefonso, spontanea voluntate et libenti animo, pro salute etiam et redempcione animarum nostrarum, pono sub proteccione mea totam hereditatem illius altaris Sancti Thome, quod est situm in ecclesia beate Marie Toleti, videlicet, Alcuon cum universis pertinenciis suis, vineis, terris, pratis, pascuis, montibus, fontibus, valibus, fructiferis arboribus et infructuosis, ingressibus et egressibus, omnesque collaces ibidem in present! populates vel populandos. Hac igitur racione cumpulsa, facio vobis W., eiusdem altaris bead Thome capellano, omnibusque successoribus vestris ibidem Deo sanctissimoque martiri Thome servientibus, cartam solucionis ac libertatis perpetuo valituram. Solvo igitur ab omni gravamine domum vestram cum sua hereditate. Mando etiam ut vos vel posteri vestri per to turn regnum meum nulli homini detis portaticum, nee aliquis ausus sit in toto termino de Alcauon pignorare vel rapere, vel aliquam violentiam facere. Si quis autem personam vestram inhostauerit vel aliquid vobis abstulerit, dampnum illatum vobis vel alicui vocem vestram pulsanti dupplet, et persone vestre quingentos optime monete persolvat solidos. Si quis vero ex mea progenie vel ex altera, quod Deus amoveat, hoc meum institutum irritum facere vel in aliquo diminuendo violare presumpserit, in primis iram Dei omnipotentis plenarie incurrat, et cum luda proditore in inferno inferiori penis puniatur eternis, ac parti regie simulque nostre mille persolvat aureos. Facta carta in Toleto, pridie kalendas Maii, era MaCCaXvIIa, secundo anno quo serenissimus rex Aldefonsus per vim Concam optinuit. Regnante

The Development of the Cult of Becket

111

rege Aldefonso una cum regina Alienore in Toleto, in Castella et Extrematura et in Nagera. Ego Alienor, Dei gratia regina Castelle, propria manu hanc cartam roboro et confirmo. (Signo rodado de Dona Leonor.) SIGNUM ALIENORIS REGINA TOLETI, CASTELLE ET EXTREMATURE. 57

(Christ, Alpha and Omega.) In the name of the holy indivisible Trinity, of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, Amen. Let it be known to all, both now and in the future, that I, Eleanor, Queen of Castile by the grace of God, together with my husband, King Alfonso, of my own free will and ready heart, for the salvation and redemption of our souls, do place under my protection the right of property [hereditas] over this altar of Saint Thomas, which is situated in the Church of Blessed Mary at Toledo, namely, Ale [a] uon with all its appendages, vineyards, lands, meadows, pastures, mountains, fountains, vales, fruit-bearing trees and ordinary trees, and the entrances and exits, and all [hills] in that place, populated now or about to be populated. Therefore, for this reason, I make to you W., the chaplain of that same altar of the Blessed Thomas, and all of your successors in the same place serving God and the most holy martyr Thomas, a charter of absolution and privilege valid in perpetuity. I absolve, therefore, your house with all its property rights from every charge. I decree that you and your posterity throughout my whole realm need not give towngate-tolls to anyone, nor may anyone dare within the whole area of Alcauon to make arrests for debt, to seize property, or to commit any other kind of violence. If anyone will attack your person or take something from you, let him double the amount of the financial loss brought forward to you or to your representative and let him pay fifty solidos to you in the best coinage. If anyone, in truth, from my progeny or from another - God forbid presumes to make this, my decree, null and void, or to violate it in another kind of diminishment, at first let him fully incur the wrath of the omnipotent God, and with Judas the betrayer be punished in lower hell with eternal retribution, and let him pay to the portion of the king and at the same time to ours a thousand gold pieces. Charter made in Toledo, the day before the kalends of May, the year MCCXVII, the second year in which the most serene highness King Alfonso obtained Conca by force. In the reign of King Alfonso, one with Queen Eleanor in Toledo, in Castile and Extrematura and in Nagera. I, Eleanor, by the grace of God Queen of Castile, strengthen and confirm this charter by my own hand.

112

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Eleanor made certain that the chaplain, who was English,58 was protected against violence and theft, and that he and his successors would not be subject to various tolls and taxes. It is important to note that the charter was made and signed by Eleanor herself, 'together with her husband, King Alfonso.'59 This is a reversal of the great majority of documents from the reign of Alfonso VIII, in which the king, 'together with his wife, Queen Eleanor,' declared the charter. Such joint husbandwife patronage acts were commonplace, as June Hall McCash has demonstrated;60 therefore, it seems obvious that Queen Eleanor, departing from the usual practice, wished to establish her own very close connection, and that of her natal family, to the Canterbury martyr. Her signature carried the power of authentication, establishing that the document had been issued in her own name. Thus, we have strong evidence that the issuing of a charter of protection for Becket's chapel was the direct result of Eleanor's own actions, and that she did not function simply as an adjunct in her husband's patronage activities. The charter may have had appended Eleanor's seal, which shows her standing, crowned, and carrying a hawk, a principal topos on the seals of noblewomen, indicating wealth and aristocracy (Illustration 3). As Miriam Shadis has shown, the earliest seals used by women, those employed before 1250, functioned to validate the transactions they themselves had undertaken.61 There were several other foundations for the veneration of Becket in Spain, including a chapel in the cathedral of Siguenza established by Bishop Jocelyn, who had accompanied Eleanor to her new country of residence.62 In Salamanca there is a church dedicated to the Canterbury martyr, and there is an altar to St Thomas dating from 1186 in Barcelona Cathedral.63 From about 1200 there dates a series of wall paintings in the church of S. Maria at Tarrasa, about fifteen miles north of Barcelona,64 and by 1208 there was a church dedicated to San Tomas Cantuariense in Toro in the province of Zamora.65 By the time of the marriage of Henry IPs daughter Joan to William II (the Good), king of Sicily, in 1177, devotion to St Thomas was already well established on the island. The celebration of Becket's feast day had taken firm hold in that kingdom, and there may be some significance in the fact that among all of the letters of Pope Alexander III announcing the canonization and establishment of the feast, only those to England and the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of Aversa have survived. Among several early dedications to the martyr is the mosaic figure of St Thomas in the cathedral at Monreale, near Palermo, which was founded by William II.66 This representation, commissioned about 1178, has long

The Development of the Cult of Becket

Illustration 3 The seal of Eleanor of Castile (drawn by Gary W. Ross)

113

114

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

been regarded as the first iconographical image of the new martyr. According to Tancred Borenius, the reason for Becket's inclusion in the mosaic program was a direct result of the marriage of Henry's daughter Joan to the builder of the church,67 and Otto Demus remarks that Joan seems to have been genuinely devoted to the veneration of the new saint.68 Evelyn Jamison has suggested, by contrast, that the appearance of Thomas may have expressed the political realities of the time and the state of the contest between the pope and the emperor. Pope Alexander was working for the extinction of the schism in the papacy and for the pacification of Italy. In order to bring pressure to bear on Frederick he made full use of his allies in England and Sicily. William II, together with the Lombard League, had been his chief support for years, and Henry II, as the father-in-law of Henry the Lion, had great influence in Germany. In fact, it was at the suggestion of the pope that the emissaries of William approached the English king to ask for the hand of Joan. The marriage served to increase the isolation of Emperor Frederick, who had recently suffered defeat at the hands of the Lombard League. Largely through the intervention of Sicily, Frederick was convinced to conclude the Peace of Venice with Pope Alexander; the triumph of the pope and his Sicilian and English allies was complete.69 Otto Demus reaches a similar conclusion, but his argument emphasizes the central role that Thomas of Canterbury played in the mosaic program. The recurring motifs of martyrdom and exile that resulted from holding a steadfast position against the aims of temporal power strongly emphasize the importance of the recently canonized English saint.70 Furthermore, the inclusion of his portrait as the advocate of the Church against secular authority can be explained only in light of the close rapprochement between William the Good and Pope Alexander in the late twelfth century.71 Thus, Jamison, Demus, and other scholars have seen the inclusion of Becket in the mosaic program at Monreale as a statement of Church triumphant over State, but it is probable that the presence of the Canterbury martyr symbolized, in addition, the close diplomatic ties between the pope and his allies in Sicily and England. The development of the martyr's cult in Sicily, and to a degree in Italy, seems to have been propagated by the abbey of Monreale. At Spoleto there is a fresco representing Becket's martyrdom that echoes the style of the mosaic at Monreale, and a repetition of the mosaic portrait was created in S. Marino ai Monti in Rome in the early thirteenth century. The Monreale mosaic, or its Roman version, was also the prototype of the earliest English representations of the saint, one of which is pre-

The Development of the Cult of Becket

115

served in St Mary's Church at Stow, Lincolnshire.72 Other early dedications to St Thomas in Sicily included the endowment of a priory of Augustinian canons at Raia by Count William of Marsico in January 1179. In the same month, Bishop Robert of Catania gave permission for the mosque there to be converted into the church of St Thomas of Canterbury.7S Like the Angevin princesses, Margaret Capet, the widow of young King Henry who became the wife of Bela III of Hungary,74 was instrumental in the development of the cult of Becket in her new domain. Margaret had close ties with Becket because he had, as chancellor of England, arranged her marriage to young Henry in 1158, and had personally accompanied her to England. Since Margaret was married to Henry at the age of two, her formative years were spent at the Angevin court, and it is probable that she would have had frequent contact with the English prelate. Becket's concern for the young woman continued, as demonstrated by a letter of 1164 in which John of Salisbury remarks that he had recently seen her in good health.75 Furthermore, the close ties to France that resulted from the archbishop's exile and the posthumous growth of his cult in Margaret's native land must have strengthened her admiration for him. Toward the end of the twelfth century a religious chapter dedicated to the martyr was established at the Hungarian royal and ecclesiastical seat of Esztergom. Behind the site of Bela's castle there is a small hill dedicated to Thomas (Szent Tamas-hegy), where the chapter building stood in the Middle Ages. According to Gyorgy Gyorffy, a record from 1291 indicates that King Imre (1196-1204) donated half the Pest Fair tax to the Provostal Church of St Thomas the Martyr at Esztergom. Since this gift was bestowed after the dedication of the church, the building must have been begun during the time of Bela III and his wife Margaret (1186-96), and since the church was under royal patronage, they were undoubtedly the founders. 76 There is also evidence to indicate that Thomas's feast day was celebrated in Hungary soon after his canonization; a manuscript that belonged to the monastery of Somogyvar, completed in 1192-5, contains an office for the Canterbury martyr, as do two breviaries from the thirteenth century and many more from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.77 In summary, the development of the cult of Thomas Becket in Europe provides not only an extraordinary example of popular religious devotion; it also furnishes an interesting illustration of patronage by royal

n6

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

women. Striving to make their voices heard, these aristocratic females, like others of their era, validated their own perspectives through their patronage. The evidence of the growth of the cult of the Canterbury martyr can be directly linked to the marital situations of the daughters, and one daughter-in-law, of Henry II, in Saxony, Castile, Sicily, and Hungary. Their influence in the royal domains led, directly or indirectly, to an increase in the veneration of St Thomas. This focus on the English martyr, when noted, has previously been attributed to either attempts at penitential recompense or 'compliments' to the queens. Other interpretations have emphasized Becket's leadership of the Church and his ultimate triumph over the state. Certainly all of these motives may play a role in the decision to found a chapel, or to commission a manuscript illustration, a wall painting, a mosaic, or a reliquary; but it seems likely under the circumstances that these royal daughters were intending to strengthen and ensure the power of their families by emphasizing their father's recent posthumous reconciliation with his old friend; Archbishop Becket, 'accidentally' martyred, was once again a supporter and protector of the Angevin dynasty. The Cult of Thomas Becket in Europe and the Nordic Countries France The murder of the archbishop of Canterbury in his cathedral on the twenty-ninth of December 1170 evoked an immediate response throughout England and Continental Europe; nowhere was the reaction to the tragedy more powerful than in France. There were several obvious reasons for the intense response of the French people: these included Becket's Norman ancestry (both of his parents were from the area around Rouen),78 the memory of his student days at the University of Paris, and his close association with the French king and several monastic establishments during his six years of exile in France. The circumstances that led to Becket's quarrel with Henry II have been recounted earlier; it was the intransigence of both parties that caused the archbishop's prolonged period of exile in France, beginning in 1164. Becket's initial destination was Sens, where Pope Alexander was then in residence; on his way there, Becket was received with great honour at Soissons by the French king, Louis VII. At Sens he gained the support of the pope, who recommended mat he proceed to the Cistercian

The Development of the Cult of Becket

117

abbey of Pontigny, where he remained for the next two years, until November 1166. During this period Thomas continued to voice his cause vehemently, a situation that produced threats of royal reprisal against the Cistercians in England. As a result, Thomas and his household moved to the abbey of St Columba near Sens, where he remained until his return to England, and to martyrdom, in December 1170. During his six years in France Thomas also visited or stayed briefly in Meaux, Chartres, Clairvaux, Vezelay, Bourges, Orleans, Saint-Benoft, and Rouen, among other places. Many of these areas were eventually favoured with miracles, intensifying the association of the martyr with the French people. In fact, William of Canterbury records as many miracles performed by St Thomas in France as in England,79 and in 1172 the archbishop of Sens wrote to John of Salisbury that the French miracles occurred so frequently that it was difficult to record all of them.80 The miracles had a seminal effect on the development of Becket's cult in France, as elsewhere. To mention only a few miraculous occurrences, a clerk in Orleans, a clerk at Coutance, and Dom Oliver of Nantes were all made aware of the martyrdom through visions.81 Becket cured Gautier, a leper, from Lisors, Geoffroi, a paralysed adolescent, and Albrezza, a blind woman from Bayeux. Peter, a monk from Poitiers, made a pilgrimage to Canterbury widiin three years to be healed of leprosy, and Gerard of Liege was brought there to be cured of insanity. Most of the miracles involved humble people such as these.82 At Bourges Thomas's miracles were publicly related by the bishop of Clermont, according to John of Salisbury.83 There were also cures at Normandy, Perigueux, and Auvergne that were effected by the use of the 'aqua sanctissima.'84 Several of the locations became sites of churches and chapels dedicated to the saint, and some of these contain significant artworks produced in the sixty-year period following the archbishop's murder. The diffusion of Limoges reliquaries that pictured Becket's martyrdom also contributed to the enthusiasm.85 In addition, Becket's feast day was added to the calendars of many ecclesiastical establishments in the decades following his martyrdom. For example, the office Studens livor began to be celebrated on the feast day at Chartres Cathedral during the final quarter of the twelfth century, as may be seen in a breviary now in the library of the cathedral chapter at Chartres, MS 500, on fol. 243. This relatively rapid adoption at Chartres is not surprising, since John of Salisbury, one of Becket's close associates, became bishop of Chartres in 1176. If not directly instrumental, he would have certainly concurred with the addi-

ll8

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

tion of the celebration to the cathedral calendar. It is evident that the liturgy for Becket was widely disseminated, and the texts of the office may have served, in several instances, as inspiration for artworks, including the glazing programs for the stained-glass windows at cathedrals in Sens (1190), Chartres (1206), Coutances (ca. 1225-30), and Angers (ca. 1230-5). Normandy By the beginning of the thirteenth century there were many foundations and dedications to St Thomas in the archdiocese of Rouen, and several establishments that had been consecrated to St Thomas the Apostle were rededicated to St Thomas of Canterbury, giving testimony to the increasing focus of popular devotion to the martyr.86 In addition to chapels in Rouen Cathedral and the major hospital, there is evidence of the foundation of a chapel and a hospital by Robert d'Harcourt in 1177 and 1179. Henry II of England, interestingly, placed the church of Saint-Thomas du Mont-de-Rouen under his protection in 1176. L'abbe de Valmont founded a chapel on the manor of Catillon sometime between 1177 and 1189, and Guillaume Pasnage established a priory after 1175, confirmed by Alexander III in 1179. During the thirteenth century a hospital was dedicated to both St Thomas and St Antoine, and the Count of Gisors founded a chapel at his chateau, consecrated to St Thomas and St Nicholas. These examples, drawn from sixty foundations for the entire province, indicate that St Thomas was especially honoured at Rouen, not only through the liturgy that was directly inspired by Canterbury, but also because of the great number of edifices established in his honour.87 The reasons for the saint's great popularity in Rouen are varied: in addition to his parentage, one factor was the importance of Rouen in the Plantagenet empire. Further, the pious foundations of Henry II, such as the one at Avranches, stimulated veneration for the martyr, and perhaps the archbishop of Rouen, Rotrou de Warwick, wished to make amends for his hostile attitude during Becket's exile. In the diocese of Coutances there is documentation of the establishment of several foundations in honour of the saint, including one cathedral chapel, one priory, one parish church and parish chapel, two chapels in churches, one chapel 'de leproserie,' and one hospital: SaintSauveur le Vicomte.88 There is also an important stained-glass window in the cathedral that depicts scenes from Becket's exile, martyrdom, and assumption into heaven.89

The Development of the Cult of Becket

119

In the diocese of Bayeux, there are nine places dedicated to Becket, including one chapel in the cathedral, and one in the abbey of Aunay (founded in 1349), two parish churches, one parish chapel, one chapel in the church of Notre-Dame, one chapel identified as a 'place of pilgrimage,' and two hospitals.90 The cult is also well represented by foundations in Lisieux. Eight cult places in that diocese include a hospital that had a chapel built between 1173 and 1180, dedicated to Becket by Arnoul, bishop of Lisieux. There was also a chapel in the cathedral, five more in parish churches, and one in a leprosery.91 In Sees the dedications to Thomas include a chapel in the cathedral, a manorial chapel at the Chateau de Chailloue (1333), and a hospital at Argentan that was originally dedicated to the Trinity. It was destroyed during the battles of 1173, and was restored by Henry II; the hospital was reconsecrated to Becket in the presence of the king.92 Tours The cult of the Canterbury martyr was represented in the province of Tours by thirty-five dedications, including two in Tours, four in Le Mans, three at Angers, twelve at Nantes, three at Vannes, five in Quimper and Leon, four in Saint-Brieuc and Ireguier, one at Saint-Malo, and one at Rennes. At the priory of Saint-Come, liturgy for the feast of Becket (nine lessons) was entered in the calendar.9;! Limoges In the diocese of Limoges, an area governed by Henry II as a result of his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, there were nine churches dedicated to Becket. There are Uiree principal reasons for this veneration: first, the Aquitainians had always been hostile to Henry II, and probably welcomed the opportunity to institutionalize reverence for his enemy. Second, there was great support for the position of the Church versus secular power in the area, and Becket provided a potent symbol for that attitude. Further, there was a general desire for a heavenly patron for newly dedicated churches and it was appropriate to venerate a recently canonized saint. Four of these churches were isolated and peripheral; the other five may be divided into two groups. The least significant of the isolated churches is a cell of the monastery of Grandmontaines d'Aubepierres where Becket appeared with six other

12O

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

titulars in the consecration of 1277; the establishment probably dates from 1214, but this has not been verified. There are also chapels in the two centres of the canton, Meissac and Neuvic, near to the principal church that was controlled by a Benedictine monastery. Mention of the chapel at Meissac appears in a bull of Alexander III dated between 1160 and 1176. The fourth peripheral church is the cell of Lagudet, close to the priory of the hospital of St-Gerald de Limoges; it appears as a chapel in several bulls issued between 1184 and 1217. The remaining five foundations include two small parish churches in the area held by the bishop of Limoges, another at Puy-Malsignat, a church of the Templars dedicated in 1282, and a church at Borne. The site for the last institution was given to the inhabitants by Raymond VIII (d. 1249) under the patronage of Thomas Becket, around the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth centuries.94 Paris In the second decade of the thirteenth century the four nations of the University of Paris chose individual saints as patrons and protectors. The French nation honoured St Thomas of Canterbury for a variety of historical and no doubt sentimenal reasons. Thomas was of Norman descent, he had spent his exile in France, King Louis VII had supported him in his quarrel with Henry II, and the martyr had commended his soul to St Denis, the patron saint of France, at the moment of his death. Further, tales of many miracles performed on French soil had become part of popular culture. There were many sites in Paris that were dedicated, or rededicated to Thomas, such as the chapel of St Lawrence in the abbey of St-Victor, where Becket had celebrated mass. In addition, there were royal establishments, including the collegiate church of Saint-Thomas-du-Louvre, which was founded by Robert de Dreux, the brother of Louis VII. One of his sons, Philippe de Dreux, dedicated a hospice to Becket called 1'Hopital Saint-Thomas-des-Pauvres-Clercs. In addition, the count of Flanders, Phillipe d'Alsace, founded a collegiate church. In Rheims there were five parish churches, in Sens fifteen sanctuaries, in Quimper there were five dedications, in Bale there were two chapels, and Troyes and Meaux also honoured the martyr. Becket's old enemy, Reginald fitz-Jocelin, bishop of Bath, consecrated a parish church at Saint-Lo to Thomas.

The Development of the Cult of Becket

121

Archbishop Guichard of Lyons was a Cistercian monk who had been a friend of Thomas at Pontigny during his exile; his successor, Jean Bellesmains, also a friend of Becket, founded a chapel in honour of the martyr in 1192. To summarize the findings, the total number of dedications in France was one hundred thirty-two. The greatest concentration was in Normandy, probably because of the Plantagenet holdings and the family origins of Thomas Becket. As chancellor, Becket had aided Henry II in subduing Aquitaine (1156 and 1159), including the province of Bourges with the dioceses of Albi, Cahors, Limoges, and Rodez, and this area also had many cult foundations. In Perigueux there were many miracles attributed to Thomas Becket before the end of the thirteenth century, and this contributed significantly to the development of cultic observance. In many cases the foundations were made by Becket's contemporaries - highly placed people, including princes, bishops, leaders of religious communities, personal friends, and individuals whom he knew during his exile. But humble people also expressed gratitude to the saint for the miracles, which were well known in France as well as in England. The enthusiasm for the cult, however, spread far beyond the confines of those countries, which were closely allied to Becket for historical reasons; the flowering of devotion throughout the Western church may be further documented through an analysis of the development of institutionalized veneration of the saint in the German-speaking countries and in Scandinavia. Germany and Scandinavia In the German-speaking areas of the Continent, the earliest evidence of systematic veneration of St Thomas may be found in a liturgical calendar of the Strassburg Cathedral, which was compiled in 1175, a mere five years after the martyrdom. Becket's office appears in a manuscript (Codex 574, fol. I39v-42v) that was copied at Klosterneuberg, a monastery of Augustinian canons regular close to Vienna, perhaps as early as ngo.95 By the early decades of the thirteenth century his feast was listed in the service books of many other institutions, including the Cistercian abbey at Pairis, where the festival of Becket was to be celebrated at the second rank, the Dominican monastery at Colmar, and the Benedictine abbeys at Munster in northern Germany, and Benediktbeuren, in southern

122

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Bavaria. The Canterbury martyr also appears in an antiphoner of the Dominican sisters of Adelhausen in Freiburg, in the service books at St Gall and the Cistercian abbey at Zwette (lower Austria), and in the Benedictine abbey of St Peter in Salzburg, where a chapel had been erected in the saint's honour in nyS.9*3 In Franconia the earliest evidence of the cult comes from the third decade of the thirteenth century, where the Premonstratensian convent Hane near Bolanden in the diocese of Mainz added the feast of the saint to its liturgy, according to the custom of the order. At the cathedral of Ratzeburg the Becket festival was accorded an elevation in rank in 1238. The martyr was also strongly represented in the diocese of Cologne, where seven calendars include his feast in the liturgical celebrations. In the cathedral breviaries the office generally consisted of nine lessons, as indicated previously. Several monastic orders in Germanspeaking areas accorded him twelve lessons, as expected, including the Benedictines, Cistercians, Cluniacs, and later the Carthusians; only nine were represented in the service books of the Carmelites, Johannites, Premonstratensians, and Paulines. His feast was given only simplex, or simple, rank with three lessons by the Dominicans, and probably also the Franciscans, in contrast to the semi-duplex, or half-double (major) level in the services of the Augustinian hermit order. As may be seen from the foregoing information, the cult of Becket had achieved wide acceptance in German-speaking areas within a century following the martyrdom. The reasons for this are, of course, variable, but it is likely that the image of the saint presented in the liturgy provided direct impetus for the rapid development of widespread veneration of the saint. Evidence for this view may be found in the manuscript from Klosterneuberg, in which the lessons, as recounted in the Sarum Breviary, are included in their entirety. The texts are divided differently among the nocturns, but they maintain the chronological order that presents the vita of the saint. This provides a contrast to many manuscripts, in which the lessons are so radically truncated and removed from their relationship to the musical portions, that the complete vision of the saint's life is destroyed. In the Klosterneuberg manuscript there exists what appears to be a reflection of the original version of the office lessons, one that presents in dramatic fashion the life and martyrdom of Becket, emphasizing his struggle with Henry II, his role as miracle-worker, and especially his dedication to the Church. This was an image that the Church wished to promulgate, and did so in the early versions of the liturgy, such as the one under consideration.

The Development of the Cult of Becket

123

Poland The struggle between sacerdotium and imperium was a prominent issue in several European countries during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and Poland was no exception. The influence of ideas from the West is evident in the actions of the Polish church, which sought legal and economic emancipation from the state by the end of the twelfth century. It is not surprising, therefore, that Thomas Becket became a symbol of this independence, and that there was support for his cult. The Canterbury martyr was mentioned in Annales polonaises from the time of the martyrdom, and his feast day was celebrated by the end of the twelfth century, as documented by a marginal annotation from a lectionary now in the library of the cathedral chapter at Cracow (MS 20) ,97 In the same library there is a manuscript containing part of the Miracula Sancti Thome by Benedict of Peterborough, perhaps brought to Poland by Ivo, bishop of Cracow, about 1222.98 In 1177 a Cistercian monastery had been founded by Prince Casimir the Just, who brought the first monks from the monastery of Morimond, in France. Documents from 1232 contain the name of Thomas Becket, and a new church was dedicated to him and the Virgin Mary, providing evidence that the cult in Poland was propagated by the Cistercian general chapter. In the thirteenth century a chapel was dedicated to Becket in the cathedral on Mount Wawel in Cracow. This was undoubtedly an ancient foundation, although it is not confirmed by the oldest Liber beneficiorum of the diocese of Cracow (after 1470). However, the Acta camerae apostolicae contains reference to an altar attendant of Blessed Thomas named Walter. Several Polish churches were dedicated to Thomas, including a Cistercian church at Sulejow (1232). In 1288 he was named patron of a collegiate church at Raciborz, founded by the bishop of Wroclaw, Thomas II, and the prince of Wroclaw, Henri IV. It commemorated the peace between the bishop and the prince. Bishop Thomas identified with Becket not only because of his name, but also because of his personality. Like Becket, he was determined to protect the rights of the Church regarding immunity and privileges that had been acquired during the reign of his predecessor, Thomas I (1232-68) - rights that had been restrained in the following years." There are indications that several other Polish churchmen followed the model of Becket in their relationships with secular authority. One

124

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

such prelate was Paul of Przemankow, the bishop of Cracow. He defended the rights of the Church against two consecutive Cracovian princes, and was imprisoned three times. Paul was probably responsible for the foundation of the altar to the Canterbury martyr at Cracow, although it may have been established earlier.100 Archbishop Stanislaus provides a further parallel with Becket. A champion of the Church versus the state, he was martyred at the behest of the king in 1079; he- was not canonized, however, until 1253. His cult in Poland had been fostered initially by Vincent, who became bishop of Cracow in 1207. Master Vincent had studied in Paris in the n8os and had been influenced by the legend of the Canterbury martyr.101 As mentioned earlier, Thomas's feast day was celebrated soon after the martyrdom. This is demonstrated in various Polish calendars, including one from the end of the twelfth century in the Cistercian monastery at Lad, one from the thirteenth century in Cracow, and one from Poznan dating from before 1253. At the request of Bishop Prandota of Cracow, the Cistercians enacted a statute that read: ' [T] he feast [of St Stanislaus] is done in all ways as that of Thomas of Canterbury is wont to be said, except for the collects, which are those appointed by the pope.'102 The Cistercians did not, however, adapt the rhymed office of Thomas of Canterbury for St Stanislaus, according to Andrew Hughes. They used only the formulas and the material common to martyred bishops, with a few proper prayers. Although the office for the Polish martyr was not directly taken over from the office for Becket, scholars agree that the legend of the Canterbury martyr, the growth of his cult in Poland, and the celebration of his feast day did serve to provide impetus for the canonization of the native bishop, so long delayed.103 Italy

As discussed above, one of the earliest representations of Becket in Italy was the mosaic in the cathedral at Monreale commissioned by William II, the husband of Joan, one of the daughters of Henry II. An almost contemporaneous image of the Canterbury martyr was a fresco in the crypt of the cathedral at Anagni, consecrated by Pope Alexander III about 1173. Thirteenth-century artworks that venerate the martyr include a fresco in the church of S. Stefano a Subiaco at Rome, and the church of Santi Giovanni e Paolo at Spoleto. By the fourteenth century the chapel of the Bardi at Santa Croce in Florence contained a predella dedicated to Becket, and there was a fresco in Rome at S. Martino ai

The Development of the Cult of Beckct

125

Monti (now destroyed).104 There were also foundations of chapels and churches dedicated to the martyr in Italy, as in the rest of Europe, including those in Padua, Verona, Como, Rome, Parma, Ferrara, and Aosta.1"?1 Iceland

By the end of the twelfth century trade routes between England and Iceland were well developed. The island had originally been colonized by settlers from Scandinavia and the British Isles, and communication and exchange of goods with England had been maintained without interruption. Hence, news of the murder of Archbishop Thomas of Canterbury reached Iceland earlier than might be supposed. It is clear that records relating to the archbishop existed in both the southern and northern sees as early as the end of the twelfth century.106 This information was undoubtedly brought to Iceland by returning visitors and men who had studied in England. A prominent example was Thorlak, later Bishop of Skalholt (117893), who studied theology at Paris and Lincoln, returning to Iceland about 1161. During his time in England he must have heard anecdotes about the king's great chancellor, and he no doubt continued to correspond with English friends following his return to his homeland. His nephew and successor in the see of Skalholt also travelled to England to study, probably around 1178. This time period, about five years after the canonization of St Thomas, was an era when stories of his miracles and most of his popular biographies were in public circulation. By 1195 there is evidence of a vow to St Thomas sworn by Ram Sveinbjarnarson of Eyrr. Rafn made a pilgrimage to Canterbury to take the teeth of a whale to the saint, who had assisted the fisherman in bringing the monster ashore.107 He no doubt came into contact with a Latin or an Icelandic life of the saint, and it is probable that he brought back copies of biographies from Canterbury. By 1207 a saga of the saint was circulating in the diocese of Holar, in both Latin and Icelandic. Soon after Rafn's return an open struggle began between the Church and secular authority, in which the Church wished to assert its complete independence of all secular jurisdiction. The principal ecclesiastical leader in the struggle was Gudmundr Arason, bishop of Holar, elected in 1201, an avowed disciple and imitator of Thomas Becket. As soon as Gudmundr was installed in his see he began to assert the principle of the immunity of clerics from secular jurisdiction - the first Icelandic bishop

li>6

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

to do so. He implemented his theory with little regard for practical political circumstances, resulting in violent blood feuds. Gudmundr himself was subjected to captivity and exile. The parallels between the Icelandic bishop and Thomas are abundantly clear, and the sagas written about Gudmundr substantiate the idea that the Icelandic bishop was influenced in his actions by the lessons of the Thomas saga. The popularity of the Canterbury martyr in Iceland grew as a result of the circulation of sagas and miracle stories, and also in response to official veneration. Although the records are meagre, there is evidence that a mass for St Thomas was sung every other week at Oddi, and a similar endowment existed at As, in the district of Kelduhverfi. There were also church dedications, such as the church of Holmr (122O), and altar dedications, such as that at Vi3ey, near Reykjavik. Effigies of Becket were widely venerated, as at Bessastadir and Engey.108 Summary

The development of the cult of Becket throughout Europe and the Nordic countries may be documented by the foundations of churches and chapels, the works of art, and the celebration of the office liturgies composed in honour of the Canterbury martyr. These dedications and commemorative works honoured an exemplar who appealed to the men and women of the medieval world on several levels. Throughout Europe and as far away as Iceland Becket became a symbol of ecclesiastical independence from secular authority and control; this vision of ultimate sacrifice in defense of religious principle did much to advance the development of Becket's cult. The Canterbury martyr gave his life for the liberty of the Church, and he did so with willingness coupled with courage and fortitude. Among the common people it was the promise of healing and regeneration which stimulated the growth of veneration for the martyr; their belief and devotion contributed to the widespread development of the cult, making of Becket a heroic symbol who was commemorated throughout Western Christendom.

Part Two

This page intentionally left blank

Illustration 4 Cluniac Breviary/Missal from Lewes, fols. lO5r-lO7r. By permission of the Fitzwilliam Museum

This page intentionally left blank

chapter seven

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket, 29 December Commentary The Manuscript The manuscript chosen for the preparation of this edition is a Breviary/ Missal from the Cluniac priory of St Pancras at Lewes in Sussex. It is not known whether the manuscript was produced at Lewes or elsewhere, but it was probably copied and illuminated in England during the last part of the thirteenth century, between 1263 and 1300.l Heinrich Husmann thought the manuscript probably came directly from Canterbury to Lewes.2 It is a small, but very thick book, measuring yVl> by 5!4 inches (19 x 13.5 cm), and containing 517 folios. Leroquais has suggested that the breviary might have been available for use by a monk who was too ill to come to choir, or that it was taken on journeys, and Hiley speculated that it was used as a correctorium when the prior of Cluny visited other Cluniac houses. H As may be seen from the facsimile (illustrations 4), the writing is quite small, owing to the diminutive size of the manuscript. There is a historiated initial on folio iO5b that presents Thomas, halflength, holding an archiepiscopal cross. I have chosen to use this manuscript as the source for the preparation of this edition of Studens livor because it is one of the few notated manuscripts in England that contains the entire monastic office for Thomas Becket. The decision to use one source rather than attempting to collate various manuscripts was based upon the conviction that an edition prepared from a single manuscript would provide definite evidence of the way the office was performed at one monastery during the Middle Ages; a collation is a more speculative attempt to recreate an

136

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

office that may have never been used in a medieval setting, and hence is less accurate. Questions of Authorship The lections from Studens livor, the principal office for St Thomas Becket, provide one of the most dramatic, exciting, and evocative accounts in the extensive collection of writings that deal with the life and death of the Canterbury martyr. As a central feature of the office, which was repeated each year on the anniversary of the martyrdom, the texts kept alive the original vision of the martyr and the memory of the cause for which he suffered. Probably written soon after his canonization (1173), the readings for the Matins service constitute one of the earliest accounts of Becket's life and martyrdom. The image presented therein, in addition to enhancing the reputation of the archbishop, served to promulgate the cult of the martyr throughout England and the Continent. The office has been attributed to Benedict of Peterborough, one of the archbishop's close associates and the author of a Passio, which exists only in fragments, in addition to the large volume of accounts of the miracles wrought by the saint.4 According to a Peterborough chronicler, Robert of Swaffham, Benedict wrote the totam hystoriam; nonetheless, a question has remained as to whether he composed only the poetry and the music, utilizing the texts of another author for the lessons. It is the purpose of this discussion to provide an analysis of the texts of the poetry and the lessons in Studens livor, and to compare these with the contemporaneous short vita by John of Salisbury in an attempt to provide further evidence concerning the possible identity of the author of the lections for the Becket office.5 The task is, of course, greatly complicated by the fact that much of the Becket liturgical material in England was destroyed as a result of the directives of Henry VIII in 1538-9. The extant English manuscripts for both secular and monastic use contain various segments of the full Sarum text as printed in the Proctor and Wordsworth edition,6 and, as Sherry Reames has found in her study of fifty-two manuscripts that contain the Becket office, most are derived from a source very much like that edition.7 According to Professor Reames the textual tradition is remarkably stable; however, it is not possible to determine definitively whether the original lessons for the monastic service were borrowed in toto for the secular use as reflected in the printed Sarum Breviary, because the lessons in the manuscripts were given in abbreviated forms. In a

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

137

manuscript copied around 1200 at the monastery of Klosterneuberg, however, the full text of the lessons does appear, and I believe that this breviary may document the original monastic version, a point to be discussed below.8 On 12 March 1173, Pope Alexander III announced the canonization of the murdered archbishop of Canterbury in a letter to his legates Albert and Theodwin, the papal representatives who had been conducting an inquiry concerning the life, martyrdom, and miracles of Thomas Becket.9 Two days later the pope wrote to the chapter at Canterbury, confirming the canonization, declaring that a feast day be celebrated for the saint, and stipulating that his body be translated to a more appropriate location (the sacred remains were then residing in a tomb in the crypt of the cathedral) .10 On the same day the pope sent a letter to Walter, bishop of Aversa, describing the attributes of the '"gloriosissimum martyrem Thomam," who fought for the justice of God and the Church all the way to death.' 11 Waxing eloquent about the virtues of the newly canonized archbishop, he declared that Thomas had been added to the list of saints, and that the day of his passion, immediately following the Feast of the Innocents, ought to be celebrated solemnly each year, in England and in France, as well as in other regions of the Roman church. He urged the bishop to 'zealously' remind the clergy in his diocese to observe the feast day of the precious martyr annually, with 'great zeal, devotion and veneration, because, through Thomas's blessed intercessions, the parishioners would receive the grace of the Redeemer.'12 It was no doubt the canonization, coupled with their witnessing of the miracles, that inspired the men at Canterbury who had been familiares of the archbishop to write about his life and martyrdom. At least ten of them did so within a decade of the event, and at least two of them before 1174.13 Certainly there is no question that the papal decree establishing the celebration of Thomas's feast must have inspired one (or perhaps two) of them - Benedict of Peterborough and John of Salisbury - to create the liturgy that was to become the most famous of the Becket offices. The compositional process involved in creating a rhymed office has been discussed by Andrew Hughes in an unpublished paper that he delivered at a conference in 1994.14 In the presentation he suggested that one person (X) might create the lessons, perhaps drawing upon an existing vita; another person (Y) would extract significant and appropriate phrases from the lessons to create the poetic texts of the antiphons and responsories (Professor Hughes has coined the term sungtext in

138

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

referring to this poetry); and a third person (Z) would compose the music. However, as Professor Hughes remarked, it is possible that one person might create the lesson texts, and another both the sungtexts and the music, or that a single individual might create all three. Following this line of reasoning in an attempt to ascertain the identity of the author of the Becket office Studens livor, let us examine the information that is available to us. In a 1950 article concerning the Distinctiones monasticae et morales, Richard William Hunt revealed the author of the historic/. Studens livor to be Benedict, abbot of Peterborough from 117710 1193.15 Benedict was a familiaris of Thomas Becket and former prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, whose name 'Benedictus de Burgo' is written in the margin of the manuscript next to a responsory quoted from the office. Hunt remarked that 'Benedict is well known as the author of a Passio S. Thomae, which survives only in the excerpts of the Quadrilogus primus {actually it is part of Quadrilogus II\ and of Miraculi S. Thomae.'^ In a footnote Hunt remarked on the close parallels between the prologue to Benedict's collection of miracles and one of the office responsories; we will return to this point later. Still, Hunt remarked, 'the ascription of the rimed office to [Benedict] seems to have escaped notice, although it is expressly mentioned in the notice of his life by the Peterborough chronicler, Robert of Swaffham': 'From whence he wrote an illustrious book concerning the martyrdom and miracles of St Thomas; and he created the whole office Studens livor; I say the whole thing because he adorned the poetry excellently with chant.'17 Did Robert mean that Benedict wrote die lessons (dictamen may be translated as either prose or poetry) in addition to the poetry and music for the office, or is it possible that Benedict's Passio, or parts of it, were utilized for the lesson texts? Robert mentioned the Passio, and there is further evidence that this work had been completed by 1173/4 (by the time of the initial celebration of the office). Another of Becket's biographers, Edward Grim, whose Life is datable to 1175, described Benedict as already the author of both Passio and Miracula, saying: 'Blessed Thomas, whose martyrdom and miracles the esteemed man of whom we speak (Benedict), transmitted to posterity in an elegant style.' Recent scholars have corroborated the dating of Benedict's work. According to Frank Barlow, Benedict wrote his Passio in 1173-4, intending that it would serve as an introduction to his collection of miracles.'8 And Anne Duggan placed the date of Benedict's Passio and Miracula at 1173-4, as did Knowles and Walberg some decades ago.19

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

139

Unfortunately, all that is definitely known of the Passio is that the compiler of the Quadrilogus used parts of Benedict's work in the last part of his narrative, although those fragments are of interest in our inquiry, as we shall see. James Craigie Robertson, the editor of the vast Materials for the History of Thomas Becket in the Rolls Series, speculated as to the disappearance of Benedict's Passio. According to him, Benedict's book of miracles was sometimes prefaced with a short life by another author, such as John of Salisbury or Herbert of Bosham. Robertson remarks: 'It would seem that the transcribers, wishing to supply a biographical introduction to the book of Miracles, and finding Benedict's "Passion" insufficient for that purpose, made choice of some one of the lives which had been written by other men; and that thus the Passion came to be separated from the Miracles, so that it ceased to be copied as a whole, and, with the exception of the passages adopted into the Quadrilogus, has fallen out of sight.'20 It is interesting to note that the text of the office lessons is virtually identical to the anonymous Passio printed in Patrologia Latina, vol. 190.21 Furthermore, five passages from the remaining fragments of Benedict's Passio are found verbatim in the office lessons: In Lesson 5, '... et aliis, "Ubi sit proditor," aliis, "Ubi sit archiepiscopus" ...' ('... some said, "Where is the traitor," others questioned, "Where is the archbishop" ...'). Further on in the same lesson we hear, '... quod dictu quoque horrendum est per pavimentum crudelissiem sparserunt' ('... they cruelly sprinkled [his brains along with his blood] on the floor, horrible also to relate'). Lesson 6, which describes the plunder of the archbishop's palace, relates that 'Ut passionem send passioni Domini plenius assimilarent ...' ('As if to liken the passion of the servant even more completely to the passion of the Lord ...'). And in Lesson 8, we find the words 'Cui unquam sanctorum martirum titulus extitit gloriosior?' (Who of the holy martyrs has ever had a more glorious title?'). At the end of the final lesson the words, taken from Benedict, are 'Passus est autem egregius Dei athleta Thomas anno ab incarnacione Domini ... millesimo centesimo septuagesimo ... quarto kalenda lanuarii, feria tercia, hora quasi undecime' ('The illustrious athlete of God, Thomas, suffered in the year of the incarnation of our Lord ... one thousand one hundred seventy one ... on the fourth day before the kalends of January, on Tuesday, at about the eleventh hour'). 22 This is, admittedly, slim evidence, and the search for a definitive answer concerning the authorship of the lessons is further complicated by information in the printed Sarum Breviary (Proctor and Wordsworth edition), which tells us that the Passio of St Thomas was edita by John of

140

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Salisbury. Furthermore, Anne Duggan, who declared that '[t]here is no secure evidence concerning the authorship of the office for 29th December,' allowed that '[i]t is possible that the attribution of the lections to Master John of Salisbury ... is accurate.'23 Let us examine the evidence for this alternative. John wrote his account of the murder of the archbishop immediately after the event in a letter (Ex insperato)24 to a former colleague in Archbishop Theobald's court, John of Canterbury, then bishop of Poitiers and later archbishop of Lyons - a letter that became widely known and was familiar to most of the biographers. John's very brief Life was probably written shortly afterwards (1170-1); his letter was taken verbatim to form most of the final section of this vita. His biography of the saint, possibly because it was intended merely as an introduction to a projected collection of Becket's correspondence, was, to quote Frank Barlow, 'a short, cool and careful account which from the start was considered inadequate.'25 Interestingly, material from John's Vita was utilized, in virtually exact quotation, for the lessons of another Becket office, found in the Hyde Abbey Breviary. As demonstrated in chapter 1, these texts refer to the period of Becket's life before his consecration as archbishop of Canterbury — a part of his biography that is not included in the office Studens livor. Much of John's Lz/gwas also excerpted for the Quadrilogus, which enables us to compare the styles of the two men as we turn to internal evidence. There are several examples of parallel quotations found in the office lessons, the fragments of Benedict's Passio, and John of Salisbury's letter concerning the martyrdom, which forms the last part of his Vita, as mentioned above. Two passages are especially interesting because the prose material was utilized for sungtexts; one is from the first lesson and one from the ninth lesson of Studens livor as given in the Sarum Breviary, both of which may also be found in the Klosterneuberg manuscript (copied ca. 1200) ,26 In the text of the Quadrilogus, we find some fascinating parallels to the office material. In the first lesson, for example (see p. 212), we are told that Thomas, when consecrated, was changed into another man: Consecratus enim repente mutatus est in virum alium. Cilicium clam induit, femoralibus etiam usus est ad poplites cilicinis, et sub vestis clericalis honestate habitum celans monachalem, carnem prorsus cegit servire spiritui... (For when consecrated, he was suddenly transformed into another man. He secretly put on a hair shirt and wore hairy breeches reaching to his

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

141

knees, honourably hiding [the hair garments] under a monastic habit of clerical clothing; he thoroughly compelled the flesh to serve the spirit...) The fragments of Benedict's Passio utilized in the Quadrilogus begin with the interview between Becket and the knights on the afternoon of the martyrdom. Therefore, his references to the hair shirt and hair breeches describe the circumstances at the time of the archbishop's burial rather than his actions following his consecration. In the Quadrilogus (Benedict) :27 Exuentes autem eum vestibus exterioribus, et pontificalibus induentes, corpus eius cilicio, non minus aliunde quam sui duricia molesto, involutum, et (quod a nullo sanctorum exemplificatum legimus vel audivimus), ipsa eius femoralia interiora usque ad poplites cilicina, habitumque superindutum monachalem, staminam videlicet et cucullam, repererunt. (When they had stripped off his outer clothes, and were putting on the priestly robes, they discovered his body wrapped in a hair shirt, no less aggravating than his own austerity, and (something which we have neither read nor heard to have been exemplified by any of the saints), [they discovered] his inner thighs covered with hair breeches all the way to his knees, and a monastic habit put on over this, clearly a shirt and a cowl.) According to the Vz'tobyjohn of Salisbury: Consecratus autem statim veterem exuit hominem, cilicium et monachum induit, carnem crucifigens cum vitiis et concupiscentiis suis.28 (However, immediately when he was consecrated he threw off the old man, [and] took on the hair shirt and the monastic habit, crucifying his flesh together with his sins and desires.)

and ... ipsaque femoralia eius interiora usque ad poplites cilicina, quod antea apud nostrates fuerat inauditum, reperta sunt.29 (... and those very inner thighs of his, covered with hair breeches all the way to his knees, were discovered, which had been unheard of heretofore among our people.) Benedict, the creator of the sungtexts of the first two antiphons borrowed the imagery and transformed it into poetic form:

142

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

From the office, Antiphon i: Summo sacerdocio Thomas sublimatus Est in virum atium subito mutatus.

Thomas was suddenly changed into another man.

Antiphon 2: Monachus sub clerico clam ciliciatus Carnis carnefordor edomat conatus.

The monk, secretly hair-shirted under the clothing of a cleric, Stronger than flesh, conquers the stirrings of the flesh.

Raised to the highest priestly office,

Further evidence concerning sources for the lessons of Studens liv&r comes from Lesson g:3° Primo tamen martirii sui tempore, inusitatis cepit martir choruscare miraculis, cecis visum, claudis gressum, surdis auditum, loquelam mutis restituens, deinde leprosos mundans, consolidans paraliticos, idropisim et omnium morborum incurabilium genera curans, resuscitans mortuos. Demoniis etiam, et elementis omnibus mirabiliter imperans, ad iiiusitata quoque et inaudita signa potencie sue manum extendit. Nam et oculis et membris genitalibus privati, meritis ipsius nova membra meruerunt suscipere. (At first, at the time of his martyrdom, the martyr began to glisten with remarkable miracles, restoring sight to the blind, walking to the lame, hearing to the deaf, speech to the mute, then cleansing lepers, restoring paralytics, curing dropsy and all varieties of fatal, incurable disease, even resuscitating the dead. And miraculously exercising power over the demons and all the elements, he extended the touch of this power to unusual and unheard of signs. For instance, people deprived of their eyes and genitalia obtained new members by his merits.)

From the Vita of John of Salisbury (also found in his letter Ex insperato): Ubi ... et magna fiunt miracula ... Nam et in loco passionis eius ... paralitici curantur, ceci vident, surdi audiunt, loquuntur muti, claudi ambulant, leprosi mundantur ... et, quod a diebus patrum nostrorum non est auditum, mortui resurgunt.31 (And there ... great miracles are wrought... For in the place of his passion paralytics are cured, the blind see, the deaf hear, the dumb speak, the lame

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

143

walk, lepers are cured ... and - a thing unheard of from the days of our fathers - the dead are raised.)

A similar passage may be found in Benedict's Prologue to his miracle collection: ... eius mentis ceci vident, claudi ambulant, leprosi mundantur, surdi audiunt, mortui resurgunt, loquuntur muti, pauperes evangelizantur, paralitici convalescunt, detumescunt hidropici, sensui redonantur amentes, curantur epilentici, febricitantes evadunt, et, ut breviter concludatur, omnimoda curatur infirmitas: et omnia pene miracula evangelica multipliciter eius meritis completa sunt. Quater etiam invisibiliter advenit ignis, et extincta vel super vel circa turbam eius luminaria reaccendit; quodque omnibus magis admirandum est, et seculis omnibus inusitatum, cuidam, qui et oculis et genitalibus mutilatus est, martire iugiter invocato, novi oculi et genitalia nova creata sunt. v (... through his merits the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the mute speak, the poor are taught the gospel, the paralysed become well, those afflicted with dropsy are healed, the insane are returned to their senses, the epileptics are cured, those prone with fever rise up, and, to briefly conclude, all varieties of illness are cured; and almost all evangelical miracles are brought to fruition in various ways through his merits. A fire arrived invisibly four times, and his extinguished candle rekindled, either above or near the crowd; and something which ought to be more wondered at by all, and to the whole world [seem] extraordinary, the fact that new eyes and new genitals were created for someone who was mutilated in both eyes and genitals, the martyr having been continually invoked.) Responsory Q (11 in the monastic office): Novis fulget Thomas shines with Thomas miraculis, wondrous miracles, Membris donat He endows the castrated castratos masculis, with male genitalia, Ornat visu He provides sight to those privates oculis. deprived of eyes. V. Mundat lepre V. He cleanses those besmirched conspersos maculis, with the spots of leprosy, Solvit mortis He releases those bound by ligatos vinculis. the chains of death.

144

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

It is interesting to note that Benedict's Prologue and the lesson text, as well as the text of the responsory, refer to the restoration of genitalia, whereas the passage from John of Salisbury's letter does not. There is also stylistic evidence that lends credence to the possibility that one person wrote the lessons as well as the poetry. Throughout the office lessons there are rhetorical flourishes, often taken from biblical imagery, which are utilized in the accompanying antiphon and responsory texts. For example, in Lesson i of the Sarum Breviary: Sciensque se ailtorem positum in agro Dominico in vinea custodem, pastorem in caulis, ministerium sibi creditum studiose complevit.33 (Recognizing that he was the husbandman placed in the field of the Lord, custodian of the vineyard, shepherd in the sheepfold, he zealously carried out the ministry entrusted to him.)

The third antiphon in the group preceeding the first lesson previews the imagery: The cultivator of the fields of the Lord removes the thistles, And wards off the foxes and drives them out from the vineyards.

Cultor agri Domini tribulos avellit Et vulpes a vineis arcet et expellit.

In Lesson 5: Sic itaque granum frumenti oppresit palea, sic vinee custos in vinea, dux in castris, in caulis pastor, cultor in area cesus est; sic iustus ab iniustis occisus domum luteam celesti palatio commutavit. (Thus the chaff overwhelms the grain of the fields, thus the custodian of the vineyard among the vines, the general in the camp, the shepherd in the sheepfold, the husbandman in the threshing floor, was murdered; thus the just man, slain by the unjust, exchanged his house of clay for the palace of heaven.)

And in the following responsory: lacet granum oppressum palea, Iustus cesus pravorum framea,

The grain lies overwhelmed by the chaff, The just man is cut down by the spear of the wicked,

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket Celum domo commutans lutea. V. Cadit custos vitis in vinea: Dux in castris, cultorin area.

145

Exchanging a home of clay for heaven. V. The guardian of the vine falls in the vineyard, The general in the camp, the husbandman in the threshing floor.

The biblical resonances are obvious: the parable of the vineyard is found in Luke 20:9-18, and the image of the threshing floor in Matthew 3:12. This is certainly not unusual; all medieval authors constantly incorporated biblical imagery into their works. But at least one editor has remarked upon the degree to which Benedict of Peterborough followed this practice. In his introduction to the edition of the Miracula, Robertson wrote that in Benedict's Prologue he found nine references to Scripture within eighteen lines, and he suggested that 'a more acute discrimination might discover more.'34 From a purely literary point of view, the foregoing texts from Lessons i and 5 and the antiphon and responsory provide several examples of the many verbal images in the lessons that seem to have been deliberately included so as to furnish material for the sungtexts of the antiphons and responsories. John of Salisbury's Vita did not provide these literary embellishments, and it seems somewhat questionable that he would have composed the office lesson texts in addition to his biography of Becket, and equally improbable that he would have adapted his style to include these flourishes, which would then have been used by Benedict in creating the poetry. Furthermore, it is possible that the confusion concerning John's authorship may derive from the fact that parts of his Vita were, as mentioned previously, utilized for a Becket office other than Studens livor. As we have seen, Andrew Hughes has suggested that the compositional process for a late medieval office might be the following: X wrote the lessons, Y created the sungtext, and Z composed the music. In the case of Studens livor we know that Benedict of Peterborough wrote both the sungtext and the music, and in the absence of clearcut proof I would suggest, based upon the foregoing evidence, that he may also have written the lesson texts, perhaps utilizing material from John of Salisbury's letter, which he would no doubt have seen. It is also possible that the texts, as found in the Klosterneuberg manuscript, the Sarum Breviary, and Patrologia Latina, may constitute Benedict's lost Passio. In any case, regardless of the current impossibility of definitively establishing the identity of the writer, the attempt to solve the puzzle presented to us by

146

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Studens livor provides a fascinating view of the problems and complexities associated with questions of authorship in the late medieval office repertory. Studens livor

The office for St Thomas Becket began on 28 December, the eve of his 'Birthday' feast, with the ritual that was celebrated after Vespers. (Although Thomas was born on 21 December, in liturgical terms his 'birthday' was the day of his martyrdom, 29 December.) In churches that had no special altar dedicated to Becket a memorial was sung, consisting of an antiphon, verse and response, and collect. The antiphon, without an accompanying psalm, described the sacrifice of Becket: Pastor cesus in gregis medio, Pacem emit cruoris precio; Letus dolor in tristi gaudio, Grex respirat pastore mortuo; Plangens plaudit mater in filio, Quia vivit victor sub gladio.

The shepherd, slain in the midst of his flock, Purchases peace at the cost of blood; Joyous grief in sorrowful praise, The flock breathes, though its shepherd is dead; Lamenting, the mother rejoices in the son, Because he lives, as victor under the sword.

The Matins service began early the following morning with an antiphon sung to the invitatory psalm. As discussed in the introduction, the service itself was divided into three large sections known as nocturns. The monastic version of the office included twelve psalms with antiphons and twelve lessons with musical responsories, whereas the secular version consisted of nine psalms with antiphons and nine lessons, each of which was followed by a responsory. The service of Lauds followed, consisting of six antiphons with psalms, and the office closed with the antiphon for the Magnificat at Second Vespers. Before turning directly to the subject matter of the office it is important to discuss briefly the style and versification patterns of the antiphons and responsories, which constitute the musical portions of the service.

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

147

Antiphons and Psalms Antiphons were customarily intoned before the psalm and then sung in complete form following the psalm or canticle, a practice that gave to the poets of rhymed, or versified, offices the opportunity to embellish their texts with allusions to the material heard immediately before. Since it was also usual for the author to draw upon other biblical references and associations, a spiritual context was created in the minds of the listeners that must have enhanced the effect of the words. It is important to remember, as various scholars have pointed out, that medieval clerics were required to commit to memory large sections of the Bible as well as the long services of selected verses sung as antiphons and responsories.35 Furthermore, the medieval poet shared with his listeners a knowledge of these same biblical texts; hence, particular words and phrases evoked associations that created a rich and satisfying interplay of literary images and symbols. The juxtaposition of two texts, one of which shed light upon the other, formed a contrast in which the individual meaning of each became more intense. As Jean Leclercq remarked, this continual passage from fact to allegory, from event to idea, created a different and more meaningful spiritual reality.3*' The authors of the late-medieval offices made use of the ancient liturgical tradition, introducing into the cult services of exquisite taste; they maintained in the liturgy 'the biblical spirit and a whole glowing play of oriental colors.'37 The reality that the author of the Becket office, Benedict of Peterborough, was steeped in this tradition is evidenced by the fact that in his chronicle of Becket's miracula nine hidden references to Scripture occur in the first eighteen lines. This emphasizes the degree to which the writings of the time, even outside the liturgical framework, were permeated with biblical allusions, that they were, in fact, composed of scripture.38 Furthermore, in an era when learning to read was effected by saying the Psalms, the words of the Bible must have struck a mental resonance in the ideas of even semi-literate listeners. Thus, the poet of a rhymed office knew that his audience would have been versed in the biblical tradition; he also realized that biblical allusions might be to texts occuring in the liturgy as well as to expressions found in the Vulgate. Since most psalter antiphons echoed the psalms to which they were attached, and many of the traditional antiphon and responsory texts were utilized frequently during the course of the year, these will also have been familiar to the medieval listener.

148

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

The other major source for the composer of a rhymed office was the legend of the saint in question; he probably assumed that this was also familiar to his public. Certainly in the case of Becket the events of the martyrdom were widely known throughout England and all of Europe, and it was against this backdrop that Benedict of Peterborough composed the office; he was no doubt intent upon creating a specific image of the Canterbury martyr that he and the Church wished to promulgate. Indeed, the degree to which the author claimed sainthood for Becket is evident in the office lessons and the texts of the antiphons and responsories. Since Benedict was probably the author of all the texts of the office as well as the music, he was able to give free rein to his poetic spirit, often creating intense effects by utilizing words from the lessons, recast in poetic form for the antiphons and responsories. The manuscripts for the office of Becket indicate that the order of psalms was generally drawn from one of the specific series in common use.39 The Lewes Breviary/Missal (CFW 369) uses one of the two common series in the monastic ordering for the feast of a martyr. For the Matins service the order is: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10; 14, 20, 23, 63, 64, 91. The French manuscript (Douai 116) uses instead the English pattern for a confessor: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10; 14, 20, 23, 95, 96, 97. The order in the secular version of the office, as given in the Sarum Breviary and BL Add. 52359, the Penwortham Breviary, is i, 2, 3; 4, 5, 8; 10,14, 20.This pattern exemplifies the series common for the rites of martyrs in the English practice.40 As may be seen, the monastic pattern utilizes all of the same psalms (with the exception of number 3), and adds others to complete the longer cycle. There is thus a largely consistent pattern. For Lauds, which followed upon the completion of the third nocturn, there was (evidently, since no specific indication is given in CFW 369 or Douai 116) a group of psalms drawn from common practice: 66, 148-59; Psalm 62, recited daily in the secular cursus, was sung on Sunday in the monastic cycle; and Psalm 50, which was included in the monastic cycle every day, was sung in the secular rite on weekdays. Compline always used Psalms 4, 90, and 133, including also the first part of Psalm 30 in the secular service.41 Modal Order For those readers unfamiliar with medieval musical terminology, a brief explanation of the modal system is necessary. Liturgical music in the

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

149

Middle Ages was written in a schemata known as the Church Modes. This consisted of a series of eight scalar patterns defined by their final, or ending, notes. The modes were grouped in pairs, with the first of each pair extending from final to final (D to D, for example), and the second extending from a fourth lower to a fifth higher (A to A, for example), but ending on the same final (D). The original, or authentic modes, were numbered i, 3, 5, and 7; their partners, or plagalmodes, were 2, 4, 6, and 8.4* This is the numbering system used in the following discussion to identify the modes of the antiphons and responsories of the Thomas office. A well-known feature of the rhymed office repertory of the late Middle Ages is the fact that the chants are often in modal order - a direct sequence of modes: i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. This order pertains to the antiphons and responsories for Matins, each of which has a separate series from mode i to mode 8. The ninth antiphon or responsory begins a new cycle (mode i), which may or may not be continued in the chants for Lauds.^ Hymns do not participate in this standard modal sequence, and invitatories are often in mode 4, though Adsunt Thome is in mode 2. As Andrew Hughes has pointed out, it seems generally true that serial modal order represents the original form of an office, and that a variation in that order indicates a later rearrangement.44 In an office adopting a continuous series of modes the order would be (the monastic items are in parentheses) :45 -

Vespers Antiphon i Invitatory Antiphon 4 Matins Antiphons 1-8, i (2, 3, 4, 5) Matins Responsories 1-8, i (2, 3, 4) Lauds Antiphons i, 2, 3, 4, 5

The modes for Second Vespers are arbitrary, as are the isolated responsories. The Benedictus antiphons are often in mode i, but frequently in mode 5 or 6 (the Benedictus antiphon in the Thomas office is in mode 6). The musically and liturgically important items generally emphasize modes i, 5, and 6, while modes 4, 7, and 8 are used less frequently. 40 Table 2 compares the modal order in the principal Thomas office, Studens livor, as it appears in two manuscripts, one of the monastic use (CFW 369, fols. 47r-4Qr) and one of the secular use (BL Add. 52359, fols.

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

150 Table 2

Modal order in Studens livor

Monastic use CFW 369 (Lewes Breviary)

Secular use BLAdd. 52359 (Penwortham Breviary)

MODE

MODE

First Vespers: Pastor cesus

1

First Vespers: Pastor cesus

1

Nocturn 1 Invitatory: Adsunt Thome A/1 . Summo sacerdocio A/2. Monachus sub clerico A/3. Cultor agri Domini A/4. Nee in agnos A/5. Exulat vir optimus A/6. Exulantis predia

2 1 2 3 4 5 6

Invitatory: Adsunt Thome A/1 . Summo sacerdocio A/2. Monachus sub clerico A/3. Cultor agri Domini

2 1 2 3

R/1 . Studens livor R/2. Thomas manum R/3. Lapis iste R/4. Post sex annos

1 2 3 1

R/1. Studens livor R/2. Thomas manum R/3. lacet granum

1 2 5

Nocturn 2 A/7. Satane satellites A/8. Strictis Thomas A/9. Hosti pandit A/1 0. Patrem nati A/11. Sol inclinans A/12. Fusum spargunt

7 8 1 2 8 3

A/4. Nee in agnos A/5. Exulat vir optimus A/6. Exulantis predia

4 5 6

R/5. lacet granum R/6. Ex summa rerum R/7. Mundi florem R/8. Christe Jesu

5 6(tr) 7 8

R/4. Ex summa rerum R/5. Mundi florem R/6. Christe Jesu

6 7 8

Nocturn 3 A/13. Fragrat virtus

5

A/7. Satane satellites A/8. Strictis Thomas A/9. Felix locus

7 8 9

R/9. Ferro presses R/1 0. Thome cedunt R/11.Novisfulget R/1 2. Jesu bone

3 1 6 2

R/7. Thome cedunt R/8. Novis fulget R/9. Jesu bone Prosa

1 6 2 1

Lauds A/1 . Granum cadit A/2. Totus orbis A/3. Aqua Thome A/4. Ad Thome memoriam A/5. Tu per Thome

1 2 3 6 8

Lauds A/1 . Granum cadit A/2. Totus orbis A/3. Aqua Thome A/4. Ad Thome memoriam A/5. Tu per Thome

1 2 3 6 8

Benedictus: Opem nobis

6

Benedictus: Opem nobis

6

Second Vespers: Felix locus

1

Second Vespers: Salve Thoma

1

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

151

49v-53r). As can be seen from the chart, the secular use documented by BL 52359 follows strict modal order in the antiphons, as does the monastic use (CFW 369) until Antiphon 11, where the order is abandoned. The responsories in the first nocturn of the secular use proceed i, 2, 5, and in the monastic use i, 2, 3, i. In the second nocturn the responsories in the monastic use follow the expected order (5, 6, 7, 8), and in the secular use the modes are sequential (6, 7, 8), although we would anticipate finding 4, 5, 6. The responsories in the third nocturn are not in modal order in either manuscript. The Lauds section is the same in both versions, but modal order is not strictly followed. In order to accommodate the pattern for the secular service, the third, fourth, and fifth antiphons from the monastic cursus have been moved to the second nocturn; the first two antiphons in the second nocturn of the monastic form have been moved to the third nocturn of the secular office; and 'Lapis iste,' 'Ferro presses,' and Tost sex annos' have been discarded. The modal order does not proceed entirely in serial fashion, and the texts of the responses to the lessons are somewhat askew as a result of the alterations. In order to demonstrate the variety of distribution of the liturgical elements, table 3 provides a comparison of the order of antiphons and responsories in fourteen manuscripts, including five manuscripts from England, three from France, five from Hungary, and one from Austria (Klosterneuberg MS 574, listed as G: Kl 574). This is a very small sample of the total number of extant manuscripts containing Studens livor, but it furnishes an indication of the common practice of shifting the order of antiphons and responsories in the manuscripts of different areas of Europe. The chart demonstrates, for example, that the Klosterneuberg manuscript follows the practice of the Sarum Breviary in utilizing the first three antiphons in the first nocturn, antiphons 4, 5, and 6 in the second nocturn, and antiphons 7, 8, and 9 in the third nocturn. The responsories are somewhat differently dispersed: Post sex annos is used rather than Lapis iste m the first nocturn, and Ferro pressos and Thome cedunt appear in the third nocturn. This is not unusual; as may be seen from the manuscripts included in the chart, it was a frequent practice to change the order of the liturgical materials, and obviously some antiphons and responsories were eliminated from the original monastic cursus to create the shorter secular version. It seems to have been acceptable for a monastic establishment to celebrate the 'condensed' liturgy, and in many manuscripts the original Sarum lessons were also truncated and rearranged.

152

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Table 3 Comparison of monastic and secular breviaries

Invitatory antiphon: Adsunt Thome

A/1: A/2: A/3: A/4: A/5: A/6:

First nocturn Summo sacerdocio Monachus sub clerico Cultor agri Domini Nee in agnos Exulat vir optimus Exulantis predia

R/1: R/2: R/3: R/4:

Studens livor Thomas manum Lapis iste Post sex annos

A/7: A/8: A/9: A/10: A/11: A/12:

Second nocturn (monactic cursus) Satane satellitis Strictis Thomas Hosti pandit Patremnati Solinclinans Fusum spargunt

R/5: R/6: R/7: R/8:

lacet granum Ex summa rerum Mundi florem ChristeJesu

Second nocturn (secular cursus, Sarum use) A/4: Nee in agnos A/5: Exulat vir optimus A/6: Exulantis predia R/4: Ex summa rerum R/5: Mundi florem R/6: Christe Jesu

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket Table 3

153

(continued)

Second nocturn (Responsories, French sources) R/4: Post sex annos R/5: lacet granum R/6: Christe Jesu

2

Second nocturn (Responsories, Hungarian sources) R/4: Post sex annos R/5: lacet granum R/6: Ex summa rerum Third nocturn (monastic cursus) A/13: Frag rat virtus

3 4

5

R/9: Ferro presses R/10: Thome cedunt R/11: Novisfulget R/12: Jesu bone Third nocturn (secular curus, Sarum use) rv / . Odldllc odlclllloo A/Qrvo.

Qtrir*tic Th/~\mao OUlULIb 1 llUlllao

A/9: Felix locus

•

6

7

R/7: Thome cedunt R/8: Novis fulget R/9: Jesu bone

8 9

Third nocturn (French sources) A/9: Hosti pandit R/7: Mundi florem R/8: Novis fulget R/9: Thome cedunt

10 11

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

154 Table 3

(concluded)

Third nocturn (Hungarian sources, York Breviary) A/9: Hosti pandit 12 13

R/7: Mundi florem R/8: Christe Jesu R/9: Thome cedunt Lauds A/1 : Granum cadit A/2: Totus orbis a/3: Aqua Thome a/3

A/4: Ad Thome memoriam A/5: Tu per Thome Benedictus Opem nobis Second Vespers Salve Thoma

A/1 : A/2: A/3: A/4: A/5: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

15

In Kosterneuberg 574 (following Benedictus) Patrem nati Fusum spargunt Sol inclinans Fragrat virtus Felix locus BL Add. 52359 has lacet granum PA 595 has Ex summa rerum H 231 has Ex summa rerum H 231 has Mundi florem OB lat. lit. b. 14 has Felix locus York Breviary has Hosti pandit Kl 574 has Hosti pandit Kl 574 has Ferro presses

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Kl 574 has Thome cedunt PA 595 has Christe Jesu MZ 461 has Jesu bone H 231 has Christe Jesu H 231 has Ferro presses York Breviary has Ferro presses CFW 369 has Felix locus

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

155

Musical and Poetic Style Antiphons The musical style of the antiphons in the principal Thomas office is quite conservative, with melodic range being generally confined to the octave. The setting of the text exhibits syllabic textual treatment, often interspersed with two-, three-, and four-note melodic flourishes, known as melismas. Occasionally there are six-note melismas such as those in Antiphori 3, Cultor agri Domini (Example i), and Antiphon 5, Exulat vir optimus (Example 2). Stepwise melodic motion is usual, with occasional use of intervals of a third, fourth, and fifth.47 Pastor cesus, the antiphon at First Vespers, is more melismatic, and includes several five-note melismas and one of nine notes (Example 3). The invitatory antiphon, Adsunt Thome, is also somewhat more florid, with a seven-note melisma over the first syllable Ad-- (Example 4). With the exceptions of the antiphons at First and Second Vespers and the Benedictus antiphon, the poetic form of the antiphons is the same throughout the office, and consists of two lines of thirteen syllables each, with a rhyme scheme of AA. There is an unrhymed caesura following the seventh syllable of each line, which creates a four-line form usually described as 'Goliardic metre.' The resulting pattern consists of groups Mode 3e

Antiphon 111: Cuttor agri Domini MA3.3«

Cul -

a

-

ar- eel

-

-

-

- tor

-

-

-

- vel - lit

el

ex -

a - gri

el

Do - mi - ni

Iri -

- bu- los

vul - pes

vi -

-

- pel - lit

Example l

a

- ne - is

156

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket Antiphon V: Exulat vir optimus MA5.5f

Ex - u -

Ne

- lat

ce- dat

Mode 5f

vir

op- ti- mus

ec- cle - - si - e

sa- cer

dig- - - - n i - t a s

et

in - sig -

-

i n - - dig -

-

- nis

- -

- nis.

Example 2

Mode Id

First Vespers: Antiphon: Pastor cesus VE.ld

Pas -

-

-

- tor

ce -

Pa -

-

-

- cem

e

Le -tus

vi -

Plan-gens

- vit

- sus

- mit

do - lor

mor-tu-o;

- -

in

cm - o - r e

iris - ti

plau-dit

vie - tor

in

gau-di - o,

ma -

sub

gre - gis

pie -

Grex

- ter

gla-di -

Example 3

-

-

- di - o.

- ci - o, - - - - - - - -

res-pi - rat

in

- o.

me -

fi-li-

pas- to - re

o,

Qui - a

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

157

Invitatory Antiphon: Adsunt Thome MI.2d

Ad -

Vir-go

-

-

-

-

- sunt

ma -

-

-

Mode 2d

Tho -

- ter

- me

mar-ti

iu-bi-let

- ris

ec -

- cle -

sol -

- lem-ni - a;

F^

- si -

- a.

Example 4 Antiphon II: Monachus sub clerico MA2.2d

Mo - na - chus

Car-nis

car - ne

sub

cle -

Mode 2d

- ri - co

for-ci - - or

clam

e-do-mat

ci - li - ci - a

-

- tus

co - na-tus.

Example 5

of six or seven syllables that can be arranged in four lines of verse with the rhyme scheme ABCB. The musical setting clarifies this four-line form by emphasizing the seventh syllable; this is achieved through a cadence on either the final or fifth tone of the mode (less often on the third tone). A particularly clear example is found in the second antiphon of the first nocturn, Monachus sub clerico (Example 5). Responsories As discussed earlier, the texts for the responsories of the Thomas office were probably drawn from Benedict's Passio of the Canterbury martyr. The poetic form generally consists of three or four lines in the responsory and two in the verse; with one exception (Ex summa rerum) the responsories of the principal Thomas office (Studens livor) have a single rhyme. The poetry of the responsories and verses was composed

158

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

according to a decasyllabic pattern, with an unrhymed caesura following the fourth syllable. The pattern of versification is emphasized by internal musical cadences that establish the poetic structure. The second responsory of the first nocturn provides an excellent example:

Tho mas ma num

mit tit ad for ci a

Sper nit dam na

sper nit ob pro bri a

Nul la Tho mam V.

fran git in iu ri a

Cla mat cunc tis Tho me con stan ci a Om ne so lum

est for ti pa tri a

As evident in Example 6, phrase endings are marked not only by textual rhyme, but also by musical rhyme. In this example the final note of each phrase is the same - the final of the mode (d1) - and it is emphasized by being approached from the note below (bracketed in the example). As is customary, the verses in the responsories of the Thomas office are set to music in three periods (R u V, R 2 ), in which R2 is a repetition of the second part of R1; often identified as the repetenda or reprisal One important feature of the construction of the responsory is the close relationship between the responsory and its verse. In the principal Thomas office the responsories show a termination formula (t) that is identical with, or quite similar to, the ending of the verse. This identity is of structural significance in the performance of the entire responsory; the repeat, or repetenda, after the verse of the second section of the responsory (indicated in the manuscripts by the incipitof the second section), is prepared by the melodic cell of the termination. This relationship may be characterized by the following formula, in which Rj indicates the first section of the responsory, and R2 the second. The termination is identified as t: [Rt - f t - R 2 ] [V + t] [R2]. In Example 6 the bracketed sections correspond to the formula. As may be clearly seen, the connection between R! and R2 is effected by the same termination (t) as that between V and R2.

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

159 Mode 2d

Responsory II: Thomas manum mittit MR2.2d

Tho

mas

ad

- num

-0-

for-

dam

na

* Nul-la

ma- -

Tho

mil

tit

ci - a,

sper -

-

mam

- nit

Sper-nit

op - pro -

fran

-

git

-

•w - bri - a.

in-iu

riri

[

a

Verse MV2.2d

1

Cla -

-

-

Om -

- ne

- mat

cunc - tis

so - lum

Tho -

est

- me

for -

con -

- ti

[R1 + t - R J [ V + t ] [RJ

Example 6

- stan -

pa - tri - a.

•9-

- ci - a:

Nul- la

160

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

As is usually the case in the office repertoire, the musical settings for the responsories are much more elaborate than those of the antiphons, with extended melismatic passages as opposed to primarily syllabic treatment.49 Stressed syllables generally encompass several pitches, while unstressed syllables usually take only a single pitch or a short neume followed by a single pitch where the rhymes occur.50 The shorter neumes in various combinations create distinctive patterns of melody that, as Hughes has remarked, do not conform to the small patterns of standard chant. The melodic cells associated with the stressed syllables are based upon modally important pitches; generally speaking, the cells begin on a modally stable note, or are confined to a modally stable interval. There is commonly a long melisma, often extending beyond thirty pitches, on the antepenultimate syllable of the responsory. For example, Studens livorhas 41 pitches on the -na- of cog-na-ci-o; Thomas manum has 28 on the -iu- of in-iu-ri-a; lacet granum has 32 on the lu- of lu-te-a; and Christe Jesu has 37 on the -o- of o-pe-ra. The function of these long melismas was to enhance the effect of an important word in the text, highlighting the meaning through amplification of the melodic line.51 Hughes sees this technique as establishing a new style, one in which the composer wishes to convey an intentional emphasis on individual words.52 Certainly the texts of the responsories do draw upon specific words from the lesson texts to emphasize the didactic meaning of the office, as shown below. Nocturn I The following discussion demonstrates in more detail the way Benedict of Peterborough utilized the texts of the lessons in creating the poetic texts for the antiphons and responsories. Selected examples have been chosen; translations are included in the edition of Studens livor (sungtexts), and Sarum Breviary (lesson texts). Antiphons The first antiphon asserts that Thomas, when elevated to the 'highest priestly office,' was 'suddenly changed into another man.' This material is drawn directly from the first lesson, where we are told, 'Consecratus enim repente mutatus est in virum alium.' The antiphon, reworked for poetic purposes, changes the word order to 'est in alium subito mutatus.'

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket From Lesson i: Consecratus enim repente mutatus est in virum alium.

161

Antiphon l: Summo sacerdocio Thomas sublimatus Est in virum alium subito mutatus.

The image of the 'new man' is amplified in the second antiphon, which also draws upon the first lesson for its imagery. From Lesson l: Cilicium clam induit, femoralibus etiam usus est ad poplites cilicinis, et sub vestis clericalis honestate habitum celans monachalem, carnem prorsus cegit servire spiritui...

Antiphon 2: Monachus sub clerico clam ciliciatus Carnis carne forcior edomat conatus.

The texts of the lessons and the poetry of the antiphons reinforce the view of Becket's biographers, who agree that Thomas, once consecrated, became 'devoted to God beyond human estimation.'53 The change was symbolized by the hair shirt and hair breeches that he wore under a monastic habit, all of which were concealed under magnificent garb. Indeed, his appearance as an archbishop was even more splendid than his image as chancellor; hence the need for his biographers to insist that he was hiding his changed character from view. Using biblical imagery in the third antiphon, the author of the office emphasized the degree to which Thomas accepted seriously his role as archbishop; aware of his duty as 'the husbandman placed in the field of the Lord,' he became 'custodian of the vineyard, shepherd in the sheepfold.'54 The fourth antiphon extends the metaphor of the shepherd, protecting his flock from harm, and the cultivator, resolutely tending the vineyard of the Lord. This material also reflects the text of the first lesson: From Lesson l: Sciensque se cultorem positum in agro Dominico in vinea custodem, pastorem in caulis, ministerium sibi creditum studiose complevit.

Antiphon 3: Cultor agri Domini tribulos avellit Et vulpes a vineis arcet et expellit.

162

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Sciensque se cultorem positum in agro Dominico in vinea custodem, pastorem in caulis, ministerium sibi creditum studiose complevit.

Antiphon 4: Nee in agnos sustinet lupos desevire, Nee in hortum olerum vineam transire.

In Antiphon 6 the author borrows imagery from the accompanying psalm (no. 10: In Domino confido): God shall rain fire and brimstone upon the wicked, but the righteous man shall not burn. Tluet super peccatores laqueos: ignis, et sulphur, et spiritus procellarum, pars clicis eorum.' Antiphon 6: Exulantis predia preda sunt malignis, Sed in igne positum non exurit ignis.

Responsories It is evident that the antiphons in the first nocturn utilize imagery drawn from the first lesson as well as biblical sources. In this way the author previews and intensifies the message of the lesson text. This methodology is extended in the first responsory, which deals with the archbishop's decision to go into exile. This responsory also foretells the material of the next lesson, describing the treatment of the relatives and companions of the archbishop. From Lesson 2: Omnes eciam amici eius, vel familiares, vel quicunque eum quocumque titulo contingebant, sine delectu condicionis aut fortune, dignitatis aut ordinis, etatis aut sexus, pariter relegantur.

Responsory i: Studens livor Thome supplicio Thome genus damnat exilio. Tota simul exit cognacio. V. Ordo, sexus, etas, condicio, Nullo gaudet hie privilegio.

According to the text of Lesson 2, Thomas was moved by the plight of these innocent victims, but he remained steadfast in his resolve; he was

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

163

constantly sustained by the name of Christ through exile, misfortune, insult, and scandal. As Responsory 2 reiterates: 'He rejected misfortune and scandal; no injury broke Thomas.' From Lesson 2: Sed vir Dei manum suam mittens ad forcia, exilium, damna, contumelias, et opprobria, parentum et amicorum proscripcionem pro Christ! nomine constanter sustinuit, nulla prorsus fractus aut immutatus iniuria. Tanta namque fuit confessoris Christi constancia, ut omnes coexules suos docere videretur, quid omne solum forti patria est.

Responsory 2: Thomas manum mittit ad forcia, Spernit damna, spernit opprobria, Nulla Thomam frangit iniuria. V. Clamat cunctis Thome constancia: Omne solum est forti patria.

Lesson 3 recounts the circumstances of Becket's exile, the threat of Henry II against the Cistercians, and the archbishop's voluntary relocation to Sens. We learn, however, that he was confronted by a divine revelation before his departure; it was shown to him that he would be 'returned to his Church with glory, and travel to God by the palm of the martyr.' Thomas, 'like the living stone in the structure of the heavenly edifice,' was beset by a variety of pressures; but the 'house founded upon a firm rock cannot be demolished.'55 From Lesson 3: Sex igitur annis exulans, continuis variis et innumeris afflictus iniuriis, et quasi lapis vivus in structuram celestis edificii multimodis tunsionibus atque pressuris conquadratus; [et] quo magis impulsus est ut caderet, eo firmius et immobilius stare probatus est. Neque enim aurum tarn examinatum exuri potuit, vel domus super firmam petram fundata convelli.

Responsory 3: Lapis iste sex ann[is]? tunditur, Sic politur, sic quadrus redditur, Minus cedens quo magis ceditur. V. Aurum fornax probat nee uritur, Domus firma vends non quatitur.

According to the fourth lesson, Thomas, sponsored by the king of France, threatened to place an interdict on the English. Henry ulti-

164

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

mately bowed to this threat of excommunication, and Thomas returned from exile. Presenting the motif of the bishop looking after his people, the text indicates that he 'liberated the sheep of Christ from the vicious attacks of wolves,' and was 'received by the clerics and the people with inestimable praise.' His return, however, was not universally lauded, and he was soon prevented from leaving his church; 'he was held as a public enemy.' Even so, his spirit was not broken: he 'extended his hand to the liberation of the Church.' From Lesson 4: Igitur exilii sui anno septime rediit pastor nobilis in Angliam, ut vel oves Christ! a morsibus luporum liberaret, vel pro grego sibi credito seipsum impenderet.

Responsory 4: Post sex annos redit vir stabilis, Dare terre teste vas fragilis, Christo vasis thesaurum fictilis. V. Ne sit lupis preda grex humilis, Se pro grege dat pastor nobilis.

Nocturn 2 Antiphons

The second nocturn deals with the martyrdom of Thomas. The antiphons preview in poetic form the event to be described in prose in the lessons, creating an atmosphere of mounting tension for the direct recitation. Antiphon 7, for example, borrows the imagery of the 'accomplices of Satan' who will perpetrate the monstrous deed, the Satane satellites who 'cut off the consecrated crown of his head with deadly swords.' From Lesson 5: Satane satellites loricati, armatorum manu multa sequente.

... hostia Christi mox futurus, hostibus hostium reseravit.

Antiphon 7: Satane satellites irrumpentes templum Inauditum perpetrant sceleris exemplum. Antiphon 9: Hosti pandit ostium hostia futurus Et pro domo Domini stat in hostes murus.

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

... cerebrum cum sanguine (quod dictu quoque horrendum est) per pavimentum crudelissime sparserunt.

165

Antiphon 12: Fusum spargunt cerebrum gladiis funestis, Et invicta perstitit victima celestis.

Responsories From Lesson 5: Sic itaque granum frumenti oppressit palea, sic vinee custos in vinea, dux in castris, in caulis pastor, cultor in area cesus est; sic iustus ab iniustis occisus domum luteam celesti palacio commutavit.

Responsory 5: lacet granum oppressum palea, Iustus cesus pravorum framea, Celum domo commutans lutea. V. Cadit custos vitis in vinea, Dux in castris, cultor in area.

From Lesson 6: ... futuris quasi preludens miraculis, martirem in proximo signis glorificandum, reddituram post luctum leticiam, et turbidam languidorum beneficiorum graciam innuit esse consecuturam.

Responsory 6: Ex summa rerum leticia Summus fit planctus in ecclesia De tanti patroni absencia, Sed cum redeunt miracula, Redit populo leticia. V. Concurrit turba languidorum, Consequitur graciam beneficiorum.

The text of Responsory 7 previews the material of Lesson 8, although images of the 'voice of blood' (vox cruoris) and the 'voice of scattered brains' (vox sparsi cerebri) are an echo of Lesson 5. From Lesson 8: ... gaudeat novi Abel sanguinem pro se contra viros sanguinem clamare ad Dominum. Vox enim sanguinis effusi, vox cerebri funestorum satellitum gladiis dispersi, et mundum simul et celum celebri clamore complevit.

Responsory 7: Mundi florem a mundo conteri, Rachel plorans iam cessa[t] conqueri, Thomas cesus dum datur funeri,

166

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket Novus Abel succeditveteri. V. Vox cruoris, vox sparsi cerebri Celum replet clamore celebri.

Nocturn 3 The texts of the antiphons and responsories of the third nocturn present the miracles wrought by the saint. According to Responsory 9, Thomas heals the sick, frees the besieged, brings peace to countries plagued by war, calms storms at sea, and controls flames. As Responsory 10 reiterates, all things yield to Thomas, including plague, disease, death, and demons. Responsory 11 tells us that Thomas shines with miracles, providing genitalia to castrated males, sight to the blind, and life to the dead. From Lesson 9: Demoniis etiam, et elementis omnibus mirabiliter imperans, ad inusitata quoque et inaudita signa potencie sue manum extendit.

Responsory 10: Thome cedunt et parent omnia, Pestes, morbi, mors et demonia, Ignis, aer, tellus et maria. V. Thomas mundum replevit gloria; Thome mundus prestat obsequia.

As can be clearly seen in the foregoing examples, Benedict of Peterborough, the author of Studens livor, drew words and concepts from the lessons - the Vita of Becket — in creating the poetic texts for the antiphons and responsories. This technique is often found in the rhymed, or versified, offices of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The use of textual imagery as a unifying device strengthens the literary character of the offices, and produces a rich auditory experience for the listeners. Interludes such as these musical reflections served to enhance the aesthetic quality of the service; at these points the participants were given an opportunity to concentrate upon the meaning of the texts and to consider the implications of the material being presented.56

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

Rhymed Office for the Feast of St Thomas Becket Source: MS CFW 369 (Lewes Cluniac Noted Breviary/Missal) First Vespers Antiphon: Pastor cesus Magnificat MATINS Invitatorium Antiphon: Adsunt Thome, with Psalm 94:57 Venite Hymn: Martir Dei Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson

First Nocturn i: Summo sacerdocio, with Psalm i: Beatus vir 2: Monachus sub clerico, with Psalm 2: Quare fremuerunt 3: Cultor agri Domini, with Psalm 4: Cum invocarem 4: Nee in agnos, with Psalm 5: Verba mea 5: Exulat vir, with Psalm 8: Domine Dominus 6: Exulantis predia, with Psalm 10: In Domino confido

i, with 2, with 3, with 4, with

Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon Antiphon

Responsory i: Studens livor Responsory 2: Thomas manum Responsory 3: Lapis iste Responsory 4: Post sex annos

Second Nocturn 7: Satane satellites, with Psalm 14: Domini quis 8: Strictis Thomas, with Psalm 2O: Domine in virtute 9: Hosti pandit ostium, with Psalm 23: Domine est terra 10: Patrem nati perimunt, with Psalm 63: Exaudi Deus 11: Sol inclinans radios, with Psalm 64: Te decet hymnus 12: Fusum spargunt, with Psalm 91: Bonum est confiteri

Lesson 5, with Responsory 5: lacet granum Lesson 6, with Responsory 6: Ex summa rerum

167

l68

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

Lesson 7, with Responsory 7: Mundi florem Lesson 8, with Responsory 8: Christe Jesu Third Nocturn Ad cantica: Fragrat virtus (Beatus vir qui in sapiencia) [Ecclesiasticus 14:22; 15:3-4, 6] Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson

9, with Responsory 9: Ferro presses 10, with Responsory 10: Thome cedunt 11, with Responsory 11: Novis fulget 12, with Responsory 12: Jesu bone Lauds

Antiphon: Granum cadit Antiphon: Totus orbis Antiphon: Aqua Thome Antiphon: Ad Thome memoriam Antiphon: Tu per Thome Benedictus Antiphon: Opem nobis Second Vespers Antiphon: Felix locus

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

169

First Vespers First Vespers: Antiphon: Pastor cesus VE.ld

Pas -

-

-

- tor

ce -

Pa -

-

-

- cem

e

Le -tus

[

vi -

Plan-gens

- vit

in

- sus

in

cru -o - re

tris - ti

plau-dit

vie - tor

Pastor cesus in gregis medio, Pacem emit cruore precio; Letus dolor in tristi gaudio, Grex respirat pastore mortuo; Plangens plaudit mater in Quia vivit victor sub gladio.

-

- mit

do - lor

mor-tu-o;

-

Mode Id

sub

pre -

gau-di - o,

ma -

gre - gis

Grex

- ter

gla-di

-

-

- di - o,

- ci - o;

res-pi - rat

in

-

me -

fi

-

pas- to - re

- li - o,

Qui -

a

- o.

The shepherd, slain in the midst of his flock, Purchases peace at the cost of blood; Joyous grief in sorrowful praise, The flock breathes, though its shepherd is dead; Lamenting the mother joices in the so Because he lives, as victor under the sword.

-

iyo

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket On the Feast Day ofSt Thomas (29 December) Matins

Invitatory Antiphon: Adsunt Thome MI.2d

Mode 2d

A

Vir-go

ma -

-

-

- ter

iu-bi-let

ec -

Invitatory Antiphon58 Adsunt Thome martiris solemnia; Virgo mater iubilet ecclesia.

-•• - cle - - si -

- a.

Ps. Venite

The solemn rites for Martyr Thomas are at hand; Let the Virgin Mother Church rejoice.

Psalm: Venite Hymn: Martir Dei

Nocturn i Antiphon I: Surruno sacerdocio MAl.ld

Sum- mo

Est

in

Mode Id

sa-cer - do -

vi -

- rum

Summo sacerdocio Thomas sublimatus Est in virum alium subito mutatus Psalm: Beatus vir

a -

- ci- o

Tho-mas

su-bli-ma -

- li - um

su - bi - to

- tus

mu - ta -

- tus.

Ps. Beatus vir

Raised to the highest priestly office, Thomas was suddenly changed into another man.

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

171

Mode 2d

Antiphon II: Monachus sub cierico MA2.2d

Mo - na - chus

Car-nis

sub

car - ne

cle -

- ri - co

for-ci - - or

clam

ci - li - ci - a

e-do-mat

-

co - na-tus.

Monachus sub cierico clam ciliciatus Carnis carne forcior edomat conatus.

- tus

Ps. Quare fremuerunt

The monk, secretly hair-shirted under the clothing of a cleric, Stronger than the flesh, conquers the stirrings of the flesh.

Psalm: Quare fremuerunt

Mode3e

Antiphon III: Cultor agri Domini MA3.3e

Cul -

-

-

-

a

ar- cet

- tor

a - gri

vel - lit

et

ex -

Et

- pel - lit.

Cultor agri Domini tribulos avellit Et vulpes a vineis arcet et expellit. Psalm: Cum invocarem

Do - mi - ni

tri -

- bu- los

vul - pes

vi -

-

a

- ne - is

Ps. Cum invocarem

The cultivator of the field of the Lord removes the thistles, And wards off the foxes and drives them out from the vineyards.

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket

1?2

Mode4e

Antiphon IV: Nee in agnos MA4.4e

Nee

in

Nee

in

ag -

nor -

- nos

su - sti - net

- turn

o - le - rum

Nee in agnos sustinet lupos desevire, Nee in hortum olerum vineam transire.

lu- pos

vi- ne -

- am

de- se -

-

- vi - re,

trans -

-

-

- si - re. Ps. Verba mea.

Neither does he allow the wolves to ravage the lambs, Nor the vineyard to turn into a vegetable garden.

Psalm: Verba mea

Mode 5f

Antiphon V: Exulat vir optimus MA5.5f

Ex - u -

Ne

ce- dat

- lat

vir

ec- cle - - si - e

Exulat vir optimus, sacer et insignis Ne cedat ecclesie dignitas indignis. Psalm: Domine Dominus

op-ti-mus

dig- -

sa-cer

- - ni - tas

et

in -

in-sig -

-

-

- nis

- dig - - - - nis. Ps. Domine Dominus

The remarkable man, holy and glorious, goes into exile Lest the dignity of the Church yield to the unworthy.

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

Mode6c

Antiphon VI: Exulantis predia MA6.6c

9

-0-

9

Ex - u - Ian -

ma -

-

non

ex - u

-»• -j-

- tis

- lig -

pre -

- nis,

Sed

- rit

Exulantis predia preda sunt malignis, Sed in igne positum non exurit ignis. Psalm: In Domino confido V. Posuisti domine

173

- di - a

in

ig - -

pre - -

ig - ne

- nis.

-

- da

sunt

po - si -

- turn

Ps. In Domino confido

The manors of the exiled man are spoil for the wicked, But fire does not consume the one placed in the flame.

174

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket LECTIO I

Gloriosi martiris Thome, fratres carissimi, natalem celebrantes, quia totius vite et conversacionis eius insignia recolere non sufficimus, passionis eius modum causamque succinctus sermo percurrat. LESSON 1 As we celebrate the natal day of the glorious martyr Thomas, dearest brothers, since we cannot recollect the outstanding features of the entirety of his life and way of living, may this brief account summarize the mode and cause of his suffering. Responsory i: Studens livor Thome supplicio Thome genus damnat exilio. Tola simul exit cognacio. V. Ordo, sexus, etas, condicio, Nullo gaudet hie privilegio.

Malice, eager for the punishment of Thomas, Condemns the family of Thomas to exile. All his relatives go forthtogether. V. Rank, sex, age, status, Here enjoys no exemption.

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

175

Responsory I: Studens livor MRl.ld

Stu

(Tho)-

dens

-

- me

ge - nus

Mode Id

li

voi*' Tho

sup - - - - p l i

c i - o

dam

nat

Tho -

ex

-

-

- me

i - l i - o .

W^

f 2 ' * To

ta

si

mul

ex

cog-na

(na) Verse MVl.ld

Or -

- do,

gau - det

- - - - - c i - - o .

sex -

hie

- us,

e - tas,

pri - vi -

Nul- lo

con - di - ci - o,

- le -

-

-

- gi - o.

To - ta

[1]Text is underlaid as a word without spaces in CFW 369. [2]

The asterisk indicates the repeat, or repetenda, of the second section of the responsory.

it

176

Liturgies in Honour of Thomas Becket LECTIO II

Beatus igitur Thomas sicut in cancellarie vel archidiaconatus offlcio in rebus gerendis incomparabiliter extiterat strenuus, ita et post susceptum pastoris officium supra humanam estimacionem factus est Deo devotus. LESSON 2

Blessed Thomas, then, just as he had been incomparably energetic in the administration in the role of chancellor and archdeacon, so also, after accepting the pastoral office, he became devoted to God beyond human estimation. Responsory 2: Thomas manum mittit ad forcia, Spernit damna, spernit opprobria, Nulla Thomam frangit iniuria. V. Clamat cunctis Thome constancia: Omne solum est forti patria.

Thomas puts his hand to bold deeds. He rejects losses, rejects abuse, No injury breaks Thomas. V. The constancy of Thomas cries out to all: The whole world is fatherland to the brave.

Office for the Feast Day of St Thomas Becket

177

Responsory II: Thomas manum mittit MR22d

-w

Tho-

ad

-

- mas

ma- -

- num

for-

na,

' Nul-la

mil

ci - a,

dam